# Erotoxins?



## hardheadjarhead (Nov 20, 2004)

It seems to be my week for coming up with silly/controversial topics.  Here's yet another:

http://wired.com/news/technology/0,1282,65772,00.html?tw=wn_tophead_3


This should give some people here something to talk about.  If the discussion gets too stimulating, though, we may need to make it illegal.  Martialtalk itself is addictive...perhaps it should be banned.


Regards,


Steve


----------



## Makalakumu (Nov 20, 2004)

> Internet pornography is the new crack cocaine, leading to addiction, misogyny, pedophilia, boob jobs and erectile dysfunction, according to clinicians and researchers testifying before a Senate committee Thursday.



Can anyone say corellation is not always causation?


----------



## michaeledward (Nov 20, 2004)

About this, I have two things to say!!!

1 - Thank God for Internet Porn (I know, I'm an athiest. I am speaking metaphorically.)

2 - And I thought Al Gore invented the internet.


----------



## Rynocerous (Nov 20, 2004)

hahahahahahahahaha.....

deep breaths Ryan, deep breaths...

hahahahahahahahaha.....

Yes, thank God for Internet porn(hold on I have to close these porn pop ups)

Sorry bout that... 

Cheers,

Ryan


----------



## TonyM. (Nov 20, 2004)

Naw, Al Gore inspired "Love Story" which started the whole internet porn industry.


----------



## Melissa426 (Nov 20, 2004)

It doesn't surprise me at all that porn had addictive potential. I am sure marriages have been broken and jobs lost due to people who couldn't stop looking. About 5 years ago, there was a big scandal in my hometown involving a preacher's kid who was showing other kids at the church pornographic websites. 

Two concerns I have with Internet porn:

1. Not everyone is a responsible parent.  I don't think children should be allowed to visit these sites. Unfortunately, many parents have their heads in the sand or just don't care and too many kids are viewing these sites and thinking it's a real depiction of a normal adult sexual relationship.

I know a man who laughed and laughed  when he caught his 17 y.o son viewing multiple web pages (his son didn't know to delete "history of pages viewed") but he about stroked out when a few years later, he found   his 15 y.o. daughter doing the same.

2.  As noted above, internet porn (or porn, period) generally doesn't depict real sexual relationships; it is someone's interpretation of human sexual fantasy.  But just like soap operas, some people can get caught up and believe the fantasy is real or the way life should be.  When you can't separate fiction from fact, there is gonna be some real hurting and distressed folk.

Peace,
Melissa


----------



## RandomPhantom700 (Nov 20, 2004)

upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> Can anyone say corellation is not always causation?


Yeah, I have to agree with you.  Internet porn may be addictive, but so's alcohol, gambling, sex itself, video games, internet message boards.  The real problem's addiction in general, not just net porn.

Besides, the people arguing against pornography in hte article are using too broad a standard--because it stimulates certain sensors in the brain and becomes addictive, we should ban it.  Pretty soon any erotic literature will be on the same docket.  Free speech issues, anybody?


----------



## hardheadjarhead (Nov 20, 2004)

A few things that need to be noted here.

Jeffrey Satinover was the psychiatrist and advisor to the National Association for Research and Therapy of Homosexuality who appeared before this committee.  NARTH is a conservative organization claiming that they can reorient homosexuals if they honestly desire to change their sexual preferences.  Here's a review of NARTH:

http://www.religioustolerance.org/hom_nart.htm

Mary Ann Layden, of U of Penn's Sexual Trauma and Psychopathology Program, professes to treat problems related to sexual addiction, pornography addiction, cybersex addiction, prostitution, or stripping (I assume the profession).  Layden seems to be against the sex industry in general, and has been active against it:

http://citypaper.net/articles/112896/article006.shtml

She, Reisman, and Santinover are described by some as neopuritans, a phrase coming into vogue to describe reactionary attitudes towards sexuality (among other topics) that include both Christians and feminists:

http://homepage.mac.com/rondavis/iblog/C791896557/E1972071439/

http://www.umich.edu/~mrev/archives/1995/12-6-95/speaker.html

In Nadine Strossen's "Defending Pornography" the author shows how fringe feminists like Catherine McKinnon and Andrea Dworkin have teamed up (unwittingly, perhaps) with conservative Christian organizations to demonize pornography.  Its a fascinating book and prescient...I think the testimony above to Congress is a present day manifestation of that same prudish drive.

