Posted by
michael
on from the sheriff-fights-off-claim-jumpers dept.
bahtama writes: "Yahoo and others are running a story about the Sex.com cyber-squatter who has to pay big bucks to the original owner."MSNBC says the owner plans to make it a *cough* sticky portal.
.. studies showing that sex is a major draw for people on the Internet..
Well, DUH.
------------ CitizenC
Re:A blow for pornographers and thieves
by
Mike+Connell
·
· Score: 3
Some might think that his bio itself is a troll. After all, if you're not happy with all the liberals in the states, why on earth would you move to the UK? Surely Iran would be much better (I guess it's just a shame there aren't waco fundy christian states to move to).
Regarding the post, I think it's clearly a troll becasuse he states pornography is used for "the gratification of men unable to find themselves a loving wife." implies that anyone "using" porn is unable to find a "loving wife". Given the widespread "usage" of porn, that's clearly flamebait IMO. Also "pornography is nothing more than a perversion of His [gods] vision for us". Stating such contentious beliefs (porn not used by men with a loving partner, the existance of god) as facts can only be a troll; anyone else would have put "I beleive", "IMHO", or somthing else along those lines in there.
As far as exploitation of women in porn goes, I wish people would realise that there are two issues here: exploitation AND porn:
Some people drive too fast in their cars. The cars aren't wrong, it's people driving too fast.
Some people steal because they want to be rich. It isn't wanting to be rich that's wrong, it's stealing.
Some women are exploited in the porn industry. It's not porn that's wrong, it's the people who exploit women.
Given that pornography is designed to help men spill their seed, and that any man with a wife won't have any need to debase themselves in such a way, it therefore follows that pornography is for people who are unable to find themselves a wife.
What a small mind you must have. Perhaps some people like both? Perhaps some people have wives that whilst loving the man, are unwilling or unable to have sex with them (for example after abuse, rape or physical disability)? Perhaps the couple are physically seperated for a period of time? Perhaps the man doesn't have bizarre hangups about it? Perhaps his wife likes it? Perhaps, perhaps, perhaps.
The point is that your premise, that any married man can get as much sexual gratification from his wife as he needs and therefore doesn't need porn is both wrong, and (ironically) disrespectful to women.
Onanism is quite obviously a tool designed by the Devil to turn one's thoughts away from salvation towards more earthly pleasures.
[You get +1 troll point] If I never think of salvation when I'm having sex, does that mean that "obviously" sex must be a tool of the devil designed to turn my thoughts away from salvation? In fact I hardly ever think about salvation, so obviously almost everything is designed by the devil (he should have patented some of it).
Bzzt! Wrong! The porn industry by definition exploits women
I'm wrong;-) How does gay (male) porn exploit women? It doesn't, your statement is (again) false. You might be under the impression that all pornography is of the "18 blokes+ 1 little girl all-out gangbang" type, but you're (fortunately) wrong.
If I was offered $1 million for playgirl style photos of myself, I might or might not do it, but I certainly don't think I'd feel "exploited" if I did. Why do you think women are any different? Perhaps the answer is in this comment "from exploiting women's naivety and greed all the way up to the use of force and drugs to ensure cooperation" You seem incapable of seeing the fact that women, as well as men have minds of their own. Some people will have sex in front of a camera for money. They might be greedy, or they might not share your particular moral code. Being different to you isn't the same as being abused.
Domain name worth more than the business?
by
BobGregg
·
· Score: 3
To me the most fascinating point revealed here is that the judge's ruling values the damages associated with stealing the domain name to be higher than the total revenues earned by the site. Assuming you believe what the business in question is saying - but let's say for a second that you do. That means that the law figures the value of the domain name itself - alone - is worth more than the actual business behind it.
Hmm... admittedly, for a lot of dot-coms that's actually literally true - or at least they probably *paid* more for the domain than they ever earned back. So hey, sure, why not codify that into case law as well? And what a business plan: "Sure, I'll license you to use the name ThisDomain.com next year - in exchange for 105% of the revenues you earn from it. Sound fair?" What a screwed up system.
