The Great "anti" Porn debate

Without porn, where would people learn of the hundreds of kink ideas to experience and enjoy? If one had to depend entirely on word of mouth for many of these ideas and experiences, they would miss out entirely on 90% of them. Many people are not imaginative enough, confident enough or in the company of others who can introduce them to twists. Just something for consideration.

 

There was rape, child abuse and human trafficking when Jesus walked the earth. Those are not new. I, for one, am glad I discovered sex at a very early age. As a kid in the 60s, the stacks of adult mags in the empty garage next door made me aware of sex before I even had functioning equipment. By the time puberty arrived, I was very adventurous, eager and willing to experiment with partners in ways that other boys couldn’t or wouldn’t. At thirteen I already knew the importance of pleasuring my partner in every way possible to ensure they had a wonderful time and would come back for more. By learning to give them everything, I experienced getting everything in return. By the time I had graduated from high school, I had experienced more variety than anyone I knew. I was considered not only a romantic, but also a wonderful weekender by every partner I’d ever had, save for one who turned out to be a lesbian and is still a friend 40 years later. So, like financial investing, perhaps porn is only desirable by those that made a success of it all.

 

Call me closed minded. I don’t buy global warming, either, but everybody has an opinion. Each of us is responsible for our actions. A junkie can’t blame the needle and a short eyes can’t blame the Internet.

 

Now that's just unadulterated bullshit. There have been studies that have shown that there is significantly less sexual assaults in countries where porn is legal.

https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/...evidence-mounts-more-porn-less-sexual-assault

 

Porn is not the issue Weakness is.
Read on and I will present my justification for that.

Any addiction and or dependency, physiccal or mental, comes about through an individuals inability to control an aspect of themselves or their personality. Of course the ability to resist whatever the addiction is ..Porn included may be there but not the will to stop this addiction becoming an obsession which may have any number of negative side effects.

The lack of ability and/or the lack of will to prevent, control or overcome something that is becoming or has become an addiction is a weakness.

It is unfortunate that some people have such hard time trying to overcome a weakness and or have realised what their weakness may have or may potentially have cost them. Its unfortunate because quite a number of these people become holier than thou... they start to preach against whatever, drinking, smoking, porn and even ask for it to be banned so scared are they of the negative effect as their weakness to resist or lack of ability to control themselves allowed addiction to have on them.

Whilst I do not mind these people trying to warn others of the potential dangers of their given addiction, as alcoholics say once an alcoholic always an alcoholic or once an addict of anything... you get the picture. Its freedom of speech so they are entitled to say what they want as long as I am not prevented from being able to not subject myself to their views.

What I object to is when some people for whatever reason want to prevent others from having or enjoying any given experience. The nanny state syndrome. Want to deter is fine want to prevent is not .. that's control and we have quite enough state control imposed on us without individuals afraid of their own or others weaknesess seeking to have more controls imposed upon us.

So if you disapprove of something.. in this case Porn. Btyall means have a little preach or rant but not not imagine for a moment I will condone you trying to run anyone else's life or forcibly subject others to your fear inspired message.

Fear is weakness and weakness leads to ...amongst other things .... addiction.

 

I doubt the message about child pornography. It is on the increase it seems or at least we are told that is perhaps to make it more acceptable there are always people trying to find a way to justify it and I believe it is because it is a fairly well established fact that once a person is into that they are far more easily manipulated.. as with any other 'dark' or illegal activities...but that's a whole other issue.

If you think internet porn or porn accessed in any form is responsible for young men having erectile disfunction then ..so what.. who cares.. there are enough people on the planet already and if a weakness or negative trend can disappear from th epopulation as a whole through these people not seeking partners and not breeding and passing on the weakness genes then that must be a good thing.

As for my grandkids or kids in general you have to accept that along with many other positive or negative attractions it is I believe encumbent upon people like parents or carers to prepare those in their care for those inevitable experiences. Children and adolescents as they mature even before they reach the age of majority need to be aware of as much as possible to enable them to make informed decisions and to protect them from making some the negative choices they may opt for.

For example ..Alcohol consumption is approved of on the whole but is most certainly usually best only taken in moderation.

Porn viewing by the young and curious is inevitable and rather than wrap people up in a bubble of ignorance make them aware that it is idealized images ( idealized byu whom I know not) and very often unrealistic and even at times faked. The naive need to know in advance that porn does not reflect the vast majority of real people's experiences of matters sexual.

Put a thing away .. hide it... deny its existence and you create interest. make its accessibilty available to those properly prepared and its just another 'thing'. . like smoking or thinking politically driven voting makes a difference

 

Im sure some (few people) has an unhealthy addiction to porn, but most people dont. There are also few people who become alcoholic, but should that result in that beer, wine, etc. are to become illegal? At least I dont think so, but information about it and help for those in need is however great.

 

Ah, now we get to the nut cutting. It’s you who has a problem and now wish to rail against the industry. Understood.

 

I have a grandkid that’s less than a year outta rehab for being an idiot needle freak, so don’t preach to me. My opinion remains addiction is a personal problem for the weak and stupid. No one held a gun to his head and forced him to spike a vein and no one forced you to watch hours of porn to the exclusion of all else. I believe in science. I simply don’t buy ‘the sky is falling’ over any subject. The end.

