I love how the guys in this thread and another ragecash thread are getting all miffed with their feelings hurt by some of the things said on the board, but they refuse to acknowledge the legitimacy of having strong feelings about depictions of nonconsensual sex. You point, "hypocrite!" and I'll point, "double standard!".

You feel insulted? Don't you also think it's bit insulting for people to argue with an opinion they haven't even bothered to read and understand? I was defending the sleep site in the other thread as well as a host of other taboo porn sites. That doesn't mean we can't be CRITICAL of it. Clearly that distinction is too sophisticated for the majority of people to grasp, which has been my gripe all along.

In spite of my "holier than thou" attitude you seem to be paying attention to me. |huh

In a writing class years ago, the professor would incessantly get on my case about how I tended to insult rather than argue. He explained (repeatedly) that any valid point I may have had was lost the moment I resolved to stop arguing and begin insulting. The audience's natural reaction is take offense and cease listening. It seems he has been proven right once again.

Dispersions??????? WTF?

I am talking about limiting NEGATIVE CONSEQUENCES. And how to do so was discussed in the other thread which I posted a link to earlier; perhaps you did not read it or you wouldn't be jumping to the conclusions.

Fuck it, I'll be 100% honest here. I've read all the posts about Rage Cash for the last few days, and Trixie's post takes the cake.

Guilty as charged.

Cool -- I can go to bed now that I've gotten my virtual rimjob for the night. Hehehe. |peace|

;) I do, by the way, agree with your post that has started this current shit storm.

I had promised myself not to enter these threads since I read John's post a few days ago because it pissed me off so much that I knew I couldn't write coherently and all of my sputtering and stammering resulted in my keyboard getting drowned in spittle. So, I blame you that I'm awake right now. :D

Hi Trixie,

No, I didn't read your posts on the other thread. Now having read it, I must still disagree.

Government mandated warning on packages of cigarettes don't stop people from smoking. [Yes, smoking is an addiction but sex can be too.] Anyhow, who decides which sites require a warning and what the warning should entail? A warning message on the site in question would not change someone's behavior anyway ["--- and BTW, don't do this at home ... or anywhere else!"]. If a individual webmaster wishes to provide warning on his/her sites than more power to him/her but that is not "us" limiting "them". That is a voluntary control put on by an private individual. Putting limits on individual behavior, via the use of force, is the right of government.

And yes, I would defend the right to create a "site where gangs of women descended on sleeping men's asses and anally raped them with giant dildos" if, as I have stated previously, those involved are adults and they give informed consent. Sexually fantasy is never "politcally correct".

Finally, I have a question for you. If you find the lack of a disclaimer so improper and it enrages you so, why would you consider promoting RageCash? Surely, you would stand on principle and not allow Ragecash to profit from a site for which you are so vehemently opposed?

Regards,

---art

|haha

Where did I say these warnings should be mandated? I never said that, nor did anyone else. Nor did I say there should be some higher power determining how they should be written.

So we agree . . . I never said porn should be politically correct, or that people's fantasies should be sanitized. I myself confessed to enjoying a good incest fantasy along with high fiber and brushing my teeth after every meal. However, I do think posing "what ifs" to the crowd of mostly-men who are unwilling to acknowledge even the slightest danger of a site that depicts sleeping women being violated IS important to do. You may not have a double standard, but many people do.

Again, you have plastered my statements with your own preconceptions and assumptions. If you truly want the answer to this, reread what I have said before and subtract all of the layers of personal bullshit blurring your comprehension. I am all for taboo fantasies, I am all for people running their sites the way they want to, I am all for free speech.

Controversial sites are not going to go away if I boycott them, nor do I necessarily want them to even if I am critical of certain aspects of them. I have no problem making money recommending the latest degrading unimaginative ignorant thing on the scene; hell -- I will even masturbate to it. Promoting other people's sites is not the mainstay of my income as I have my own paysites, otherwise maybe it would get to me.

