Porn Addiction?

[DavidS]

As you say Bruce, you have opened up a can of worms here. Although it is not good from the point of view of debate, I can see both sides of this argument. I have great reservations about the twelve steps programme. Because it worked for a small group of alcoholics in the US before the war, does not mean it will work for everyone now. Particularly when it is amended to cater for other forms of perceived addiction. It cannot work for many people because they realise that you cannot hand over control of your life to a higher power. However there are those, mainly ones with religious beliefs, who seem to be able to do so and it does work for them.
Although we may be sceptical about people needing a 12 step programme to overcome an assumed addiction to porn, it has to be appreciated that these people are not the real enemies here. They do not, at least as an organization, attempt to deprive us of the right to look at porn. They are merely saying that they have a problem with it. The real enemies who really do want to curb our rights are religious groups, who often hide behind the child protection argument to get porn legislated against, and the extreme feminst movement, mainly an assortment of ugly American dykes who seem to be jealous that there are other women about who are able to make a livlihood out of the industry.

[Bruce Barnard]

Sincere apologies JJ if I crashed your comedic timing. It?s good to know that there is never a shortage of veteran forumites willing to highlight my every typo, spelling mistake and misplaced forum thread.

Anyhow enough dick waving, if only because I?m acutely aware that you?ll win any ?cock joust? on account of your extensive vocabulary, genuine wit and seemingly faultless education.

Earnestness = a genuine desire to discover the truth, rather then adopt the standard template used by hacks when they cover the sex industry. The urge to knock out 80,000 words about ?damaged women?, ??fat guys with cigars who run the trade in human suffering? along with other tabloid clich?s, has at times been irresistible. Instead I labour under the illusion that getting the real experiences of people who watch large amounts of pornography will prevent a lengthy forum thread in the future bitching about how shite my book is?

Alternatively, we could talk about jiggling knockers at some length?

[Officer Dibble]

It's not just religious nutcases and extreme feminists, it's the middle class left in general which is the main problem. They espouse the view that porn is deeming to 'wimmin' and that if men express any sexual interest in a woman (i.e. they fancy her) they are being 'sexist.' As the middleclass left are the ones who are the foot soldiers of politics, local government, journalism, and the media in general, they have been well placed to propagate the view that there is something wrong with being 'sexist' - i.e. fancying women and fully recognising the fundamental differences between the sexes. To say some one is 'sexist' is to say the sky is blue. Of course they're fuckin' sexist, everyone is, we were designed like that so that we would be able to determine the biological and psychological differences between us and then 'get together' with the appropriate gender. Whenever some pocy middleclass twat on TV talks about "But that's so sexist" I feel an overwhelming urge to jump up and put my boot through the screen! I'm just waiting for the day we get a non-poncy interviewer, who, when they come up against the refrain "But it's so sexist" will calmly, but very firmly, say "So Fucking What?"

Yes, religious nutters and idiotic feminists can be dangerous too simply because they are so vocal. Always causing a fuss. Unlike the vast majority of ordinary folks who don't want to cause a fuss. They don't care what others are doing so long as they are no interfering with them - live and let live. But it's the minority of vocal nutters that are taken into account when making laws and regulations. This is wrong. A good example of this is when a dozen attention seeking nutcases ring up some media watchdog to complain about an "obscene" advert or program. Then the media watchdog has those responsible for the 'offending' work remove it or stop publication. This is another telly trashing moment for me because I'm like "Oh dear, twelve complaints hey? How appalling...But hey, WHAT ABOUT THE OTHER FUCKING 60 MILLION PEOPLE IN THE COUNRTY THEN? THEY MUST HAVE EIRTHER LOVED IT OR DIDN'T GIVE A DAM! SO WHY THE FUCK ARE YOU BOWING TO THE DEMENTED VIEWS OF HALF A DOZEN DIVIS!"

Officer Dibble

[jj]

Bruce Barnard wrote:

> Sincere apologies JJ if I crashed your comedic timing. It?s
> good to know that there is never a shortage of veteran
> forumites willing to highlight my every typo, spelling mistake
> and misplaced forum thread.
Well, I'm sorry too, that I wounded your male ego by pointing out yet another irritating example of misplaced threading. Nice to see some unpurged vitriol coming out there, too..........good therapy, I imagine.
As you'd know if you paid a little more attention to my posts, I rarely if ever point up such mistakes unless it's to make a point about something else. The point I was trying to make, in my usual ham-fisted fashion, is that placing your post following one of my (very minor) witticisms might lead some readers, having read that prior post, to miss your (rather more imporatant) one.
>
> Anyhow enough dick waving, if only because I?m acutely aware
> that you?ll win any ?cock joust? on account of your extensive
> vocabulary, genuine wit and seemingly faultless education.
Flattery will get you everywhere: and it's supposed to be a discussion, not a competition.
>
> Alternatively, we could talk about jiggling knockers at some length?
Well, it's an option, sure.......but I'd go for pussy-lips every time, personally.

[jj]

.....not really: it's a little more extreme than my position, but I recognise all the markers of a society ill-at-ease with itself, the New Puritanism of PC, and the usual need for human groupings to define themselves by the exclusion, castigation and isolation of others.
I too rejected psychotherapy very rapidly, in favour of the 'beer and curry' approach, and have never regretted it.
It almost makes me nostalgic for good old-fashioned 'ole-time religion' when I see my contrymen desperately snatching at everything from prayer-wheels to dream-catchers in a desperate attempt to make sense of it all.............when all they need to do is to stop beating themnselves up, or allowing self-interested bullshitters to do so while daring to charge them for th privilege.
Yes, almost "I'm OK, you're OK".....oh, dear.
Now we're REALLY in trouble.

[Bruce Barnard]

For an extreme example of the 'ole time US religion' of which Bimmercat speaks:

[Bruce Barnard]

Fair point JJ, I tend to leave the term ?diplomacy? off my CV nowadays.

As for ?male ego?, I?m happy to confirm that this long disappeared into the ether when I was cruelly dumped by the first girl I ever fingered way back in 1986. Using the stock excuse of ?I?m just not interested in men? on Christmas Eve, she attended a party with some friends of mine on Boxing day, which resulted in her being nicknamed ?gobbler? for the rest of her school career.

Which reminds me: this is the sort of story which would raise a major horn on my work appointed therapeutic charlatan?

[jj]

Heh heh......compared to some of the denizens of this Pit of Despair, you are positively argentolingual.
Truly, though, is there a man on the planet who HASN'T had his teenage heart shattered (hopefuly not beyond repair) by a 24-carat, gold-plated lying slut?

At this juncture it would normally behove me to declaim piously and sesquipedally upon the virtues of Redemptive Love......
But the football's on on a minute.
It's OK: it's a Boy Thang.