U.S. Republican Primary

Seen something interesting in the news or on the intertubes? Discuss it here.

Moderators: Zamfir, Hawknc, Moderators General, Prelates

User avatar
lutzj
Posts: 898
Joined: Fri Feb 05, 2010 6:20 am UTC
Location: Ontario

Re: U.S. Republican Primary

Postby lutzj » Wed Mar 14, 2012 2:05 am UTC

So, polls are closed in Alabama and Mississippi (I always love typing "Mississippi" for some reason... mississippi mississippi), and with around 100,000-200,000 votes tallied so far for each state it seems like a close three-way race between Romney, Gingrich, and Santorum (who has a slight edge in both states). Hawaii hasn't finished voting yet but nobody has been campaigning much there and I'd expect a fairly safe win for Romney, which will take some of the sting out of the night should he lose both Alabama and Mississippi.

edit: Santorum's now looking even better in Alabama and will probably take that state.
addams wrote:I'm not a bot.
That is what a bot would type.

Ghostbear
Posts: 1764
Joined: Sat Apr 26, 2008 10:06 pm UTC

Re: U.S. Republican Primary

Postby Ghostbear » Wed Mar 14, 2012 2:19 am UTC

Yep. Santorum is outperforming his polling in both states so far as well, I believe.

If Santorum wins both I think it'll close the lid on any chances Romney has to end the nomination fight early. Not that Romney won't be the nominee; the delegate math is so crazy in Romney's favor that it'd take a miracle (from their perspective) for the others to win.

User avatar
lutzj
Posts: 898
Joined: Fri Feb 05, 2010 6:20 am UTC
Location: Ontario

Re: U.S. Republican Primary

Postby lutzj » Wed Mar 14, 2012 2:24 am UTC

The current take in Mississippi (with about 75% reporting) is about 68k votes for Santorum, 66k for Gingrich, 63k for Romney, and 9k for Paul. Romney's best hope there is probably that Gingrich wins and takes some of the wind out of Santorum's campaign.

edit: poops, Santorum's going to win narrowly in both states. He's getting 13 delegates in Alabama (plus one non-primary delegate) and Romney/Gingrich each take 6; these proportional primaries made it harder for Romney to win quickly, but now it seems like they're insulating his lead somewhat.
addams wrote:I'm not a bot.
That is what a bot would type.

Ghostbear
Posts: 1764
Joined: Sat Apr 26, 2008 10:06 pm UTC

Re: U.S. Republican Primary

Postby Ghostbear » Wed Mar 14, 2012 2:54 am UTC

From what I can tell, both states are getting called for Santorum. Alabama was a close but solid win, while Mississippi is going to be a narrow one.

User avatar
Qaanol
The Cheshirest Catamount
Posts: 3069
Joined: Sat May 09, 2009 11:55 pm UTC

Re: U.S. Republican Primary

Postby Qaanol » Wed Mar 14, 2012 3:23 am UTC

lutzj wrote:it seems like a close three-way <garbled> between Romney, Gingrich, and Santorum (who has a slight <garbled> in both <garbled>)

That’s how I read it.
wee free kings

User avatar
Lucrece
Posts: 3558
Joined: Mon Feb 25, 2008 12:01 am UTC

Re: U.S. Republican Primary

Postby Lucrece » Wed Mar 14, 2012 6:42 am UTC

Image
Belial wrote:That's charming, Nancy, but all I hear when you talk is a bunch of yippy dog sounds.

User avatar
Giant Speck
Bouncy Sex Marshmallow
Posts: 3819
Joined: Tue Sep 08, 2009 12:30 pm UTC
Location: Tucson, Arizona

Re: U.S. Republican Primary

Postby Giant Speck » Wed Mar 14, 2012 8:29 am UTC

I didn't know she had a Twitter account!
"Did I say recently that I love Giant Speck? Because I love Giant Speck. He is the best." - Weeks
BOUNCE BOUNCE BOUNCE BOUNCE BOUNCE BOUNCE BOUNCE BOUNCE BOUNCE BOUNCE BOUNCE BOUNCE BOUNCE BOUNCE BOUNCE BOUNCE BOUNCE BOUNCE BOUNCE BOUNCE BOUNCE BOUNCE BOUNCE

User avatar
folkhero
Posts: 1775
Joined: Fri Aug 01, 2008 3:34 am UTC

Re: U.S. Republican Primary

Postby folkhero » Wed Mar 14, 2012 8:54 am UTC

I guess Newt is promising $2.50 gallons of gas. This seems like an act of desperation, perhaps a last gasp for his campaign. I mean, a Republican wants to, through sheer force of political power, wrestle down the the free market and pin a price on gasoline?
To all law enforcement entities, this is not an admission of guilt...

