Should Pornography Be ILLEGAL???? 🙈

[TheDifference]

View attachment 974873

😂

 

[Deleted member 304663]

do not listen to those people who don't make a difference from the difference.

 

[Kim]

Stupid fking poll as per usual. GAFL

 

[Deleted member 304663]

Oh gawd love her, oooooofff!!!

 

[Deleted member 263960]

From the CBC , so BBC aversive are protected.

 

[rapinoes smirking revenge]

i'm sure there's zero biases in a podcast created by an anti porn group

 

[rapinoes smirking revenge]

btw...the CBC that is referred to in that video is Consider Before Consuming and not Canadian Broadcasting Corporation

 

[Inkandtatts]

From the CBC , so BBC aversive are protected.

Ngl I couldn’t stand the robot voice to be able to listen to all of it but they started banging on about addiction and “the science” behind it.

If the science of addiction is used as an argument for “porn is bad and should be illegal” then I guess we should all be advocating for weed to be illegal everywhere again, sweets/candy to be illegal, all caffeinated drinks to be illegal, all alcohol to be illegal, not to mention absolutely any and all serialised TV shows and books.

Ultimately let’s just make sex illegal because that can be pretty addictive

Anyone got the number of a good rehab clinic? Asking for a friend

btw...the CBC that is referred to in that video is Consider Before Consuming and not Canadian Broadcasting Corporation

I assumed the first C would stand for “Caucasian” and the B would be for “Big”. I couldn’t work out what the second C would have been.

 

[Soapie]

I couldn’t work out what the second C would have been.

.....*sigh* cock

 

[TheDifference]

I assumed the first C would stand for “Caucasian” and the B would be for “Big”. I couldn’t work out what the second C would have been.

The last C is for Charmer, obviously.

 

[rapinoes smirking revenge]

it also states in the video description "Consider Before Consuming is brought to you by Fight the New Drug, a non-religious, non-legislative nonprofit dedicated to educating individuals on the harms of pornography using only science, facts, and personal accounts."
Fight the New Drug was started by Fight for Love Ministries whose website states:
By availing yourself of our resources, community, and recommended avenues of help, you can take biblically-based, proactive action to take back your marriage from porn.

So yeah, i'm going to question any "science" they bring up.

 

[Inkandtatts]

The last C is for Charmer, obviously.

In that case, I am the chief CBC around here

facts, and personal accounts."

Kellyanne Conway style facts, no doubt

 

[Deleted member 263960]

If the science of addiction is used as an argument for “porn is bad and should be illegal” then I guess we should all be advocating for weed to be illegal everywhere again, sweets/candy to be illegal,

Not really intended as an argument, rather a snapshot on how it affects the brain. The recreational use of weed (here) is regulated, but still criminal otherwise. Its illegal to produce moonshine (here) or to sell booze without a LCB permit. Sugar while addictive, tends to harm the user (only) but Im unaware of sugar addiction being correlated to violence on women ( other than one off hypoglycemia rages perhaps) cigarettes , are illegal to produce and sell without authorization.

This poll didnt include the option of "regulation" only prohibition, which is known to not be a good means of changing behaviour but can impede access. Given the choice presented, legal (without regulation) or illegal, the latter at least - would probably reduce violence against women.

How the pleasure centers of the brain work- is quite well documented, so its not relevant who presents that info, nor grounds to assume it's inherently biased. Anyone taking a position on anything would be charged with bias if that was the case. But it is grounds to check their studies/sources)

edit:
Ad hominem
This is a fallacy in which a claim is rejected on the basis of an aspect of someone's character, identity, motivations, or even the relationships they have with others.

 

[rapinoes smirking revenge]

it already is regulated.

"so its not relevant who presents that info," of course it is

 

[DontCostYaNuffin]

Awareness goes a long way. Lift taboos and stigmas. Make sure people don’t get exploited. Invest in education and support programs for people who struggle with addiction, but don’t take away a healthy functioning person’s right to indulge in something they deem pleasurable.

People just keep repeating **** I said 10 posts earlier. It’s what us Dutchies do best, being tolerant and acceptive.

#First country in the world to legalize same-sex marriage and one of the few countries where euthanasia and abort are legal on request. Pro Choice mf’ers. You dig? What I do with my body is my choice and none of your business.

