Pornography - are you for or against it and why?

[theVOID]

There may be where you are, but porno actresses aren't considered "real actress" in this part of the world.

Firstly, no they aren't considered 'real' (as in theatrical) actresses.

Secondly, what the fuck has this got to do with anything?

There's a societal bias there that's tangible to me. I'm not going to bother trying to justify it with numbers, because it's not the focus of the conversation. I agree with you it just shows bias. The word, industry and demand for born, realistically won't ever cease. My point was that the creation of the word, bigotry and lack of equality contribute vastly to the continuing separation of the class gap between the porn industry and other industries.

I'm sorry but I don't have a clue what your point is...

I know there's no indication that just because you're attracted to young women (18-21) that you'll turn into a pedophile. But I'll guarantee that pedophiles are porn addicts attracted to young women and child pornography.

Sure they're porn addicts, they have a sexual desire that they cannot easily fulfill, they resort to porn.

Paedophiles might *also* be attracted to young women, they might also like cheseburgers....

Again, what point are you trying to make here?

You may think that the release they get from viewing child porn is less abhorrent than them acting out their fantasies (Which I agree with). But that completely ignores the victimization of the children forced into this industry to support the fortification of those fantasies.

No it doesn't, and I've explicitly said already that it should be prosecuted to the full extent of our abilities. The demand for child porn, while being less harmful than every single pedophile seeking physical fulfillment, is still about as morally evil as you can get.

It hold no accountability to the industry that encourages those fantasies (like your example of portraying of age women as younger than consensual age).

No, they don't encourage those fantasies, these people already have those sexual desires. You are imposing the same false causal link again, one that you above conceded you could offer no indication of.

And like I said in my last post, it's analogous to knives. Because knives may facilitate someone's desire to murder does not mean we should either ban knives OR condemn the manufacturers, because someone makes a porn film with an adult who looks young does not mean they bare any responsibility for someone's sexual desire for children.

I think if the porn industry would put some PR and distance(in age range) between their youngest legal stars and the illegal ones for a few years, it might do them some good towards being seen as a more productive part of society.

Are you going to say that a woman cannot consent to be in porn because someone may think she is younger than 18? That is what your little dictate would requite. I am absolutely against restricting the freedoms of consenting adults in all circumstances, whether or not some twisted evil person elsewhere will use it as a facilitation (which I still disagree is even plausible).

The thalamus in the limbic system ('leopard brain') converts the physical need into an urge within the cortex. It is, in effect, saying 'Hey, do something! You have an unfulfilled need!' Cognitively-driven urges have a similar effect, where internal imaginings trigger an urge response.

Urges are, quite literally, urgent. They have priority and force other matters aside. They are frequently felt as a kind of 'emptiness', typically felt physically as a gnawing feeling in the abdomen.

Right, and this lends absolutely no credence to your argument.

Feeding the urge with continuous fantasies while that simultaneously is in conflict with urge to be socially excepted/moral is like handing a can of soda to a man who's hands are uncontrollably shaking.

So you are saying that instead of allowing the consenting trade between two adults that may satisfy the urges of an individual with a disgusting desire in a way where no person is exploited we should eliminate the only outlet they may have that is free from child exploitation? That would do far more harm than good, not just to the children, but in terms of imposing on the freedoms of adults.

Until individuals can do away with the desire to be graphically aroused (as opposed to physical) to escape feeling like a social pariah, there's not going to be an easy solution.

Right, and your solution is worse on both accounts, in terms of the impact on children AND the rights of the adults consenting to make porn. You think it's a coincidence that the catholic church who suppress sexual desires have such high rates of abuse proportional to the rest of the population? Eliminating the only outlet free of exploitation that a pedophile may have is far worse.

That's why I feel erotica has it's place for the sake of artful enjoyment, it's intent shouldn't be for shock or arousal. I feel sexual arousal should be consigned to sexual actions and not hiding in your head and kept to yourself..

So you think whenever someone with pedophile urges gets aroused they should be consigned to sexual actions???? That is the absolute worst thing you could do!