Political Crossfire Forums

[The Grandmaster]

perdidochas wrote: The Grandmaster wrote: perdidochas wrote: The Grandmaster wrote: perdidochas wrote:
Not really. The best approach to not getting horny is to abstain totally. The first 3 weeks is rough, but after that, you get less horny if you have stayed away from sexual release.

Ridiculous. No, this does not work. The best way to remain not horny is a healthy real life sexual outlet. In the absense of that, pornography is the next best thing. Refraining does nothing but build pressure like a steam valve.

Have you ever tried it?

No, of course I haven't. If your drive does go down, then I'm even less interested in doing it. I don't believe wanting sex is a bad thing, and something that should be pushed into the shadows or forced away. Again, I am not of the opinion that sexuality is an evil thing that shoould be remedied.

I mainly did it because I didn't have a SO, and I got tired of the futility of masturbation. It's actually a much easier life.

I wholeheartedly and freely admit I do not have the willpower to go two weeks without a release. My all time record is 5 skipped days, 7 years ago. After 1 skipped day, it needs to be taken care of. After 2 skipped days…it becomes distracting. After 3 skipped days, I become agitated and angry. Masturbation is better than nothing at all, so it isn’t futile altogether. Besides, two weeks I believe is physically impossible, at least for me, since after a few days, it invariably takes care of itself anyway when I sleep. Probably this way for most people.


perdidochas wrote: The Grandmaster wrote: perdidochas wrote: I have. The first two or three weeks are rough, but after that your sex drive lessens.

I would rather be dead than have so sex drive. See my next paragraph. The reason I am alive is to pursue that which I enjoy. Taking away my ability to enjoy gives me less incentive to even live.

It comes back :-) It's not a permanent thing.

I wouldn’t think it would be, but even though it is frustrating to want it and not be able to get it, I think it would be downright unsettling to not care about it at all.

perdidochas wrote: The Grandmaster wrote: perdidochas wrote: Yes, you do end up having the occasional wet dream, but overall the best approach is abstinence.

Not really. I believe just the opposite. I have never been happier in my life than when I was getting regular sex. It quite literally made the difference. I am of the opinion that we should enjoy our lives, not get rid of all of our desires so that we are dead inside, and pursue nothing of enjoyment.

Not saying its a good replacement for regular sex (nothing is as good as regular sex), but it's a better thing than masturbating to porn.

We do agree that nothing is better than regular sex. But nevertheless, while porn/wanking it is nothing compared to the real thing, IMO, it would be better than not desiring it at all. Looking at hot girls is part of life’s enjoyment. The best scenario would be not to abstain, but rather, to simply have the real thing available when needed.

cap'n queasy wrote: Quote: Now Cap'n...are you serious, or are you just being facetious.

Just kidding around, but making that comment wanting people to think about being a little more mature.

If you look at the demographics it is the under thirty crowd that will be the most dangerous in nearly every category. And it's mostly just due to unrestrained, reckless behavior that could easily be prevented.

That’s the nature of the beast. Younger people are more carefree and fun like this. We are more likely to want to go out and do things, to have fun, to live it up. Older people tend to be happy sitting at home all the time. I feel like I’m missing something if I do that too much. It’s simply the way people are.

[perdidochas]

The Grandmaster wrote: We do agree that nothing is better than regular sex. But nevertheless, while porn/wanking it is nothing compared to the real thing, IMO, it would be better than not desiring it at all. Looking at hot girls is part of life’s enjoyment. The best scenario would be not to abstain, but rather, to simply have the real thing available when needed.

Looking at hot girls is still enjoyable in that state. It's the urge that stops.

[Demonic Spoon]

Quote:

I wholeheartedly and freely admit I do not have the willpower to go two weeks without a release. My all time record is 5 skipped days, 7 years ago. After 1 skipped day, it needs to be taken care of. After 2 skipped days…it becomes distracting. After 3 skipped days, I become agitated and angry. Masturbation is better than nothing at all, so it isn’t futile altogether. Besides, two weeks I believe is physically impossible, at least for me, since after a few days, it invariably takes care of itself anyway when I sleep. Probably this way for most people.



