[PLUG-TALK] Porn on the Net...

Michael Robinson plug_1 at robinson-west.com
Wed Oct 28 07:11:43 UTC 2009


On Tue, 2009-10-27 at 17:53 -0700, Russell Johnson wrote:
> On Oct 27, 2009, at 5:04 PM, Michael Robinson wrote:
> 
> > The production and consumption of porn, whether through the Net or by
> > other means, is always and has always been sex abuse.
> 
> Assuming the rest of the definition of abuse is there too.
> 
> "the willful infliction of injury, unreasonable confinement,  
> intimidation or punishment with resulting physical harm, pain or  
> mental anguish."
> 
> You assume that every performer in the adult entertainment industry is  
> there against their will.

That isn't necessary to say that pornography and prostitution 
constitute abuse.  Pornography abuses human sexuality regardless
of whether or not the performers choose to be involved.  Doing
something willfully does not make it right or wrong.  Pornography
and prostitution are always wrong.

> I can state for a fact that this is not true. I am, and have been  
> friends with, exotic dancers and other people in that industry.

Sex is not an industry.  The "adult" industry is not a legitimate
industry either.  If your friend isn't being abused, he/she is
abusing others by providing "adult" entertainment.

> The fact that you do not like that industry does not make it evil. The  
> fact that the christian church does not like it does not make it evil.

The fact that it violates human rights makes it evil.  Every child
deserves to be born out of the loving union of a husband and wife
and no human person deserves to be used sexually for a "good time" 
or "money."  No child deserves to have to worry that their mother or
father is out with someone they shouldn't be.  No wife should get an 
STD from her husband, but sadly this does happen.  "If you lust after 
a woman, you have already committed adultery."  Adultery is not healthy
for families.  The purpose of sex is to create unity between a man and 
a woman and perpetuate the human species.  Prostitution violates the
unitive aspect of sex and often times the procreative aspect as well
because it is sex without a marital commitment and/or with barriers
to fertility.

> Just like god does not require my belief to exist, does not change the  
> fact that I don't believe he does.

First off, God should be capitalized out of respect.  Second off, human
decency should not disappear simply because someone doesn't believe in
God, but don't be surprised if it does.  Third off, belief is a gift
from God that you obviously lack.

> The production and viewing (consuming would require that it disappear  
> when it's consumed) of porn is protected expression, which you happen  
> to disagree with. I disagree with flag burning as an act of  
> expression, but that doesn't make it wrong. It makes it wrong FOR ME.

Flag burning is very different, it doesn't involve sex abuse and you
bringing it up is impolite.  As far as consuming being a bad word,
yes it was a bad choice of words.  That's the English language for
you, you should be able to understand what I meant from the context
though.

> > Government is supposed to protect it's citizens against abuse.
> 
> I disagree with this statement too.

Then in your opinion government has no function whatsoever.  The only
reason government exists is to serve people and protecting them is a
form of service to them.

> > As far as
> > arguing with me that an addict has a choice, I have not seen one
> > convincing argument yet to back that up.
> 
> Does the addict have a brain? Did the addict choose?
> 
> a + b = c

Sorry, you fail again.  If that brain is under the influence of
strong hormonal fluctuations, then the decisions that person 
makes could easily be questionable.  Getting someone drunk for
example so they will sign a contract is frowned upon, but this 
technique was often used against Native Americans.

> Did someone hold a gun to the addicts head and force him to click that  
> mouse or pour that drink?

Yes, pornography is presented to get you to click that picture.  
There is a billion dollar industry built on people clicking that 
picture to see more.  The producers of pornography know that most
people will never be satisfied and expect a continuous stream of
revenue from repeat customers.  You can get a rush from looking
at pornography, but it doesn't last and it doesn't satisfy because
in your heart you know that you are abusing something beautiful.

> NO.
> 
> They made a choice.

Prove it.  Prove that they were of sound mind and sound judgment 
and that lust wasn't involved.  Why are you so adamant that looking
at pornography is a free choice when so often it isn't?  You can
be a slave to money as surely as you can be a slave to a sexual 
image of some woman called Miss March.  If you can't leave porn
alone, you aren't truly free are you?

> > Anonymous or not, consuming or producing porn is sex abuse.   
> > Government
> > is supposed to prevent the abuse of it's citizens.  Abusers always  
> > hide
> > behind consent as an excuse for the way they are treating themselves
> > and others.  That doesn't make what they are doing right.

> > As far as the comment that I'm saying open source software is bad, I
> > never said that.  Free software that is open source does not
> > constitute an act of abuse the way "free porn" does.
> 
> Nor did I say that you did. However, others have, and the corollary  
> holds. When you start burning books, where do you stop? When someone  
> is offended by the Holy Bible, do you burn it?

Now you are making me out to be a book burner.  You are confusing the
issue because you have a misguided notion that the "adult" entertainment
industry is a good and deserves protection.  By broadening the issue
to include book burning and other issues you don't have to fight me on
the issue at hand which you obviously can't do well.

