News link

How is adults having an active sex life constitute "values were not consistent with protecting children" ... I mean ... they have to have sex for the rugrats to appear in the first place.

I have given up trying to understand how people judge what is and isnt good parenting or acceptable behaviour around kids.

This is where I get to use my latest phrase, society is f***ed up!

Society is f***ed up.
We are all part of the society.
Does that mean we are all f***ed up?

edit: Also I think this more about someone wanting to find something to whinge about regarding the person who recieved the funding.

last edited by Tollaz0r! at 12:39:30 30/Mar/05

so·ci·e·ty ( P ) Pronunciation Key (s-s-t)
n. pl. so·ci·e·ties
1.
a) The totality of social relationships among humans.
b) A group of humans broadly distinguished from other groups by mutual interests, participation in characteristic relationships, shared institutions, and a common culture.
c) The institutions and culture of a distinct self-perpetuating group.
2. An organization or association of persons engaged in a common profession, activity, or interest: a folklore society; a society of bird watchers.
3.
a) The rich, privileged, and fashionable social class.
b) The socially dominant members of a community.
4. Companionship; company: enjoys the society of friends and family members.
5. Biology. A colony or community of organisms, usually of the same species: an insect society.

I don't classify myself as part of society. I am an alien who is lost and can't find my home planet :(

I am an alien who is lost and can't find my home planet :(

maybe you should get your head out of uranus then.

That’s pretty convenient isn't it kat? Society is f***ed up, but of course your not part of this f***ed up society. ;)

yeh kat, hurry up and find your planet and f*** off back there

meh, make of it what you will...as always

Family First Party chairman Peter Harris said Ms Johnston had damaged her credibility by accepting donations from organisations whose values were "not consistent with protecting children".

Full quote... Well it is family first... They would deem pissing with the seat down to be 'not consistent with protecting children' (but i've got pretty good aim so it doesn't matter) It all seems like just a petty little argument, ms patten said some s***e about churchs and their poor care of children and they're just doing the whole rebuttal in fine family first fashion

similar to what Boxhead said;

it is politics, they will use the smallest thing to have a jab at any oppostion, regardless of how little sense it makes

I don't see anyone in that article saying that having an active sexlife constitutes "values were not consistent with protecting children" - I only see someone saying that another person damaged their credibility by 'accepting donations from organisations whose values were "not consistent with protecting children"'.

It does sound like a typical politicial ploy at discrediting someone, but in my opinion that doesn't mean it's not true, or that it's odd. The adult industry's promotion of the practice of wanton sexual relations outside of a solid, balanced, long-term partnership is arguably a recipe for increasing the chance of childbirth into an environment which will likely cause the child psychological harm, adversely affecting their wellbeing and inter-personal relationships for the rest of their life. Sex is fun and sex sells, but is maybe it's not so fun for the often-resulting children.

The adult industry's promotion of the practice of wanton sexual relations outside of a solid, balanced, long-term partnership is arguably a recipe for increasing the chance of childbirth into an environment which will likely cause the child psychological harm, adversely affecting their wellbeing and inter-personal relationships for the rest of their life.

OMG I can't believe you just said that. Two consenting adults who enjoy porn in the presence of each other will inflict psychological harm against any child they have?

K: A person can be smart. People are dumb, panicky animals, and you know it.

Kat, I dunno why you bother listening to what they and the article has to say anyway. Most of these people are religious - ie, they're f***ing idiots who will believe anything with no weight anyway :)

It just s***s me the way all these religious views get pushed onto everyone.

The adult industry's promotion of the practice of wanton sexual relations outside of a solid, balanced, long-term partnership is arguably a recipe for increasing the chance of childbirth

There is this wonderful new thing called contraception.

Does that mean we are all f***ed up?

quite possibly so.

Right-wing conservatives odd? Noo! I prefer to laugh at the far-right ultra-conservatives. Mmm, Ann Coulter and Bill O'Reilly. Watch them get thouroughly owned in these clips:
Bill O'Reilly and the Paris Business Review
Ann Coulter and Vietnam

last edited by exo at 15:40:55 30/Mar/05

OMG I can't believe you just said that. Two consenting adults who enjoy porn in the presence of each other will inflict psychological harm against any child they have?

I think you misunderstood what I wrote, if that's your response. What I'm saying, is that an industry which thrives on promoting casual sex as often as possible isn't doing children any favours because it's helping to increase the chance of children being born into a situation which lacks a stable family environment.

There is this wonderful new thing called contraception.

That might be true, but apart from it not being a very good response for several obvious reasons, it's not even the point. The point is that the comment made by one politician about another probably wasn't so odd or incorrect at all.

