Ban Girls Gone Wild Commercials?

I'm willing to go out on a limb, without the use of any scientific study as a safety net, and say that any person who believes it is not psychologically harmful to a 6 or 8 year old child to view pornography, is an idiot.

Of course that's merely my opinion.

Ticomaya wrote:

I'm willing to go out on a limb, without the use of any scientific study as a safety net, and say that any person who believes it is not psychologically harmful to a 6 or 8 year old child to view pornography, is an idiot.

Of course that's merely my opinion.

In that case I fit your definition of an idiot, which may be explained by the porn magazines my best friend and I "borrowed" from his older brother when we were about that age. I evidently fit many other people's opinion of an idiot too, so don't worry about me. I'm used to it.

Ya gotta love these people who are determined to stop young people from discovering that sex is spectacular...that people sometimes engage in sex for money...that the naked body can tittilate...that guys who normally can be bored by a football game that produces no scoring for severa minutes can watch a woman spread her legs hours on end...that...

Frank Apisa wrote:

Ya gotta love these people who are determined to stop young people from discovering that sex is spectacular...that people sometimes engage in sex for money...that the naked body can tittilate...that guys who normally can be bored by a football game that produces no scoring for severa minutes can watch a woman spread her legs hours on end...that...

Well, you're certainly not an idiot. Then again, you're a New Jersey Italian. I know everything about New Jersey Italians -- McTag is sending me The Sopranos on DVD, season by season. So, how are things at the Bada-Bing?

Thomas wrote:

Ticomaya wrote:

I'm willing to go out on a limb, without the use of any scientific study as a safety net, and say that any person who believes it is not psychologically harmful to a 6 or 8 year old child to view pornography, is an idiot.

Of course that's merely my opinion.

In that case I fit your definition of an idiot, which may be explained by the porn magazines my best friend and I "borrowed" from his older brother when we were about that age. I evidently fit many other people's opinion of an idiot too, so don't worry about me. I'm used to it.

:wink: :wink: :wink: :wink:

Ya gotta love these people who are determined to stop young people from discovering that sex is spectacular...that people sometimes engage in sex for money...that the naked body can tittilate...that guys who normally can be bored by a football game that produces no scoring for severa minutes can watch a woman spread her legs hours on end...that...

...well, you get the picture.

Frank Apisa wrote:

Thomas wrote:

Ticomaya wrote:

I'm willing to go out on a limb, without the use of any scientific study as a safety net, and say that any person who believes it is not psychologically harmful to a 6 or 8 year old child to view pornography, is an idiot.

Of course that's merely my opinion.

In that case I fit your definition of an idiot, which may be explained by the porn magazines my best friend and I "borrowed" from his older brother when we were about that age. I evidently fit many other people's opinion of an idiot too, so don't worry about me. I'm used to it.

:wink: :wink: :wink: :wink:

Ya gotta love these people who are determined to stop young people from discovering that sex is spectacular...that people sometimes engage in sex for money...that the naked body can tittilate...that guys who normally can be bored by a football game that produces no scoring for severa minutes can watch a woman spread her legs hours on end...that...

...well, you get the picture.

You sit down with your 6 year old son to watch a little good ol' fashioned porn? Can't teach him those valuable lessons early enough?

Well, I suppose the world is chock full of idiots.

Chumly wrote:

Ticomaya wrote:

I didn't attempt to make a case by scientific standards.

That is because you cannot do it and you are dodging.

What's your point?

squinney wrote:

Here's some information on effects of porn on people, including children.

In part:

Quote:

PEOPLE ARE AFFECTED BY WHAT THEY SEE
Some Americans strongly hold the belief that pornography, while it may be vulgar and tasteless, is still essentially harmless and has no real effect on the viewer.

To claim it "has no real effect on the viewer" has got to be the biggest loads I've heard. These so-called "Some Americans" who "strongly hold the belief" that pornography "has no real effect on the viewer" must have neither a penis or vagina! It's been proven numerous times that pornography has a real effect on the viewer, that being one of sexual arousal.

I'm willing to go out on a limb, without the use of any scientific study as a safety net, and say that any person who believes it is not psychologically harmful to a 6 or 8 year old child to view pornography, is an idiot.

Of course that's merely my opinion.

Ticomaya wrote:

I'm willing to go out on a limb, without the use of any scientific study as a safety net, and say that any person who believes it is not psychologically harmful to a 6 or 8 year old child to view pornography, is an idiot.

Of course that's merely my opinion.

And what other unsubstantiated opinions do you wish to share with us such that those whom disagree with you are also idiots in your eyes? A religion or two perhaps? A moral absolutism of some nature?

Given that there have been a number of successful cultures that had very relaxed mores as pertaining to children being exposed to sexual acts ...

... I take it you would then consider all members of said societies as being idiots as well, ...

... again with no evidence to back up your claim.

Does Canada fall into that category?

No, only those that believe it is healthy to expose small children to sexual acts.

I never have agreed that there is no evidence to back up my claim, but I do agree that I've not attempted to present any in this discussion, for the reasons previously stated.

And if you happen to fall into the category of person who believes it is healthy to expose small children to sexual acts, then you can correctly presume how I would categorize you. Wear that shoe proudly, Chumly.

Ticomaya wrote:

Does Canada fall into that category?

Not as a hole.

Ticomaya wrote:

No, only those that believe it is healthy to expose small children to sexual acts.

Given that it would be integral to the culture at hand, it's unlikely such distinction would be a mertible point, until Puriitism and its ilk were introduced that is.

Ticomaya wrote:

I never have agreed that there is no evidence to back up my claim, but I do agree that I've not attempted to present any in this discussion, for the reasons previously stated.

You don't have to agree or disagree, it makes no difference, I challenged you to support your claim in a reasonable evidentiary manner, and you have not.

Ticomaya wrote:

And if you happen to fall into the category of person who believes it is healthy to expose small children to sexual acts, then you can correctly presume how I would categorize you. Wear that shoe proudly, Chumly.

I don't fall into either category, given there is zero reasonable evidence of harm. As to reasonable evidence of good, I would argue that there is based on the alternative of harmful censorship. As to reasonable evidence of good outside of the censorship argument I don't know.

Might I presume you do not see the consummate hypocrisy of claiming that youth seeing pornarghy is harmful, while at the same time lying about the Easter Bunny and Santa Claus and the Tooth Fairy; plus behind their innocent backs engaging in warfare, ecological destruction, pogroms, racism, etc?