The battle over pornography is nothing new...but new battle lines are being drawn now that the internet has become one of the major sources of it.  Making it illegal will be a major challenge.  

But with of all the addictions and health issues we currently face, is this nearly as bad as these people would have us believe?  

Regards,


Steve


----------



## hardheadjarhead (Nov 20, 2004)

Sorry for posting back to back...if indeed I did.



			
				Melissa426 said:
			
		

> 2.  As noted above, internet porn (or porn, period) generally doesn't depict real sexual relationships; it is someone's interpretation of human sexual fantasy.  But just like soap operas, some people can get caught up and believe the fantasy is real or the way life should be.  When you can't separate fiction from fact, there is gonna be some real hurting and distressed folk.




Pornography is a visual manifestation of a fantasy that is designed to fuel the fantasy.  The stuff that sells the best is reflective of the most comon fantasies.  

Adolescents don't need much help deriving a fantasy, as we all know.  Without pornography they seem to do just fine in whipping up a fantasy and--shall we say--putting it to work.  They, like many adults, won't hesitate to augment their imaginations with visual stimuli.

Are THESE fantasies that adults and adolescents engender by themselves any healthier or more realistic than those they see in a magazine?  Probably not.  They're likely very similar to what we see in magazines and on the net (which were dreamed up by once adolescent men) with the exception that the models we see may be a tad too "perfect," and represent an unrealistic ideal.  

If this were to cause unrealistic expectations in adolescents (or in adults) as to what they should get from their partners, we are left wondering where they're supposed to get their realistic expectations _from_.  Mom and Dad's "the birds and the bees" lecture?  Pastor John's sermon?  Sex ed class?

In truth all three perhaps...but only if we embrace a certain form of frank honesty with our children and with ourselves.  Sex happens, and fantasy is a big part of it.  Squelching it through abstinence doesn't seem to work well.  Describing it as "evil" or prurient isn't the card either.  Demonizing it gives it so much more appeal to some.

With issues such as this we get so panicky.  We rush to the statehouse and appeal to our leaders to protect us and our children from (name evil here).  We're fully capable of protecting ourselves if we stop running from what we fear and learn how to talk openly about it.


Regards,


Steve


----------



## Melissa426 (Nov 20, 2004)

hardheadjarhead said:
			
		

> we are left wondering where they're supposed to get their realistic expectations _from_. Mom and Dad's "the birds and the bees" lecture? Pastor John's sermon? Sex ed class?
> 
> In truth all three perhaps...but only if we embrace a certain form of frank honesty with our children and with ourselves.
> 
> ...


I don't see anything wrong with being frank and open with your kids.
Fantasy is healthy and normal. You can go to the library and pick up almost any romance novel and get vivid and explicit descriptions of sexual encounters. Of course, you won't have the visual stimuli, but I guess that is what your imagination is for.:ultracool 

My point is some people don't know or learn the difference between fantasy and reality. Some adolescents (and post-adolescents, for that matter) may not be mature enough to be able to accurately distinguish the difference.

Unrealistic beliefs and expectations about, for instance, women's sexuality, may give some men a false sense of entitlement when confronted with a woman who doesn't want to engage in sexual activity. Pornography may leave the impression that "all women really want it" and those that say "No" are just playing hard to get. 

Peace,
Melissa


----------



## 5 hand swords (Nov 20, 2004)

hardheadjarhead said:
			
		

> It seems to be my week for coming up with silly/controversial topics. Here's yet another:
> 
> http://wired.com/news/technology/0,1282,65772,00.html?tw=wn_tophead_3
> 
> ...