I must be lucky. Lack of release never really bothers me...I've gone weeks without it, then suddenly I remembered about it, got bored and loaded up the porn.

[The Grandmaster]

Demonic Spoon wrote: Quote:

I wholeheartedly and freely admit I do not have the willpower to go two weeks without a release. My all time record is 5 skipped days, 7 years ago. After 1 skipped day, it needs to be taken care of. After 2 skipped days…it becomes distracting. After 3 skipped days, I become agitated and angry. Masturbation is better than nothing at all, so it isn’t futile altogether. Besides, two weeks I believe is physically impossible, at least for me, since after a few days, it invariably takes care of itself anyway when I sleep. Probably this way for most people.



I must be lucky. Lack of release never really bothers me...I've gone weeks without it, then suddenly I remembered about it, got bored and loaded up the porn.

If I remember right, you are 15 or 16. Wait till later. It will become much worse.

[Protostar]

The Grandmaster wrote: Demonic Spoon wrote: Quote:

I wholeheartedly and freely admit I do not have the willpower to go two weeks without a release. My all time record is 5 skipped days, 7 years ago. After 1 skipped day, it needs to be taken care of. After 2 skipped days…it becomes distracting. After 3 skipped days, I become agitated and angry. Masturbation is better than nothing at all, so it isn’t futile altogether. Besides, two weeks I believe is physically impossible, at least for me, since after a few days, it invariably takes care of itself anyway when I sleep. Probably this way for most people.



I must be lucky. Lack of release never really bothers me...I've gone weeks without it, then suddenly I remembered about it, got bored and loaded up the porn.

If I remember right, you are 15 or 16. Wait till later. It will become much worse.

Much much worse. I agree with what you said GM. I can't live w/o more than a few days without my pornography, or it starts making me angry. And nobody likes me when I'm angry. :twisted:

[foadi]

Protostar wrote: The Grandmaster wrote: Demonic Spoon wrote: Quote:

I wholeheartedly and freely admit I do not have the willpower to go two weeks without a release. My all time record is 5 skipped days, 7 years ago. After 1 skipped day, it needs to be taken care of. After 2 skipped days…it becomes distracting. After 3 skipped days, I become agitated and angry. Masturbation is better than nothing at all, so it isn’t futile altogether. Besides, two weeks I believe is physically impossible, at least for me, since after a few days, it invariably takes care of itself anyway when I sleep. Probably this way for most people.



I must be lucky. Lack of release never really bothers me...I've gone weeks without it, then suddenly I remembered about it, got bored and loaded up the porn.

If I remember right, you are 15 or 16. Wait till later. It will become much worse.

Much much worse. I agree with what you said GM. I can't live w/o more than a few days without my pornography, or it starts making me angry. And nobody likes me when I'm angry. :twisted:
Same, although I don't have wet dreams when I abstain from masturbation.

[ideal]

micfranklin wrote: ideal wrote: Fifteen isn't young enough(usually) to promote pedophilia fantasies. We don't want to accept it, but sexually a fifteen year old is an adult.

Well, I gotta agree with you on that. And btw how young is young enough to promote pedophilic stuff?

Psychologists draw the line at puberty(whenever that comes in for the individual person).

[ideal]

Protostar wrote: The Grandmaster wrote: Demonic Spoon wrote: Quote:

I wholeheartedly and freely admit I do not have the willpower to go two weeks without a release. My all time record is 5 skipped days, 7 years ago. After 1 skipped day, it needs to be taken care of. After 2 skipped days…it becomes distracting. After 3 skipped days, I become agitated and angry. Masturbation is better than nothing at all, so it isn’t futile altogether. Besides, two weeks I believe is physically impossible, at least for me, since after a few days, it invariably takes care of itself anyway when I sleep. Probably this way for most people.



I must be lucky. Lack of release never really bothers me...I've gone weeks without it, then suddenly I remembered about it, got bored and loaded up the porn.