The adult industry's promotion of the practice of wanton sexual relations outside of a solid, balanced, long-term partnership is arguably a recipe for increasing the chance of childbirth into an environment which will likely cause the child psychological harm, adversely affecting their wellbeing and inter-personal relationships for the rest of their life.

I agree... Especially when the individuals attempt to recreate the events that they see on the videos.. Say on a webcam or something...

What jim is trying to say is if we owe other countries money... why don't we just print more money!

I read about this in the paper and ignored it. It's one pollie trying to discredit another pollie.

Also, Obes wins :)

I think you misunderstood what I wrote, if that's your response. What I'm saying, is that an industry which thrives on promoting casual sex as often as possible isn't doing children any favours because it's helping to increase the chance of children being born into a situation which lacks a stable family environment.

promotes casual sex? Really? I thought it promoted sex between consenting adults.

What are you views on parents who look at porn?

Parents who look at kat porn or more generally?

Parents who look at kat porn or more generally?

I know it may be hard but ignore all issues of Kat and focus on the issue.

Kat.zip was something i saw before i was 18 years old.
Since i was exposed to that disgusting material i have been quite mentally disturbed.

The one picture in particular that scarred me was the image of kat upside down with her legs open dressed as lara croft. This image represented to me the fact that kat was infact, a satanic version of croft and was in league with the devil.

Porn + Parents = Unstable parenting environment

Katporn + Kat = no hope....

Is this what they are talking about on ACA, right now?

Such a pointless argument...they are just going around in circles.

last edited by Triamks at 18:39:59 30/Mar/05

Dopefish you mean this one?

http://members.optusnet.com.au/katmcgovern/lara1.jpg

last edited by Kat at 18:41:01 30/Mar/05

Is this what they are talking about on ACA, right now?

What kat porn?

last edited by nF at 18:41:51 30/Mar/05

That post is written by something so confused, it doesn't know whether to scratch its watch or wind its ass. You should offer your posting style to hospital operating theatres as a highly-effective alternative to unconsciousness-inducing medications.

Is this what they are talking about on ACA, right now?
What kat porn?

In my defence, I only read the first post and few after that. I didn't know that by the second page the topic had changed into one on kat porn.

Kat you need to trim those pubes.

http://us.news2.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/p/afp/20040903/lthumb.sge.gos62.030904183947.photo02.default-384x311.jpg
Why did you make me see it again kat?
Whyyyyyy

promotes casual sex? Really? I thought it promoted sex between consenting adults.

Which IS casual sex.

Which IS casual sex.

Not all people who watch or use porn are whores/swingers/addicts.

I don't know if I classify my 3 and a half year relationship just casual sex but hey, if you say so!

promotes casual sex? Really? I thought it promoted sex between consenting adults.

Maybe it does - but saying so isn't a logical response to my saying it promotes casual sex. In my opinion it's about as logical as saying "I thought it was about some guys who fly planes" when someone says "top gun is a story about a guy who meets a girl and rides a bike". Sure, it may be true but what bearing does it have on the comment you're responding to?

What are you views on parents who look at porn?

Whatever floats their boat, as long as it's not adversely affecting their children.

What would you know Jim. Like /seriously.

Whatever floats their boat, as long as it's not adversely affecting their children.

I am confused! You said

What I'm saying, is that an industry which thrives on promoting casual sex as often as possible isn't doing children any favours because it's helping to increase the chance of children being born into a situation which lacks a stable family environment.

now your saying that isn't true because you can have circumstances where it doesn't effect the child?

But you said a child with parents who watch/ed porn lacked a stable enviroment.

Can you make a decent point?

your getting confused kat

he said the general gist of "it incorages people into bringing children into worlds where its not suited for them"

I know it may be hard but ignore all issues of Kat and focus on the issue.

Why go and post a massive picture of yourself then?

Also you are ugly. why flaunt yourself like you're top s***.

I watch plenty of porn - doesn't make me a peodphile.

I was at the gym when ACA was on and it was very amusing. f*** Ray Martin is a f***ing tosser and made a real f***ing idiot of himself.

Porn is porn, I'd say hetty's guess that 80% of people watch it is a bit inflated but I do reckon it would be more than 50% that have at least seen it and don't consider it offensive or link it back to peddo's.

family first party is a joke.

spidz .. you make no sense you bash kat for making a few tits pics and now you say tits pics is AOK! ...

But you said a child with parents who watch/ed porn lacked a stable enviroment.

heh where'd I say that?

not really obes, I like to watch porn but I still think the people in it are trash.

heh where'd I say that?