 

Climate "science" isn't science. There are so many things that climate "scientists" get away with that would be laughed out of a lab in, quite literally, ever other scientific discipline on the planet, it's ridiculous.

You know the "hockey stick" graph? That's sourced from at least two (actually, probably three or more) different temperature collection methods, plotted on the same graph.
Temperatures from before 1870 are from proxies: tree rings, ice cores, and the like.
Temperatures after 1870 are from actual thermometer measurements.
Then, in the mid to late 20th century, they also started adding satellite measurements to that graph.
You cannot, in any scientific field, take two measurements of two different things, done in completely different ways, and directly compare them. Unless your experiment is trying to prove something about the variability of the two different measurement methods, in which case you'd have to measure the same thing, in two different ways. That's not what's happening, so there's flaw number one.

Second, the experiments that are done in a lab on CO2 energy absorption, etc, are fine for the most part. But you can't then take that, and create a model of a chaotic system and say "Humans are causing global warming." That's a massive leap that's not supported by evidence. There is some evidence that points in that direction, but there's also a lot that points away from it. There's a whole cause and effect thing that's completely missing from the arguments. There are a lot of assumptions of cause and effect, but nothing proven at all.

Third, in order to prove a human cause of global warming, there need to be controls in the system. The only way to do that scientifically in a chaotic system is to run a number of replicas, some as controls, and some with your experimental change. The results from all of them should be unchanged in the controls, and showing the predicted variability in the changed ones.
If you can point to a single climate scientist who has set up replica Earths, all orbiting the same sun at the same distance, all equally populated, with half following the industrialized path and half not, then I'll.....well, I don't need to do anything, because nobody's ever done that, and nobody ever will.

The thing is, there are so many cycles in climate, and we don't even know them all, yet.
When I was a kid, the coldest of winter was December to February. When I was around 20, my Dad and I had a conversation about how winter seemed to have moved to January-March. December wasn't as cold anymore, but March was colder.
Now, another 20 years later, it's back to December being cold, and things are warming up in March again.

There's been significantly reduced warming for the last decade or so. (I know...this is a standard - "leftist" swear word coming - "denialist" talking point, but hear me out.)
I'm not going to say there is no warming, but it's definitely much less than it appeared to be in the 80s and early 90s.
A lot of the climate science community has responded to this by saying that the oceans are warming, instead. All the extra heat is going into the deep oceans, so we're not seeing it in the atmosphere at the moment. Well, my first question is, how does the sun heat the deep ocean without heating land or the upper ocean?
But then, recently, I read of a scientific discovery that the deep Pacific was still cooling from the Little Ice Age, which started 700 years ago! (Again, note: It's cooling....not heating, as the climate scientists would have you believe...) The reasoning is that water that was at the surface of the Pacific during the LIA has now circulated to the bottom. I don't buy that it takes 700+ years (it's still cooling, so it hasn't done a half cycle yet) for a circulation like this to occur, so I don't think it's cooling because of the LIA, but whatever.
Let's, for the time being, assume that it is cooling because of the LIA, and this, let's say 1500 year (700+ down, then 700+ back up again) circulation cycle. If that's true, then the water at the surface now, was last at the surface 1500+ years ago. That would correspond to the end of the Roman warm period, so current ocean warming is possibly caused by warm water coming back up from the deep ocean, which was warmed by human industrial activity...I mean...natural causes, in 400 AD.
There are writings from Greeks just before the RWP started that state that date trees would grow in Greece if planted, but wouldn't bear fruit because it was a little too cold. A more well known one is by Theophrastus, who died in 287 BC. The RWP officially started in 250BC, so it got even warmer in Greece after Theophrastus' death.
However, current temperatures in Greece make growing date trees possible, but they don't bear fruit. The exact same situation as 2300 years ago. This is, of course, before the warmest of the RWP.
The Roman Warm Period ran for 650 years, from 250BC to 400AD. The Medieval Warm Period started 550 years later, and ran for at least 300 years, from 950AD to 1250 AD. Some interpretations put it as longer than 300 years, but we'll go with 300 right now.
The current warm period started 750 years after the MWP, and has run for about 100 years so far, but seems to be leveling off. It's currently no warmer than it was 2 warm periods (2000+ years) ago, otherwise date trees would grow fruit in Greece.

So far, everything looks like a cycle to me. The only evidence that doesn't fall exactly into the natural climate cycle idea is current satellite and thermometer measurements, but they cannot be placed alongside historical proxy measurements to show a trend, or it's not science.

That means the grand "climate change is a disaster" crowd has precisely zero evidence.
If they wanted to say that humans affect the climate, then I'd have no issue. Of course humans affect the climate. The climate affects humans, too.
Everything on earth is interrelated, and everything affects everything else.
But, if climate was the knife-edge unstable thing that climate "science" points to it being, then the entire planet would either be a lifeless ball of ice, or a lifeless ball of ash, because it would have been thrown into endless feedback loops by so many events in history.
The fact that we're here obviously proves that it's not, so I'm with Blue Moon.

Stag

Edited because I messed up the quotation block, and included my response in it.

 

an astute observation as usual