|Paizo Pathfinder® Paizo Games|
|About Paizo Messageboards News Paizo Blog Help/FAQ|
Well, what can I say... He sure hates capitalism. I wouldn't say that the link he tries to paint between modern day porn and exploitation of Philippino women in 1898 is as clear as he thinks it is. It sounds more like "porn is bad so let's call it capitalist and imperialist. Many, many, many times."
A) If he heard a sex worker claim that she liked doing what she did, would he listen to her, or is she then a brainwashed tool of the capitalist, evil, imperialist, capitalist and capitalist world capitalism?
B) How does he reconcile recent decades' reduction in poverty with capitalism being so, so... Capitalist?
Everything bad has a higher probability of hitting poor people, simply because there are more of those. And the discussion was about whether Gark motivated his argument about porn being harmful to poor people by equating porn with trafficking and the like. We never got an answer, only Gark's statement. Sorry, Quark, as I read it, you don't have anything to base that "chalk one up for destructive" on.
I had a situation where one of my players could not and would not stop questioning EVERY SINGLE RULES APPLICATION we used. This got into thirty to forty times PER SESSION. He would not stop until I had proven him wrong (which happened more than ninety-five percents of the time, the rest he had some kind of point to it). I told him to stop in private, then I told him to stop in front of the others, to no avail. Then I told him that if he did question anything at all, he would have a -5 penalty to the next action his character did, cumulative number of times of course. This got him to stop.
Studies come in all qualities. Paywalls to studies are actively harmful, and this is why. Without seeing all of the study, we have no way of knowing why the study draws those conclusions, and so it remains useless to us. An abstract is not something that says much, certainly not enough to base arguments on.
Rape fantasies are a decidedly odd phenomenon. Both male AND female such. From Bollywood movies marketed to women that sell firmly on "the first underwater rape" - usually thought to be an expression of dealing with guilt and responsibility - to scenes where a man rapes a woman - but she then enjoys it. Odd stuff. I mean, if a man wants to imagine raping a woman, wouldn't it go against the idea if she enjoyed it? Even so, rape fantasies are extremely common. What is quite clear, though, is that there is no obvious increase in sexual crimes with increased access to porn of various stripes. This would be clear independent of uncertain numbers, varying definitions of rape, and so on. If it has an effect, it is apparently not enough to push people past the boundary of sexual crimes in any appreciable numbers.
And yet... The japanese are still HUMANS, so for some odd reason they like sex and like pictures of sex. Who knew, right?
Indeed, porn does not cause rape. Nor does violent movies cause violent crime. The "monkey see, monkey do" crowd has very little going for it these days. The expansion of the internet into various areas of the US has correlated with falling sexual crime statistics in said areas. Interestingly enough, there is a study that says that teenagers and young adults are quite a lot safer during their sexual debuts since the internet came. It is not so odd either. Before the internet, people were put in the situation that rl interaction was needed to begin experimenting. After, they have had many more options. It also seems to be the case that watching a violent movie, one about violent sex, or the like, actually dampens the person's impulse to do such things themselves.
Certainly, it could have an effect. But one thing you can be absolutely certain of, is that IF the porn haters had some kind of real scientific evidence that it is harmful, everyone everywhere would know about it. Harmful media effects have been a watchword since a long, long while back now, and to my knowledge there is nothing conclusive to show for all the research done.
Okay... it seems it's so common that children get sex offender status due to sexting (!!!) and similar stuff that finding the case in question is not happening off a short goggling. Sorry about that. I remember reading about it in the newspaper, about a UK story. The woman was 17 when it happened, and had photos of herself in her phone, without talk about her spreading anything.
Here is something I found that was interesting. Link
This story is about a 15-year old, who spread the photos... but notice what it says: Ohio specifically has no exception for possession when it's about pictures of the child who has them.
I also liked the story about the woman who became a sex offender for breast feeding...
Now good luck with the rest of the debate here. I will have to see if I feel up to even thinking about this kind of evil again for an internet thread.
Oh, and by the way, don't defend the s*$# laws in the area to me. Do it to the girl who got her life ruined for it. I hear she'll be out of prison in some ten years now. Of course, then there's the sex offender registration to consider... Explain how what was done to her wasn't malicious, but meant to protect, okay?
HRMPH. I am getting too worked up over this. I hate it when people are discarded. When nobody cares, because shiny laws everyone has to respect. When the police shot someone who happened to be psychotic and they couldn't be bothered to try to calm things down and shooting was easier. When... Blah.
Signing off this discussion. Out of respect for these boards and the moderation staff.
