I dunno. Porn exists for the sake of sexual pleasure, and it just so happens that many people are aroused by submissive females. As long as it's only watched in moderation, I'm not really seeing the problem.
The problem is when you get the impression early on in your life that that is the only way that sex should be, or that it is at all "normal." A lot of people default to looking at pornography as a sexual ideal rather than as something idealised in a very particular way.
That's a good point. But it's not necessarily a problem with pornography, nor something I can see changing any time soon. I think anyone impressionable enough to look to porn as a sexual ideal shouldn't be watching porn in the first place.
Remember back in the 50s when they'd record like Elvis singing YOU AIN'T NOTHIN BUT A HOUND DOG and then they'd turn the record over and reverse it and it was all NYERP NYERP NYERP NYERP NYERP and people were all like, "That is actually the voice of Satan coming from that song."
First off, the post in question concerned the treatment of women in the porn industry, which is...monstrous. Essentially, the directors put the actors in positions where they either do something that wasn't part of the agreement or they don't get paid, and they regularly threaten the actors to keep them from going to the police and whatnot. One case had a woman who agreed to an 5 or 6 person orgy and had to deal with 15 times that number.
Where did you hear this? Because I've seen several comments from female sex workers on some of the social justice-related blogs I follow. They've said that, while there are some scummy companies that do things like that, their experiences and those of their coworkers were nothing like that. Their employers generally respected the terms of their contracts.
Yeah, there's like two sides to the thing: on one hand, you have cases like Linda Lovelace, which fit the horrible aspect, but there's also cases like Stoya, where it seems more...I dunno, regulated?
It has become more regulated lately than it used to be, and I am sure that most people who are in the business professionally—as in deriving the majority of their income from the business—act professionally, but that does not mean that abuse does not occur, nor does it make that abuse acceptable or ignorable.
Remember back in the 50s when they'd record like Elvis singing YOU AIN'T NOTHIN BUT A HOUND DOG and then they'd turn the record over and reverse it and it was all NYERP NYERP NYERP NYERP NYERP and people were all like, "That is actually the voice of Satan coming from that song."
I had no intention of suggesting anything of the kind. I don't think any of us would disagree that the actions of the more illicit porn companies that do abuse their employees are unacceptable.
More people have said that and been killed than there are thorium decay products.
Social justice bloggers are often critical of the general straight-white-male population because it is privileged and probably does the most abuse but if they think it means everyone or that they can insult you for being one then they are wrong and you shouldn't listen to them.
The notion that because I'm a straight white male I can't be bothered by insults directed at straight white males is one that absolutely baffles me.
It's not exactly a problem exclusive to this demographic though, we have this weird cultural miasmas about how some level of abuse is "Expected" and thus people should intrinsically train themselves so as not to react upon it.
Remember back in the 50s when they'd record like Elvis singing YOU AIN'T NOTHIN BUT A HOUND DOG and then they'd turn the record over and reverse it and it was all NYERP NYERP NYERP NYERP NYERP and people were all like, "That is actually the voice of Satan coming from that song."
Honestly, I'm with Kexruct here. I won't deny that institutionalized racism, etc. is objectively worse than the individual racism that certain people on Tumblr engage in. But that does not mean individual racism is or should be acceptable.
It doesn't support social justice or protect marginalized people or anything like that. All it does is make people sound like immature, closed-minded jerks.
There's also the matter that most of the Tumblr social justice community assumes that the entire world operates on the same racial norms as the US, Canada, and the UK, but that's another story for another time.
Remember back in the 50s when they'd record like Elvis singing YOU AIN'T NOTHIN BUT A HOUND DOG and then they'd turn the record over and reverse it and it was all NYERP NYERP NYERP NYERP NYERP and people were all like, "That is actually the voice of Satan coming from that song."
The fact that he seems to be making his kid do this is honestly kinda disgusting. I mean, feel free to have a guilt complex for a tragedy that you're not personally responsible for if you want, but don't bring your kids into it.
More people have said that and been killed than there are thorium decay products.
eww white guilt
If white people realize that they are favored in the western world, and resist prejudice and discrimination, then that is enough. Many white people, maybe most, don't even have slave-owning ancestors; I don't, and even if I did, I would not feel responsible for it.
Yeah, if these people truly cared about equality they'd fight against racism in all its forms. If they didn't, then...they wouldn't do much of anything.
These people, however, just want to use their past as slaveowners to sate their white guilt complex. It solves nothing and makes them look like douchebags.
The fact that he seems to be making his kid do this is honestly kinda disgusting. I mean, feel free to have a guilt complex for a tragedy that you're not personally responsible for if you want, but don't bring your kids into it.
But that's how genetics works, I'm pretty sure some Christan scientists found out that guilt is actually inherent in the genes.
@ Gator: This would be the source post. I won't lie, I didn't make it so I can't really vouch for the quality. I'm sorry; I should have known better than to disseminate unconfirmed info.
@ Miko: That's...debatable. What should and shouldn't be kept from Leviticus is still a topic of debate. My denomination, for example, still follows the dietary restrictions of Leviticus 13 (largely because it deals with healthy living and we are 100% about that life) but not much of the other stuff. It also has one of the few verses in the Bible that is anti-homosexuality, which means that some churches are perfectly willing to keep it in circulation. My personal view is that, when Jesus died on the cross, he did away with the common laws that either obstructed worship (like, for instance, the Pharisees' various laws about what is or isn't allowed on the Sabbath), represented things that Jesus replaced (i.e. the laws about sheep sacrifices and whatnot) or were meant to keep the Hebrews in line when the permanence of their nation relied on their relationship with God. As most of the Leviticus laws are in one of the two latter categories (at least, by my reckoning), they're no longer essential to a healthy relationship with God. Sort of. It's a bit late and I haven't reviewed that topic (or checked the viability of that line of thought) in a while.