In the meantime:

 

[DontCostYaNuffin]

It’ll never be banned. Not on a global or even a national level. Even the most autocratic of regimes allow p0rnhub. So isn’t this debate just mere hypothetical? People’ll do anything for a buck and p0rn generates wealth. People’ll set aside their moral scruples because p0rn is big business. It’s all about keeping your funds in without any “premature” withdrawals both financially and sеxually….

 

[Inkandtatts]

Not really intended as an argument, rather a snapshot on how it affects the brain. The recreational use of weed (here) is regulated, but still criminal otherwise. Its illegal to produce moonshine (here) or to sell booze without a LCB permit. Sugar while addictive, tends to harm the user (only) but Im unaware of sugar addiction being correlated to violence on women ( other than one off hypoglycemia rages perhaps) cigarettes , are illegal to produce and sell without authorization.

This poll didnt include the option of "regulation" only prohibition, which is known to not be a good means of changing behaviour but can impede access. Given the choice presented, legal (without regulation) or illegal, the latter at least - would probably reduce violence against women.

How the pleasure centers of the brain work- is quite well documented, so its not relevant who presents that info, nor grounds to assume it's inherently biased. Anyone taking a position on anything would be charged with bias if that was the case. But it is grounds to check their studies/sources)

It would be interesting to see any independent studies showing the number of cases of violence against women being attributed to watching porn which at trial would likely (if the argument is accepted) provide a defence/mitigation on the basis of diminished responsibility or insanity. The only published examples I recall of people arguing “porn made me do it” involved offenders who had mental illnesses.


Maybe we could do a real study here. Before I get on to that though, all the staff of the Adult,, Sex, and Gay rooms are exposed to pornographic material daily. I could be wrong but I don’t think it’s done anything to our brains.

Everyone, I think we should do a study:

Have you/do you watch porn? Has it caused you to be violent towards anyone?

I’ll go first:

Yes I see a lot of pornographic material in Gay Chat.

Yes I’ve watched porn.

No I’ve never been violent towards a woman. Other than defending myself, I’ve never been violent towards anyone else

it already is regulated.

This is what I was thinking too. It’s a given that the question posed is “should regulated porn be illegal?” since it’s not asking about the types of porn that are already illegal

 

[DontCostYaNuffin]

Source:

Self-perceived effects of pornography consumption - PubMed

The self-perceived effects of "hardcore" pornography consumption were studied in a large representative sample of young adult Danish men and women aged 18-30. Using a survey that included the newly developed Pornography Consumption Effect Scale, we assessed participants' reports of how...

pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

 

[Apollo]

It’ll never be banned. Not on a global or even a national level. Even the most autocratic of regimes allow p0rnhub. So isn’t this debate just mere hypothetical? People’ll do anything for a buck and p0rn generates wealth. People’ll set aside their moral scruples because p0rn is big business. It’s all about keeping your funds in without any “premature” withdrawals both financially and sеxually….

Agreed, if anything it’s only getting bigger and more accepting globally. However, it now seems to be more age regulated which is appreciated considering how many kids have access to the internet now. Either way, is it healthy for the brain? I think we all know it isn’t.

Should it be banned? I don’t think so, adults should be able to manage their own life and capabilities.

 

[rapinoes smirking revenge]

It would be interesting to see any independent studies showing the number of cases of violence against women being attributed to watching porn which at trial would likely (if the argument is accepted) provide a defence/mitigation on the basis of diminished responsibility or insanity. The only published examples I recall of people arguing “porn made me do it” involved offenders who had mental illnesses.


Maybe we could do a real study here. Before I get on to that though, all the staff of the Adult,, Sex, and Gay rooms are exposed to pornographic material daily. I could be wrong but I don’t think it’s done anything to our brains.

Everyone, I think we should do a study:

Have you/do you watch porn? Has it caused you to be violent towards anyone?

I’ll go first:

Yes I see a lot of pornographic material in Gay Chat.

Yes I’ve watched porn.

No I’ve never been violent towards a woman. Other than defending myself, I’ve never been violent towards anyone else



This is what I was thinking too. It’s a given that the question posed is “should regulated porn be illegal?” since it’s not asking about the types of porn that are already illegal

exactly, the idea that a study is concrete fact and nothing but absolute science is silly. there are many factors like who is conducting the study, who is funding the study, the parameters of the study, how the results of the study are presented.

Taking somebody's word for it about what a study says and what the results are is ludicrous. especially when they aren't jut saying here is the study read it and analyze it. if a group that wasn't even involved in conducting the study is the one presenting it, there's zero way to know they are relaying the info accurately. And even reading a study yourself doesn't mean you understand the data you're being given.