> > Sex is supposed to be private between a male husband and his female
> > wife and open to children.
> 
> This is your opinion. Again, your religious opinion does not belong  
> making laws about what *I* may or may not do.

There are plenty of laws about what you may or may not do for the good
of society.  You can drive on the left side of the road, but you'll be
breaking the law and are potentially going to get ticketed for reckless
driving.  There are laws that limit what you can do which are necessary
for society to function properly.  The family unit needs to function
for society to perpetuate itself.  Pornography and prostitution 
threaten the family unit.  A woman feels she cannot compete with the
images her husband is looking at where children do not understand and
often end up being negatively impacted in their sexual development.

> Porn and prostitution are two separate things that need to be dealt  
> with individually.

No they aren't.  The purpose of porn ultimately is to make money off of
sex which happens to be the purpose of prostitution with the only
significant difference being that the viewer is sexually engaged with
the "actor."  The difference between pornography and prostitution is
so minimal that one can be classified as a stepping stone to the other.

> > The issue of porn on the Net is NOT a matter of personal  
> > responsibility.
> > Porn when it exists is a social sin.  A social sin involves everyone.

>> There you go again. Sin is defined as a transgression against god.  
>> It's religious in nature. Laws based on religion should not be.

So, you are saying, "if God exists, committing a transgression against
him is not significant," or are you saying, "society as a 
whole cannot transgress against God?"  Sorry, but God exists no 
matter what you believe and government loses all authority without 
some religious foundation to build on.  Explain the ethic that says
human life is precious and deserving of protection from conception
to natural death without mentioning a supreme being creating man
in his image.  Explain the ethic that says that the human body is
not a mere machine with which we can do whatever we want.  Pornography
and prostitution for that matter as well reduce the body to a mere 
mechanical object when in fact the human body is a supernatural
phenomenon made in the image of the ultimate being.

The prohibition of murder is based on a belief in the value of human
life which is rooted in a belief in God.  Sorry, rejecting the 
existence of God makes a lot of laws fall and even compromises 
the concept of there being human rights.  No matter which ethic
you look at whether it be the Christian or Islamic ethic or some
other ethic, you will find that human rights are rooted in a belief
in the existence of a supreme being who cares about humanity.
This is a recurring theme.

> > There is a sex trade in the
> > world and it is even alive here in the good ol USA, though it tends to
> > be a more serious problem in Islamic/Atheistic countries.
> 
> Wow. How little you know. This country has more of a 'problem' with  
> porn, prostitution, and sexual dysfunction, than any other 1st world  
> country in the world. Most of the studies I've read on this conclude  
> this to be because this country is more 'puritanical' in it's laws and  
> beliefs.
> 
> In other words, countries with a more open attitude about sex in  
> general, have a lower 'offender rate' than the U.S. does.

The belief that pornography and prostitution are two evils that
constitute abuses of human sexuality does not increase the incidence
of either.  Nor does the belief that murder is immoral and gravely
evil increase the incidence of murder.  There is no correlation 
between believing something is evil and the incidence of it.

I could say that there is a correlation between people drinking water
and getting cancer, but that doesn't mean that drinking water has
any causal effect.  Yes you can drink water and contract cancer, but
the chances that it was because you drank that water are slim to none.
Perhaps the problem in America and other 1st world countries is that
they aren't puritanical enough.  Maybe we are too accepting of what 
we know is bad for society because we don't want to offend anyone.
We are so busy not offending people that we don't see the real
consequences of our actions or inaction.

I disagree with you that sexual abuse is more of a problem in the
U.S. than say Russia where the life expectancy of men is 
artificially low because of promiscuity.

> Portland itself has more adult industry establishments per 
> capita than any other city on the west coast, and possibly 
> the country. Are you actually telling us that all of those 
> businesses are oppressing their employees and customers?

They are encouraging their employees and customers to offend God.  
They are increasing crime in the city.  They are a plague that 
should be wiped out.  If this is really true, it is not something 
to advertise.

> > Free speech has to take a back seat to human rights.
> 
> No, no, no. There is a reason the right to free speech is 1st in the  
> bill of rights. Free speech is the most important human right there  
> is. Once you trample free speech, human rights are gone.

It is more important that you have the right to live than it 
is that you have a right to speak.  Without the former, the 
latter is pointless.  Speech is not the foundation of human 
rights, not all speech is deserving of protection.  Obscenity 
is not deserving of protection as speech according to Oregon 
law anyways and this is as it should be.  The right to live 
is far more important than any right to speak.

> If you remove free speech, you have just silenced all those 
> oppressed workers you are trying so hard to put out of work.

Oppressed workers?  The sex trade needs to be put out of 
business for the good of the nation and the world.  It abuses
everyone involved from the "model" to the "viewer/participant."
Even if the "model" say is "consenting," God is offended and 
some human person who views or participates with the model is 
harmed.  Sex is not a performance that one should be charging
a price for, it is much much more.




More information about the PLUG-talk mailing list