User avatar
lutzj
Posts: 898
Joined: Fri Feb 05, 2010 6:20 am UTC
Location: Ontario

Re: U.S. Republican Primary

Postby lutzj » Wed Mar 14, 2012 10:50 am UTC

folkhero wrote:I guess Newt is promising $2.50 gallons of gas. This seems like an act of desperation, perhaps a last gasp for his campaign. I mean, a Republican wants to, through sheer force of political power, wrestle down the the free market and pin a price on gasoline?


I read somewhere he'd have to either implement insanely high subsidies or get the price of crude oil from ~$130/barrel to ~$50/barrel. Not likely.
addams wrote:I'm not a bot.
That is what a bot would type.

User avatar
Dauric
Posts: 3989
Joined: Wed Aug 05, 2009 6:58 pm UTC
Location: In midair, traversing laterally over a container of sharks. No water, just sharks, with lasers.

Re: U.S. Republican Primary

Postby Dauric » Wed Mar 14, 2012 1:45 pm UTC

lutzj wrote:
folkhero wrote:I guess Newt is promising $2.50 gallons of gas. This seems like an act of desperation, perhaps a last gasp for his campaign. I mean, a Republican wants to, through sheer force of political power, wrestle down the the free market and pin a price on gasoline?


I read somewhere he'd have to either implement insanely high subsidies or get the price of crude oil from ~$130/barrel to ~$50/barrel. Not likely.


If it's a last gasp for his campaign then his campaign has been having it's last gasp for most of the year. Newt's delusions about energy prices have been one of his primary talking points since the beginning. We can only be thankful that the conservative voters as a whole haven't been buying shares in Newt's hypothetical gas stations.

... of course that hasn't stopped social conservatives from voting for Santorum's theocracy...
We're in the traffic-chopper over the XKCD boards where there's been a thread-derailment. A Liquified Godwin spill has evacuated threads in a fourty-post radius of the accident, Lolcats and TVTropes have broken free of their containers. It is believed that the Point has perished.

User avatar
lutzj
Posts: 898
Joined: Fri Feb 05, 2010 6:20 am UTC
Location: Ontario

Re: U.S. Republican Primary

Postby lutzj » Thu Mar 15, 2012 9:03 pm UTC

And now Santorum vows to "vigorously" crack down on online porn.




vigorously
addams wrote:I'm not a bot.
That is what a bot would type.

User avatar
jestingrabbit
Factoids are just Datas that haven't grown up yet
Posts: 5967
Joined: Tue Nov 28, 2006 9:50 pm UTC
Location: Sydney

Re: U.S. Republican Primary

Postby jestingrabbit » Thu Mar 15, 2012 9:21 pm UTC

He's lost the women's vote, now its time to lose the men's.
ameretrifle wrote:Magic space feudalism is therefore a viable idea.

User avatar
RealityRefurbished
Posts: 5
Joined: Fri Mar 16, 2012 9:05 am UTC

Re: U.S. Republican Primary

Postby RealityRefurbished » Fri Mar 16, 2012 9:44 am UTC

lutzj wrote:And now Santorum vows to vigorously crack down on online porn.


I'm sorry, but this man sounds like the kind of conservative caricature not even Stewart and Colbert could come up with. The fact that he's actually doing well baffles my mind.

Either way, I hope he wins the republican primary. While Romney stands a chance against Obama, Santorum has alienated moderates and liberals alike. His target demographic may be large, but it's not enough to get him into the Oval Office. If he were to be selected as the republican candidate, the Donkeys will take the White House once again.

