Vigil on 29/5/2007 at 11:19
So I guess your well-read, nuanced view of the factors involved in human sexual aggression is what led you to post this as your opening salvo in the thread:
Which might have something to do with the assumptions people are putting in your mouth.
Rogue Keeper on 29/5/2007 at 11:39
Some assumptions followed even after I have clearly said :
"I didn't recommend anyone to base profound analyses on that site, did I. But certainly it does contain some useful references for start."
I may agree or disagree with opinions on victimsofpornography.org or some sources referred on it, however it contains contacts on many organizations (at (
http://www.victimsofpornography.org/Get%20Help.htm) ) which can help people who eventually find themselves abused by porn industry. Nothing more, nothing less.
Then some accusations of extremism and ideology of that site followed, however they did provide little insight about why they perceive it as extremist.
Rug Burn Junky on 29/5/2007 at 13:16
Little insight?
Fuck, it's evident on its face. "Pure Life Ministries," "Focus on the Family," "Dynamic Living Ministries." These are not groups known for having a rational basis for their stances.
Throw in the fact that there is a complete lack of any nuance in discussing the subject matter, and only a complete fucking retard wouldn't realize that that site's a joke.
Which is part of the reason that
EVERYONE IN THIS THREAD IS MOCKING YOU.
dvrabel on 29/5/2007 at 13:38
I'm still chuckling over the woman who refuses to do twosomes -- that deviant sexual act inspired by the evils of pornography.
steo on 29/5/2007 at 13:56
Quote Posted by Rug Burn Junky
EVERYONE IN THIS THREAD IS MOCKING YOU.
Damn straight.
Gingerbread Man on 29/5/2007 at 14:14
I'm not. I just think his position on pornography is a little alarmist and poorly-informed.
BrokenArts on 29/5/2007 at 14:27
Well, then he obviously needs more porn, so he can get it, and understand.
Rug Burn Junky on 29/5/2007 at 14:45
Quote Posted by Gingerbread Man
I'm not. I just think his position on pornography is a little alarmist and poorly-informed.
Come on now, don't tell me you didn't snicker at him on the inside just a little bit when you posted:[INDENT]
Quote:
"Looking at pornography leads to fucking ten year-old Thai boys in the bum" is as specious and ignorant an argument as "Smoking weed leads to murdering innocent families so you can buy your next veinful of heroin"
[/INDENT];)
User123abc on 29/5/2007 at 15:32
Quote Posted by dvrabel
I'm still chuckling over the woman who refuses to do twosomes -- that deviant sexual act inspired by the evils of pornography.
:laff:
By the way... hello? Anecdotal evidence?
fett on 29/5/2007 at 15:41
Ah shit here I go again.
I've met Dobson on several occasions, had lunch with the man once about 6 years ago. Read this carefully:
DOBSON AND FOF ARE FUCKING FRUITCAKES
Don't get me wrong, he's a nice enough guy, but Focus on the Family comes from such a bizzare fucked up hybrid of Jungian psychology and biblical ethics (and believe me, the two are mutually exclusive in ways I don't have a lifetime to get into here), that they generally don't have a practical understanding, nor solution to, anything they stick their big noses into. The very basis for their political, social, and psychological views is contradictory, confused, and cobbled together from whatever date supports those views. FOF is and alway has held to the view that the ends justifies the means, and will say whatever bullshit they must in order to win the argument.