If I remember right, you are 15 or 16. Wait till later. It will become much worse.

Much much worse. I agree with what you said GM. I can't live w/o more than a few days without my pornography, or it starts making me angry. And nobody likes me when I'm angry. :twisted:

At 24, I have gone the past year and a half with sexual release, maybe, a dozen times. This is after a relationship where sex was performed in one function or another more than once daily. I haven't had a problem with it. I am hoping to change this in the near future due to a new relationship with a young lady, but my concern is more about the relationship than the sex.

[The Grandmaster]

ideal wrote:
At 24, I have gone the past year and a half with sexual release, maybe, a dozen times. This is after a relationship where sex was performed in one function or another more than once daily. I haven't had a problem with it. I am hoping to change this in the near future due to a new relationship with a young lady, but my concern is more about the relationship than the sex.

Then people's libidos simply work differently than others, and mine is more active than yours. I go three days, and I cannot stand it. A year and a half...forget it...they would find me swinging in my closet by my shoelaces.

[Kt]

ubikk wrote: Enoch wrote: What really gets me about this is the double standard that I see when compared to other cases.

Here we have a 15 year-old girl who took nude pictures of herself to send to people. She was arrested.

However, a couple months ago, I was flipping through the channels on TV one afternoon and stumbled upon Oprah. While not normally a fan of her show, I did watch this episode. She had on a 15 year-old boy who had started taking nude pics of himself to send to people. Then, he did private "shows" through a webcam. Then he started accepting gifts and money to a paypal account from people in exchange for acting out their fantasies on the webcam. (Seems a touch like prostitution to me)

Was he arrested? No. In fact, he was consoled as a victim and applauded as a hero for telling people about his experience on national TV.

Does this apparenty double standard seem right to anyone?

Boys are allowed to do that kind of thing. Girls are not.

Wow you're sharp! Good job, have a cookie.

As for the double standard, just,.. eughh..

We must get the retarded fundies out of office.

[ubikk]

Quote: The best scenario would be not to abstain, but rather, to simply have the real thing available when needed.


I dunno if you realize but it sounds like you are talking about women like they are some kind of on-damand receptacle to relieve your bodily functions. Like a commode or something.

[The Grandmaster]

ubikk wrote: Quote: The best scenario would be not to abstain, but rather, to simply have the real thing available when needed.


I dunno if you realize but it sounds like you are talking about women like they are some kind of on-damand receptacle to relieve your bodily functions. Like a commode or something.

What's your point?
I don't feel like wasting time going out of my way to be politically correct for a select few who love to become indignant over everything.
My post was logically perfect. If you have a willing girlfriend or wife, or sex partner, you have sex available when you want and need it. This is better than going without.
This is not a difficult concept.

[Silkheat]

foadi wrote: Silkheat wrote: You know in the context of this thread I pose this to you;

Any underage person who sees themselves naked is actively involved in child pornography. Furthermore any person who is underage and having sex is involved in child pornography, and rape. Also the people who take care of their children by changing diapers see their babies naked, which is child pornography. We should arrest every child who has seen themselves naked, and also arrest the vilain parents who have seen their babies naked.

Pathetic, adults are children in so many ways.....
we are living in a sexual dark age.

In America, India, and parts of Africa I believe. It seems Europe and Japan have different views. I am not sure about Australia and the rest of the world.

[foadi]

Silkheat wrote: foadi wrote: Silkheat wrote: You know in the context of this thread I pose this to you;

Any underage person who sees themselves naked is actively involved in child pornography. Furthermore any person who is underage and having sex is involved in child pornography, and rape. Also the people who take care of their children by changing diapers see their babies naked, which is child pornography. We should arrest every child who has seen themselves naked, and also arrest the vilain parents who have seen their babies naked.

Pathetic, adults are children in so many ways.....
we are living in a sexual dark age.

In America, India, and parts of Africa I believe. It seems Europe and Japan have different views. I am not sure about Australia and the rest of the world.
Europe is more open to sex, but they're still puritanical as far as I am concerned.