What I'm saying, is that an industry which thrives on promoting casual sex as often as possible isn't doing children any favours because it's helping to increase the chance of children being born into a situation which lacks a stable family environment.

----

he said the general gist of "it incorages people into bringing children into worlds where its not suited for them"

So does the $3k baby bonus. So does a sole parent pension.

However the difference is the above are government and porn usually used within a relationship which includes two concenting adults......

Why go and post a massive picture of yourself then?

Did you miss the dopefish issue?

Also you are ugly. why flaunt yourself like you're top s***.

hahah did you see what picturew I posted? Did you see my face? You can't honestly think, I think I am top s*** hahahah

last edited by Kat at 20:48:15 30/Mar/05

last edited by Kat at 20:48:27 30/Mar/05

Maybe it does - but saying so isn't a logical response to my saying it promotes casual sex. In my opinion it's about as logical as saying "I thought it was about some guys who fly planes" when someone says "top gun is a story about a guy who meets a girl and rides a bike". Sure, it may be true but what bearing does it have on the comment you're responding to?

You know that was Tom Cruise and not Bruce Willis don't you?

:)

The baptist nuts who live next door to me voted for family first, etc etc and I was out putting some gear into the boot of my car late one night and from up in their bedroom I could hear a bed being tortured beyond belief. It almost turned me off sex forever. :/

kat, that statement isn't saying that a child with parents who watch porn lack a stable enviroment, and it's certainly not what I meant either. What I mean, is that porn or industry which thrives on selling sex is, by steering people's thought more and more toward having sex outside a relationship suitable for raising well-balanced children, helping to increase the chance that children will be born into a situation where there isn't a stable family structure in place for them to grow up in because more and more people have sex on their mind more of the time. Babies thus have more of a chance of being born when they hadn't been planned for, and thus into a situation which has a far greater chance of not being healthy, than being healthy.

So does the $3k baby bonus. So does a sole parent pension.

Nobody is arguing that that's not the case - I'm simply saying, which you can go back and check, that maybe the politician's comments weren't so off-base at all - regardless of his motive. I think you may be getting so caught up in trying to argue a side point that you've lost track of what I've actually said, and why.

some children are better off outside the stable family environment - hopefully then they won't end up as christian fundmentalists.

I think you may be getting so caught up in trying to argue a side point that you've lost track of what I've actually said, and why.

No side point is being argued.

The family first party, who are very church orientated, have covered up crimes against children for decades.
Hetty, not her charity, received funding from of all things, adultshop.com, who try and fight peadophilia.

You are saying that porn misleads people and that it is evil.

ALLOWING and COVERING UP crimes against children is more evil than porn

ALLOWING and COVERING UP crimes against children is more evil than porn

How many crimes against children have been covered up by Family First? 0.

How many films of a pornographic nature have been released that feature children? Numerous.

The family first party, who are very church orientated, have covered up crimes against children for decades.

I thought it was a relatively new political party, or are you referring to churches covering up crimes aganst children?

The family first party have covered up crimes against children for decades.

What in the f***? They've only existed for 1 election.. i fail to see how they can cover up crimes decades ago...

You are saying that porn misleads people and that it is evil.

He is saying that the type of people who watch *alot* of porn are *more* likely to hook up for casual sex... Casual sex if not checked can produce 'unexpected' children. Unexpected children, in a casual environment, are not able to be catered for when Mum and Dad met wacthing porn in a basement of a swingers house or whatever...

She is implying that family first are somehow responsible for the crimes the church has covered up in the past, which is ludicrous.

PS - I hate family first as much as any sane person.

^^ugly as a hat full of arseholes^^

The family first party, who are very church orientated, have covered up crimes against children for decades.
Hetty, not her charity, received funding from of all things, adultshop.com, who try and fight peadophilia.

For the record, when Adultshop.com was flourishing and flooded with cash they were buying up porn sites, and to my knowledge still own and run bunches of them. so they're not just a novelty shop.

Also Jim would know about this stuff as we all know his dirty past working in pr0n. hell jim.zip leaves kat.zip for dead, and IMHO he makes a much better lara croft than Kat.

I'm all for nazif***sluts.

Meh I am over arguing with you lot.

Porn doesn't make you a bad parent OR sexual promiscuous. It is the type of person who watches Porn, not the porn itself. End of discussion.

For the record the FF party is church orientated and the church has done far worse

last edited by Kat at 07:13:23 31/Mar/05

church has done far worse

you can't blame the Church for actions that the priest has done.

yes, i agree with you kat on the subject that, it really is the persons responcibility to not have casual sex.

however i also agree with jim that its not compleatly unrelated to the subject of children being brought up in bad inviroments

some children are better off outside the stable family environment - hopefully then they won't end up as christian fundmentalists.

i didn't have a stable family enviroment. so your logic is flawed already.

you can't blame the Church for actions that the priest has done.

