[Trixie]

Originally Posted by artwilliams

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.

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.

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".

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.

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

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.