It's not that hard to find evidence of corecion and exploitationin the porn industry, unless of course, you don't want to see any
As well as in the real estate industry, politics and law enforcement. Exploitation isn't a symptom of pornography, its a symptom of humanity. Pornography just makes a great target due to the bizarre irony in our culture that everyone is either having sex or wanting to have sex, yet sex is taboo. Christ, even kids who haven't learned a damn thing about the world start getting horny and staring at fine members of the opposite sex, or same sex for some. That's the curse we bear for being human. In the words of George Carlin, "There are far worse things that you can to do another person than giving them an orgasm."
To those of you unfortunate enough to grow up in a climate of repression and hate: don't worry, sex won't destroy the world, burn down the rain forests and upset Baby Jeebus(tm); it'll just make you a bit happier and a bit sleepier if you just have the courage to let it.
Nice to see a federal judge treat domain names like real estate. Hopefully this sends a signal to Network Solutions that domains are not "like telephone numbers". I'll see your circuit court judge and raise a US district court judge.
goatporn gets the recognition it deserves...
by
nick_davison
·
· Score: 4
The now legal owner of sex.com was quoted as saying in the article: "We're working on a deal (for content on)... sex education, disease prevention, women oriented stuff, stuff that you normally don't see in the (adult) space."
You don't normally see women orientated stuff on sex sites? No wonder all those large-pink-area filters don't work - they shouldn've been scanning for goatporn all along.
Posted early enough for the karma rich first few minutes, mentioning goatporn for a clear demotion under grounds of karmawhoring.
Re:A blow for pornographers and thieves
by
RandomPeon
·
· Score: 5
Oh it's easy for you to assume that just because it doesn't fit in with your wonderful, liberal view of life that it's got to be a troll. Far easier than actually trying to come up with some facts to support your position, right?
Ok, you might want to take a look at this story on sexuality over at Kuro5hin. It's a fascinating read, one of the best things I've seen there in a while. Chock full of hard facts about the intrinsic need for sexual release in human beings.
You're not worth arguing with. You'll just apply the word "liberal" to any evidence to any argument you don't like, just like you have in all three of your posts so far.
Furthermore, your argument seems to be based on a particular pseudo-literalist reading of the Bible, so it's not like the discussion would go anywhere.
Expedited discussion with this troll:
1. I'm going to have a little fun, and quote 1 Corinthians 7:1 "Now for the matters you wrote about: It is good for a man not to marry", the standard justification for primacy of celibacy over marriage, and tell you that if you really wanted to take the word of God to heart you would forsake all physical pleasure, even with your wife. I'll further support my claim with Luke 14:25-27: "If anyone comes to me and does not hate.... his wife and children,.... --he cannot be my disciple."
2. You're going to writhe and scream and complain and try and explain I'm distorting the passage. You might quote me Shakespeare, and say that "the devil has the power to quote scripture" thinking you have a biblical comeback. You might quote 1 Corinth 7:2-5 as a better retort.
3. Then I'll say Christ makes clear in 7:6-7 that permanent non-marriage is a preferable state.
4. Then you'll invent a new complaint to justify ignoring the passages of the bible you dislike. Of course, by disregarging only one passage, you've kind of shot your argument that we should blindly use the Bible as a set of rules without thinking - if it's wrong there, why isn't it wrong about pornography? (Of course, the bible never mentions pornography, you can borrow the inferential references which conservative theologians find to justify anti-pornographic positions.)
5. I'll be sick of the discussion and won't reply because you will ignore any other facts I introduce into the discussion or attach the word "liberal" to them, as if I should run in terror at being called such a horrible word.
There, we condensed in all down into one post. Wait I think I got a patent idea... Expedited troll conversations via prediction of troller/trollee responses.
How is sodomy a natural act? Given that the sole purpose of sex is for procreation (in both a Biblical and biological sense no less), how is sodomy a "natural act"? It cannot cause conception, is extremely dangerous for the person on the receiving end and causes pain. This is not a "natural act" now is it?
Natural is not the same as moral or good.
Take, for example, a tiger attacking a deer. It cannot cause conception, is extremely dangerous for the animal on the receiving end and causes pain. It is perfectly natural.
So what is a "natural act"? Animals (apes, elephants, rodents) engage in sodomy. Surely that's natural?
Sex is not just for procreation. If it was, we would, like most animals, only have sex when fertile. This is not the case. It is also for bonding.
I see nothing wrong with sodomy, as long as everyone involved is consenting. "Brutal sodomy" with it's implication of non-consent I would definitely count as wrong.