Anyone read Ringworld Series By Niven and know what a tasp or a wirehead is?
Is the human mind a easy or difficult thing to program?


----------



## SenseiBear (Nov 20, 2004)

Yes, I read Ringworld - but I don't think tasps and wireheads were from that, I think they were from Spider Robinson's "Mindkiller", (as well as Time Pressure, and maybe a later one, but Mindkiller was excellent...)


----------



## rmcrobertson (Nov 20, 2004)

When in doubt about these issues of sf origins---it's pretty much ALWAYS Samuel R. Delany, "Babel-17."

Or don't you guys hang out in the Discorporate Zones, trying to pick up an *** and dreaming of an end to alienated labor?


----------



## hardheadjarhead (Nov 20, 2004)

* 
My point is some people don't know or learn the difference between fantasy and reality. Some adolescents (and post-adolescents, for that matter) may not be mature enough to be able to accurately distinguish the difference.
* 

Which is a point well taken...the question being how does one address that topic?  Banning pornography/erotica (alluding to the novels you mentioned) because it misrepresents reality is unrealistic.  Modern pop music routinely fails to do this, and it shapes the moods of youth who expect their significant others to "love them forever," and "always be true."  It is sappy at best, at worst it leads youth to have overblown expectations of their relationships.  

But it has a good beat, Dick...and its easy to dance to.  And nobody is talking about banning it.

*Unrealistic beliefs and expectations about, for instance, women's sexuality, may give some men a false sense of entitlement when confronted with a woman who doesn't want to engage in sexual activity. Pornography may leave the impression that "all women really want it" and those that say "No" are just playing hard to get. * 

Locker-room vulgarism does just as much to give men these false impressions, Melissa.  The sense of entitlement you describe predates any explosion in pornography in our culture.  Reported rapes have declined since I was a young man (and porn was far less available than today).  Rapes occured far more frequently in the '60's and '70's.  Was this because of the growth of the porn industry?  Or could it be attributable to the large number of young and aggressive "baby-boomer" men of that era?  The population has aged and rape rates have declined, yet the porn industry has exploded in the last ten years.   

http://www.rainn.org/ncvs_2002.pdf

The question again is how parents combat this.  Merely banning literature/pics/films of this nature won't give children the social sophistications they need to have a healthy relationship with another.  

Parents need to help their children develop communications skills and the ability to empathize with whom they socialize.  It'll help youngsters avoid heartbeak and teach young men to respect girls/women as they ought.  On that note girls too can claim the self respect they rightfully deserve while at the same time learning how not to savage the esteem of young men.

Regards,

Steve


----------



## Satt (Nov 20, 2004)

Anyone ever thought about making a "martial art porno???" Just curious. LOL.


----------



## Feisty Mouse (Nov 20, 2004)

Satt said:
			
		

> Anyone ever thought about making a "martial art porno???" Just curious. LOL.


I have not seen it, but there is a small group of movies out there as "martial arts porn".  I thought it was hysterically funny when I first heard of it.

I think the reality/fantasy line is an important issue - but also, the issues of how men and women (and boys and girls) are encouraged - and modeled - to shape their relationships - nonsexual at first, and then when they become "romantically entangled".  

I think an addictive personality can latch on to a number of different outlets.  Internet porn seems like an easy outlet - private, anonymous, and there are lots of sites.


----------



## 5 hand swords (Nov 20, 2004)

SenseiBear said:
			
		

> Yes, I read Ringworld - but I don't think tasps and wireheads were from that, I think they were from Spider Robinson's "Mindkiller", (as well as Time Pressure, and maybe a later one, but Mindkiller was excellent...)


wireheads go to Gill hammer - ARM storys, Tasp is ringworld series.
Spider loved it and expanded on the tech with mindkiller etc


----------



## michaeledward (Nov 21, 2004)

Pornography is now shown to cause you to sleep in tents on the roofs of buildings....