I can, and do, when they have covered crime after crime up

hopefully being the key term - you must have slipped through the idiot cracks.

I can, and do, when they have covered crime after crime up

really?

i assume your talking about the cathlic church. we don't talk about them. they are fairly cultish.

but this is really beside the point.

kat, your sliping back again. your building your own bandwagon. with enough room for the whole qgl to fit.

you can't blame the Church for actions that the priest has done.

f*** off you cant

its the anti-nature church laws (no sex) that cause this type of behaviour

i cant believe the catholic church can still exist in todays society with its backwards and dangerous ideas (no contraception!?!?!? wtf, wake up to yourselves)

kat, your sliping back again

Is it is no secret I am not the best arguement builder when it comes to online, but that doesn't mean I don't have a point.

Porn in itself is not evil. It is the people who use porn as an excuse or outlet that make the concept of porn evil.

It is like saying target catalouges promote child pornography....not, it is the people who use them as such a thing that have the problem.

Saying that parents who watch porn have a higher risk of causing psycological harm to their kids is what I am fighting against. That is the most insulting and right wing claim I have ever heard.

"i assume your talking about the cathlic church. we don't talk about them. they are fairly cultish."

Compared to what ?
The Church of Scientology ? (all your money belonging to us for aliens)
Christian Scientists ? (no doctors, medicine, or immunizations)
Mormons ? (where that magic underwear!)
JWs ? (can't celebrate a birthday!!! also no voting)
Ahmish ? (electricity its bad!)
Kabalism ? (We are magic jews)
Aum Shinri Kyo ? (die public transport commuters!)
The Family (Charles Manson) ?
Branch Davidians ?
Heaven's Gate ?
Jeffrey Lundgren ?
Movement for the Restoration of the Ten Commandments of God ?
The People's Temple (Jim Jones) ?
Solar Temple ?
Concerned Christians ?
House of Yahweh ?
Hari Krishnas ?

And when you say cathlic, I assume you mean the Roman Catholics, not the Eastern Catholics (they have their own pope) or various pentecostal catholic groups ?

"...if you believe in it, it is a religion or perhaps 'the' religion;
and if you do not care one way or another about it, it is a sect;
but if you fear and hate it, it is a cult." Leo Pfeffer

Most catholics haven't even been near a church more then once or twice a year.

Saying that parents who watch porn have a higher risk of causing psycological harm to their kids is what I am fighting against. That is the most insulting and right wing claim I have ever heard.

Not parents.... people... There is a slight difference, unless you can be a parent without having children.

To have a child to cause psycological harm to you have to be a parent!

uhuh...


#52, can only say the same thing so many times

last edited by Boxhead at 10:04:31 31/Mar/05

#52, can only say the same thing so many times

OMG! 'People' in general can not cause harm to their kids because THEY DON'T HAVE ANY so Jim is talking about parents. Hence the PARENTS and not PEOPLE

Yeah they can.. Creating circumstances not conducive to having kids *BUT* having them anyway.. Accident or not... Taking the risk when there prolly isn't much to be gained from actually bringing a child into the world is causing harm to them...

How can you honestly believe that having a child when you don't have enough money to feed yourself is a smart thing to do? Let alone a situation where the child won't get blamed for the situation??? Its not the childs fault that they're here, or that they're hungry or that mum and dad don't have the money to give them food...

It is sunny in Hawaii right now but that has nothing to do with thsi subject, much like your post.

I like my eggs sunny side up on a beach in Hawaii, but that has nothing to do with this subject much like your concept of reality and how society should be...

Boxhead, you are bring up issues that happen in life. It isn't directly related to people/parents who watch porn and yet you are making it out as if they are.

Now are you going to make a arguement for Porn being evil and causing children harm or are you going to speak about society or people in general, regardless of how much porn they watch?

Obes, you missed Brucewillists

Porn creates the illusion that a carefree sexual lifestyle will bring no-one any harm.. that just isn't true, hell even ACA can tell me that, Schools teach it and the medical profession continually highlights it

My point is and will always be, a mis-cued sexual encounter (brought on by the belief that zomg porn is real) that reults in a childbirth that is unexpected will not produce a suitable envorinment for a child to be rasied in...

My point is and will always be, a mis-cued sexual encounter (brought on by the belief that zomg porn is real) that reults in a childbirth that is unexpected will not produce a suitable envorinment for a child to be rasied in...

I would say that it is isn't the best start to a child's life but that doesn't mean that the child can't have a stable enviroment.