So the short answer is "For the most part, yes, and I may be wrong".
The Leviticus verse that "deals with homosexuality", is in fact a condemnation of a certain type of treatment of male prisoners of war, and is completely irrelevant to any modern clerical services--Christian or Jewish of any major or minor sect. The misconception that it is about homosexuality at all is a product of the continual effort to make Christianity a vehicle for social conservatism, rather than a religion.
The topic of homosexuality is mentioned explicitly not once in the bible. It's implied a couple times, and danced around once or twice.
Mostly (by which I mean exclusively) in the Old Testament, whose status as a relevant piece of Christian literature continues to be debated a good 1900 years after said debates began. Even then, the Catholic Old Testament is different from say, the Ethiopian one.
There're also the gnostic forged gospels, which some conspiracists will like to claim prove Jesus was gay or something
In any case, I'm getting off topic, and I'm sure that the fact that I'm using the King James' translation would set some people off by that alone (really, a good Catholic should be reading the bible in latin, but I am not a good Catholic).
The Leviticus verse that "deals with homosexuality", is in fact a condemnation of a certain type of treatment of male prisoners of war, and is completely irrelevant to any modern clerical services--Christian or Jewish of any major or minor sect. The misconception that it is about homosexuality at all is a product of the continual effort to make Christianity a vehicle for social conservatism, rather than a religion.
I've long accepted that, even if there's ground to stand on with the 'homosexuality being a sin" thing, that point should be moot when people are getting kicked out of their homes and beaten non-consensually with crowbars and whatnot. It's as bad as anti-feminists arguing that women can get free drinks when 25% of women suffer from sexual assault, or Richard Dawkins going on about the definition of racism while he (as a white man) statistically earns more than I (as a black man) do. Christianity's supposed to try and help all those who suffer, regardless of what their sin is; there's a reason why Christian soup kitchens (well, most of them) don't discriminate against non-Christians
And even if it is a sin, that doesn't justify the lengths that churches go to stop it. If churches attacked lying (which is explicitly mentioned in the Ten Commandments as a thing that you should not do) as vehemently as they attacked homosexuality, they'd lose all credibility (also, since lying is a necessary part of the US Government, good luck getting senators to write bills against that).
Comments
But moderation is the key word there.
Why yes I've been desperately searching for an opportunity to clear that up.
you could literally google it.
not that I recommend that but I'm just saying you could.
This limits me to Showgirls and Screech's sex tape.
And even then, that probably runs the risk of it going underground and making it harder to stop.
It's just best to kind of let them go and realize you might be wrong about something.
If white people realize that they are favored in the western world, and resist prejudice and discrimination, then that is enough. Many white people, maybe most, don't even have slave-owning ancestors; I don't, and even if I did, I would not feel responsible for it.
hehehehe.
Assassin poems, Poems that shoot
guns. Poems that wrestle cops into alleys
and take their weapons leaving them dead
Assassin poems, Poems that shoot
guns. Poems that wrestle cops into alleys
and take their weapons leaving them dead
Assassin poems, Poems that shoot
guns. Poems that wrestle cops into alleys
and take their weapons leaving them dead
@ Miko: That's...debatable. What should and shouldn't be kept from Leviticus is still a topic of debate. My denomination, for example, still follows the dietary restrictions of Leviticus 13 (largely because it deals with healthy living and we are 100% about that life) but not much of the other stuff. It also has one of the few verses in the Bible that is anti-homosexuality, which means that some churches are perfectly willing to keep it in circulation. My personal view is that, when Jesus died on the cross, he did away with the common laws that either obstructed worship (like, for instance, the Pharisees' various laws about what is or isn't allowed on the Sabbath), represented things that Jesus replaced (i.e. the laws about sheep sacrifices and whatnot) or were meant to keep the Hebrews in line when the permanence of their nation relied on their relationship with God. As most of the Leviticus laws are in one of the two latter categories (at least, by my reckoning), they're no longer essential to a healthy relationship with God. Sort of. It's a bit late and I haven't reviewed that topic (or checked the viability of that line of thought) in a while.
So the short answer is "For the most part, yes, and I may be wrong".
Assassin poems, Poems that shoot
guns. Poems that wrestle cops into alleys
and take their weapons leaving them dead
Assassin poems, Poems that shoot
guns. Poems that wrestle cops into alleys
and take their weapons leaving them dead
Frankly, I'm surprised that the discussion always hinges on the Leviticus verse instead of the other half-dozen or so that could possibly be used.
You'd think that the people who use that verse would recognize that Leviticus is rife with stuff that people with Tumblrs can sass about.
The topic of homosexuality is mentioned explicitly not once in the bible. It's implied a couple times, and danced around once or twice.
Mostly (by which I mean exclusively) in the Old Testament, whose status as a relevant piece of Christian literature continues to be debated a good 1900 years after said debates began. Even then, the Catholic Old Testament is different from say, the Ethiopian one.
There're also the gnostic forged gospels, which some conspiracists will like to claim prove Jesus was gay or something
In any case, I'm getting off topic, and I'm sure that the fact that I'm using the King James' translation would set some people off by that alone (really, a good Catholic should be reading the bible in latin, but I am not a good Catholic).
Assassin poems, Poems that shoot
guns. Poems that wrestle cops into alleys
and take their weapons leaving them dead
And even if it is a sin, that doesn't justify the lengths that churches go to stop it. If churches attacked lying (which is explicitly mentioned in the Ten Commandments as a thing that you should not do) as vehemently as they attacked homosexuality, they'd lose all credibility (also, since lying is a necessary part of the US Government, good luck getting senators to write bills against that).
In other news, Russia is making the US look like a Pride Parade