the Porn Squad

The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
Religion hurts more people every day than porn does.

Shall we have an FBI investigation that results in the banning of religion?

Melon
 
Thanks to Paris Hilton ,who has the record for highest selling porn vid BTW, porn had become almost mainstream anyway. Everyone has heard of Jenna Jameson, Ron Jeremy and Paris' video plus any celeb's sex tape which leaks out.

Plus like Irvine511, not being a porn expert,(but I am familiar with it:wink:) women hold many powerful positions in the adult industry, no pun intended, as directors, producers and owners. The government should direct its Porn Squad resources to shutting down child porn, and the slave trade which exists in major cities across North America. Jeez, the porn industry has tests for AIDS every month for all its performers. Look at how they handled last years HIV scare, they shut down their production for 3 months until they were sure everyone was safe. Many companies use condoms for every scene, oh yeah, I forgot, the Bush administration only want abstinence programs, not safe sex programs.

It isn't the most wholesome form of entertainment out there but it is very popular. Trust me, some of the people you would never imagine to be porn users, are some of the very people using the products.
 
Hey didn't we have a question about 'Big Brother' recently?

We have real concerns in this country.

Before we attack those that are having consentual and protected sex, let's look at our irresponsible sex education programs being forced onto our education systems.

WTFWTFWTFWTFWTF???

This administration makes me sick.
 
I am a little surprised....

Is it everyone except NBC's contention that the porn industry does not harm anyone?

I am not looking for Christian Taliban answers....or incvestigate Bush. There is a serious topic that can be discussed here without the mudslinging.
 
dunno Dread asked Ted Bundy.

seriously i think porn taints a person's soul and can be subtle in it's effects to some and much more harmful to others.

in short porn debases while other forms of art enlighten.

db9
 
Irvine511 said:

i think it's a huge, huge mistake to compare, say, the worst natural disaster on American soil since 1906 to the porn industry.

also, i think you underestimate women in the porn industry -- there's sexism embedded in your post.

Irvine, you can do better.

Rather than discussion the issue, you resorted to old FYM tricks. Both statements torture what I said to divert the subject.
 
I'm not some big porn supporter either, but I definitely think the FBI and our government should be concerned w/ more important things, give me a break.

Maybe that's why all the stickies were on Atta's face and they didn't do anything about him, they were too concerned w/ Ron Jeremy or whomever. though I must say that Ron Jeremy should be considered a threat to national security just based upon his face alone
 
nbcrusader said:


Irvine, you can do better.

Rather than discussion the issue, you resorted to old FYM tricks. Both statements torture what I said to divert the subject.



i thought you were playing those FYM tricks -- making a baseless comparison.

also, i do think there was sexism in your post, that all women are held at gunpoint against their will by big, bad men and forced to make these films. it's simply not the case. many women actively choose to go into porn -- and i think you're also focusing too narrowly between what is considered hard-core porn (actual intercourse) and other kinds of porn, like Playboy/Penthouse. many of these women are simply aspiring models and are eager to work -- sometimes this leads to movie roles (though probably not credibility).

come on -- you're from southern california, you know what the industry is like.
 
Last edited:
This is an impossible topic to agree on AT ALL......there are SOOOO many varied degrees of what is & what is not porn.....

And...I have 13 & 15 year old boys...so I CAN speak from experience...the government is NOT to be held responsible for the sexual education of my boys...They both got "the talk" from me in the 5th grade...more of a 2 hour open discussion...they know they can ask me anything & I will give them a straight answer....the street or school is not where they will get complete answers and be able to question things....even though the street is where most of these kids learn about sex.....it is up to the parents to set expectations & educate their children.....one parent may firmly believe that masturbation is a disgusting pornographic act, another may feel that it is natural & have no problem with it.....do you really want the federal government dealing with the sexuality issues of our youth? We can't even get Healthcare right....that being said....the extreme, what I consider to be "sick" porn (bdsm & snuff) and underage porn needs to be seriously dealt with...it does in fact harm people...mentally & physically....basically, I think age is the defining factor in regulating porn.....
 
Dreadsox said:
I am a little surprised....

Is it everyone except NBC's contention that the porn industry does not harm anyone?