Right. If you're one of the crusaders who happen to write such a law, to REALLY PROTECT THE CHILDREN (tm), one VERY OBVIOUS thought that they should all have had at some point is "What happens to someone who has photos of THEMSELVES and happens to be a kid?"
I am fully convinced they did, too.
Only, not only did they not care. Breaking eggs only goes so far.
They specifically DID NOT WANT to make such an exception, because that would mean that the law said: "Hey, a kid has the right to take photos of her own body." And that was not part of their plan.
Stop making excuses for evil old laws, thejeff.
Mostly because when China annected Tibet, the West was cheering for them to do it. Tibet was a VERY old-school monarchy, with an extremely impoverished population... frankly, everyone figured SOMEONE should do something about them already.
That China is less popular today, and that people have forgotten what Tibet used to be like and what the West felt about it then, that's neither here nor there.
It doesn't matter one whit, thejeff. Nothing like this comes out of a law that is anywhere near sane. Prosecutorial discretion??? If that is necessary to justify such a law's existence, the law is utterly and completely corrupt. Once laws get made that start to ruin people's lives WHEN WORKING AS INTENDED, because there is a Higher Purpose (tm) to that law, society borked out a while ago. Those writing such a law are morons or a+~!#$!s, and sadly also those who take it upon themselves to defend such a law. Personally, I would prefer it if laws were not made by complete and utter morons, or despicable, evil crusaders.
The UK case had a 17 year old girl be punished and registered as a sex offender for pictures of herself THAT SHE HAD IN HER OWN MOBILE PHONE... Talk about insanity when a law has that kind of result. To my thinking, a society that even comes close to accepting such vomit is completely deranged. Cheers.
My first would be Second Darkness. It has gotten a rep as truly abysmal, which it most certainly is not. The early parts of it are cool, dark, and strange, and they are quite impressive. The latter half has an ingrained problem, mostly where it doesn't match the beginning, and a remake would be the only real opportunity for redemption the AP has. I would LOVE to see what Paizo has learned since applied to it.
My second would be Kingmaker. It is huge, sweeping, archetypal and different. It would be possible to restructure a lot of it due to the constraints of the hexcrawl and the different scenarios, leading to some decidedly odd consequences. It would also be lovely to see an alternate scenario where promises from very early on are instead used as the ending.
During the late 80s, early 90s, it was possible to make, and make a lot of money from, full-length porn flicks with stars, music, makeup and scenery, and some even tried at plot. That style of it went tata with the advent of the internet. A number of the more well-known stars tried their hands in non-porn movies. The internet brought with it porn sites in an always-expanding ensemble, and it was estimated that 50% of internet activity consisted of porn at one point. There were regulations put on porn which changed the game, like the (?) 2257 regulation where all porn actors had to be traceable. At the same time, porn was democratized by people all over who put up clips on places like RedTube and YouPorn. At one point, it seemed like the classic porn industry was dying, outcompeted by short amateur clips. But of course, it just adapted. And when it did, attention was turned to a much wider variety of sex than merely the classic porn-style intercourse. Other people started making feminist porn, eco-porn, and so on. Porn has also been making ouvertures into other media, such as erotic and explicit music videos.
Porn is not what it used to be.
Another thing that has happened is that actors now actively try to build a closer connection to their fans than they could before, through social media, through adult entertainment conventions, and so on. If you are curious about the conditions of making porn today (within the bigger studios at least), you could do worse than seeking out a few blogs of actors working there. As I understand it, the huge money that some could get is pretty much gone. The demands for silicone implants are at least not as absolute today. And, there is a deeply seated frustration with the government and various groups who want to save porn actors from themselves. Above all, it is very difficult for porn actors to get listened to by anyone relevant.
Problems remain, of course. Much is different, but there is still prejudice against porn actors. Dealing with that, and providing good sex ed as a matter of course, would matter.
Edit: One truly fascinating correlation is that the more conservative and wealthy a neighbourhood is, the more porn it consumes. The wealthiest areas of Salt Lake City top the list for America, IIRC.
Well, not an expert on daemons, but Szuriel governs war. Runelords 3 and 4 are at least roughly tied to war, so the enmity might not come as a surprise. Given the personal enmity of Szuriel, the natural thing is not necessarily to send daemons for the PCs, but to spark wars all over Varisia by various daemon actions. It is up to you how nihilistic you want to be (and how much defeat you think the PCs can handle), but just off the top of my head, Korvosa could lead a crusade to punish Magnimar for leaving, Ilsurian is always ready for a scrap with anyone who seems threatening to them as is Janderhoff, the shoanti carry long-lived grudges indeed, primarily against Korvosa. Of course, there are the orcs of Balkzen, and other giant tribes in Varisia that could start fighting anyone nearby, and so on. Sandpoint could become a casualty in that warfare. A word of caution: It would be easy for the heroes to ignore the AP if you overdo it. Hit places they've been, people they have known, and make sure they KNOW it's about them...