User avatar
jakovasaur
Posts: 678
Joined: Mon Nov 09, 2009 7:43 am UTC

Re: U.S. Republican Primary

Postby jakovasaur » Fri Mar 16, 2012 12:49 pm UTC

lutzj wrote:And now Santorum vows to "vigorously" crack down on online porn.

That thread in SB, "What would it take for you to fight for your liberty?" This is the answer right here.

Dark567
First one to notify the boards of Rick and Morty Season 3
Posts: 3686
Joined: Thu Jun 25, 2009 5:12 pm UTC
Location: Everywhere(in the US, I don't venture outside it too often, unfortunately)

Re: U.S. Republican Primary

Postby Dark567 » Fri Mar 16, 2012 12:59 pm UTC

The Daily Caller wrote:“Although the Supreme Court says private possession is constitutionally protected, it has said that private receipt of [pornography] is not protected,”
Wait. Really?
I apologize, 90% of the time I write on the Fora I am intoxicated.


Yakk wrote:The question the thought experiment I posted is aimed at answering: When falling in a black hole, do you see the entire universe's future history train-car into your ass, or not?

User avatar
Qaanol
The Cheshirest Catamount
Posts: 3069
Joined: Sat May 09, 2009 11:55 pm UTC

Re: U.S. Republican Primary

Postby Qaanol » Fri Mar 16, 2012 1:45 pm UTC

There is a substantial body of scientific evidence showing that people who have access to pornography are significantly less likely to commit rape.

Mr. Santorum wants to eliminate a non-harmful outlet for sexual fantasy. He also wants to reward rapists with extra offspring by forcing women they impregnate to carry the rapist’s child to term.

Just sayin’.
wee free kings

User avatar
jestingrabbit
Factoids are just Datas that haven't grown up yet
Posts: 5967
Joined: Tue Nov 28, 2006 9:50 pm UTC
Location: Sydney

Re: U.S. Republican Primary

Postby jestingrabbit » Fri Mar 16, 2012 2:20 pm UTC

Qaanol wrote:There is a substantial body of scientific evidence showing that people who have access to pornography are significantly less likely to commit rape.


The literature on that is pretty mixed. I offer the following to support the claim "violent pornography increases the rape proclivity of the viewer."

http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1 ... 94.9967974

That said, I'd expect that a consumerist culture probably increases theft proclivity. Are we going to ban advertisements too? Or ban minute hands on clocks so that people don't speed to be on time?

Not that any of this has to do with Santorum's real or stated reasons for wanting this: he's all about imposing his religious morality on others.
ameretrifle wrote:Magic space feudalism is therefore a viable idea.

User avatar
Diadem
Posts: 5654
Joined: Wed Jun 11, 2008 11:03 am UTC
Location: The Netherlands

Re: U.S. Republican Primary

Postby Diadem » Fri Mar 16, 2012 3:01 pm UTC

jestingrabbit wrote:
Qaanol wrote:There is a substantial body of scientific evidence showing that people who have access to pornography are significantly less likely to commit rape.


The literature on that is pretty mixed. I offer the following to support the claim "violent pornography increases the rape proclivity of the viewer."

http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1 ... 94.9967974

I can't help but notice that Qaanol is talking about 'porn' and you are talking about 'violent porn'. I've seen studies like you are linking before. But I've never heard of any studies linking ordinary porn to a proclivity [Thank you for teaching me a new word!] for rape.
It's one of those irregular verbs, isn't it? I have an independent mind, you are an eccentric, he is round the twist
- Bernard Woolley in Yes, Prime Minister

User avatar
jestingrabbit
Factoids are just Datas that haven't grown up yet
Posts: 5967
Joined: Tue Nov 28, 2006 9:50 pm UTC
Location: Sydney

Re: U.S. Republican Primary

Postby jestingrabbit » Fri Mar 16, 2012 3:44 pm UTC

Diadem wrote:I can't help but notice that Qaanol is talking about 'porn' and you are talking about 'violent porn'. I've seen studies like you are linking before. But I've never heard of any studies linking ordinary porn to a proclivity [Thank you for teaching me a new word!] for rape.


Sure, but violent porn is a subset of porn. And if someone is going to say porn decreases rape proclivity I think its fair to point out that that's not true of all porn.
ameretrifle wrote:Magic space feudalism is therefore a viable idea.

