txags92 said:

---

Joe Boudain said:

---

txags92 said:

---

Joe Boudain said:

---

txags92 said:

---

Joe Boudain said:

---

txags92 said:

---

Jason C. said:

---

Joe Boudain and Rebel

Porn is bad for men psychologically and physically; it's bad for women for all the obvious exploitative reasons. "We can't eradicate it completely therefore we shouldn't even try to" is the same non-sequitur used by libs who want abortion, drugs, or any other type of evil.

And you porn-addicts/enablers' appeals to libertarian principles are sort of reasonable superficially ("it's not hurting anyone", or "what I miserably and compulsively do in the confines of my *everywhere* is none of your business"). But then those arguments fall apart because, again, (1) evidence and real life shows it's bad for men because it changes them for the worse and (2) bad for women. Not to mention all the underage kids looking at it, who are able to do so because efforts to block porn and fought off by perverts and pimps (investors/producers).

What's harmful for individuals on a massive scale has structural consequences for society. That harm warrants a societal, coordinated response to stop or minimize that harm. A healthy society would recognize this.

---

So we are now in favor of government banning anything that we perceive to be bad for people? So you are in favor of banning swimming pools, bicycles, family dogs, cars that are capable of going over 35 mph, refined sugar, tobacco, and alcohol? All of those things kill or injure a ton of people every year, so why should they be allowed to exist? How about hammers and clubs...lots of people get killed by them every year too. What about swimming at the beach? That is dangerous too, dozens of deaths or serious injuries every year. I won't even get into snow skiing, sky diving, bungie jumping, skateboarding, etc. So where do you anti-porn and anti-libertarian folks draw the line on how much government should dictate what people can and can't do? What is your red line that makes you say "whoa" to the full on nanny state declaring everything but work, eating, and sleeping to be illegal? At what point do people have the right to make their own decisions about things that could harm themselves?

---

When did we lose the capacity for reason and the ability to differentiate between different flavors of evil and act accordingly.

Swimming pools can be used properly, as can fast food, tobacco and most things. Pornography cannot, there is no good end possible with pornography. It has massively evil fruits that lead to societal ills.

As always, the red line is what makes sense. It's the same reason 18 is old enough to vote and not 17.5, or 45 is the speed limit and not 46. The fact that something is cumbersome or imperfect doesn't mean it isn't needed.

---

So if a consenting adult agrees to strip naked and take pictures, and a consenting adult agrees to pay for those pictures, to you that is an evil that will cause irreparable harm to all of society that is worse than a kid drowning in a swimming pool or a toddler being killed by their family's dog? You and I are just going to have to agree to disagree on that one. There are certainly aspects of porn that can be harmful, but to pretend that it is any business of government to stamp out all porn is stupid and you should be laughed at for thinking so. People are sentient beings with freewill, and the constitution defines very tightly the powers of government. I don't see anything in there that gives government the power to ban what a small group of puritans considers to be "evil" in the name of protecting the rest of us from ourselves.

---

I also don't really give a **** about the Constitution, as it sits now it's only used as a weapon against the actual right and rarely ever used for what it's meant to be used for.

The country was founded by a bunch of puritans who figured they didn't need to put a bunch of **** in because there's no way possible society would ever degenerate to the level it has now, but we've proved them wrong.

---

Yeah, I think we are done here with anything words can fix. Probably about time for you to go start a little porn free totalitarian enclave of your own somewhere with the rest of the puritans, because I happen to care alot about the constitution and will defend it with arms against your type.

---

Wish you'd defend it with arms against the people turning our country into a 3rd world bordello, but I guess you have to pick and choose your battles.

---

If everybody is legal age and consenting, it is absolutely none of my business what they do, who they show it to, or what they charge to see it. America would be a much better place if we stuck to that attitude about most things.

---

I know right? How does the physical, mental, and spiritual health of my country affect me and my family in any way? Everything is totally fine and in no way degenerating into a never ending debauch.

backintexas2013 said:

---

But you aren't important. You just are a prude

---

ok

Joe Boudain said:

---

txags92 said:

---

Joe Boudain said:

---

txags92 said:

---

Joe Boudain said:

---

txags92 said:

---

Joe Boudain said:

---

txags92 said:

---

Jason C. said:

---

Joe Boudain and Rebel

Porn is bad for men psychologically and physically; it's bad for women for all the obvious exploitative reasons. "We can't eradicate it completely therefore we shouldn't even try to" is the same non-sequitur used by libs who want abortion, drugs, or any other type of evil.

And you porn-addicts/enablers' appeals to libertarian principles are sort of reasonable superficially ("it's not hurting anyone", or "what I miserably and compulsively do in the confines of my *everywhere* is none of your business"). But then those arguments fall apart because, again, (1) evidence and real life shows it's bad for men because it changes them for the worse and (2) bad for women. Not to mention all the underage kids looking at it, who are able to do so because efforts to block porn and fought off by perverts and pimps (investors/producers).

What's harmful for individuals on a massive scale has structural consequences for society. That harm warrants a societal, coordinated response to stop or minimize that harm. A healthy society would recognize this.