There are heaps of people in various forms of relationships that fall pregnant by accident each day. It doesn't mean that child is doomed from the start. That is like saying ALL kids born to aboriginal parents will drink metho and leech off the system. No, it doesn't mean anything, but the possibility is still there.

No side point is being argued.

Sure it is - you kept misconstruing my original comment and arguing what you thought it meant. That's a side argument cos it didn't have anything to do with the point I was making. But yay, 2 pages and about 3 other people later, and you're finally on the same page. Now:

I would say that it is isn't the best start to a child's life but that doesn't mean that the child can't have a stable enviroment.

There are heaps of people in various forms of relationships that fall pregnant by accident each day. It doesn't mean that child is doomed from the start.

It's very safe to say that there's a far higher chance that the child will not have a stable environment, which is all I've been saying all along. I really recommend going back to the start of the thread with an open mind, and read the thread topic, the comments in the thread and then my original reply and actually try to comprehend what I'm saying. I certainly never suggested that 'a child born outside of a planned pregancy is doomed' or that 'parents who watch porn are failing to provide a stable environment'.

All I said, was that the politican's comment of: "...damaged her credibility by accepting donations from organisations whose values were not consistent with protecting children" may not have been so odd or off base, because... etc

It's very safe to say that there's a far higher chance that the child will not have a stable environment, which is all I've been saying all along.

But that risk doesn't have anything to do with porn. Some people have no grasp on what parenting requires and are doomed in that area since they are born. People change their surroundings and behaviours because they have a strong enough want to do so; Not because they stop watching porn or stop going out at night. Just because someones behaviour results in casual sex, bad parenting, etc doesn't mean that it is because of one external influence.

All I said, was that the politican's comment of: "...damaged her credibility by accepting donations from organisations whose values were not consistent with protecting children" may not have been so odd or off base, because... etc

You said a lot more than that.

But that risk doesn't have anything to do with porn.

Sure it does - it has something to do with any possible outside influence.

doesn't mean that it is because of one external influence.

heh, who is saying it is? Nobody. All anyone is saying, is that the porn industry isn't doing chldren any favours by it's promotion of uninhibited casual sex between random people. Why is this so hard for you to comprehend?

You said a lot more than that.

In your mind maybe, but not in this thread. Feel free to point it out, being sure you're not simply reading it wrong again.

heh, who is saying it is? Nobody. All anyone is saying, is that the porn industry isn't doing chldren any favours by it's promotion of uninhibited casual sex between random people. Why is this so hard for you to comprehend?

But that is where you are wrong. Is isn't porn that promotes this behaviour it is the people who watch porn and use porn as an excuse for THEIR behaviour. At least that is how I view porn. Maybe I am not as easily influences as people like you?
By your logic all women who don't give their boyfriends/partners sex 2 times a week are to blame when they are cheated on. It is the kind of people who use porn as the excuse you have outlined that have the issue, it isn't the porn itself.

In your mind maybe, but not in this thread. Feel free to point it out, being sure you're not simply reading it wrong again.

Umm here

The adult industry's promotion of the practice of wanton sexual relations outside of a solid, balanced, long-term partnership is arguably a recipe for increasing the chance of childbirth into an environment which will likely cause the child psychological harm, adversely affecting their wellbeing and inter-personal relationships for the rest of their life.

But that is where you are wrong. Is isn't porn that promotes this behaviour it is the people who watch porn and use porn as an excuse for THEIR behaviour.

Simply saying I'm wrong doesn't make it so. Also, you're getting confused again - you're implying that my argument is that porn is to blame, which it isn't - but it is certainly an influencing factor. If we all used your reasoning, dealing in drugs would be permitted because hey, it's not the drug dealer that promotes drug usage.

Maybe I am not as easily influences as people like you?

Or maybe you refuse to accept the impact that outside influnces can have - possibly because it would require making changes that you don't want to make.


Also, the passage you quoted as evidence of me saying something other than what I claimed to have said, isn't.


Here it is for you one more time, in nice easy to follow steps:

I say: "It's very safe to say that there's a far higher chance that the child will not have a stable environment, which is all I've been saying all along."

You say: "You said a lot more than that."

I say: "Where?"

You then post text that _doesn't_ show I said more than that.

/boggle

By your logic all women who don't give their boyfriends/partners sex 2 times a week are to blame when they are cheated on

What logic? How is that even pertaining to the point that flagrant casual sex with anyone that results in a childbirth can put a child in danger??? You've just outlined a 'solid, balanced, long-term partnership' eg boyfriend/girlfriend which falls outside of jims field encompassed in the quote...