But there are people out there firmly conviced that liberal attitudes about sex are perfectly healthy, and that pornography is in some way "expressive" and "naturual". Please tell me, what is natural about some woman being brutally sodomized by several men on camera?
Well, first off, I'd recommend calling brutal sodomy "morally reprehensible", as it is arguably a perfectly natural act (though, again, generally held as morally reprehensible.)
There are people out there firmly entrenched in the belief that conservative attitudes about sex are both healthier and morally higher, and that pornography is somehow "deviant" and "unnatural". These same people generally feel perfectly justified in pointing towards the most deviant, reprehensible acts of violent, aberrant behavior as prime examples of what pornography is. This is unfair.
It'd be somewhat akin to me calling Christianity a horrible, disgusting cult which has mercilessly slaughtered countless women and children over centuries in the name of appeasing an unseen deity. I'd be ignoring the fact that some of the world's greatest and most generous groups and individuals have acted out of their love of the Christian god. There is no "so, which is it, then?" It's both. Should we outlaw Christianity or claim that it's the most wonderfullest thing ever? Neither. It has both good and bad elements, people who respect it and people who abuse it.
The same holds true for pornography. While you are quick to point out that having people abused into pornography and tortured in front of a camera is (surprise) bad, the same moral compass cannot be used to denounce, say, a video made willingly (and happily) by a married couple for distribution in adult video stores. What is so unnatural (or rather, morally reprehensible) about that?
Sex is there for the purposes of procreation and between two people married with God's blessing. Pornography is quite simply the antithesis of this idea, in that it encourages promiscuity without responsibility, a dangerous idea for any society that wishes to hold itself to any kind of moral values.
This argument assumes whoever you're arguing with believe in the christian God, and care about the silly procreation argument.
It also assumes that there exists no pornography depicting the joys of procreation in a marriage.
The first is a belief that certainly has no proof, and which a great deal of humanity simply rejects.
The argument that sex is only for procreation assigns a purpose to nature, which either implies that nature is sentient, or implies a creator, which brings us back to the first argument - it's just as disputed, and certainly not proven in any way. For those of us who prefer evolution, sex is there because it works as a driving force to get living beings to procreate. And it gives pleasure because that makes it more likely that we'll procreate. But neither assigns any purpose to it. Unless you believe in a deity, sex is just a process, and have no more purpose than the oceans or the stars.
If you want to argue that since sex allows us to procreate, then procreation is it's purpose, even if it wasn't conceived by someone who assigned for a purpose, then you can just as well argue that since sex give us pleasure, then pleasure is also one of the purposes of sex. Seeings as sex is a driving force behind much of the work of man, it can even be said to be a very important purpose.
This argument can just as well be applied in the case of the existence of a "God" as well: If this God fellow didn't intend for people to have sex for fun he must be a complete idiot for making it so much fun. If sex has procreation as its purpose because procreation is one of its functions, then sex can just as well have pleasure as a purpose because pleasure is one of its functions.
You also assume that promiscuous behaviour is "dangerous idea for any society that wishes to hold itself to any kind of moral values". But that is simply wrong. It may be dangerous for a society that wishes to hold iself to any kind of christian moral values, but you are making the assumption that anyone else will share your view of what "any kind of moral values" is.
You go on to criticize even porn made willingly and happly by a married couple:
Because sex is not something to be used to satiate the urges of weaker people. That is pure and simply immoral.
Again you're assuming everyone else share your views about what is moral. You are not explaining what is unnatural or morally reprehensible, as the previous poster asks you to, instead you're just giving the blanked response that it's bad because it violates your morals.
Assuming that we agree with you that people who like porn are "weaker people" (weaker than who? The couple making the video? Presumably if they're happily making porn they like porn themselves), that still leaves us with the question of why it is bad to "willingly (and happlily)" (to quote the previous poster) do something to satiate the urges of those "weaker people"?
Unless you claim that seeing people have sex is somehow harmful?
But back to the "weaker people" part. Presumable this comes from some illution that people who watch porn are lost souls who don't believe in God.
In my eyes, if they've "lost" their faith, that makes them stronger, not weaker: They've managed to break free from the indoctrination of dogma, and to stop relying on a book of mutually inconsistent and ridiculous stories to find meaning in their lives.