I am not looking for Christian Taliban answers....or incvestigate Bush. There is a serious topic that can be discussed here without the mudslinging.



perhaps adult porn does do the kind of damage (you know, damage to the soul and whatnot), but if so, it's self-inflicted and doesn't present a national priority.

i think the fast food we eat and our car culture where we drive everywhere which makes america so fat is far, far more dangerous.

i also think that people are stuck in a 1970s/1980s view of the porn industry. it feels strange for me to defend it -- i sort of view it as one of the things that must be tolerated in any free society -- but it is a billion-dollar industry, and your biggest money-makers (the stars) are hardly going to be abused and mistreated by the producers and corporate kingpins. there's simply way too much money at stake.

i also find it strage that porn is one of the areas where the social right and the feminist left agree on something.
 
Irvine511 said:
i thought you were playing those FYM tricks -- making a baseless comparison.

also, i do think there was sexism in your post, that all women are held at gunpoint against their will by big, bad men and forced to make these films. it's simply not the case. many women actively choose to go into porn -- and i think you're also focusing too narrowly between what is considered hard-core porn (actual intercourse) and other kinds of porn, like Playboy/Penthouse. many of these women are simply aspiring models and are eager to work -- sometimes this leads to movie roles (though probably not credibility).

come on -- you're from southern california, you know what the industry is like.

Sorry, perhaps this is a problem with the FYM model for communication. I've never suggested that all women are forced into porn. But, I've challenged the notion that all women participate in the porn industry on a fully consensual basis.

And, if there were some who are not participating on a fully consensual basis, would we not as a society have an interest in protecting these women from participating on a non-consensual basis?
 
nbcrusader said:


Sorry, perhaps this is a problem with the FYM model for communication. I've never suggested that all women are forced into porn. But, I've challenged the notion that all women participate in the porn industry on a fully consensual basis.

And, if there were some who are not participating on a fully consensual basis, would we not as a society have an interest in protecting these women from participating on a non-consensual basis?



how would you define non-consensual basis?

you could argue that many people go into porn for the wrong reasons, but that doesn't seem to be an area in which the government should, or even could, regulate. if crimes are being committed -- if we still have, as Linda Lovelace suggested, women having guns held to their heads to make them participate, then it's clear that a crime is being committed, and yes, absolutely those women should be protected from being the victims of a crime. but if someone wants to have sex on camera, regardless of reason, then they are fully free to do so.

i also don't think that what you're getting at is where this Gonzales-led FBI probe is interested in.
 
nbcrusader said:


And, if there were some who are not participating on a fully consensual basis, would we not as a society have an interest in protecting these women from participating on a non-consensual basis?

There are laws and means of enforcement for that. They have to be willing to file complaints and law enforcement needs to act on those without the "prostitutes/porn stars can't be raped" attitude.

But the program noted in the article Irvine posted doesn't focus on this area, rather it focuses on the belief that porn itself is evil. I don't want the FBI being the morals police...hell, I don't want morals police, period. I am perfectly capable of deciding for myself what is morally acceptable, thank you very much.
 
indra said:
There are laws and means of enforcement for that. They have to be willing to file complaints and law enforcement needs to act on those without the "prostitutes/porn stars can't be raped" attitude.

Surely, you would realize that many of the victims would be fearful or reluctant to come forward and press charges.



indra said:

But the program noted in the article Irvine posted doesn't focus on this area, rather it focuses on the belief that porn itself is evil. I don't want the FBI being the morals police...hell, I don't want morals police, period. I am perfectly capable of deciding for myself what is morally acceptable, thank you very much.

That was the editorial comment in the news article, not the mission statement of the FBI.
 
nbcrusader said:


Surely, you would realize that many of the victims would be fearful or reluctant to come forward and press charges.



could you give me an example of charges that might be pressed?
 
While we go after the Porn Industry and deciding what people can watch, read, speak, listen too and..... WOW thinking about this last statement isn't that the reason our Forefather's came to this country to get away from?

I bring up a few issues I have that maybe this administration and my tax dollars should really be focusing on.