The genius of Christianity is "turn the other cheek" and "love your enemies". Jesus established a way to live that could actually work there. Not just the golden rule, but far, far more than that. Jesus was also quite clear that Heaven was not another place: "Heaven lies within you". It is THIS life that matters, that is important.
Unfortunately, those parts are generally ignored, in favour of either "Jesus made water into wine and walked on water and lived again after dying" or stuff from the old testament about stoning people and living forever in Heaven with God.
I find it deplorable.
You can't delay setting fire to the tangled mess because there were some good things in there, if setting fire to it is the only way it is going away. Of course, those happy with the tangled mess will point out the good things and try to delay the fire.
That said, Jiggy, I think you are wrong. No sex until marriage is a simple meme with a HUGE influence, easily stated, can be protected by sensible-sounding arguments (I am married and I think our sex life is better than any alternative), and so on. It is beautiful as a PR meme. It is VERY MUCH a load-bearing wall. Tearing it down in flames would work wonders to change the debates around sex.
Thank you guys for the support. Sometimes it seems I hit the mark. =)
Regarding contraceptives for 12-year-olds: I would prefer if they didn't start having sex at 12. It is, however, not something that I, or anyone else for that matter, can control. It also behooves us to be careful before denying someone the right to do something. Still, my main argument is NOT "they are going to do it anyway", but "when they do it anyway, if they have contraceptives, there will at least not be a teenage pregnancy, and with condoms, we can hope for less STD transmission".
We as adults have a MASSIVE responsibility to steer society in a direction that promotes health, even sexual such whenever they have started having sex, for our children. Shaming them, punishing and threatening is THE best way to get rebellious teens to break the rules we set up for them. Why? Because we did not have the right priorities when we set up those rules. Most parents get something panicky in their eyes when they think about their children having sex - but they have a sexuality whatever we think. It is, according to the studies that do exist, better to respect them, teach them what sex is, and give them the tools they need to protect themselves from complications.
Really, the other solutions are pretty dismal: Abstinence-only programs have been instrumental in increasing teenage pregnancies and STD spread. IN Africa, where the US under Bush mandated it in exchange for international donations, it has raised the spread of HIV even worse than before. Purity rings (where a young girl marries her dad and promises to stay pure for him) seem to come with an even more significantly raised risk of teenage pregnancy.
Our children are competent enough to handle the rather simple conditions for having safe sex. If they are not, it's the adults that have not done their jobs. Such as by not telling them what they need to know.
Religious beliefs have my respect. Religious behaviours are just as possible to criticize as any other sort of behaviour. And this, of course, applies to any sort of moral rule someone tries to spread to anyone else, especially but not limited to when it happens by force or by laws. Behaviours and ideas need to be judged at least in part by their consequences, and in the case of "no sex before marriage", I consider the consequences dire and obvious.
I also find it interesting that claiming "no sex before marriage needs to die in a fire" is an attack... While "no sex before marriage" itself is not. It is a claim to the right to judge someone else's views of sexuality.
To further clarify, it is the general meme I find repugnant, the societal movement to spread this as the norm. What one or two people decide for themselves is entirely up to them.
Granted I haven't been in a position to be treated by a school nurse in a good long while, but American doctors do, in fact, handle sexual problems.
I am sure they do. I am also very sure people think several times before telling their doctor anything out of the ordinary about their sex lives. Just as an example, there at least used to be lists of doctors where BDSM-interested people could go for treatment without fear of getting reported and such. Was a while ago, but I doubt there has been a tolerance revolution about it since. Gods forbid a teenager talks about a nonstandard sexuality with their school nurse, and heaven help people in various places that need a day after pill, or an abortion.
I didn't realize my occasional trip to the store counted as jumping through hoops. Or are you only counting forms of contraception that have enough chemical effect on your body that you really ought to see a doctor first? Because in that case I'd say that's good health practice, not sexual repression.
In how many states in the US can a twelve-year old girl get contraceptives without issue? I may be wrong on this, but I don't imagine it is anywhere near universal.
Been a while on this one too, so I couldn't really comment. (Though your protest is vague enough that I'm not sure I could comment effectively anyway.)
