Showing posts with label pornography. Show all posts
Showing posts with label pornography. Show all posts

Friday, November 27, 2009

No Such Thing as Consent

makarios, religion, christian, liar, pornography,
[triggers: rape, pornography]

If you ask most anyone what the difference is between sex and rape, you'll get a simple answer: consent. In the former act, both parties agree to participate, the latter act involves only perpetrator and victim.

Unless you are Makarios, in which case women of any age are incapable of consent, and pornography involving consenting adults is exactly the same thing as kiddie porn.

Do I like pornography? Not particularly. Do I want my niece to be a porn star someday? No. Do I think adults have the right to engage in legal activities if they choose to, even if I don't like or agree with those activities? Yes. Is there a difference between what consenting adults do together and what is done to a child? Absolutely.

First of all, Makarios commits libel by suggesting that Tristan Vick supports child pornography. Mr. Vick does not support child pornography. Makarios, you see, conflates pornography involving consenting aduts with child pornography, which, by its very nature, involves at least one nonconsenting party. One party, in fact, that cannot consent.

The comments explode with "how can you say that?! Mr. Vick supports porn not kiddie porn", to which Makarios replies:


Ah, so you make a distinction do you? Adult porn good, child porn bad? Is that the way it works in atheist world?


Yes, in the real world, that is how it works. People who are capable of consent get to consent to what they wish, people who are incapable of consent cannot. Makarios knows this. He knows we don't let minors enter legal contracts or drink alcohol, not because these things are inherently
bad, but because we have decided that there is a point at which you are simply incapable of making decisions, i.e., consent, so we won't let you do it.

This gets pointed a few times, to which Makarios replies:

Thanks Gorth. The atheist with selective morality indicates that “consent” is the measuring stick between good and bad. And at what age Gorth? You think that a 12year old can’t give consent? How about a 10 year old? He's offered 10 dollars that will supply food for his family. All he has to do is let some filthy jerk take pictures of him giving someone a blow job. You think that 10 year old can't consent to making 10 dollars?Does it differ from country to country, Gorth? You think that a 14year old in America is as mature as a 14 in Taiwan?

Never mind all that. What you are saying, in your profound ignorance is this. A child who has been emotionally, and sexually abused grows up and "consents" to further degradation and abuse as an adult and that makes it all ok - because, according to Gorth, she can give consent. I say shame on every one of you. Once again it is the Christian who alone is trying to defend women from those who live by survival of the most powerful. Atheists, giving verbal support for the degrading of those most damaged by life. Priceless.


Ignoring the "all Christians do this and all atheists do that" element of it, yes, a certain age of consent is fairly arbitrary, and does not address each individual person's actual ability to consent. Some people may well be capable of consent at 14, some people may never reach that point. However, it is simply impractical at best to try to determine whether each individual person is capable of consent at each and every point they may want to consent, so we draw a line in the sand: 16, 18, 21.

Also, the 10 year old in the above example is not being asked to consent to earning $10, they are being asked to consent to sexual activity. 10 year olds are not capable of this.

Makarios then makes the argument that adult women are not capable of consent, particularly if they were abused as children.

Makarios knows? I know exactly what the hundreds and hundreds of prostitutes and those in the porn industry with whom I've worked have told me. And I can tell you absolutely that their "consent" is no consent at all. Because of childhood sexual and emotional abuse all these women know is sexual degradation at the hands of men. All they know to survive is to allow men to use them and abuse them sexually. And here you are, the free thinking atheists in all your wisdom, actually believing that porn has something to do with freedom. Even the women who post here are willing o turn on other women. If it might help make a case against a Chistian, anyone is expendable. I find it disgusting.


"Hundreds and hundreds of prostitutes"? Really? I'm not sure that in 34 years I've even met hundreds and hundreds of people, let alone hundreds and hundreds of prostitutes. And "those in the porn industry with whom I've worked"? Did you work in the porn industry?

Ignoring the issue of what motivates people to work in the sex industry, those people are consenting adults. They may be making very bad decisions for utterly tragic reasons. They are still adults with every right to make those decisions. We cannot revoke a person's right to consent because they make bad decisions. First of all, everyone makes bad decisions occasionally, but also because the right to make decisions is not dependent on the decisions you make. We're not going to have anyone left to make decisions if we remove consent based on what you do with it. Obviously, if you choose to commit crimes, we do remove your right to make decisions, but that's an entirely different issue. Porn stars are not committing crimes.

