Pinky's post does not deserve the surprising criticism and rebuke it seems to be getting here. No no no, it deserves outright decimation. It's quite clear pinky that you haven't given the arguments countering yours, which have appeared here and in other threads, even the most cursory perusal. The irony that you would accuse your detractors of delusion then, is simply hilarious when it is you, who is sadly and deeply deluded. In this latest post of yours, which is thoroughly saturated with the most risibly sanctimonious and patronizing piety, you trot out one ludicrous nonexistent myth after another and expect us to somehow in spite of it, take you seriously. Your blithe dismissal of the near third of non-heterosexual-male consumers of porn (women and gay men most notably) suggests these groups present a major quandry for your irrational beliefs and that your inability to explain the for example exceedingly low instance of sexual violence among gay males (who are indisputably prolific porn consumers) underscores the downright antiquated invalidity of your silly convictions.

It is your beliefs madam, about porn being a promoter of rape and other forms of sexual violence and supposed "objectification" that are myths. You purport to want to "play the science game" (a ridiculous statement which in and of itself reveals a gross misunderstanding of how science actually works) in your post yet provide nary a single shred of empirically derived evidence to support your case, only endless Andrea Dworkinesque, misandristic babble. Well here's a few actual scientific studies for you.

1.) Commission appointed by U. S. President Lyndon B. Johnson in 1970 in attempt to prove a correlation between porn and rape or other sexual assault finds NO CORRELATION

2.) A study in Japan http://www2.hu-berlin.de/sexology/BIB/DIAM/japan.htm entitled "Pornography, Rape and Sex Crimes in Japan" finds a strong INVERSE correlation between sexual violence rates and the availability of pornographic materials. That is to say, after porn was legalized, rape etc. rates plummeted.

3.) A highly controlled study by Todd Kendall at Clemson U "pornography, rape and the internet" found that "liberalization of porn access may lead to a DECLINE in sexual victimization" http://www.law.stanford.edu/display/images/dynamic/events_media/Kendall%20cover%20+%20paper.pdf

In another post on here you told us that you were raped (an unspeakably awful crime to which you are rightly owed an abundance of sympathy for having suffered as a victim) and that afterward during psychiatric treatment, you were told of the supposed "connection" between porn and rape and then you presumably ran with that as a nice neat little explanation that put everything into place. I submit that you were twice gravely wronged, the second time by your pseudoscientific psychologist eager to give you simple explanations and demons to slay no matter the veracity of the claim.

It is not the porn that is dangerous, rather, ironically, it is falsely moralizing people like you who are causing harm. I freely admit that I love porn. In fact, it may have saved my life. When I was in my late teens about a decade ago, I was struggling with the realization that I was gay and felt ashamed and suicidally depressed about it. Going online and seeing gay porn changed all of that. Seeing that sex between males was perfectly natural and indeed in many cases affectionate and loving and yes, harmlessly fun, allowed me to discard the shame and self-pity I once felt and leave my depression behind. Your implicit dismissal of experiences like mine and others which undoubtedly must similarly occur among lesbians and perhaps even the rare heterosexual woman are contemptible, and your eagerness to portray women in particular as brainless dolts incapable of making reasonable decisions for themselves about whether or not to participate in the sex industry is downright demeaning and misogynistic. Shame on you madam.

you are welcome dear is nice video and deserves to be sift

In reply to this comment by laura:
well thank you fine madam of the sift....I appreciate it much!

In reply to this comment by LadyDeath:
*promote

well thank you fine madam of the sift....I appreciate it much!

In reply to this comment by LadyDeath:
*promote

Feinstein the liberal fascist? Sorry to keep you waiting, madam...was it longer than the waiting period used against law-abiding gun-owners?

Oh? Do you really need your gun right now?

Americans use guns over 2 million times a year in self-defense, and during most of those incidents not a single shot is fired. I'd be surprised if you've ever heard this fact before this post.

The reasons "why" I or anyone else may or may not own a gun are none of the guvmint's business.

Is this the gun law proposal that you are referring to? Yea she's a real fascist...

Most liberals look for jackboots or other obvious indicators when it comes to fascism. That's why they miss the whole we're-stealing-your-freedom-for-your-own-good health and environmental sneak attacks.

>> ^quantumushroom:
Feinstein the liberal fascist? Sorry to keep you waiting, madam...was it longer than the waiting period used against law-abiding gun-owners?

