BYU student club: Students That Oppose Pornography

[CardiacCoug]

Originally Posted by MikeWaters

Well, doesn't it make sense that descendants of men that claimed polygamy was the only way to avoid adultery would indulge in pornography?

I'm not saying I buy the argument, but it's interesting how the same argument that was used by some to justify polygamy is used now by people to justify pornography.

I once attended a lecture from a psychiatrist who specializes in sexual issues, at least that is what his lecture was on. He made the statement, "Not all sexual abuse causes harm." Wow, did that set off a firestorm. He wasn't justifying or condoning it, he was saying that not all sexual abuse results in damage.

Let's say that you buy that argument (btw, I was one of those arguing against him during the lecture). And let's say you buy the argument that pornography does not cause damage for all viewers. That doesn't mean that it is harmless or should be something that we aspire to.

I am reminded of the Bloom County Picayune: "The Truth with Bra Ads".

That reminds me of a twin study out of Australia that I heard about in medical school that showed that being a childhood victim of physical or sexual abuse had very high correlation among identical twins (even raised separately) and much lower correlation among fraternal twins (even raised in the same household). The investigator said these data were unpublishable because no one would want to be known as the person who argues that kids are responsible (genetically, at least) for their own victimization.

I hate when political correctness interferes with science like that. Just give us the truth. We can handle it. And of course not all sexual abuse results in "damage" for the victim (especially widely varying, culturally based statutory crimes where both participants are willing). Some victims would recover just fine with no residual effects. That's obvious.

[Levin]

Originally Posted by CardiacCoug

And of course not all sexual abuse results in "damage" for the victim (especially widely varying, culturally based statutory crimes where both participants are willing). Some victims would recover just fine with no residual effects. That's obvious.

Not obvious at all. It's all how you define "damage" and "residual effects." I suspect I'd define them much differently than you if you think it's obvious some victims recover with no residual effects or some victims experience no damage.

Consent in youth is a very tricky thing, and there are many persuasive arguments for why youth can never consent to a sexual relationship with an adult, in the sense that consent means a fully volitional act of free will with full understanding and absent all distortionary influences. Of course if that's the definition of consent, then not even adults can consent in many instances, but there are self-evident reasons to apply such a definition to youth.

[MikeWaters]

http://www.mcclatchydc.com/251/story/65310.html

[Levin]

Originally Posted by MikeWaters

http://www.mcclatchydc.com/251/story/65310.html

"But the larger point is to get young people accustomed to seeing adult movies as mainstream entertainment."

They won't hide in the shadows anymore, or behind the plastic covers, or on the back row of the magazine aisle.

Does the public know that their tax dollars are being used to screen porn movies at public universities? (Public dollars paid for the building and its maintenance.)

Had to say I got a chuckle imagining this happening at BYU, in the good old Wilkinson theatre.

[Levin]

Maryland senate threatens to withhold state money to University of Md if it allows XXX to be shown.

Movie canceled.

Poor, deprived kids. Now they'll just have to watch it on their computers.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...=moreheadlines