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.
Dreadsox said:
Irvine...

I think we have no common ground....



i'm sorry you think that.

from this thread, i don't see how you could draw that conclusion.

i still think i made a very relevant comment: if one's concern is the exploitation of individuals, how is the exploitation of porn actresses (and actors, let's not forget, there are male porn stars as well) any worse than the exploitation of, say, the vietnamese workers who sew Pumas or the guatemalan children who make t-shirts?

where's the christianist outrage on that?
 
Irvine511 said:




i'm sorry you think that.

from this thread, i don't see how you could draw that conclusion.

.................

where's the christianist outrage on that?

Maybe I think that because of comments like the one above and I am hardly a conservative Christian.

If every thread is going to turn into a thread used to vent disdain towards the Christian right....it gets old.

Your point may be valid, but it had NOTHING to do with my attempt at seeking a common point on which all could stand in the thread.

Your point also does not invalidate that there may be some truth to the position of the "christian" community on this topic.

I feel that while some members of the forum may very clearly have been wounded more deeply than I could ever understand by a portion of the Christian community.......I do not see why every thread has to deteriorate into comments like the one above. Is it too difficult to stick to a topic and seek common ground?
 
[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]

SO from the part of the article, not put out.......

Why wouldn't you want your governement to make certain that people are not being illegally video taped doing these things....

Which, I find interesting that it was mysteriously absent from the initial posting.......Maybe because we would like to lead the thread in a certain direction?

If this is the type of pornography that they are looking at following up on, then, why shouldn't I want them making sure my wife was not being illegally taped, my daughter, my students?

Why NOT?
 
Dreadsox said:

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.

I agree, I do think something should be done about that. That is outrageous and most definitely criminal in my mind. A total despicable invasion of a girl's/woman's privacy and a gross violation of their dignity to say the least..
 
MrsSpringsteen said:


I agree, I do think something should be done about that. That is outrageous and most definitely criminal in my mind. A total despicable invasion of a girl's/woman's privacy and a gross violation of their dignity to say the least..

Couldn't agree more.
 
Dreadsox said:


Maybe I think that because of comments like the one above and I am hardly a conservative Christian.

If every thread is going to turn into a thread used to vent disdain towards the Christian right....it gets old.

Your point may be valid, but it had NOTHING to do with my attempt at seeking a common point on which all could stand in the thread.

Your point also does not invalidate that there may be some truth to the position of the "christian" community on this topic.

I feel that while some members of the forum may very clearly have been wounded more deeply than I could ever understand by a portion of the Christian community.......I do not see why every thread has to deteriorate into comments like the one above. Is it too difficult to stick to a topic and seek common ground?



oh Dread.

i used the word "christianist" -- what that means is the appropriation of the trappings of christianity, and not the message, in a political context. further, as has been mentioned in the thread, Gonzales appears to be trying to up his socially conservative credentials with the GOP's socially conservative base -- many of whom would label themselves Conservative Christians, yet not all Conservative Christians would be the GOP base -- so that he becomes a more appealing choice for the vacan seat on the Supreme Court. the big concern with conservatives, as is common knowledge at least in DC, and i had thought in the media, is that Gonzales is too socially liberal to make said GOP base happy, particularly after the 2004 election.

and that is just one strand of thought going on here. there are many others, but this is the political aspect to it, and yes, it does lead back to the GOP base. when you have a government that is controlled, at all levels, by one political party, it's difficult for all roads not to lead back to the base.

it's not disdain towards the christian right, it's an examination of the faults of the political system -- that, often, bad decisions and misapproriation of resources, time, energy, and effort occur because a certain element crucial to success in elections expects to get their fair due. this happens on *all* sides of the political spectrum, it just so happens that in this particular case, the base is conservative.

what frustrates me is that i feel as if i go to greath, painstaking lengths to be specific and to make distinctions between different groups of people who have different political ideologies who might also happen to fall under the vast umbrella of what's called Christian.
 
Last edited:
Dreadsox said:
[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]

SO from the part of the article, not put out.......

Why wouldn't you want your governement to make certain that people are not being illegally video taped doing these things....

Which, I find interesting that it was mysteriously absent from the initial posting.......Maybe because we would like to lead the thread in a certain direction?

If this is the type of pornography that they are looking at following up on, then, why shouldn't I want them making sure my wife was not being illegally taped, my daughter, my students?

Why NOT?



firstly, i edited the article because of the new FYM rules -- it was a lengthy article, and i just wanted to get the gist of it across and provided a link to the article in question. there was no manipulative intent at all.

secondly, if someone is being illegally taped, that's a crime. in fact, that's not necessarily pornography at least as i understand it.

however, there are some people who participate in porn films that involve the above activities, and it is entirely consensual and they are paid to do so. while i have absolutely no interest in ever watching any of the mentioned activities, i don't think that they should be illegal.

someone setting up cameras in a woman's lockerroom -- yes, absolutely. there's a crime being committed. if someone wants to urinate on someone and film it, then whatever floats your boat, i suppose.

at the end of the day, however, i am ultimately more concerned with underfunded levees, rampant cronyism, and a government that appears utterly inept at pretty much everything it does than i am with hidden cameras. it's simply a matter of priorities, that's all.
 
Dreadsox said:
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.

I agree.
 
Irvine511 said:
however, there are some people who participate in porn films that involve the above activities, and it is entirely consensual and they are paid to do so. while i have absolutely no interest in ever watching any of the mentioned activities, i don't think that they should be illegal.

Is it entirely consensual every time?

I am surprised by the lack of concern if there is non-consensual acts taking place in the porn industry.
 
nbcrusader said:


Is it entirely consensual every time?