User avatar
Qaanol
The Cheshirest Catamount
Posts: 3069
Joined: Sat May 09, 2009 11:55 pm UTC

Re: U.S. Republican Primary

Postby Qaanol » Fri Mar 16, 2012 7:08 pm UTC

Are you contending that, “Persons who are interested in violent porn and have access to violent porn, are more likely to commit rape than persons who are interested in violent porn but do not have access to violent porn”?

I am stating I have read studies that posit, “Persons who are interested in porn and have access to porn, are less likely to commit rape than persons who are interested in porn but do not have access to porn.”

So, mind the difference between “People who X are more likely to Y than people who do not X”, and “People who want to X are more likely to Y if they do X, than they themselves would be if they were unable to X”.
wee free kings

User avatar
jestingrabbit
Factoids are just Datas that haven't grown up yet
Posts: 5967
Joined: Tue Nov 28, 2006 9:50 pm UTC
Location: Sydney

Re: U.S. Republican Primary

Postby jestingrabbit » Fri Mar 16, 2012 7:51 pm UTC

Qaanol wrote:Are you contending that, “Persons who are interested in violent porn and have access to violent porn, are more likely to commit rape than persons who are interested in violent porn but do not have access to violent porn”?


No. Neither I, nor the article I linked, make that claim.

I am stating I have read studies that posit, “Persons who are interested in porn and have access to porn, are less likely to commit rape than persons who are interested in porn but do not have access to porn.”


Which studies?
ameretrifle wrote:Magic space feudalism is therefore a viable idea.

User avatar
sardia
Posts: 6800
Joined: Sat Apr 03, 2010 3:39 am UTC

Re: U.S. Republican Primary

Postby sardia » Sat Mar 17, 2012 3:44 am UTC

Welcome to my home state:
http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.co ... -illinois/
It's a Coastal liberal state trapped in a Midwesterners conservative body. Or as the article puts it more articulately: Chicago vs the rest of the state. The primary is tuesday, so in a couple days. In addition, polls put Santorum and Romney neck and neck. Romney has an edge in Chicago + suburbs, while Santorum is favored in the less densely populated south.

User avatar
Lucrece
Posts: 3558
Joined: Mon Feb 25, 2008 12:01 am UTC

Re: U.S. Republican Primary

Postby Lucrece » Sat Mar 17, 2012 6:58 am UTC

You just described California as well.
Belial wrote:That's charming, Nancy, but all I hear when you talk is a bunch of yippy dog sounds.

User avatar
lutzj
Posts: 898
Joined: Fri Feb 05, 2010 6:20 am UTC
Location: Ontario

Re: U.S. Republican Primary

Postby lutzj » Sat Mar 17, 2012 3:56 pm UTC

Lucrece wrote:You just described California as well.


Don't forget New York, New Jersey, and most of New England. Progressive city/conservative countryside has been a strong theme in American politics since World War II.
addams wrote:I'm not a bot.
That is what a bot would type.

Radical_Initiator
Just Cool Enough for School
Posts: 1374
Joined: Mon Jan 24, 2011 10:39 pm UTC

Re: U.S. Republican Primary

Postby Radical_Initiator » Sat Mar 17, 2012 4:05 pm UTC

sardia wrote:while Santorum is favored in the less densely populated south.


Don't remind me. The political situation in southern Illinois is one of the things I hate most about my home area. Though I wouldn't necessarily count out the idea that some southern Illinois voters vote conservative to spite Chicago's mindset that the state is Chicago + whatever. Again, probably similar to other states in the same situation.
I looked out across the river today …

LtNOWIS
Posts: 371
Joined: Sun Dec 12, 2010 4:21 pm UTC
Location: Fairfax County

Re: U.S. Republican Primary

Postby LtNOWIS » Sat Mar 17, 2012 5:46 pm UTC

It's absolutely outrageous that Santorum would continue the policies of every president in my lifetime, including Obama.

User avatar
sardia
Posts: 6800
Joined: Sat Apr 03, 2010 3:39 am UTC

Re: U.S. Republican Primary

Postby sardia » Sat Mar 17, 2012 8:10 pm UTC

On a side note, what was that link, and why is it related to this thread?

lutzj wrote:
Lucrece wrote:You just described California as well.