Thus, that argument too breaks down if people don't agree with you from the start.
If you want to convince anyone who doesn't already share your beliefs, you better try some arguments that doesn't depend on conservative christian beliefs from the outset...
Re:A blow for pornographers and thieves
by
vidarh
·
· Score: 3
What happens is that if a man views porn regularly, he gets a very distorted view of sex and women, which can cause two things. First he will treat women that do allow him to become close to them in ways that are (for many women) highly inappropriate, which is abuse of those women, and damaging to an otherwise good relationship. And secondly he will be approaching all women with this distorted view, which will cause him to find it more difficult to form relationships with women, and lead back, via frustration, to yet more porn. Its a negative feedback loop, and one that some men find very hard to see their way clear from. This is potentially harmful and dangerous to these men and the women around them.
Can you please point us to ANY credible research that shows that this is the case, please?
This is an old argument, and I have yet to see any evidence for it. Several researches have concluded the opposite: That pornography serve as a healthy way of getting fantasies "out of your system", to prevent them from affecting your daily life.
Note also one of the classic mistakes made in much of the research of this issue: Many reports have described high usage of porn by rapists, and equate that with porn causing or contributing to the rape.
But those numbers are also consistent with the suggestion above that pornography serve as a way of getting fantasies out - if that is correct, then it would be natural to also find a high consumption of pornography by people who have used it to try to stay under control, but that have failed.
For a study to present credible evidence on any connection as mentioned above, the very least they would have to do would be to find a random sample of people that do use porn and a random sample of people who dont use porn, and let parts of the group that does use porn stop using it, and parts of the group that does not use porn start using it, and follow the resulting four groups over a prolonged period of time to see whether members of any of the groups are more or less likely to get abusive or to get problems handling relationships.
This page presents some research (mostly supportive of porn). If you have any specifics criticism of the research presented there, or any
credible research showing different results, I'd like to see references to it, to take a look at it.
You are also making the typical mistake and assuming that porn is only consumed by men, when the major market for mainstream porn videos is couples, and videos for use by couples are typically chosen and bought by the woman.
The major reasons couples cite for watching porn together? To inject fantasies and excitement into their relationship, and to explore sides of each other they do not yet know well. In other words: To get closer. How that is detrimental to a relationship, I fail to see. I can however agree that that some couples choose to do so does not mean it's right for everyone.
I remember Network Solutions was also sued first, but Kremen lost his case there.
Personally I think Network Solutions should be paying some money out to Kremen also. Why? Because these bastards have been the source of a bunch of dns mess-ups. They don't give a shit about your registration. If they lose it or gives it to someone else, oh well... that's that. NetSol needs to be slapped hard to teach them a lesson well overdue.
---------
Did you just fart? Or do you always smell like that?
Slashdot Mirror
------------
CitizenC
Some might think that his bio itself is a troll. After all, if you're not happy with all the liberals in the states, why on earth would you move to the UK? Surely Iran would be much better (I guess it's just a shame there aren't waco fundy christian states to move to).
Regarding the post, I think it's clearly a troll becasuse he states pornography is used for "the gratification of men unable to find themselves a loving wife." implies that anyone "using" porn is unable to find a "loving wife". Given the widespread "usage" of porn, that's clearly flamebait IMO. Also "pornography is nothing more than a perversion of His [gods] vision for us". Stating such contentious beliefs (porn not used by men with a loving partner, the existance of god) as facts can only be a troll; anyone else would have put "I beleive", "IMHO", or somthing else along those lines in there.
As far as exploitation of women in porn goes, I wish people would realise that there are two issues here: exploitation AND porn:
Some people drive too fast in their cars. The cars aren't wrong, it's people driving too fast.
Some people steal because they want to be rich. It isn't wanting to be rich that's wrong, it's stealing.
Some women are exploited in the porn industry. It's not porn that's wrong, it's the people who exploit women.
0.02
Tales from behind the Lagom Curtain
Given that pornography is designed to help men spill their seed, and that any man with a wife won't have any need to debase themselves in such a way, it therefore follows that pornography is for people who are unable to find themselves a wife.
;-) How does gay (male) porn exploit women? It doesn't, your statement is (again) false. You might be under the impression that all pornography is of the "18 blokes+ 1 little girl all-out gangbang" type, but you're (fortunately) wrong.