[ieatfood]

antonio62 wrote: ieatfood wrote: You have to realize WHY child porn is illegal.

It is because child porn increases the likelyhood that a predator will rape a child. That has been shown.

Thus, by distributing photos of herself, she is increasing the likelyhood that a child somewhere will be raped/sodomized. That is the reason.

Now she may be only 15 and not be tried as an adult. But what she did was still a crime, as much so as if she had robbed a convenience store.

A lot of psychologists say that watching any kind of porn doesn't make you more likely to do what you saw. A lot would even say they think it lessens the chances.

Perhaps--I have heard of studies suggesting the opposite. However, insofar as it is a crime to distribute child porn, it is thus quite clear that this child violated the law.

[~*Alex*~]

micfranklin wrote: http://www.usatoday.com/tech/webguide/internetlife/2004-03-29-child-self-porn_x.htm

Quote: PITTSBURGH (AP) — A 15-year-old girl has been arrested for taking nude photographs of her self and posting them on the Internet, police said.
The girl, whose identity was withheld, was accused of sending out photographs of herself in various states of undress and performing a variety of sexual acts. She sent them to people she met in chat rooms on the Internet, police said.

Police seized her computer and found dozens of photographs stored on the hard drive. Authorities did not say how police learned about the girl.

She has been charged with sexual abuse of children, possession of child pornography and dissemination of child pornography.

Something about this story doesn't seem right. First of all, it doesn't say how the police found out about this. Second of all, how can she be charged with "child pornography" if she is the one doing this on her own free will.

Most of all, why is a 15-year old doing s**t like this? :?

Er well um, I did something similar when I was 15, I was young and stupid then, but they were just pictures of me. I got slapped down REALLY hard when the parents found out, still hurting from that actually.

As for the criminal charges, that is odd as she probably had pictures of other teens and given her age I just don't see how she could be charged with "child pornography" as she's a "child" herself.

[The Grandmaster]

ieatfood wrote: antonio62 wrote: ieatfood wrote: You have to realize WHY child porn is illegal.

It is because child porn increases the likelyhood that a predator will rape a child. That has been shown.

Thus, by distributing photos of herself, she is increasing the likelyhood that a child somewhere will be raped/sodomized. That is the reason.

Now she may be only 15 and not be tried as an adult. But what she did was still a crime, as much so as if she had robbed a convenience store.

A lot of psychologists say that watching any kind of porn doesn't make you more likely to do what you saw. A lot would even say they think it lessens the chances.

Perhaps--I have heard of studies suggesting the opposite. However, insofar as it is a crime to distribute child porn, it is thus quite clear that this child violated the law.

Then to be consistent, we must help ourselves to the same logic and throw everyone under the age of consent who masturbates into jail for child molestation. But I don’t hear an outcry over that, right?

The ridiculousness of this demonstrates is a ludicrous law as it is being applied here, and needs to be modified. Child pornography laws are in place to protect kids from predators. To throw the kids in jail, robbing them of life, over taking pictures of themselves is not protecting them from anyone. Thus, the law fails in this instance. To say otherwise is simply prosecutory and predatory in nature. Some people love to see others in jail for nothing.

[perdidochas]

The Grandmaster wrote: ieatfood wrote: antonio62 wrote: ieatfood wrote: You have to realize WHY child porn is illegal.

It is because child porn increases the likelyhood that a predator will rape a child. That has been shown.

Thus, by distributing photos of herself, she is increasing the likelyhood that a child somewhere will be raped/sodomized. That is the reason.

Now she may be only 15 and not be tried as an adult. But what she did was still a crime, as much so as if she had robbed a convenience store.

A lot of psychologists say that watching any kind of porn doesn't make you more likely to do what you saw. A lot would even say they think it lessens the chances.

Perhaps--I have heard of studies suggesting the opposite. However, insofar as it is a crime to distribute child porn, it is thus quite clear that this child violated the law.

Then to be consistent, we must help ourselves to the same logic and throw everyone under the age of consent who masturbates into jail for child molestation. But I don’t hear an outcry over that, right?

