The Great Porn Debate

[Rapscallion]

Regardign Georgia, they tend to name them as 'cake novelties' or back massagers etc.

The UK age of consent is sixteen for sex, and the same for topless modelling. One newspaper famed for putting a topless girl on its third page (two or three do this) did so on the girl's birthday. Not too many seconds later, people realised that they were looking at a picture of a topless girl when the photo was taken when she was only fifteen.

Yeah, they got some flack over that one.

Rapscallion

[Sylvia727]

And what if they're fine by the laws of country/state A (where the porn is made), but not by the laws of country/state B (where it is sold)?

It should be legal in both areas. If kiddie porn is illegal in my area, I don't want to see it sold here, even if the age of consent in Xland is 12. Et cetera. When it runs into problems in one area, such as dildoes being illegal in Georgia, the proper solution is to make dildoes legal in Georgia, not allow manufacturers to peddle wares regardless of local laws.

[Dreamstalker]

I think in TX it's legal to own a dildo, but illegal to sell them (wtf?). I never could see the point of the state-by-state laws for that kind of thing (will online stores that are not based in State X just refuse to ship there?).

The website I mentioned will not stock or even consider material in which any performer/actor is under 18 (at least that's the case with the US-targeted site; not sure of other destination countries). Here, it's legal to possess, make or sell porn, yet you can't (or at least aren't supposed to) send it through the mail system. Weird.

[rahmota]

Raps: ahh thanks I knew it was younger than stateside just didnt remember which.

And as for the vibrators and such yeah I know and love how they are "personal massage devices" and such...Kinda sad and silly that they have to go to such work arounds to avoid a stupid stigma.

And I can imagine they did get a bit of flack. Stateside they might have got the rope (figuratively at least.)

Sylvia: yeah one set of rules for each and every state would be a wonderful thing on that sort of thing. It should fall under the interstate commerce laws but oh well. Too much bad feelings on it for too many people.

[tropicsgoddess]

I'm not into porn, but hey each to their own. To me, it's okay to look at porn, as long as it's not completely supplanting sex in a relationship (if the people in the relationship are sexually active that is). The only kind of porn I'm not okay with at all in any aspect is the animal and kiddie porn.

[ThePhoneGoddess]

*shrug* maybe. Yeah theres the old wives tale that if a man'll kick a dog hes more n likely gonna kick a kid or be mean to someone.

I just wanted to interject here, Rahmota, that this is NOT an old wives tale. Psychiatrists who specialize in serial killers have stated and published for years what they consider the 'triad' of symptoms that the majority of serial killers display as children: setting fires, wetting the bed, and torturing animals.

This information is not linked only to serial killers.

According to a 1997 study done by the Massachusetts Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (SPCA) and Northeastern University, animal abusers are five times more likely to commit violent crimes against people and four times more likely to commit property crimes than are individuals without a history of animal abuse.

Many studies in psychology, sociology, and criminology during the last 25 years have demonstrated that violent offenders frequently have childhood and adolescent histories of serious and repeated animal cruelty. The FBI has recognized the connection since the 1970s, when its analysis of the lives of serial killers suggested that most had killed or tortured animals as children. Other research has shown consistent patterns of animal cruelty among perpetrators of more common forms of violence, including child abuse, spouse abuse, and elder abuse. In fact, the American Psychiatric Association considers animal cruelty one of the diagnostic criteria of conduct disorder.

[rahmota]

TPG: *shrug* Maybe. I dunno. People are more complex than some people like to think. Then again I dont exactly trust psychologists and such much either. Even though they have been crammed down my throat. They all seem too eager to think that there is somethign wrwong with everyone even if there isnt. But thats a rant for another thread.

[fireheart17]

OK, again I'll go with my own thousand and one questions.

Q: Is it disgusting?
A: I'll admit, the first time I saw a cumshot I almost threw up. (this was when I was younger and accidentally stumbled onto it) On the other hand, what one may find disgusting might be a turn-on for another.

Q: does it degrade women?
A: To answer that you'd have to ask: Does gay porn degrade men? Does shemale porn degrade transsexuals?

Q: is it wrong?
A: If it involves children and animals yes.

Q: Does it provide the "wrong" images?
A: In this case I would say yes. Mostly because I have watched a bit of porn and what I have seen of it compared to my sexual experiences (or lack thereof....) made me think. While a guy might get turned on by watching a woman give a man fellatio until he ejaculates all over her face, he may not want the girl to perform it the exact same way as the video. THere's also the misconception that a big penis equals a better lover, that men only want sex and so forth. These are the things that disturb me.

[HowMayIHelpMe?]

Porn is fine.