Porn Addicts, Buyers, Writers--are you worried by this list?

[Colleen Thomas]

Christ! No wonder the Religious Right is trying to wipe out porn.

Misery loves company.

Actually, I think it's more along the lines of the religious right wish to ban fun. If someone, somewhere, somehow is smiling, they won't be happy.

 

[minsue]

The ACLU is an ultra liberal group. In fact, down south in many places they are considered a group that hates america and is working to destroy it. As to bucking them, their chief successes have been in the courts. If the neo cons can stack the supreme court as well as lower appeals courts with right wing fundamenatlists, they can safely consign the aclu to nussianse staus.

-Colly

I know that's how they're seen. I just have trouble understanding how fighting for constitutional rights is un-patriotic. Does it help that they fight for the constitutional rights of groups that the majority of liberals abhor?

Not something I think I'll be seeing eye-to-eye on any time soon.

 

[Boxlicker101]

This is proper sex for some fanatics:

Finally her groom decided that Ruth was at her most fertile time and he arranged the deflowering. She lay on her bed wearing a blindfold, a sweatshirt and sweatpants with the crotch cut out. As instructed, she had lubricated her virginal vagina with Vaseline. The blindfold was so she couldn't see her husband and lust after him. The sweatpants and sweatshirt were so he wouldn't lust after her.

The bridegroom prayed to God to forgive them for any sin they might commit and for his seeds to be sown fruitfully, while he wanked himself. When he was about to cum he jumped on his bride, thrust his cock brutally through her hymen and deposited his seed into her vagina. That was her introduction to sex, and whenever her most fertile time came around, the ritual was repeated. This went on for several months and Ruth, knowing something was wrong, decided she did not want to be trapped in this marriage by a baby, and began taking birth control pills secretly. She couldn't stop the abuse but at least she could stop it from being fruitful. This went on for years.

 

[rgraham666]

I know that's how they're seen. I just have trouble understanding how fighting for constitutional rights is un-patriotic. Does it help that they fight for the constitutional rights of groups that the majority of liberals abhor?

Not something I think I'll be seeing eye-to-eye on any time soon.

Ya gotta remember min, these are people who haven't been happy since they let the children out of the mines.

 

[Pure]

one must remember the old anecdote (likely true) that when Americans are stopped on the street and asked if they support various items in the Bill of Rights (without mentioning the BR), they often do not, and iirc, they regard some of them as subversive.

 

[shereads]

Erotica isn't porn.

"The difference between pornography and erotica is lighting."

~ author unknown

Actually, pornography according to U.S. law at its most vague and menacing is the depiction or exhibition of sexual activity in literature, films, photographs etc., that is explicit enough to violate "community standards." What community? This one? The church up the street? It's decided on a case-by-case basis, as I understand it, which makes it possible to violate the law while thinking that you're not. Child pornography seems to be the exception, as there is a national standard.

It'll be a moot point once John Ashcroft takes his seat on the Supreme Court. "Community standards" will be updated to "Christian standards" or "offensive to God" or simply, "naked ladies," and we'll be left with the Song of Solomon and not much else.

 

[Boxlicker101]

one must remember the old anecdote (likely true) that when Americans are stopped on the street and asked if they support various items in the Bill of Rights (without mentioning the BR), they often do not, and iirc, they regard some of them as subversive.

I've read about that and it probably is true. However, I think it would depend on how the questions were phrased. For instance, suppose a person were to be asked "Do you think it is okay for a person to refuse to help the police in an investigation?" and most people would say it wasn't. Then the questioner would record that as being opposed to the Fifth Amendment. If they asked "Do you think that newspapers should be allowed to print whatever they want?" a person might think about libel and slander and lies and porn and answer that they shouldn't. That would then be recorded as being opposed to freedom of the press. Most people would not be opposed to the Bill of Rights if they knew that was the subject of the questions.

 

[rgraham666]

I remember hearing on the radio, about thirty years ago, where a sociology class took copies of The Constitution onto the streets, had people read it and asked their opinion of it.

Two thirds of the total didn't know what it was, and a third though it was written by communists.

Don't know why they came up with the numbers they did. The methodology wasn't expanded on.

But after thirty years I still remember this little news piece.

 

[Boxlicker101]

I remember hearing on the radio, about thirty years ago, where a sociology class took copies of The Constitution onto the streets, had people read it and asked their opinion of it.

Two thirds of the total didn't know what it was, and a third though it was written by communists.

Don't know why they came up with the numbers they did. The methodology wasn't expanded on.

But after thirty years I still remember this little news piece.

I find it very hard to believe that nobody would recognize the Bill of Rights. I realize that not everybody would but I still believe that most people would recognize it, or at least realize they had seen it before. Maybe they took it to an elementary school and asked the kids there. Maybe they took it to the Hq of a political party. People there might not recognize it.