What a small mind you must have. Perhaps some people like both? Perhaps some people have wives that whilst loving the man, are unwilling or unable to have sex with them (for example after abuse, rape or physical disability)? Perhaps the couple are physically seperated for a period of time? Perhaps the man doesn't have bizarre hangups about it? Perhaps his wife likes it? Perhaps, perhaps, perhaps.
The point is that your premise, that any married man can get as much sexual gratification from his wife as he needs and therefore doesn't need porn is both wrong, and (ironically) disrespectful to women.
Onanism is quite obviously a tool designed by the Devil to turn one's thoughts away from salvation towards more earthly pleasures.
[You get +1 troll point] If I never think of salvation when I'm having sex, does that mean that "obviously" sex must be a tool of the devil designed to turn my thoughts away from salvation? In fact I hardly ever think about salvation, so obviously almost everything is designed by the devil (he should have patented some of it).
Bzzt! Wrong! The porn industry by definition exploits women
I'm wrong
If I was offered $1 million for playgirl style photos of myself, I might or might not do it, but I certainly don't think I'd feel "exploited" if I did. Why do you think women are any different? Perhaps the answer is in this comment "from exploiting women's naivety and greed all the way up to the use of force and drugs to ensure cooperation" You seem incapable of seeing the fact that women, as well as men have minds of their own. Some people will have sex in front of a camera for money. They might be greedy, or they might not share your particular moral code. Being different to you isn't the same as being abused.
Tales from behind the Lagom Curtain
Hmm... admittedly, for a lot of dot-coms that's actually literally true - or at least they probably *paid* more for the domain than they ever earned back. So hey, sure, why not codify that into case law as well? And what a business plan: "Sure, I'll license you to use the name ThisDomain.com next year - in exchange for 105% of the revenues you earn from it. Sound fair?" What a screwed up system.
It's not that hard to find evidence of corecion and exploitationin the porn industry, unless of course, you don't want to see any
As well as in the real estate industry, politics and law enforcement. Exploitation isn't a symptom of pornography, its a symptom of humanity. Pornography just makes a great target due to the bizarre irony in our culture that everyone is either having sex or wanting to have sex, yet sex is taboo. Christ, even kids who haven't learned a damn thing about the world start getting horny and staring at fine members of the opposite sex, or same sex for some. That's the curse we bear for being human. In the words of George Carlin, "There are far worse things that you can to do another person than giving them an orgasm."
To those of you unfortunate enough to grow up in a climate of repression and hate: don't worry, sex won't destroy the world, burn down the rain forests and upset Baby Jeebus(tm); it'll just make you a bit happier and a bit sleepier if you just have the courage to let it.
Deosyne
Now the sex.com domain can be used as was intended, and not as some evil porn site.
Find funky gifts
Nice to see a federal judge treat domain names like real estate. Hopefully this sends a signal to Network Solutions that domains are not "like telephone numbers". I'll see your circuit court judge and raise a US district court judge.
"We're working on a deal (for content on)
You don't normally see women orientated stuff on sex sites? No wonder all those large-pink-area filters don't work - they shouldn've been scanning for goatporn all along.
Posted early enough for the karma rich first few minutes, mentioning goatporn for a clear demotion under grounds of karmawhoring.
Oh it's easy for you to assume that just because it doesn't fit in with your wonderful, liberal view of life that it's got to be a troll. Far easier than actually trying to come up with some facts to support your position, right?
.... his wife and children, .... --he cannot be my disciple."
Ok, you might want to take a look at this story on sexuality over at Kuro5hin. It's a fascinating read, one of the best things I've seen there in a while. Chock full of hard facts about the intrinsic need for sexual release in human beings.
You're not worth arguing with. You'll just apply the word "liberal" to any evidence to any argument you don't like, just like you have in all three of your posts so far.
Furthermore, your argument seems to be based on a particular pseudo-literalist reading of the Bible, so it's not like the discussion would go anywhere.