Oh? Do you really need your gun right now?

Is this the gun law proposal that you are referring to? Yea she's a real fascist...

Feinstein the liberal fascist? Sorry to keep you waiting, madam...was it longer than the waiting period used against law-abiding gun-owners?

I say huzzah to you good madame!

Comment hidden because you are ignoring dag. (show it anyway)

Beard icicle comber? Like I haven't had that offer before. Get in line, get in line.

In reply to this comment by Tofumar:
I volunteer to comb the icicles out of your beard while persephone is out on weekends. After all, I plan to be kept alive for a long time by my strong connection to the dark side of the force.

In reply to this comment by dag:
A good idea for a website would be somewhere that you can publicly register your intent not to commit suicide. Just in case.

BTW FTR, not planning to commit suicide. I'll let you know if I every change my mind. I'm prety unsuicidal- I'm looking in to getting my head frozen.

I volunteer to comb the icicles out of your beard while persephone is out on weekends. After all, I plan to be kept alive for a long time by my strong connection to the dark side of the force.

In reply to this comment by dag:
A good idea for a website would be somewhere that you can publicly register your intent not to commit suicide. Just in case.

BTW FTR, not planning to commit suicide. I'll let you know if I every change my mind. I'm prety unsuicidal- I'm looking in to getting my head frozen.

>> ^gwiz665:

But if no evidence points any other way it is a valid hypothesis, or at least as valid as any other hypotheses.


I would think the body, the suicide notes, and the police ruling the death a suicide would all count as evidence of, well, a suicide. But apparently I'm alone on this one.

>> ^SDGundamX:
Here's the thing about conspiracy theory nuts. They often make the argument that lack of evidence is evidence.

But if no evidence points any other way it is a valid hypothesis, or at least as valid as any other hypotheses.

>> ^jwray:
> I am most definitely not going to ever to commit suicide because there is no afterlife.

funny. that's one of the reasons i was going to.
even funnier, to me, that a belief that there is an afterlife, is the reason some people do.

and no, it wasn't like yesterday or anything, so don't go all mushy on me.
it's not all that dramatic an admission, so let (s)he who has never wanted to, cast the first gasp.

it's why most of you already know hanging yourself is a bad choice.
too easy to fuck up, and die of asphyxiation. instead of falling from a significant height, so that your neck snaps.

only 2 kind of people will generally resort to it.
a) the shoelace hanging. in prison, or elsewhere without normal availability to a gun, pills, etc.
b) the self-condemned. the association with capital punishment allows those with an extremely guilty conscience, who think they deserve it, go to the gallows as they had probably planned.

that's my list, anyway. then there's the non-suicide michael hutchence scenario, where you didn't actually plan on dying, just getting your rocks off toying with your death.

in her case, a) definitely doesn't apply. one might argue b) could, but it's paper-thin. she was a pimp, not a killer. the laws she broke weren't hurting anyone, and i doubt she felt an ounce of guilt for selling sex.

but people like alex jones lose their credibility, by going from possibility, to certainty. instead of just admitting they've got questions, they go ahead and fill in the blanks themselves.

is it fishy? sure.
will anything come of it? almost certainly not, in which case we've all got bigger fish to fry.

>> ^arvana:
Her suicide notes have been released: http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/05/05/national/main4071471.shtml

From the above link:
...she couldn't bear going to prison for running an elite Washington prostitution ring and saw killing herself as the only "exit strategy."

Ahhh, you see, this proves it wasn't Cheney - the Bush administration doesn't know the meaning of "exit strategy".

>> ^SDGundamX:
Here's the thing about conspiracy theory nuts. They often make the argument that lack of evidence is evidence.


Huh, sounds a lot like those who support organized religion and "intelligent design".

1. 90% of women that kill themselves do NOT hang themselves (as Palfrey and one of her madam's had done), rather they usually take pills.

2. Palfrey had stated, several times, that she was not intending on killing herself, but intended to expose the government (in an election year, no less).

3. Palfrey was paid up in her high-rise apartment for 6 months, suggesting she was intending to return to her apartment after she served time.

It's all a little too 'pat' to appear like a suicide. Radio talk show provocateur, Alex Jones, was on Geraldo this week to discuss the "stinkiness" of this story: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lt6O0ruFmfE