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6541008/



> SALINA, Kan. - A man spent a week on the roof of one of two adult bookstores in town to protest a movement to have the stores investigated for obscenity.
> 
> Ray Morris, 38, came down from his perch on top of Behind Closed Doors on Saturday morning after staying in a tent there since the previous Saturday.
> 
> I cant stress enough that I am not promoting porn, Morris said. Im promoting the idea of choice. Everyone has a right to choose whether they want to enter these stores.


----------



## hardheadjarhead (Nov 21, 2004)

Feisty Mouse said:
			
		

> I have not seen it, but there is a small group of movies out there as "martial arts porn".  I thought it was hysterically funny when I first heard of it.
> 
> I think the reality/fantasy line is an important issue - but also, the issues of how men and women (and boys and girls) are encouraged - and modeled - to shape their relationships - nonsexual at first, and then when they become "romantically entangled".
> 
> I think an addictive personality can latch on to a number of different outlets.  Internet porn seems like an easy outlet - private, anonymous, and there are lots of sites.




I agree...an addictive personality will gravitate to that which gives him the greatest rush or combination of rushes.  And I don't doubt there are porn addicts.  I question the degree of harm it causes to society overall and how, exactly, we should deal with it.   "Erotoxins", which we all have to a certain level, can only do so much and last so long.  We physically can generate only a set amount of these, while with narcotics the sky...and overdose...is the limit.

"Erotoxin" is an awful word.  This suggests that the rush we get from making love with our soul mate is...well...toxic and bad.  

I am reluctant to engage in slippery slope arguments, but those testifying before the aforementioned committee are stumping for cultural change via legal enforcement (not indicated in this article but on other sites).  I'm at a loss to see where this has ever worked.  Look down the slippery slope and we see future efforts to clean up magazines and other media--STUFF and FHM's models will have to be a little less alluring.  Muscle Mag's girls will have to put something more than just a thong on.  This isn't porn, certainly, but these girls play Hell with a young man's libido and offend a large portion of society.  

I don't think we'll ski down that slippery slope because of cultural friction--most of us don't want to be that prim--but organizations like I listed will attempt to get us down that run.  This will cost money, time, and be an enormous distraction from more pressing issues...like teen suicide.

Regards,


Steve


----------



## Rynocerous (Nov 21, 2004)

Satt said:
			
		

> Anyone ever thought about making a "martial art porno???" Just curious. LOL.


Actually It has been done... I have this "FRIEND" who watched it and told me about it.  Although what he told me I found offensive and covered my ears,"LALALALALALALA, I don't watch porn, it's just wrong". I says to da guy...

Cheers,

Ryan


----------



## Feisty Mouse (Nov 21, 2004)

Rynocerous said:
			
		

> Actually It has been done... I have this "FRIEND" who watched it and told me about it. Although what he told me I found offensive and covered my ears,"LALALALALALALA, I don't watch porn, it's just wrong". I says to da guy...
> 
> Cheers,
> 
> Ryan


Was *that* "kung fu girls", or something like that?  I just about passed out laughing when I heard about it.  What a bizarre mix - but then again, I'm sure there's stuff out there that's 100 times more odd.

And, HHJH, I do think there are more seriously pressing issues that are affecting young people and kids....


----------



## hardheadjarhead (Nov 21, 2004)

Feisty Mouse said:
			
		

> And, HHJH, I do think there are more seriously pressing issues that are affecting young people and kids....



I know.  And I wasn't cracking on you...you know how I am, though.  I just have to write and write and write else my head explodes like a warm watermelon hitting the pavement from a high altitude on a hot summer day.

Yuck.  Where DO I come up with this stuff?

Had to post this.  Its from Jay Leno:

*Heres a sign of the times. A video company is coming out with porn that features only married couples having sex. See thats when you know the Republicans have won. When we have married porn. 

Finally a return to family values. 

You can tell theyre really married because she wouldnt do stuff on the video that they did while they were dating. 