Expedited discussion with this troll:
1. I'm going to have a little fun, and quote 1 Corinthians 7:1 "Now for the matters you wrote about: It is good for a man not to marry", the standard justification for primacy of celibacy over marriage, and tell you that if you really wanted to take the word of God to heart you would forsake all physical pleasure, even with your wife. I'll further support my claim with Luke 14:25-27: "If anyone comes to me and does not hate
2. You're going to writhe and scream and complain and try and explain I'm distorting the passage. You might quote me Shakespeare, and say that "the devil has the power to quote scripture" thinking you have a biblical comeback. You might quote 1 Corinth 7:2-5 as a better retort.
3. Then I'll say Christ makes clear in 7:6-7 that permanent non-marriage is a preferable state.
4. Then you'll invent a new complaint to justify ignoring the passages of the bible you dislike. Of course, by disregarging only one passage, you've kind of shot your argument that we should blindly use the Bible as a set of rules without thinking - if it's wrong there, why isn't it wrong about pornography? (Of course, the bible never mentions pornography, you can borrow the inferential references which conservative theologians find to justify anti-pornographic positions.)
5. I'll be sick of the discussion and won't reply because you will ignore any other facts I introduce into the discussion or attach the word "liberal" to them, as if I should run in terror at being called such a horrible word.
There, we condensed in all down into one post. Wait I think I got a patent idea... Expedited troll conversations via prediction of troller/trollee responses.
Natural is not the same as moral or good.
Take, for example, a tiger attacking a deer. It cannot cause conception, is extremely dangerous for the animal on the receiving end and causes pain. It is perfectly natural.
So what is a "natural act"? Animals (apes, elephants, rodents) engage in sodomy. Surely that's natural?
Sex is not just for procreation. If it was, we would, like most animals, only have sex when fertile. This is not the case. It is also for bonding.
I see nothing wrong with sodomy, as long as everyone involved is consenting. "Brutal sodomy" with it's implication of non-consent I would definitely count as wrong.
But there are people out there firmly conviced that liberal attitudes about sex are perfectly healthy, and that pornography is in some way "expressive" and "naturual". Please tell me, what is natural about some woman being brutally sodomized by several men on camera?
Well, first off, I'd recommend calling brutal sodomy "morally reprehensible", as it is arguably a perfectly natural act (though, again, generally held as morally reprehensible.)
There are people out there firmly entrenched in the belief that conservative attitudes about sex are both healthier and morally higher, and that pornography is somehow "deviant" and "unnatural". These same people generally feel perfectly justified in pointing towards the most deviant, reprehensible acts of violent, aberrant behavior as prime examples of what pornography is. This is unfair.
It'd be somewhat akin to me calling Christianity a horrible, disgusting cult which has mercilessly slaughtered countless women and children over centuries in the name of appeasing an unseen deity. I'd be ignoring the fact that some of the world's greatest and most generous groups and individuals have acted out of their love of the Christian god. There is no "so, which is it, then?" It's both. Should we outlaw Christianity or claim that it's the most wonderfullest thing ever? Neither. It has both good and bad elements, people who respect it and people who abuse it.
The same holds true for pornography. While you are quick to point out that having people abused into pornography and tortured in front of a camera is (surprise) bad, the same moral compass cannot be used to denounce, say, a video made willingly (and happily) by a married couple for distribution in adult video stores. What is so unnatural (or rather, morally reprehensible) about that?
Obliteracy: Words with explosions
When will they return the slashdot domain to those people that posted interesting stories ?
This argument assumes whoever you're arguing with believe in the christian God, and care about the silly procreation argument.
It also assumes that there exists no pornography depicting the joys of procreation in a marriage.
The first is a belief that certainly has no proof, and which a great deal of humanity simply rejects.
The argument that sex is only for procreation assigns a purpose to nature, which either implies that nature is sentient, or implies a creator, which brings us back to the first argument - it's just as disputed, and certainly not proven in any way. For those of us who prefer evolution, sex is there because it works as a driving force to get living beings to procreate. And it gives pleasure because that makes it more likely that we'll procreate. But neither assigns any purpose to it. Unless you believe in a deity, sex is just a process, and have no more purpose than the oceans or the stars.
If you want to argue that since sex allows us to procreate, then procreation is it's purpose, even if it wasn't conceived by someone who assigned for a purpose, then you can just as well argue that since sex give us pleasure, then pleasure is also one of the purposes of sex. Seeings as sex is a driving force behind much of the work of man, it can even be said to be a very important purpose.