I am not "enraged" by the sleep site or meatholes or little april or really any of the individual sites that have sparked so much discussion over the years. I am frustrated by people's unwillingness or inability to think critically about them, looking at the issues from all perspectives.

I wish I had your restraint :)

Thanks for the posts though -- you helped me get some perspective and stop sputtering and spitting on my own keyboard so much ;)

Trixie - thanks for your posts. I thought you made your points well.

Free speach or free anything HAS TO HAVE LIMITS. Period. No matter how the decision is to be made on where that limit will lie, and for how long it will lie there before it gets nudged forwards or backwards. So we all get to debate or bitch and moan over where that limit is.

A full-on rape site that made no attempt at trying to hide the fact that people were actually being raped most obviously does not pass the limit test for freedom of speach. Those who think freedom should allow this are free to have their freedoms removed in jail. And for those "adult enough" to "Choose" to View it????

Now as far as Sleep Assault goes, the concept as a fantasy has merit, BUT, they crossed the line when they choose the word ASSAULT. |badidea|

Tommy, come on,
so where does C.P. lie in relation to that statement.

If nobody took the effort to openly object to sites that cross the line, or flirt a little to closely to the line, then where would we be. Surrouded by C.P. and beastialty? And there would be no legitimacy to the adult industry whatsoever.

It is very interesting how many people are saying they read all the threads on this topic. Even if that is all they say in their post. Many are curious and wondering where their own line should be drawn, just look at how many views all the threads on this topic have recieved. Take the multiple threads and combine them and it is sitting at fourth top viewed thread in General Business section (and im ignoring the "Hey yournamehere - What's this Rage Thing" thread that is in 3rd spot). All this in less than two weeks. That tells me there is a reason behind the shit storm it is causing.

Many are holding off making statements out of respect for the board owners. They deserve that, and thankfully those who come down on the against side on this issue are not cutting down GG&J. Only commenting on the topic of the site. Though some tempers flare a bit here and there

My statement, as I am free to make it, is the site should either be dropped or, renamed and some copy rewritten.

Susanna,

I am curious what you think of the Redlight District Movie "Assault That Ass" since it has that same word "Assault" in there, but it's not simulated rape or anything like that, it's just lots of hard anal sex, double penetrations... http://www.searchextreme.com/moviede...2/49934306841/
They also have a dvd called "Weapons of Ass Destruction." Would you consider that
"harmful" as well, since it uses the word "destruction"? |yawn|

I am a female, but I still don't find that sleeping site that bad. I draw the line at
CP and beastiality, but other than that I would promote anything that makes me $$$

I don't think watching even simulated "assault" type stuff will make someone want to actually assault someone. Either they are sick in their minds to begin with, or their not. But I don't think there is anything wrong with "fantasy" even if it's distateful fantasy.

I admit there were times when I fantasized I was being overpowered or assaulted by some guy... lol
Fantasy is just fantasy.... even if it's a little bit violent or rough, it's still "make-belief" and the site is simulated. I really don't think it's a big deal at all.

Stever
C.P. is outright illegal, so thats where it stands and we arent talking about that
I am sorry if you dont argee with me
I do think its hyporcritical for pornographers to be offended

lets not forget this sleep site is about dollars. They pushing the envlope because they think the shock value will make money

everyone here is part of this problem (a small part). The shock sites have been coming out for awhile and most people premote them and most webmasters made money with them so......

like i said most religious (millions) people would have the same exact problem with your sites, as you have with the sleep site

the same exact problem

all the bitchin in the world here is not gonna change a thing
the only thing I can do is not premote it
in fact I am not gonna premote any of their sites because of that 1

and I hope no one gets upset by my opinion

and yes I have read and throughly understood all the posts


Trixie you keep posting about how smart you are, is it really smart to offend other people on this board. It could have easely turned in to a pissing match and that would take away from the debate that you care so much about

saying something like again reading comprehension is the problem and

Reading comprehension: if only we could purchase it as easily as a viagra-induced erection.