Don't forget New York, New Jersey, and most of New England. Progressive city/conservative countryside has been a strong theme in American politics since World War II.

I know about that theme. Do other states have power emanate from one big city, and the rest of the state is forced to follow? The actual demographics are more complicated than that (Democrats are clustered around Chicago, the quad cities area in the north west, St. Louis, and the universities. The rest is republican.) But everyone considers Chicago the gorilla in the room. I would think New York has this dynamic with the NYC vs the rest of the state, but California?

User avatar
CorruptUser
Posts: 10498
Joined: Fri Nov 06, 2009 10:12 pm UTC

Re: U.S. Republican Primary

Postby CorruptUser » Sat Mar 17, 2012 10:58 pm UTC

Ugh, NYC is hated (politically) by the rest of the state. Everyone in upstate has to pay high taxes to subsidize NYC's programs. Of course, NYC complains that its high taxes are being used to support the rest of the state. Someone call Professor Hawking, because there's a black hole somewhere...

LtNOWIS
Posts: 371
Joined: Sun Dec 12, 2010 4:21 pm UTC
Location: Fairfax County

Re: U.S. Republican Primary

Postby LtNOWIS » Sun Mar 18, 2012 12:54 am UTC

sardia wrote:On a side note, what was that link, and why is it related to this thread?

A lot of people, not just here, were pretty shocked that Santorum has said he'll enforce federal obscenity laws against pornography. I was pointing out that President Obama (and his predecessors) have also tried people for violating those laws, so it's not very shocking.

Ghostbear
Posts: 1764
Joined: Sat Apr 26, 2008 10:06 pm UTC

Re: U.S. Republican Primary

Postby Ghostbear » Sun Mar 18, 2012 1:32 am UTC

LtNOWIS wrote:A lot of people, not just here, were pretty shocked that Santorum has said he'll enforce federal obscenity laws against pornography. I was pointing out that President Obama (and his predecessors) have also tried people for violating those laws, so it's not very shocking.

There is a difference of scale in those two cases however. Not saying that Obama should get a pass for this- he shouldn't- but Santorum's proposal is far more reaching. By his statement, he wants to remove all hardcore porn from the internet:
If elected, he promises to “vigorously” enforce laws that “prohibit distribution of hardcore (obscene) pornography on the Internet, on cable/satellite TV, on hotel/motel TV, in retail shops and through the mail or by common carrier.”

The example given for the Obama administration is one focused on a much more niche and controversial part of pornography- scatology and bestiality according to the article- and doesn't indicate a desire to remove all hardcore porn from the US. They're similar problems, but Santorum is proposing something on a significantly larger scale.

User avatar
Cathy
Posts: 850
Joined: Sun Dec 27, 2009 5:31 am UTC
Location: TX, USA

Re: U.S. Republican Primary

Postby Cathy » Sun Mar 18, 2012 2:26 am UTC

I just don't get the point of trying to prosecute porn sites... aren't lots of them based outside the USA for the point of making it harder to prosecute? I mean, it's not like the ones they're trying to get are going to make it easy on them or anything.

I dunno, porn just seems like one of those things the internet is going to have any way around it, I don't see any good way to try to get rid of it that will make a meaningful impact.

Heck, if they tried to take down major HC porno providers there'd probably be a bigger outcry than over the MegaUpload guys.

I'm kind of curious where he gets stats like this:
"The average age of first exposure to hard-core, Internet pornography is now 11. Pornography is toxic to marriages and relationships. It contributes to misogyny and violence against women. It is a contributing factor to prostitution and sex trafficking."


Anyway, I don't see anything wrong with a married couple viewing hardcore porn. It if makes them happy, what of it? I mean, as long as it isn't anything super illegal like pedophile or not-acted real life rape, then I'm fine with people doing that.

It's not like women ever look at porn. :roll:
Amie wrote:Cathy, I now declare you to be an awesome person, by the powers vested in me by nobody, really.
yurell wrote:We need fewer homoeopaths, that way they'll be more potent!