Actually the first married couple porn movie is 2 ½ hours of nothing but sex. Took over 12 years to film.  * 


Regards,


Steve


----------



## 5 hand swords (Nov 21, 2004)

hardheadjarhead said:
			
		

> I know. And I wasn't cracking on you...you know how I am, though. I just have to write and write and write else my head explodes like a warm watermelon hitting the pavement from a high altitude on a hot summer day.
> 
> Yuck. Where DO I come up with this stuff?
> 
> ...


Well no condoms and they do anything right - is it Pam and Tommy Q?
Mine is .
and the rule is when one is up for it the other one is too.


----------



## Sarah (Nov 21, 2004)

"brain-mapping studies into the physical effects of pornography"


Are they taking volunteers for this test.....do you have to study??


----------



## raedyn (Nov 22, 2004)

I don't buy the arguements that porn, in general, is a bad thing. But there are certain types of it that are. Porn featuring children or those appearing to be children, for instance. That kind of pornography is proven to be a trigger for pedophiles. They will view pornographic images of children, and then go out and commit crimes against chidren. This sort of porn should be (and is) outlawed.


----------



## glad2bhere (Nov 22, 2004)

I would not mind the pornography so much, but the same society that supports these activities economocally also wants a community that demonstrates solid, respectful and productive regard between the sexes. In order to tell a story, one must have conflict and, hopefully, a resolution to the conflict. In pornography, conflict between the sexes, or among the sexes is presented but is rarely, if ever resolved. Now, I know folks are probably wondering where this is going so I ask you to consider a parallel point. 

Arguably the society depends on a strong marital base. In turn, arguably a strong marital base depends on clear understanding of solid relational dynamics. Now what kind of strength in this dynamic comes through when marriage-age adolescents and young adults are presented with relationships being fraught with conflict, used as game show fodder or as an idle recreation of the rich and famous?   Thoughts? 

Best Wishes, 

Bruce


----------



## hardheadjarhead (Nov 22, 2004)

raedyn said:
			
		

> I don't buy the arguements that porn, in general, is a bad thing. But there are certain types of it that are. Porn featuring children or those appearing to be children, for instance. That kind of pornography is proven to be a trigger for pedophiles. They will view pornographic images of children, and then go out and commit crimes against chidren. This sort of porn should be (and is) outlawed.



I'm not sure its the "trigger."  Pedophiles gather child pornography (a felony and Federal offense...and I agree rightly so) _because they're pedophiles_. I doubt they go off the deep end and molest because they've viewed it.  Such media isn't going to be the catalyst that sends them over the edge of what our culture properly deems a horrible taboo. 

Child molestation is an act of a sociopath.  Sociopaths don't need "triggers."  They have no conscience, and will do whatever it is they need to do to get their desires met.  Serial killers use porn all the time...but porn doesn't make them murder.  

This ties in with a thread from some time back when we talked about video games and violence.  Thousands of kids played "Doom" the video game.  Yet the game was demonized because two psychopaths who played it went off the deep end and killed children at Columbine.  We miss the forest for the trees when we go after something like this.  

For a good book on this topic, check out Jonathan Kellerman's "Savage Spawn: Reflections on violent children."  It has a lot to say about sociopathy and the nature of the beast.



Here's an interesting NYT article on the disparity between what we say and what we do...we like our sin on television: 


http://www.nytimes.com/2004/11/22/business/media/22tube.html?oref=login&th

Regards,


Steve


----------



## glad2bhere (Nov 22, 2004)

I feel a little uncomfortable about the way we are slipping back and forth, rather casually between normalcy and pathology regarding this subject. Thats why I chose to comment on it more as an indicator of values and their interpretation than as something causal. I don't think that it is fair to automatically conclude that exotic or erotic content precipitates erotic or exotic behavior. As I was reading the previous post I was wondering how differently a pedophile would see the movie "Tom Sawyer", "The Secret Garden" or even "Lolita." 

During the time that I was working In-patient on a psych ward we often let the patients take walks to the local video stores and rent movies on their passes. I came to notice that a significant number of those movies contained content which often included scantily clad misses running from a knife-weilding psychopath. I objected at Treatment Team meetings but was usually voted down in the end. Likewise I cannot say that there was any increase in knifings or mutilations of young ladies when the pts went home. However, I still hold that though a number of people watched those flicks not every body was getting the same message regarding violence in the privacy of their own mind.  