I see it simply as an attack because you dont like my opinions

but who knows maybe a pissing match is your goal

I disagree and I think I have a small analogy that is a pretty fair comparison. It's going to seem like I'm nit-picking, but it's the point of my arguement, so... I'm eating a bowl of Raisen Bran right now. Generally, I like cereal. Yes, saying that UW likes cereal is a pretty sound statement. However, I don't like the overly sweetened shit my kids demand every time we pass through the cereal isle of the grocery store. I don't think that I'm hypocritical if I say, I like cereal, but I won't eat Fruit Loops.

To say that pornographers are hypocrites for being selective or being offended by a certain genre of porn would mean that we must accept ALL pornography; legal, ethical, or not. Pornography is an industry, not a virtue or belief system. There really isn't any hypocrisy here - just selectivity.

I get your point UW but we have two threads of agruments here. 1. What should be legal? and 2. What is ethical?

There isn't a country in the world that doesn't have some limits on free speech. Libel and slander laws limit speech for instance. So we debate what should and should not be legal. [I say with porn its got to be informed consenting adults.] On the otherhand ethics, some might say, is personal taste. [I find the sight lame, offensive and I will not promote it thereby exercising my market power in a free society.]

So I agree with your post but I want to clear up that you can have opposing legal and ethical opinions about the site in question and not be in conflict.

---art

P.S. If you know the tune sing along ... this is the thread that never ends. It goes on and on my friends. Someone started writing it not knowing what it was, and they'll continue replying to it forever just because, ... [from the top] ...

I agree that ALL pornographers are not hypocrites. The ones that are trying to impart thier own morals on everyone else most certainly are.

I chose not to promote shock sites or watch shock TV. I also don't tell people to not watch Nip Tuck, The Shield, CSI, Law & Order or all that other stuff even though I have strong feelings against those.

People have the right to live whatever fantasies they wish as long as they are not breaking any laws in the process. I have the right to not promote or view the same things.

|thumb Very true. I dislike the site, but I can't see anything that would make it illegal. Distasteful - yes, but illegal - no.

Frankly, I'm not sure I even know what anyone is arguing about any longer. I think all of us, or at least most of us, agree that we don't like the site. Now we are just arguing about how emphatically we dislike it and why we dislike it. Neat, huh? :)

Good point. Back to work!

What is moral varies from person to person. One is born with morals. I'm not sure where expressing a moral opinion could be deemed as hypocrisy. Saying "I think porn is a sin", then viewing porn at night when your wife is in bed is hypocritical. But being selective about the porn you like and stating that others are wrong for not sharing your same tastes or sense of morality is not hypocritical.

There has been some argument over ethical standards. Ethics, being more of a set of moral-based rules shared by a community, are a bit more tricky since we assume that, unlike the morals we are born with, we all share them. I think we've found that there isn't much of an ethical standard here. We are all relying on our own morals to decipher right from wrong. This could be like discussing religion. Agreement will never be reached and someone is bound to get poked in the ass by a priest.

This thread needs furrygirl!

|deadhorse |zzzzzzzzz

I understand where this is coming from but let me stretch the argument and take us back to 1860, back when selling people like cattle were completely legal, whether or not you owned a slave was a business decision, and the law of the land said blacks were 1/3 human.

A slave owner threatened by abolishionists' angry protests saying you *shouldn't* own slaves and you should let them go, would have probably said, "it's my freedom and my choice to own slaves. By the way I'm not breaking any laws. So, why don't you go mind your own business you moralistic son of a bitches and stop making so much fuss?"

Well, after a bloody war, that choice was taken away, and the world was left a better place because of it.

I'm not saying Sleep Assault is comparable to slavery on any level, but choice and freedom defined by law is no justification because law isn't perfect and it's subject to change, as we can see from DOJ fiddling with 2257.

Nip Tuck is great! those other cop and law shows though, blah! boring.