Ghostbear
Posts: 1764
Joined: Sat Apr 26, 2008 10:06 pm UTC

Re: U.S. Republican Primary

Postby Ghostbear » Sun Mar 18, 2012 2:38 am UTC

I don't have any numbers, so someone else feel free to correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe that for the most part, a large amount of commercial porn is based in either LA or Florida. Other foreign stuff is usually delegated to more specific interests- hentai comes to mind-, but "standard" porn is, I believe, still very US-centric. In the end, it really wouldn't be that difficult for the same things to spring up in other countries, but it'd still be quite the obstacle for the industry in the short term. Unlike moving piracy sites offshore, they'd have to build up a bit of business infrastructure to get a successful replacement in place, so it wouldn't be quite painless, I think.

User avatar
Cathy
Posts: 850
Joined: Sun Dec 27, 2009 5:31 am UTC
Location: TX, USA

Re: U.S. Republican Primary

Postby Cathy » Sun Mar 18, 2012 2:53 am UTC

I know there's a lot of DVD-sold porn production in the US, LA and Florida and whatnot, but I don't think that necessarily translates to Internet Porn. Stuff that's well produced is pretty well pay-per-view or membership based, and that's not something an 11-year-old would easily view. Seems to me like Santorum would be gunning more for easily-googled free amateur pornos or something like that.

Of course I could be totally wrong on that. Santorum could try to shut down LA porn sets! ;)

Also, I find it hilarious that my auto-correct tries to change Santorum to Sanatorium. Heehee.
Amie wrote:Cathy, I now declare you to be an awesome person, by the powers vested in me by nobody, really.
yurell wrote:We need fewer homoeopaths, that way they'll be more potent!

User avatar
Iulus Cofield
WINNING
Posts: 2917
Joined: Wed Apr 07, 2010 9:31 am UTC

Re: U.S. Republican Primary

Postby Iulus Cofield » Sun Mar 18, 2012 3:01 am UTC

Cathy wrote:I'm kind of curious where he gets stats like this:
"The average age of first exposure to hard-core, Internet pornography is now 11. Pornography is toxic to marriages and relationships. It contributes to misogyny and violence against women. It is a contributing factor to prostitution and sex trafficking."


I was curious too so I did the littlest of digging and I stumbled upon this as a possible source, the site for Reclaim Our Culture, Kentuckiana which makes the claim here

The Attorney General’s Commission on Pornography reported in 1986 that the largest group of pornography users was boys ages 12-17. A study published in 1989 found that by the age of 15, 92 percent of boys had looked at or read Playboy. The average age of first exposure was estimated to be 11.2


But they go on to cite this, which says only 3.5% of boys have seen internet pornography by age 11 and the mean average age of first exposure is 14.3 for boys and 14.8 for girls. I'm not quickly and easily finding a study for pornography of any source, although I'm guessing most kids seeking pornography would seek it on the internet, given the easy access.

I then found this article from Forbes that probably tracks the claims to their original sources. It was written in November 2005 after a democratic senator pushing for Child Protection and Safety Act made the same claim.

Spoiler:
When Sen. Blanche Lincoln (D-Ark.) introduced the Internet Safety & Child Protection Act in July, aiming to slap a 25% excise tax on online purchases of porn, she cited a startling statistic: Children in the U.S. now typically get their first exposure to porn at age 11. It got picked up in several press reports. "The average age at which a child first views Internet porn is 11," pronounced a Denver Post editorial. "The average age a child first views Internet pornography is 11, and those kids don't look away," intoned Matt Lauer on General Electric-owned NBC's Today show.

"The Internet has changed the whole dynamic of porn," declares Tim Wildmon, president of the fundamentalist American Family Association founded by his father, Donald Wildmon, in Tupelo, Miss. "The average age of the introduction to pornography is now 11 years old."

Just one problem: The assertion is untrue, unsupported and likely of dubious origin, none of which has stopped porn's opponents from using it. Sen. Lincoln lifted the factoid from a report issued in July by Third Way, a new Washington think tank that helps Democrats grab on to red-state issues. A press release accompanying the report, by Third Way staffer Sean Barney, proclaimed, "While it is as difficult as ever for a teenager to walk into a store and buy a pornographic magazine, it is as easy as 'point-and-click' for an 11-year-old child to view streaming pornographic video online."