You're got to look past the words porn and adult industry view the message that they are conveying... Casual sexual relations with the pool guy, his mate and some dude walking down the street aren't always going to endup in orgasmic bliss...

Or maybe you refuse to accept the impact that outside influnces can have - possibly because it would require making changes that you don't want to make.

I think you have the wrong person.

You're got to look past the words porn and adult industry view the message that they are conveying... Casual sexual relations with the pool guy, his mate and some dude walking down the street aren't always going to endup in orgasmic bliss...

Porn and the porn industry don't JUST promote that kind of relationship. THAT is my arguement.

last edited by Kat at 12:02:17 31/Mar/05

Porn and the porn industry don't JUST promote that kind of relationship. THAT is my arguement.

Child rapists don't JUST rape children...

I think you have the wrong person.

Well I used the word 'maybe' for a reason..

Porn and the porn industry don't JUST promote that kind of relationship. THAT is my arguement.

Why make that argument though? Refer to my earlier 'topgun' reference. Nobody is saying that the porn industry promotes _only_ that kind of relationship. It's a pretty weak argument though at best - I'm sure there might be some porn out there that promotes unprotected sexual relations between a couple who have a stable relationship and environment and are thus more likely to be ready to bring a child into the world and provide a nurturing, caring place for it to grow up in, but I think you'd have to be insane to argue that it'd be even remotely common.

Screw reading any more of this, I'm going to surf for porn.

you ppls have no idea. how can you possibly say a porn watcher cannot safely raise children in a safe and loving enviornment? what a baseless generalisation

sweet! my porn torrent just finished.

Nah, you have no idea - nobody is saying what you just said they are - even kat got that, eventually.

comprehension2win

no one said porn was meant to be realistic. why even argue that point? it is escapism. why even relate the morals portrayed in porn to real community standards?

Saying "it's escapism" doesn't have any bearing on the potential effect it can have on someone who subjects themselves to watching it regularly. Why relate morals in porn to real standards? That's simple - because the human brain adapts to what it's subjected to over time. It becomes desensitised to something the more it is exposed to it.

And before you blindly turn this into a 'porn is good/bad' argument again, bear in mind that noone is saying porn should be banned - the point is that the politician who made the original comment, may not have been so far off base after all.

So what you're saying is the politician may not have been so far off base after all?

What I'm saying, is that the politian may not have been so far off base after all

It does sound like a typical politicial ploy at discrediting someone, but in my opinion that doesn't mean it's not true, or that it's odd. The adult industry's promotion of the practice of wanton sexual relations outside of a solid, balanced, long-term partnership is arguably a recipe for increasing the chance of childbirth into an environment which will likely cause the child psychological harm, adversely affecting their wellbeing and inter-personal relationships for the rest of their life. Sex is fun and sex sells, but is maybe it's not so fun for the often-resulting children.

whoa, how well does that read. I Agree.

I think what Jim's saying is that the politian may not have been so far off base after all

Well I suppose it is a matter of whether you believe art imitates life or life imitates art.

The argument that the porn industry damages the social/family fabric is weak. The fact that porn does not even try to portray itself as a credible/realistic creation merely reinforces the fact that it is purely fantasy.

The acceptance of funding from a porn group does not conflict with Hetty Johnston's role as a protector of children. They are an industry acting within the boundaries of the law. She is not a family party 9i.e. driven by morals), she is focused on preventing the abuse of children. So are you suggesting that porn directly correlates to the abuse of children?

It would be more offensive if she had received funding from any of the multi-national food corporations. They are the ones who should be jailed/fined for peddling the crap that cause children to be obese today.

last edited by infiNex at 13:15:40 31/Mar/05

Ironically the biggest risk to children these days are the parents themselves, I reckon.

nah, i reckon it's heart disease.

Well I suppose it is a matter of whether you believe art imitates life or life imitates art.

Taking only one of those two positions would be silly since both are true depending on the situation.

The argument that the porn industry damages the social/family fabric is weak.

In your opinion maybe, but not in mine.

The fact that porn does not even try to portray itself as a credible/realistic creation merely reinforces the fact that it is purely fantasy.

Something doesn't have to portray itself as credible/realistic to have an influence on a person's thinking, or to desensitise a person.

The acceptance of funding from a porn group does not conflict with Hetty Johnston's role as a protector of children.

In my opinion, it does. Attempting to quantify that by saying that thr porn industry acts within the boundaries of the law is what's weak in my opinion. It's not against the law to verbally bully or berate a child to the point where you strip it of any sense of self-worth, or teach a child that there are little to no consequences for it's actions either.