By your own measure, Makarios, you are not capable of consent, because you have used your decision making privileges to commit a disgusting, illegal act: libel, in accusing a completely innocent man of supporting child pornography. We call this being hoisted by one's own petard, btw.

Thursday, August 27, 2009

He Brought a Pedophile to Church

pedophilia, pedophile, porn, pornography, church, modesty, religion, christian, stupid,
and then complained that the women weren't dressed modestly enough.


Oh, wait, I just threw you to the end of my rant, so that may not make any sense.


From the beginning:


Sunday's Breast by Mike Adams


Last Sunday, I took a couple of guests to church. I just met Lisa back in March. But I’ve known her husband David for fifteen years – ever since he took my “intro” class at UNC-Wilmington. David just pleaded guilty to one count of receiving child pornography. In all likelihood, he’ll soon be sentenced to eight years in federal prison.

catch that? Mr. Adams took a guy who's into kiddie porn to church with him. KIDDIE PORN. Is there anything lower than that? Anything at all? As it turns out, yes.

But last Sunday at church I was slightly embarrassed in front of my guests. "in front of", not "because of" The source of my embarrassment was all of the women who came to the service dressed like they had been out at a bar. A lot of these women know that they can meet higher quality men at church than at a bar. But some don’t have enough sense to change clothes after making the transition from a bar to a church sanctuary.

So, you attended a church service with a man who enjoys CHILD PORNOGRAPHY, is going to prison for CHILD PORNOGRAPHY, but what really embarrassed you was women in sexy clothing? Really? Did the children in the pornography ask for it, too?


One of the worst offenders was seated one row in front of us. She wasn’t like all of the other women who were content merely to show their breasts. I know, right, women having breasts and not wearing hijab to cover them up. It's terrible. Worse, in fact, than kiddi porn. She had to wear a dress that was thin enough to let the whole congregation know she wears thong underwear. (a) you don't have to look (b) let me share a little secret with you, Mr. Adams. I've worn dresses that thin in public, too, and not on purpose. They looked fine at the store, fine in my bathroom when I put them on, then BAM naked in public. sunlight is a bitch. trust me, boyshorts instead of thongs don't make that situation any better. and it's still not worse than your kiddie porn loving friend. It was even more disturbing than the 13-year olds who wear torn Daisy Dukes instead of wearing a bra. does Mr. Adams know what daisy dukes are? i mean, you can't wear daisy dukes instead of a bra. they don't go on the same body part. oh, and blame the parents, there, bud. my mother wouldn't have let me wear short shorts to church.

When women come to church dressed like this they seldom stop to think that a recovering sex addict might be in the congregation. And they seldom stop to think that there are married men in the congregation who are struggling with lust issues. The church should be a place where men can come to seek help as they battle these temptations. It’s a shame that some of the temptations are following them into the church and pulling up a chair right beside them.

Mr. Adams, you know who likes child pornography? Pedophiles. You brought a pedophile into a church- a place guaranteed to be filled with children. Children should be safe in a church. The attendees of said church shouldn't have to worry that fellow congregants are bringing pedophiles to church, that a pedophile might pull a chair right beside their children. What you did, in bringing a pedophile, a known pedophile, to a church, is obscene. If I attended that church, I would demand that you not be allowed back, with or without your pet pedophile.

Honestly, what the fuck is wrong with some people?


Friday, April 24, 2009

Oh, For Crying Out Loud

atheism, atheist, agnostic, barna, morality, abortion, drug, drunkenness, homosexual, bisexual, pornography, gambling, sex, sexuality, cohabitation, religion, christian, christianity, makarios
First of all, I need to say that if you are going to reference a study, an article, etc. in a post, you need give a link. Stop making me do your research.

Secondly, can we please give the "atheists are immoral and dangerous" meme a rest? Please? Atheists act just like everyone else. To be fair, we're better at marriage (the more fundy you are, the more likely you are to get divorced), but there appears to be little real life relationship between believing a thing is wrong and actually not doing it. (See: The Only Moral Abortion Is My Abortion.)