I am surprised by the lack of concern if there is non-consensual acts taking place in the porn industry.


how do you prove non-consent? how do you know?

it doesn't seem as if we are all on the same page as to our understanding of pornography, the difference between mainstream porn and underground, black market porn (which is no more legal than heroin).

perhaps i'm naive here -- the only porn i've ever really seen were mainstream (but hard core, i.e., intercourse) videos, magazines, and lots of internet sites.

absolutely the government should go after child pornographers (with a *vengance*). absolutely the government should go after tapes of women in public restrooms. but that already goes on. porn is regulated. it seems as if the crux of this investigation is to crack down on certain types of porn that are legal, but a bit more outre. which begs the question, where do you stop?

it's less that there's no concern with non-consensual acts -- and i'm quite concerned about photographic those who are unaware, that is a crime and yes, law enforcement should do something about it -- and more that this doesn't seem to be the point of the investigation. it's all well and good to be "against" porn for myriad different reasons -- it cheapens sex, reduces people to objects, fosters bad attitudes, etc. but i am against fast food for myriad reasons, yet i don't think it should be made illegal.

(though i would argue that an obese america is much more unhealthy than a porn-obsessed america)

and i'll again point to the political aspect of this.
 
Dreadsox said:


And this is as far as I read.



well, you're the last person i'd want to be at odds with, but if you're not even going to give me the time of day, that leaves me very disappointed.
 
nbcrusader said:


Is it entirely consensual every time?

I am surprised by the lack of concern if there is non-consensual acts taking place in the porn industry.

As am I.

Am I saying that the government should be channeling all of its resources into this area....

No....

Do I believe that it should not be monitored to some extent.

Absolutely....
 
Dreadsox said:


As am I.

Am I saying that the government should be channeling all of its resources into this area....

No....

Do I believe that it should not be monitored to some extent.

Absolutely....



well here we have our common ground.

and such things *are* monitored, right now, by the government.
 
nbcrusader said:
That is a huge "IF" to toss aside the subject. If there is in essense a form of sex slave trade encompassing those in the porn industry who are not giving true consent, would you want that investigated and stopped?

If it can be proven that it's happening, then yes, somebody should step in somewhere. You pointed out that not all who are victimized by that sort of thing will be willing to step forward, therefore making it harder to know it's happening, which is true-you are right, that can be an obstacle. But at the same time, if that sort of thing is indeed happening, eventually somebody will slip up somewhere and things will slowly start coming out about it. And once we're sure that is what's going on, then the appropriate measures can be taken to stop it.

I guess I just worry about the government nosing in because somebody somewhere can use this as an excuse to try and completely ban pornography from occurring, period, that they'll punish all people involved for the illegal activities of a few, or something else along those lines. If they feel they need to investigate certain things, fine, but I would think that, just like with everything else, there'd have to be probable cause to investigate that sort of thing. I hope this all makes some sense, if not, let me know.

Also, thanks, sally :).

Angela
 
Last edited:
Moonlit_Angel said:
If it can be proven that it's happening, then yes, somebody should step in somewhere. You pointed out that not all who are victimized by that sort of thing will be willing to step forward, therefore making it harder to know it's happening, which is true-you are right, that can be an obstacle. But at the same time, if that sort of thing is indeed happening, eventually somebody will slip up somewhere and things will slowly start coming out about it. And once we're sure that is what's going on, then the appropriate measures can be taken to stop it.

As I read the initial article, it seems that this is part of the intent of the FBI task force. Not to jump into living rooms where people are viewing porn, but to investigate the harmful practices that may take place while the porn is produced.
 
nbcrusader said:


As I read the initial article, it seems that this is part of the intent of the FBI task force. Not to jump into living rooms where people are viewing porn, but to investigate the harmful practices that may take place while the porn is produced.



yes, but it is an investigation into legal pornography consumed by adults. not child porn.

i'm not denying that bad things may happen in the world of pornography. i'm just saying that it shouldn't take 10 FBI agents away from far more pressing issues.
 
So how many agents? Legal porn is available fromt his keypad....

yet....

I would venture that some of the legal porn apparently has not been legal based on your own article.
 
Irvine511 said:
yes, but it is an investigation into legal pornography consumed by adults. not child porn.

i'm not denying that bad things may happen in the world of pornography. i'm just saying that it shouldn't take 10 FBI agents away from far more pressing issues.

I don't think we need to get graphic, but it may be as simple as a women being filmed doing more sexual acts than her original consent. As a crime, it would be rape. If it is happening, I'd like to see it stopped. And it won't be stopped unless we make it a priority.
 
nbcrusader said:


I don't think we need to get graphic, but it may be as simple as a women being filmed doing more sexual acts than her original consent. As a crime, it would be rape. If it is happening, I'd like to see it stopped. And it won't be stopped unless we make it a priority.



to be a bit graphic, from what i've read, women are paid per sex act. oral sex is worth X amount of dollars, vaginal something more, anal something even more. i don't think, at least in mainstream, adult porn, that women are forced to do more than their contract stipulates.

if anything, i'd view this as a wider societal problem -- the fact that women earn, what is it, .$73 to every dollar a man makes? perhaps economic necessity forces some women into porn? that, to me, is a much more pressing issue than was outlined in the article.

i do wonder if there's a porn union? there must be ... it's a huge industry, and i can't imagine that there aren't worker protections. the industry goes to tremendous lengths to protect the actors from STDs, so why wouldn't it be in their best interests to make sure their stars -- and people pay to see big names as much as people pay to see Julia Roberts in a movie -- are happy and healthy.
 
Back
Top Bottom