FWIW. 

Best Wishes, 

Bruce


----------



## Feisty Mouse (Nov 22, 2004)

hardheadjarhead said:
			
		

> I know. And I wasn't cracking on you...you know how I am, though. I just have to write and write and write else my head explodes like a warm watermelon hitting the pavement from a high altitude on a hot summer day.


Oh, I didn't think you were.  

I like your similes.  And, also, encourage the writing, rather than the watermelon alternative!

(Mmmm... watermelon!)

lol


----------



## JPR (Nov 23, 2004)

There are so many competing values in a discussion of this nature.  On the one hand, you have freedom to choose.  It is our guaranteed freedom to pursue happiness.  What we choose to entertain ourselves with falls into this category.  Plus we have freedom of expression, what we choose to make movies of or take pictures of is our business.



   On the other hand, we routinely limit or even preclude our freedoms in some areas because it serves a greater good, or protects something / someone which society feels needs such protection.  Therefore we are restricted in what we say (I can not, without legal consequences, yell fire in a movie for the danger it poses), what we do (I can not, without legal consequences, drive 90 mph down the main street of my town even if I feel competent to do so), what we have access to (prior to being 21 I can not drink alcoholic beverages with out legal consequences), or how we live (I can not, even if I think it makes me happy, have 12 wives or marry a 14 year old).



   The issue to me isnt whether pornography is addictive, but do we need / want to protect our society from the effects it may / may not have?  Many things are addictive, as some of you have pointed out.  In fact, there are people that become addicted to otherwise good things (compulsive eating, hand washing, reading, martial arts workouts, whatever).



   So what is the effect?  That is really the difficult thing to determine.  Is pornography more harmful than valuable?  The female form is beautiful, sex is wonderful, and fantasies are a great escape, some say pornography provides access to these things.  Exploiting women (or men), denigrating women to fulfill sexual needs, associating violence with sex, or exposing immature children to subject they are not ready for is harmful, and some say that is at the core of pornography.



   I use my imagination and ask myself this question, do I, as the father of an 8 year old girl and 10 year old boy, want my daughter treated like the women that are typically portrayed in a porno?  Do I want my son to act that way?  That is really the question we ask before we allow them to watch anything (and no, I dont think that a lot of people are feeding their children porno).  



   A problem here is two fold, first the ease of accessing internet porno, and second the increased sexual exposure in media.  I get unsolicited emails containing graphic pornographic material (yes, I filter them), it is easy to access internet porn sites (and can happen quite accidentally whitehouse.com being a famous one) and TV pumps sexual messages straight into my house (yes, we are selective about what children watch but you have to be quick on the remote to jump from a commercial that you would rather not see or a football intro that raises a lot of questions).  I liken it to this.  Lets say that you are attempting to teach your children to eat healthy food.  Yet everyday, McDonalds delivers lunch and dinner to your door without you asking for it, every time you drive to the mall McDs hands you a Big Mac, fries and coke at the door, when you walk down the street McDs hands out fries as you pass.  Sure, you dont have to eat it, but it is still there.  It is enticing and it is titillating (I had to use that word once here because it is so appropriate).  Do you get tired of it and want it to stop?  Yes.



   As adults, we are responsible for our own behaviors, and society should be very careful about trying to rescue us by outlawing harmful things, even if we find them objectionable.  We also have a responsibility to protect what is good and right.  I have moral objections to pornography as I think it exploits women (by and large), promotes an unhealthy sexual relationship (out side of committed marriages), and reduces sex from a celebration of intimacy to a purely hedonistic pursuit.  Given all of that, I could live with its existence if that is what a majority of our society really wants.  What I cannot tolerate is its unwanted invasion of my home that requires my time, energy, money and vigilance to combat.    



