Image Image

  Nostalgia ain't what it used to be

Thursday, 21 June, 2018
Image

Eek ... Pornography

Date: 09 December, 2004

By: Chief

Imageon't Look Ethel.

Back in November the U.S. Senate Science, Technology and Space Sub-Committee held hearings on, of all the ridiculous things, pornography. There were even witnesses testifying about how horrid porn is. Why according to one anti-pornster, Mary Anne Layden, porn is the:

"[M]ost concerning thing to psychological health that I know of existing today."

Think that is bad? Psychiatrist Jeffrey Satinover of the National Association for Research & Therapy of Homosexuality, another witness, claims that porn "causes masturbation."

Hell fire Ethel, this pornography stuff is worse than being addicted to cocaine. Just ask Layden. She stated:

"Pornography addicts have a more difficult time recovering from their addiction than cocaine addicts[.]"

But the best, or worst as the case may be, is from Judith Reisman of the California Protective Parents Association who suggested that more study of "erototoxins" could show how pornography is not speech-protected under the First Amendment. All I have to say is where can I get some of them-thar erototoxins? Wal-mart perhaps? In all seriousness though, how can one study what does not exist. Erototoxins, sheesh, what a joke.

Puh-lease lady, get a life or at the very least get laid. Obviously she needs it (it would not surprise me one little bit if she drives with her legs crossed).

Training films

All pornography is, is well, sex on celluloid. Oh, my God! I said the dirty word, S-E-X. I don't really care if it is one man and one woman making love, or in the vernacular, getting laid (screwing their brains out) or group sex, i.e., pulling a train, or an all womens sex-capade or an all mens sex-capade. I just do not give a damn. If two or more consenting adults want to go for a hay ride who in the world am I or you to stop them from enjoying their lives? If it causes harm to no one else, do as you will. And consensual sex harms no one. Neither does watching an 'X' rated movie or looking at a 'dirty' book harm anybody. Who knows, we all might learn something. Training films, don't you know.

Sex is fun. Sex is enjoyable. So why not enjoy it?

What has been happening over the past couple of thousand years is that organized religions, got that — religions, have made sex a bad thing. And that is what is wrong. Actually, it is disgusting. Banning something or turning something that is good into something that is bad is a sure-fire way of getting people to do exactly what a certain group, read that as religions, do not want people to do. Just consider Catholic priests. They are supposed to remain celibate. But[t] when nobody is looking guess what? Them good old father confessors are doing or getting done by men, women and children in secret. Why? Because according to the church, they are forbidden from getting a blow job or having any other kind of sex for that matter.

Sex is wonderful. Sex is natural. What is wrong with that? The answer is not a God dog thing. I'll say it again just to piss off the sex-nots, the fanatic church goers and religious founders, sex is wonderful, sex is natural. Masturbation, fellatio, cunnilingus, anal sex. It is all good. Men and women have been performing various sexual pleasures upon each other for eons. So have men to men and women to women. 'The more you give, the more you get in return' as the old saying goes. And all was good in the world until religion got involved and started torturing and burning those who partook in the wonderful world of sex.

And no, porn does not cause masturbation. Being horny does. Not getting laid makes a person horny. So, if one cannot get laid, take things into your own hand and be done with it. With that in mind, masturbation does not cause blindness or hair to grow on the palm of your hand. Just thought I would clear the air about those two minor misconceptions.

The children

But we must protect the children cry the sex-nots and the Christian prudes. Oh no we don't. Wrong answer. We do not have to protect the children. Mommy and daddy have to protect their children. It goes with territory, if you get my drift. Hubby and wife wanted kids well, they got their wish and they, not we, can take care of the little blighters.

Now herein lies the danger. Jeffrey Satinover testified that:

"The [I]nternet is dangerous because it removes the inefficiency in the delivery of pornography, making porn much more ubiquitous than in the days when guys in trench coats would sell nudie postcards."

Without having the courage to say so these self-righteous dirtbags want the federal government to control the content of the Internet. But control over the content of the Internet is not enough. Judith Reisman stated that a "study of 'erototoxins' " could show how pornography is not speech-protected under the First Amendment."

And there you have it. First is control over the content of the Internet then complete control over the content of speech. That is the sex-nots' and Christian prudes' agenda.

It's all about Control

Do not think, even for a second, that this attempt at control over speech is a new phenomenon. Quite the contrary. The Roman Catholic church had for centuries tried its very best to keep the bible out of the hands of the mere common people and only in the hands of the ordained priests. Well old Gutenberg destroyed that wet dream for the church. But look how long it took to get the bible into the hands of mere commoners. Had it not been for the printing press you, I or anyone else would have nary a clue about the contents of the bible. Which is exactly what the church wants. To control people. It is all about control. It always has been.

The Bonfire of the Vanities is another classic example of religious control. In 1497 followers of priest Girolamo Savonarola collected and publicly burned thousands of objects in Florence, Italy. The main thrust of this destruction was objects considered to be sinful, including immoral books and pictures. Among the objects destroyed in this campaign were several original paintings on classical pagan mythological subjects by Sandro Botticelli, one of Italy's greatest masters. All done under the guise of 'trust us, we know what is best for you'. A travesty to be sure.

Ah-ah, but if the sex-nots and Christian prudes can possibly link porn to crime maybe our nanny government will do something about it. During the hearing Dr. Judith Reisman stated police always find pornography when searching the homes of rapists and pedophiles, and suggests that porn consumption leads to crime. How utterly ridiculous can a person be? That is the same as saying that anyone police catch with a bible must be a Christian and because Christians believe in God they also believe in Satan. Therefore all bible toting Christians are Satanists. This woman has no frigging clue whatsoever.

The only chance these meddling big government butt kissers have of hoping that porn goes away is to openly embrace what they despise, S-E-X. Instead of making sex taboo, bring it to the forefront of fun, enjoyment, stimulation and responsibility.

Now, where did I put my copy of Deep Throat?

(Return to the top)