This argument can just as well be applied in the case of the existence of a "God" as well: If this God fellow didn't intend for people to have sex for fun he must be a complete idiot for making it so much fun. If sex has procreation as its purpose because procreation is one of its functions, then sex can just as well have pleasure as a purpose because pleasure is one of its functions.
You also assume that promiscuous behaviour is "dangerous idea for any society that wishes to hold itself to any kind of moral values". But that is simply wrong. It may be dangerous for a society that wishes to hold iself to any kind of christian moral values, but you are making the assumption that anyone else will share your view of what "any kind of moral values" is.
You go on to criticize even porn made willingly and happly by a married couple:
Because sex is not something to be used to satiate the urges of weaker people. That is pure and simply immoral.
Again you're assuming everyone else share your views about what is moral. You are not explaining what is unnatural or morally reprehensible, as the previous poster asks you to, instead you're just giving the blanked response that it's bad because it violates your morals.
Assuming that we agree with you that people who like porn are "weaker people" (weaker than who? The couple making the video? Presumably if they're happily making porn they like porn themselves), that still leaves us with the question of why it is bad to "willingly (and happlily)" (to quote the previous poster) do something to satiate the urges of those "weaker people"?
Unless you claim that seeing people have sex is somehow harmful?
But back to the "weaker people" part. Presumable this comes from some illution that people who watch porn are lost souls who don't believe in God.
In my eyes, if they've "lost" their faith, that makes them stronger, not weaker: They've managed to break free from the indoctrination of dogma, and to stop relying on a book of mutually inconsistent and ridiculous stories to find meaning in their lives.
Thus, that argument too breaks down if people don't agree with you from the start.
If you want to convince anyone who doesn't already share your beliefs, you better try some arguments that doesn't depend on conservative christian beliefs from the outset...
What happens is that if a man views porn regularly, he gets a very distorted view of sex and women, which can cause two things. First he will treat women that do allow him to become close to them in ways that are (for many women) highly inappropriate, which is abuse of those women, and damaging to an otherwise good relationship. And secondly he will be approaching all women with this distorted view, which will cause him to find it more difficult to form relationships with women, and lead back, via frustration, to yet more porn. Its a negative feedback loop, and one that some men find very hard to see their way clear from. This is potentially harmful and dangerous to these men and the women around them.
Can you please point us to ANY credible research that shows that this is the case, please?
This is an old argument, and I have yet to see any evidence for it. Several researches have concluded the opposite: That pornography serve as a healthy way of getting fantasies "out of your system", to prevent them from affecting your daily life.
Note also one of the classic mistakes made in much of the research of this issue: Many reports have described high usage of porn by rapists, and equate that with porn causing or contributing to the rape.
But those numbers are also consistent with the suggestion above that pornography serve as a way of getting fantasies out - if that is correct, then it would be natural to also find a high consumption of pornography by people who have used it to try to stay under control, but that have failed.
For a study to present credible evidence on any connection as mentioned above, the very least they would have to do would be to find a random sample of people that do use porn and a random sample of people who dont use porn, and let parts of the group that does use porn stop using it, and parts of the group that does not use porn start using it, and follow the resulting four groups over a prolonged period of time to see whether members of any of the groups are more or less likely to get abusive or to get problems handling relationships.
This page presents some research (mostly supportive of porn). If you have any specifics criticism of the research presented there, or any credible research showing different results, I'd like to see references to it, to take a look at it.
You are also making the typical mistake and assuming that porn is only consumed by men, when the major market for mainstream porn videos is couples, and videos for use by couples are typically chosen and bought by the woman.
The major reasons couples cite for watching porn together? To inject fantasies and excitement into their relationship, and to explore sides of each other they do not yet know well. In other words: To get closer. How that is detrimental to a relationship, I fail to see. I can however agree that that some couples choose to do so does not mean it's right for everyone.
I remember Network Solutions was also sued first, but Kremen lost his case there.
Personally I think Network Solutions should be paying some money out to Kremen also. Why? Because these bastards have been the source of a bunch of dns mess-ups. They don't give a shit about your registration. If they lose it or gives it to someone else, oh well... that's that. NetSol needs to be slapped hard to teach them a lesson well overdue.
---------
Did you just fart? Or do you always smell like that?
eTrade SUCKS