   [font=&quot]JPR[/font]


----------



## glad2bhere (Nov 23, 2004)

".......I use my imagination and ask myself this question, do I, as the father of an 8 year old girl and 10 year old boy, want my daughter treated like the women that are typically portrayed in a porno? Do I want my son to act that way? ....." 

...just as long as its YOUR daughter or YOUR son and not, say, MY granddaughter. Do you know what I'm saying? In some ways I view this as a variation of the old "Not-in-MY-neighborhood" Syndrome. In Other words, there is a certain anonimnity with the person on the screen. And, since we have been raised with media that routinely "bends" reality with fake blood, artifical violence and fabricated conflicts we may also project onto those anonymous actors the idea that somehow what we are seeing is not real in some way. Put these two concepts together and what we could have is your daughter (who is an anonymous acting material to me) being violated in someway that I rationalize to myself as not actually happening--- some vague trick of cinematogrphy.  Now, what if the situation were changed. What if the time and place were the Balkans during ethnic cleansing and the child was my granddaughter being systematically gang-raped by a squad of soldiers while I am forced to watch. Still pornographic, but imagine the difference in the response. No, I stand against pornography not because the effect it MIGHT have on the viewer, but because of the damage to a human life that must occur for such behavior to be "OK" for another human being to subject themselves to such an experience---- whether I know them or not. 
FWIW. 

Best Wishes, 

Bruce


----------



## hardheadjarhead (Nov 23, 2004)

JPR, an excellent post.  

Combating the invasion of prurient material (both erotic and porn--I make a distinction) is indeed difficult for the parent.  The options for action are government censorship, or parents continued barring of the door and explanations to their children about the nature of the world and its excesses.  

Let me offer a quote from Robert H. Bork, taken from _The Tempting of America:  The Political Seduction of the Law. _  "No activity that society thinks immoral is victimless.  Knowledge that an activity is taking place is a harm to those who find it profoundly immoral."

The potential consequences of enforcement of such an extreme attitude become readily apparent. We could have--and I think if Bork had his way _would_ have--increased invasion of homes and curtilages by physical force in order to police the morality of residents.  This has been going on since the Comstock era, so I am not skiing a slippery slope here.

The milder version of this would be FCC bans on internet porn and televised naughtiness.  The latter would bring dissent as the tides of morality have ebbed (see the NYT article below).  The banning of SPAM, as you know, is underway regardless of whether it is pornographic or not.  The effectiveness of this remains to be seen. 

It is far simpler and cheaper for parents to screen what their children see than to apply a national standard of conduct and then attempt to enforce it.  It is far easier to wear slippers than it is to carpet the world, as I've said before.  This places the weight of responsibility on you, rather on the government.  

Downside--it is your responsibility to protect hearth and home from these insults.  This is difficult, as you've mentioned.  Upside--you get to set specific standards as to what you expect of your children.  You'll have to put filters and locks on the computer to keep your son from accidentally viewing internet porn.  If you raise him correctly (and I know for a fact you are), he will not willfully circumvent these devices.  Were they to fail him, he'll have the moral courage to simply click them away and he'll move on to a healthier site.

As for your daughter...I'm sad to say she will indeed meet males who will objectify her.  This has always happened in our society, and likely always will.  I have never met a woman who hasn't encountered this.  If you raise her correctly (and I know for a fact you are), then she will have the moral courage to look such a cad in the face--or slap his face--and move on to someone who will treat her with the respect she deserves.  Trust the standard you've set for her, JPR.  She'll be looking for a guy like you.

If we take offense with what we see or hear we can, if we choose, take Bork's stance and adopt the title of "victim."  In doing so we can demand that society protect us from that which we fear.  Or, if we choose, we can refuse victimhood and take responsibility for ourselves and our families and do what we feel is right by them.  

Either choice brings an attendant fear of failure.  If the government fails, we the victim will point the finger at it and society for our children's descent into depravity.  If _we _ fail to prepare our children for the temptations of life, we have no one to blame but ourselves.

Regards,


Steve


----------