How are the abstinence-only programs working out for America so far?
This is another really vague comment, but it sounds like you're saying that punishment of things like rape and child molestation is more harsh than such crimes are worth. Feel free to clarify.
Getting registered as a sex offender, having to tell your entire neighbourhood you are one when moving somewhere, not being allowed to live within x distance of a place with children (with crusaders capitalising on this to build more daycare centers strategically), and so on and so forth. These are people that HAVE been punished already. People who should be trying to reintegrate into society. Contrary to what many Americans believe, sex offenders have a pretty good record of non-recurrence, which is what we see in other countries. There is no reason to treat them this way, and doing so actually worsens their prognosis. And this is without discussing cases like a seventeen year old girl getting sex offender status because she had photos of HERSELF in her mobile phone. Sex offenders have become a state sanctioned bogeyman, but the reality doesn't match the media image. Sure, some of them do, but there are other systems to deal with when someone shouldn't be let out and so on. It is a poor thing for any culture to demonize anyone, and has serious consequences by itself.
Wait, like, before even a first date? Or do you just mean before it becomes, you know, a relationship? If the former, that seems cumbersome and unnecessary. If the latter, then yeah, you've got a point.
The second, of course. One thing dating SHOULD be for is to begin finding out if you are sexually compatible. No sex until after marriage needs to die in a fire. It leads to unhappy people, ruined lives and shattered families, whether due to separation, unfaithfulness or other.
Ehhh... I'm not sure that's based on a sexually-repressed culture so much as it's based on the vilification of the not-like-self. There's more psychological similarity between the vilification of atypical sexuality and the vilification of min-maxing than there is between the vilification of atypical sexuality and a shyness towards discussing one's own sexuality. The...
Damn board system swallows the rest, but: If sex is something people respect and can even talk about seriously, then someone else's sexuality will more easily fall under the live and let live doctrine. If only just because it gets easier to understand.
Very few people want to have sex in public. Whatever the attitude to it, it isn't going to be a big article. The difference in a non-repressed country is that people can discuss sexual problems with their doctor or school nurse, they can get contraception without jumping through hoops, they will have sex ed worth the name and thus be able to protect themselves from complications, you could have a sensible treatment of sex offenders instead of a horror show crusade against them. People would discuss sexual matters BEFORE starting relationships (oh, if only). People with non-standard sexualities would possibly not get as vilified.
Sex is a human priority. For most people, sex is big. Making that shameful, forbidden or hidden is a) not going to work, and b) hurt a lot of people in the process. Centuries of experience more than bears this out. Countries where sex is not seen as the horror Americans see it as are, unsurprisingly, not war zones where everyone gets raped indiscriminately.
Freehold DM wrote:
... Can I join you?
Mmmmmm piiiiit haaaag.... [/Homer]
No, but the setting assumes the magic chapter's rules work, doesn't it? Which means, among many, many other things, that more powerful spells require more experience to cast. Someone with no experience casting meteor swarms would be expressly against these rules. See how that works? The magic system is predictable, and there is no magic involved that allows for a thousand attacks per second. Saying that because there is magic, nobody ever should complain about someone making a thousand attacks per second, that's just bull.
"as unrealistic as can be"? Seriously... you ever played World of Synnibarr? On the contrary, the default setting takes large pains to be predictable, with geography, sociology, politics, economy, transportation, military, education, and so on, all built to make some kind of sense. When going across the Lost Coast, you don't suddenly get hit by the anvil rain. There are no intelligent areas of reversed gravity. There are no places where saying "hi" to someone turns them into a gelatinous cube. There are no festivals where people spend their time turning into ducks. And so on. It may be your view of Golarion, but it certainly never was the intended interpretation.
Way to miss the point. I never said the realistic rules of physics couldn't be broken in any which way... they merely have to do so consistently. It may be that in your setting, a human fighter CAN make a thousand attacks in a second. My point is merely that one breakage of the rules does not justify any other (specific) such breakage. I.e. just because dragons, it certainly is not "anything goes".
I dunno, we play a game with an objective reality - that established by the conjunction of the rules and how the GM applies them. This may change, this may be odd, but it IS an attempt at making some sort of functioning, predictable setting. Thus, the physics-breaking stuff are rather finite in number. Also, humans are pretty much meant to be the same as we all are, and recognizable as such. We all try maintain a willing suspension of disbelief, otherwise we aren't going to feel that a game maintains our interest. Maybe unless we're talking about TOON, or something like that. So, no, dragons do not mean a human can attack a thousand times in a round. Dragons mean dragons.