Where did Third Way get that notion? From a May 12 story in the New York Times-owned (nyse: NYT - news - people ) Boston Globe headlined "The Secret Life of Boys," which cites an outfit called Family Safe Media. The small firm in Provo, Utah, is in the business of scaring parents into buying software to protect their kids from Internet smut. Jared Martin, who owns Family Safe Media, says he got his porn statistics from Internet Filter Review, a Web site that recommends content-blocking software. It is run by tech entrepreneur Jerry Ropelato of Huntsville, Utah, who pens antiporn screeds, such as "Tricks Pornographers Play," and publishes curious and uncredited stats (for example, "17% of all women struggle with pornography addiction").

"Most of the statistics there have come from literally hundreds of sources, all reputable," Ropelato insists. He says he got the age-11 item from The Drug of the New Millennium, a book about the dangers of porn self-published in 2000 by Mark Kastleman, a self-professed former porn addict in Orem, Utah, who counsels other porn fiends. "I don't remember where I got that from," Kastleman says breezily. "That is a very common statistic." And there the trail goes cold.

But Kimberly Mitchell of the Crimes Against Children Research Center at the University of New Hampshire, and Michele Ybarra of Internet Solutions for Kids in Irvine, Calif., say the assertion that "extremely young children" are ogling online porn "may be overstated." Analyzing the results of a random-sample survey of 1,500 kids ages 10 to 17, they recently found that kids don't start seeking out Internet porn until age 14, when they're "age-appropriately curious about sex." Fewer younger kids had gone looking smut--and mostly the old-fashioned way, finding it in their dad's magazines lying around home.

"It seems to suggest the Internet may not be posing the threat that some are concerned it is," says Ybarra.

User avatar
folkhero
Posts: 1775
Joined: Fri Aug 01, 2008 3:34 am UTC

Re: U.S. Republican Primary

Postby folkhero » Sun Mar 18, 2012 5:33 am UTC

Iulus Cofield wrote:
The Attorney General’s Commission on Pornography reported in 1986 that the largest group of pornography users was boys ages 12-17. A study published in 1989 found that by the age of 15, 92 percent of boys had looked at or read Playboy. The average age of first exposure was estimated to be 11.2

So he wants to eliminate hard-core internet pornography based on a study about soft-core pornography that was done before the internet era.
To all law enforcement entities, this is not an admission of guilt...

User avatar
Cathy
Posts: 850
Joined: Sun Dec 27, 2009 5:31 am UTC
Location: TX, USA

Re: U.S. Republican Primary

Postby Cathy » Sun Mar 18, 2012 5:53 am UTC

folkhero wrote:
Iulus Cofield wrote:
The Attorney General’s Commission on Pornography reported in 1986 that the largest group of pornography users was boys ages 12-17. A study published in 1989 found that by the age of 15, 92 percent of boys had looked at or read Playboy. The average age of first exposure was estimated to be 11.2

So he wants to eliminate hard-core internet pornography based on a study about soft-core pornography that was done before the internet era.

Well I suppose his argument would be that since the internet came into being it's easier to access hardcore porn due to search engines? It's not like you have to go out and buy mags or something.
Amie wrote:Cathy, I now declare you to be an awesome person, by the powers vested in me by nobody, really.
yurell wrote:We need fewer homoeopaths, that way they'll be more potent!

User avatar
Qaanol
The Cheshirest Catamount
Posts: 3069
Joined: Sat May 09, 2009 11:55 pm UTC

Re: U.S. Republican Primary

Postby Qaanol » Sun Mar 18, 2012 6:31 am UTC

Stopping people from doing things they want to do—when the act of doing those things does not harm anyone—is pretty much the definition of oppression. Anti-freedom. Anti-liberty. And when those things are a business, then anti-free market. And when they are wholly communicative in nature, censorship as well.