Makarios pulls out and dusts off this meme, yet again, in his post Atheist Richard Dawkins. (I don't know why he feels a need to put the word "atheist" in front of "Richard Dawkins". It's sort of like saying "Catholic Pope".)

Preaches the atheistic anti-life dogma i can't decide if he means that atheists tend to be prochoice, or that we're just against life in general. either way, stoopid. that works AGAINST natural selection natural selection has nothing to do with birth control. i don't know much about the subject, but i would think that birth control and fertility medicine are skewing our results a bit. by causing in atheists an aversion to reproducing their genes atheists are in no way averse to reproducing. most atheists i know, like most people i know, have children. what a strange world Makarios lives in. (out of three marriages Dawkins could only stomach the creation of one child that's just rude. first of all, his wives would have had the final say in whether or not they got pregnant. secondly, we don't know if his wives were infertile, or if dawkins has fertility issues. makarios could well be mocking some poor woman who desperately wants to have children and can't. lastly, in the end, whether or not to have children is a personal choice. i choose no, you choose yes. good for both of us.), and/or killing their offspring by the millions every year. wft?! anyone seen those news reports? seriously, what. the. fuck.

The Barna Research Group found regarding atheism and the morality that those who hold to the world views of atheism or agnosticism in America were more likely, than theists in America, to look upon the following behaviours as morally acceptable: (as I said, there is a huge difference between finding something to be immoral and actually not doing it, but let's play along)

no, wait, let's not. I found the study Makarios helpfully didn't bother to provide a link to. It's from 2003 and it is not what Makarios represents it to be.

More than four out of five adults - 83% - contend that they are concerned about the moral condition of the nation. Given that 84% of all adults consider themselves to be Christian, they have good reason to worry about the moral state of the country: many of [Christians'] views conflict with the moral teachings of their professed faith.

wait, that's not atheists or agnostics. that's christians. i assume Makarios is engaging in a No True Scotsman here, but he's misrepresenting the study. the participants in the study were not atheists and agnostics- they were christians.

and this is how christians felt about a variety of issues in 2003:

illegal drug use; 17% of those interviewed felt that was acceptable. hardly a majority.

excessive drinking; holy ambiguous, batman. 35% were in favor of "drunkenness".

sexual relationships outside of marriage; 42% were okay with this, though with the caveat that the relationship is hetero.

abortion; 45% in favor of.

cohabiting with someone of opposite sex outside of marriage; 60% were fine with it

obscene language; 36%. more people were okay with abortion and adultery than with saying "fuck"? seriously?

gambling; 61% in favor of. I wonder if they reminded people that the lottery is a form of gambling. as is bingo.

pornography 38%. abortion and adultery yes, porn no? where did they find these people? and obscene sexual behaviour wtf is that?;

and engaging in homosexuality and bisexuality 30% weren't bothered by Teh Gai at all.

the rest of the post is some quotes from dead philosophers that I guarantee Makarios does not understand, but that was fun. It's nice to know what christians are really all about.

Monday, March 2, 2009

Prop 8 and Porn

porn, pornography, red, conservative, liberal, homosexual, prop 8, religion, christian,
In case you missed it on Feministe (why aren't you visiting Feministe? it's awesome!) Utah is the biggest porn customer in the U.S., and states that have banned same-sex marriage in order to maintain traditional values consume 11% more pornography than states without marriage bans.

Here's the paper in pdf.

And a few more quotes:

"subscriptions are also more prevalent in states where
surveys indicate conservative positions on religion, gender roles, and sexuality. In
states where more people agree that “Even today miracles are performed by the
power of God” and “I never doubt the existence of God,” there are more subscriptions
to this service. Subscriptions are also more prevalent in states where more
people agree that “I have old-fashioned values about family and marriage” and
“AIDS might be God’s punishment for immoral sexual behavior.”



visitors from the “red”
states that voted for Bush in 2004 are more likely to visit wife-swapping sites, adult
webcams, and sites about voyeurism.

Creative Commons License
Forever in Hell by Personal Failure is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NoDerivs 3.0 Unported License.
Based on a work at foreverinhell.blogspot.com.