1>. The murderer of thousands of innocents on 9/11 is still on the face of this earth living and directing Al Queda. Yes I heard the arguments that this terror network has been disabled, just ask Madrid and London's population and they all can vouch for how GREAT the US was in taking care of these Barbarians.

2>. The Iraq fiasco, where do I even begin? WMD's, Sadam's connection to Al Queda (little did we know that they hated him worse than they hated us), we would be reaping the benifits of Iraqi Oil reserves, Halliburton's real sweet deal and I can go on and on.

3>. The fact that we sat back and watched our own people, citizens of this Country die in the streets of New Orleans because it took FEMA five days to act. Yes I agree that blame needs to be spread around to all levels of Gov't but then the little Caveat comes out that one reason of this screwed up mess was because a Bush apointee "Brownie" was so unqualified for this position in the first place. But back when he was named head of FEMA what's the worse thing that could happen? Bush was obligated to get him in somewhere.


Sorry that I got so way off point but it is so frustrating that this Admin. will waste our time and money going after porn? Are you fu:censored: ing kidding me? I just :shrug: you have to be worried what this Country will look like after three more years of this incompetancy.
 
Irvine511 said:
could you give me an example of charges that might be pressed?

Rape, battery, unlawfully detention, assult, etc., are just a few examples of charges that could be brought if there were non-consentiual participation in porn.
 
nbcrusader said:


Rape, battery, unlawfully detention, assult, etc., are just a few examples of charges that could be brought if there were non-consentiual participation in porn.



i suppose what i'm getting at is that, almost by definition, porn can't be non-consensual. how can you demonstrate that participation in a porn film -- and we need to draw distinctions, i think, between blackmarket porn, which is illegal, and mainstream porn, which is a billion-dollar industry -- is somehow non-consensual? people sign contracts, releases, waivers, etc. it's no different, legally, than a model shoot or acting in a small film.

also, unless you're talking about underground porn that's no more illegal than heroin or illegal firearms, then rape, battery, assault, etc., are decidedly not part of the script of any mainstream porn movie.
 
Even in mainstream porn, you would need to evaluate whether true consent is given when someone signs a form. Did they understand the form? Were they coerced into signing the form?

A lot of un-answered questions.
 
nbcrusader said:
Even in mainstream porn, you would need to evaluate whether true consent is given when someone signs a form. Did they understand the form? Were they coerced into signing the form?

A lot of un-answered questions.



do these rules apply to regular films? do we not trust someone who would participate in a porn movie than we would people who go into other professions?

also, as someone who works in very mainstream television, your definition of true consent is rare. no one, including the producers, really knows what the final product will look like, and many times, especially in reality tv shows, families or individuals who gave their consent to participate are unhappy with the final product. if anything, they probably know less about what they are getting into than your average porn actress.
 
I think that we can all agree that as consenting adults we can choose to or not to view pron.

I do have a problem with the belief that all porn available to us was made under circumstances that we would condone.
 
Dreadsox said:
I do have a problem with the belief that all porn available to us was made under circumstances that we would condone.



agreed.

but we could also say the same thing about the Nikes on our feet.
 
Moonlit_Angel said:
:up: to Irvine and melon. If everyone's consenting, and of legal age, tell me again what exactly the problem is? Or why I (or the government, for that matter) should care if someone in, say, California is looking at porn in their own home?

Angela

Exactly.
 
I do not think that is what my concern is.....Nor NBC's.....

There is plenty of porn that is out there that is NOT victimless when looking at the manner in which it is produced.

That is where my concern is. I could give two shits if someone is looking at Playboy. However.....if Joe shmo is making videos of girls in mini skirts at the mall without there consent...then I do expect the government to be proactive.
 
Fomr the article:

[Q]"Based on a review of past successful cases in a variety of jurisdictions," the memo said, the best odds of conviction come with pornography that "includes bestiality, urination, defecation, as well as sadistic and masochistic behavior." No word on the universe of other kinks that helps make porn a multibillion-dollar industry.
[/Q]

I wonder how many hidden cameras are in bathrooms aquiring footage.
 
I wonder....

It seems to me from reading through that people believe the porn industry will regulate itself.....

I happen not to think this.
 
Back
Top Bottom