It's not against the law to verbally bully or berate a child to the point where you strip it of any sense of self-worth, or teach a child that there are little to no consequences for it's actions either.

That has got nothing to do with porn though. Legal porn generally relates to interactions between consenting adults. Those dramatisations of "[stripping children] of any self-worth, or [teaching] a child that there are little or no consequences for it's actions" which occur in porn are probably just as frequernt as in any other genre or media of art/entertainment i.e. drama, biography, comedy...

there is no argument yet that porn over and above other genres of film/art promotes/incites the abuse of children. the argument is still stuck on first base talking about morals which again i would point out is not Hetty Johnstons's crusade.

In your opinion maybe, but not in mine.

Even when it is two consenting adults who are exclusive to each other?

Something doesn't have to portray itself as credible/realistic to have an influence on a person's thinking, or to desensitise a person.

Wouldn't you then be inclined to put responsibility on the person?

In my opinion, it does. Attempting to quantify that by saying that thr porn industry acts within the boundaries of the law is what's weak in my opinion. It's not against the law to verbally bully or berate a child to the point where you strip it of any sense of self-worth, or teach a child that there are little to no consequences for it's actions either.

Two questions.

Are you a parent?
and
Do you look at porn (in ANY form)?

That has got nothing to do with porn though. Legal porn generally relates to interactions between consenting adults. Those dramatisations of "[stripping children] of any self-worth, or [teaching] a child that there are little or no consequences for it's actions" which occur in porn are probably just as frequernt as in any other genre or media of art/entertainment i.e. drama, biography, comedy...

Heh I wasn't stating that as though it's something that porn advocates, I was simply giving you an answer to "They are an industry acting within the boundaries of the law." In other words, just because something acts within the boundaries of the law, doesn't mean that it's acting in the interests of children.

If I was a 'protector of children' I wouldn't choose my allies based on whether they act within the boundaries of the law or not, I'd choose them based on whether or not they engage in practices that are only going to be beneficial to children. So we arrive back at the original post, and whether Peter Harris' comments were 'odd' or not, regardless of his motives.

last edited by Jim at 13:56:51 31/Mar/05

Even when it is two consenting adults who are exclusive to each other?

haha there you go again, off on that misinterpreted tangent - I thought you were doing so well in finally getting the ghist of the argument too

Wouldn't you then be inclined to put responsibility on the person?

I'd be inclined to put the bulk of the responsibilty on the person, but some of the resonsibilty also rests with the perpetuators of other influencing factors. Back to the drug dealer example again, which you appear to have ducked.

Are you a parent?
and
Do you look at porn (in ANY form)?

Yeah I've been a parent for 14 years, no I don't look at porn, although I've looked at plenty of it in the past

The argument that the porn industry damages the social/family fabric is weak.

In your opinion maybe, but not in mine.

Actually I would agree with Jim here. It does advocate (by example) easy and promiscuous sexual choices which conflict with the social/family fabric. Some people are able to see it as just entertainment ( whether it still affects the subconscious is not known to me ) others see it as validation/justification for such a lifestyle.

However I would go as far as to say that pretty much any media today does that to some extent from Neighbours to Rocco.

Yeah it's definitely not limited to porn, I completely agree.

The only reason this discussion has become so centered on the ins and outs of the effects of porn though, I think is because some people have gotten off the path and context of the original post and the reply I made to it.

I caught a jimfish, a katfish, a boxfish ... and had a lot more nibbles.

Porn is what you make of it.

If a parent can't enjoy porn for what it is and not have it effect their relationship and consequently the children, then they shouldn't watch it. That isn't the porn industries fault and it doesn't mean that the porn industry supports the break down of relationships.

As for you going on about how we shouldn't blame the drug dealer etc.. Dealing drugs is illegal HOWEVER the only time I have required a 'drug dealer' is to aquire drugs. If I didn't want drugs I wouldn't require a drug dealer so I fail to see how you can place blame on someone who is mearly providing a service.

I think prostitution is a discusting 'profession', however I am more discusted in those who use prostitutes, than the prostites itself.

If a woman cheats on her man, I blame the woman...not the man for not being "romantic enough".

If a kid sticks a knife in the toaster, I would blame the kids or the parents for not supervising, NOT the manufacturer of the toaster for not having the waring label say "Do not put knife in plugged in toaster". Do you see my point?

What if prostitution could be shown to reduce crimes/violence against women ?

Its the old profession in the world!

The reason the argument came to focus on the effects of porn was because the Family First politician insisted that porn was inconsist with Ms Johnston's badge as protector of children, when the statement has no evident logical connection.

The question: "Does porn undermine the protection of children?" sparked the remainder of the debate.