Also, the US culture is way too anti-sex, and way too pro-violence. I’m talking movies, TV shows, video games, societal norms, the whole works. When is it going to get through to people that sex is good, and violence is bad?
wee free kings

User avatar
sardia
Posts: 6800
Joined: Sat Apr 03, 2010 3:39 am UTC

Re: U.S. Republican Primary

Postby sardia » Sun Mar 18, 2012 8:23 am UTC

Cathy wrote:I just don't get the point of trying to prosecute porn sites... aren't lots of them based outside the USA for the point of making it harder to prosecute? I mean, it's not like the ones they're trying to get are going to make it easy on them or anything.

I dunno, porn just seems like one of those things the internet is going to have any way around it, I don't see any good way to try to get rid of it that will make a meaningful impact.

Heck, if they tried to take down major HC porno providers there'd probably be a bigger outcry than over the MegaUpload guys.

I'm kind of curious where he gets stats like this:
"The average age of first exposure to hard-core, Internet pornography is now 11. Pornography is toxic to marriages and relationships. It contributes to misogyny and violence against women. It is a contributing factor to prostitution and sex trafficking."


Anyway, I don't see anything wrong with a married couple viewing hardcore porn. It if makes them happy, what of it? I mean, as long as it isn't anything super illegal like pedophile or not-acted real life rape, then I'm fine with people doing that.

It's not like women ever look at porn. :roll:

There's some substance to his argument. He argues that an environment where it is ok to view women as sexual objects and not as people is damaging to the fabric of society. Too bad Santorum only uses this argument when it suits him. Contraception and abortion on the other hand, no woman should have a choice in that. You do it his way, or be denied any support whatsoever from any governmental or corporate entity. Unfortunately, his beliefs are rooted in conservative Catholicism, not equal rights for women.

Ghostbear
Posts: 1764
Joined: Sat Apr 26, 2008 10:06 pm UTC

Re: U.S. Republican Primary

Postby Ghostbear » Sun Mar 18, 2012 8:28 am UTC

sardia wrote:There's some substance to his argument. He argues that an environment where it is ok to view women as sexual objects and not as people is damaging to the fabric of society. Too bad Santorum only uses this argument when it suits him. Contraception and abortion on the other hand, no woman should have a choice in that. You do it his way, or be denied any support whatsoever from any governmental or corporate entity. Unfortunately, his beliefs are rooted in conservative Catholicism, not equal rights for women.

I'm pretty sure a more accurate interpretation of his argument would be that porn is bad because it doesn't show sex as something used solely to turn women into baby factories.

LtNOWIS
Posts: 371
Joined: Sun Dec 12, 2010 4:21 pm UTC
Location: Fairfax County

Re: U.S. Republican Primary

Postby LtNOWIS » Sun Mar 18, 2012 3:22 pm UTC

Cathy wrote:I know there's a lot of DVD-sold porn production in the US, LA and Florida and whatnot, but I don't think that necessarily translates to Internet Porn. Stuff that's well produced is pretty well pay-per-view or membership based, and that's not something an 11-year-old would easily view. Seems to me like Santorum would be gunning more for easily-googled free amateur pornos or something like that.

There's probably 3 things he could do:

1) Go after the "worst" US production companies. Even if they just sell DVDs, it's easy enough to torrent that stuff.
2) Go after the "worst" US pay sites. A lot of them have a lot of free content in the form of previews and so forth, where teens could access it.
3) Go after the porn torrent sites pretty hard. This would make it harder for teens to get porn without a credit card, and it would also protect US companies against foreign and domestic piracy.

A determined person could get around that easily enough, but many teens and kids woul have more trouble.

(I should point out that I do not support Santorum on this issue.)

Ghostbear wrote:There is a difference of scale in those two cases however. Not saying that Obama should get a pass for this- he shouldn't- but Santorum's proposal is far more reaching. By his statement, he wants to remove all hardcore porn from the internet:

The example given for the Obama administration is one focused on a much more niche and controversial part of pornography- scatology and bestiality according to the article- and doesn't indicate a desire to remove all hardcore porn from the US. They're similar problems, but Santorum is proposing something on a significantly larger scale.

Right, it's important to realize that the scale of the enforcement is the main factor. It's not a binary thing.

A president who doesn't enforce any obscenity laws whatsoever would be without precedent in the modern era. If the next Republican president gets any criticism on this issue, he or she will probably point to Obama's example.


Return to “News & Articles”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 13 guests