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.

Thanks for your vote of confidence, but I think I really said all I had to say in the main thread about Sleep Assault. There gets to be a point in every discussion like this that people don't even know what they're arguing about any longer, so I'm going to focus my time on getting my third paysite ready for launch.


But, I will add that Nip/Tuck is one of the best shows on TV, from what I saw of the first season. Season two is out on DVD on the 30th!

You know what... I just can't resist it, even though this thread has had it's day.

I just have to include a link to this site:
http://www.sleepingmen.com

It's about a gay guy sneaking into the rooms of straight guys who are asleep, feeling them up and sucking them off.

On priciple I won't promote this site either, as again there are issues of lack of consent which offend me.

What is interesting though is that this gay guy is sneaking up on men while they're asleep and making THEM come. There's even a scenario where the straight guy wakes up and welcomes the advances of the gay guy.

This to me seems to resemble the kind of somnophilia fantasy that the other Ragecash site is supposedly about. I've said before, if the women were actually enjoying themselves on that site it might be more palatable to me.

Someone said previously that copy and context is everything. I'll agree with that.

OK... back to work for me. As I said, I probably shouldn't have posted this but I came across that site and it just seemed to fit in with some of the things others had posted previously.