*update* on previous post
last night a friend told me that i was a smart ass jerk. that hurt - mostly because its a harsh truth that i have yet to remedy. you see, i don't want to be a jerk. i just want to be a smart ass.
after thinking over my jerkiness for a few hours last night, i decided that perhaps i was too quick to judge, in my previous post, the owner of flix club who was arrested for paying minors for sex and illegally distributing pornography. perhaps there was a logical explanation to everything.
unable to sleep, i decided to research pornography on the internet. (i've heard the internet is a good source for it). after four or five hours of research, i came up with some possible explanations for the large amounts of pornography found in his store. first, perhaps daniel thompson of flix club was trying to hone his editing skills. think about it, if you're in the business of editing offensive and immoral material out of movies, what better way is there to practice then to edit the sex, nudity, and language from pornographic movies - the harder the porn, the greater the difficulty (do i have the makings of the next great playstation game here?). the only better practice i could think of would be to edit the offensive content out of snuff. but snuff is hard to come by (which is why i usually make my own).
the other possible explanation i could think of was perhaps daniel thompson was planning on adding family-friendly pornography to his list of available movies at flix club. i think this is a great business idea. usually, pornography has been limited to adults, college students, and teenage boys. the porn industry has totally left out the family and children from their possible paying consumers. by editing, thompson is opening up a completely new market where entire families and children can sit together and enjoy pornography.
as far as the whole paying minors for sex goes, there isn't any logical moral explanation. thompson is just a sick %&*#.
i've always thought the idea of clean flicks was creepy. shudder. but i'm trying to have an open mind...maybe the girls were making the story up.
ReplyDeletebut anyway, very funny post.
I thought about some irony that you might not like in this two part post of yours. At first you say we shouldn't avoid rated R movies, then you point out that a guy that watched a lot became a porno/pedophile. Maybe his outcome would have been different if he hadn't seen so many rated R movies? Who knows, but it is a little ironic.
ReplyDeleteI openly admit to watching a few rated R movies and at the same time limiting some PG-13 movies. I do it on a case by case basis, but I personally feel that the council to avoid them will do much more good than bad.
Carson,
ReplyDeleteMaybe his outcome would have been different if he hadn't seen so many rated R movies?
Actually, porn availability is highly correlated with decreases in sexual crime, and most sexual criminals come from repressive sexual backgrounds. It would seem that there is no causal link between watching porn/R-rated movies and sexual crime; it might be just the opposite, actually.
As for Thompson, his porn-distributing, implied porn-viewing, and sexual solicitations may very well have been different manifestations of a core sexual problem.
Beware of unjustified conclusions about cause-and-effect.
Steve
ReplyDeleteWhile trying to pad my resume for application to grad school I participated in a public awareness group called SAVE (students against violent environments) that was started and sponsored by the now more famous VOICE (womens activism group) at BYU. Most of our data that we gave (don't remember specifics because that was about 10 years ago) showed exactly the opposite, there is actually a strong positive correlation between pornography and crime.
Here is an old (but a good) article with many cross references to studies done that back up my support. http://forerunner.com/forerunner/
X0388_Effects_of_Pornograp.html
I challenge you a friendly rebuttal to post a few studies that will support your claim and prove that you don't draw unjustified conclusions about cause-and-effect.
"chirp, chirp"
ReplyDeleteCrickets chirping in the background in statistically correct synchronicity.