The ridiculousness of this demonstrates is a ludicrous law as it is being applied here, and needs to be modified. Child pornography laws are in place to protect kids from predators. To throw the kids in jail, robbing them of life, over taking pictures of themselves is not protecting them from anyone. Thus, the law fails in this instance. To say otherwise is simply prosecutory and predatory in nature. Some people love to see others in jail for nothing.

How can we prove that she took the pictures herself?

The law states that pictures of people under age 18 engaged in sexual activity is child pornography. The girl, according to what I've heard, is guilty of production and distribution of child pornography.

[Kt]

The Grandmaster wrote: ieatfood wrote: antonio62 wrote: ieatfood wrote: You have to realize WHY child porn is illegal.

It is because child porn increases the likelyhood that a predator will rape a child. That has been shown.

Thus, by distributing photos of herself, she is increasing the likelyhood that a child somewhere will be raped/sodomized. That is the reason.

Now she may be only 15 and not be tried as an adult. But what she did was still a crime, as much so as if she had robbed a convenience store.

A lot of psychologists say that watching any kind of porn doesn't make you more likely to do what you saw. A lot would even say they think it lessens the chances.

Perhaps--I have heard of studies suggesting the opposite. However, insofar as it is a crime to distribute child porn, it is thus quite clear that this child violated the law.

Then to be consistent, we must help ourselves to the same logic and throw everyone under the age of consent who masturbates into jail for child molestation. But I don’t hear an outcry over that, right?

The ridiculousness of this demonstrates is a ludicrous law as it is being applied here, and needs to be modified. Child pornography laws are in place to protect kids from predators. To throw the kids in jail, robbing them of life, over taking pictures of themselves is not protecting them from anyone. Thus, the law fails in this instance. To say otherwise is simply prosecutory and predatory in nature. Some people love to see others in jail for nothing.

You say it, I say it, others say it, and still, some just do not understand common sense.

[The Grandmaster]

perdidochas wrote: The Grandmaster wrote: ieatfood wrote: antonio62 wrote: ieatfood wrote: You have to realize WHY child porn is illegal.

It is because child porn increases the likelyhood that a predator will rape a child. That has been shown.

Thus, by distributing photos of herself, she is increasing the likelyhood that a child somewhere will be raped/sodomized. That is the reason.

Now she may be only 15 and not be tried as an adult. But what she did was still a crime, as much so as if she had robbed a convenience store.

A lot of psychologists say that watching any kind of porn doesn't make you more likely to do what you saw. A lot would even say they think it lessens the chances.

Perhaps--I have heard of studies suggesting the opposite. However, insofar as it is a crime to distribute child porn, it is thus quite clear that this child violated the law.

Then to be consistent, we must help ourselves to the same logic and throw everyone under the age of consent who masturbates into jail for child molestation. But I don’t hear an outcry over that, right?

The ridiculousness of this demonstrates is a ludicrous law as it is being applied here, and needs to be modified. Child pornography laws are in place to protect kids from predators. To throw the kids in jail, robbing them of life, over taking pictures of themselves is not protecting them from anyone. Thus, the law fails in this instance. To say otherwise is simply prosecutory and predatory in nature. Some people love to see others in jail for nothing.

How can we prove that she took the pictures herself?

Well, if you want to prosecute her for this, you better find a way.
In the absense of any other evidence, looks like all you can do is take her word.

perdidochas wrote: The law states that pictures of people under age 18 engaged in sexual activity is child pornography. The girl, according to what I've heard, is guilty of production and distribution of child pornography.

Then the law, as I have said in this case, is ridiculous, and demonstrates we aren't concerned with the protection of our citizens, but that we are more concerned with throwing them in jail. :wink:

By the way, the next time we see a parent taking a pictures of their baby with no clothes on, like we see all the time...
We need to prosecute them.

Helena` wrote:
You say it, I say it, others say it, and still, some just do not understand common sense.

I know Helena....I know... :(

"Some things are so obviously correct….
Yet people still resist."

--Daniel Smith – Mathematician