And the other interesting point which has been picked up is that all forms of entertainment/art promote casual, throwaway relationships. Not just porn. That is just modern 21st century society - that is why in my opinion it is just art imitating life.

If a parent can't enjoy porn for what it is and not have it effect their relationship and consequently the children, then they shouldn't watch it.

gawd, nobody is saying that - get over it.

I fail to see how you can place blame on someone who is mearly providing a service.

That's your choice - I find it easy to attribute some blame to that party though. Ultimately, the responsibility for a person's actions lies with the person, but that doesn't free any influencing party of blame either.

Do you see my point?

yes. As I've said ad nauseum though, your point has no bearing on what Peter Harris said and whether his comments held any merit or not.

Jim, considering I have, at some point in my life, met Hetty and been directly affected by her determination I am inclined to believe her over some family first bible basher.

After what happened to her daughter I doubt that she would in any way jepodise her 'mission' to keep children safe.

The reason the argument came to focus on the effects of porn was because...

I disagree - you only have to go back to the start of the thread and read it, then read my first reply, then read kat's misinterpretation of it and her subsequent responses to see that.

...when the statement has no evident logical connection.

That's a matter of opinion. I among other people, disagree with you.

And the other interesting point which has been picked up is that all forms of entertainment/art promote casual, throwaway relationships.

asif, where'd you pull that from?

That is just modern 21st century society - that is why in my opinion it is just art imitating life

Sometimes it's one of them imitating the other, sometimes it's the other way around.

After what happened to her daughter I doubt that she would in any way jepodise her 'mission' to keep children safe.

So because of what happened to her daughter, anything she does now couldn't be questioned? That's not very logical.

Jim, I am not a questioner :P I don't care to know why orange is the colour orange, how planes fly, etc.

Looks like we will agree to disagree.

I have seen far to much "should be's" in this world to take anything on face value.

asif, where'd you pull that from?

um fron post by stinky #102:

However I would go as far as to say that pretty much any media today does that to some extent from Neighbours to Rocco.

Anyways it is a moral debate because if a person believes that long term stable relationships are needed to raise balanced children then there will be no swaying that person.

There are plenty of kids from single parent families (including myself) who had no help from the Dads really who are fine.

And in the animal kingdon many male partner's piss off right after the mating is done... and that's just the way it is.

Human supposedly having *evolved* (I use the term loosely) to the next level have the concept of long-term monogomous relationships. But that may well fall out of fashion one day, only the future will tell. Whether porn is the cause of the effect I don't think will ever be resolved.

Not all males piss off.

Several species of owls mate for life.
Anyone who has kept cichlids will have seen fish pair up permanently.
Some species of fish its the male who looks after the young (ie. sits on the eggs or keeps them in their mouth as the case maybe)
Seahorses ...

hmmm gestating children in the mouth. what about when they want to go out with their mates, get spastic etc?

wow, this simple thread is going to some amazing places .. It's like the Faraway Tree in the Echanted wood. You never know which crazy world you'll end up when you reach the top of the thread.

I caught a jimfish, a katfish, a boxfish ... and had a lot more nibbles.

Are you the dood from family first?? Because thats the only person i see to have trolled this thread... Shame on you for taking credit for someone elses words.. SHAME SHAME SHAME...

ps lol kat still hasn't got it

I like boobies.

And in the animal kingdon many male partner's piss off right after the mating is done... and that's just the way it is.

In some species, after the breeding the male gets arrested and put in jail.

milfhunter doesn't advocate a stable family environment for children.

Any idea Kat is?
She is usually here posting some stupid crap right about now.

she was more than likely banned. (Re: "OMG OMG OMG OMG LOOK!" thread)

what was in the thread?

You do enough talking about me when I'm not here. f*** what difference does it make if I post or not

Look for yourself

sorry, i left out one of " these fellas

nothing there wolf.

You do enough talking about me when I'm not here. f*** what difference does it make if I post or not

actually I was just hoping there really was a perma ban. I think you'll find I never once mentioned your name after you 'e-left'. and I'm sure you were reading too.

One thing about einstein, out of all the e-leavers so far he/she has actually managed to stay away.

er, k

well, kat made a thread that was titled "OMG OMG OMG LOOK!"

and posted

Nothing to see here... move along

One thing about einstein, out of all the e-leavers so far he/she has actually managed to stay away.

no he hasn't.. he still reads, did post on maxes' there at the start of the month aswell

I missed the whole einstein leaving thing

reading is fine, its the posting thats lame.

hi einy.

You'd have to ask an op but I think he got banned.

He also sent existence a sms after he posted his phone number on the forums.

Posters beware.