---

So we are now in favor of government banning anything that we perceive to be bad for people? So you are in favor of banning swimming pools, bicycles, family dogs, cars that are capable of going over 35 mph, refined sugar, tobacco, and alcohol? All of those things kill or injure a ton of people every year, so why should they be allowed to exist? How about hammers and clubs...lots of people get killed by them every year too. What about swimming at the beach? That is dangerous too, dozens of deaths or serious injuries every year. I won't even get into snow skiing, sky diving, bungie jumping, skateboarding, etc. So where do you anti-porn and anti-libertarian folks draw the line on how much government should dictate what people can and can't do? What is your red line that makes you say "whoa" to the full on nanny state declaring everything but work, eating, and sleeping to be illegal? At what point do people have the right to make their own decisions about things that could harm themselves?

---

When did we lose the capacity for reason and the ability to differentiate between different flavors of evil and act accordingly.

Swimming pools can be used properly, as can fast food, tobacco and most things. Pornography cannot, there is no good end possible with pornography. It has massively evil fruits that lead to societal ills.

As always, the red line is what makes sense. It's the same reason 18 is old enough to vote and not 17.5, or 45 is the speed limit and not 46. The fact that something is cumbersome or imperfect doesn't mean it isn't needed.

---

So if a consenting adult agrees to strip naked and take pictures, and a consenting adult agrees to pay for those pictures, to you that is an evil that will cause irreparable harm to all of society that is worse than a kid drowning in a swimming pool or a toddler being killed by their family's dog? You and I are just going to have to agree to disagree on that one. There are certainly aspects of porn that can be harmful, but to pretend that it is any business of government to stamp out all porn is stupid and you should be laughed at for thinking so. People are sentient beings with freewill, and the constitution defines very tightly the powers of government. I don't see anything in there that gives government the power to ban what a small group of puritans considers to be "evil" in the name of protecting the rest of us from ourselves.

---

I also don't really give a **** about the Constitution, as it sits now it's only used as a weapon against the actual right and rarely ever used for what it's meant to be used for.

The country was founded by a bunch of puritans who figured they didn't need to put a bunch of **** in because there's no way possible society would ever degenerate to the level it has now, but we've proved them wrong.

---

Yeah, I think we are done here with anything words can fix. Probably about time for you to go start a little porn free totalitarian enclave of your own somewhere with the rest of the puritans, because I happen to care alot about the constitution and will defend it with arms against your type.

---

Wish you'd defend it with arms against the people turning our country into a 3rd world bordello, but I guess you have to pick and choose your battles.

---

If everybody is legal age and consenting, it is absolutely none of my business what they do, who they show it to, or what they charge to see it. America would be a much better place if we stuck to that attitude about most things.

---

Why do you give a **** about the legal age? What if they change the legal age to 3? They're legally killing unborn children now, so there's nothing beyond the pale. Why is it any of your business if they're not legal age and they don't consent?

None of you non-aggression types make any sense. You say that there shouldn't be laws, and it's no business what other people do, then define what should be law and when it is your business to intervene.

I also don't understand the "I'll pick up arms to make sure that birthright citizen is the law of the land" hostility. What is it about having chicoms squat out citizens that gets you so ready to attack conservative tax paying religious fathers?

---

Nice job putting words in my mouth that I never said. You seem to excel at knocking down strawmen that you build for yourself. Legal age is a concept that society has decided on when people are able to make decisions for themselves on various subjects. Abortion and porn have nothing to do with one another, but I can see why you brought it into the discussion to give you something to dunk on. Abortion isn't about a question of consent, because the fetus will never be able to consent. It has always been a debate about when life begins and has no role in what we are discussing here. I care about consent because it distinguishes an adult woman who has worked hard to make her body beautiful and wants to monetize that by selling pictures and videos to others who enjoy them, as opposed to a teenage kid being forced to do it by somebody who is victimizing her.

I happen to agree with you about anchor babies, but our society has a framework for making changes to the constitution. We don't just get to ignore the constitution when it is convenient to the cause we care most about. Every bit of anger and venom you can put into this subject and how righteous you feel about how important it is to ignore the constitution to ban porn could be matched with equal fervor by a progressive atheist who is absolutely convinced that organized religion is the root of a whole host of ills that harm society. Would you agree with their belief that we should ignore the constitution to allow the banning of organized religion?

If not, then you are a hypocrite. You don't get to pick and choose when you think our constitutional rights apply. The bill of rights enumerates rights that exist, not ones that are granted to us by the government. So government doesn't get to just take them away when some zealot sees fit.

txags92 said:

---

Joe Boudain said:

---

txags92 said:

---

Joe Boudain said:

---

txags92 said:

---

Joe Boudain said:

---

txags92 said:

---

Joe Boudain said:

---

txags92 said:

---

Jason C. said:

---

Joe Boudain and Rebel

Porn is bad for men psychologically and physically; it's bad for women for all the obvious exploitative reasons. "We can't eradicate it completely therefore we shouldn't even try to" is the same non-sequitur used by libs who want abortion, drugs, or any other type of evil.

And you porn-addicts/enablers' appeals to libertarian principles are sort of reasonable superficially ("it's not hurting anyone", or "what I miserably and compulsively do in the confines of my *everywhere* is none of your business"). But then those arguments fall apart because, again, (1) evidence and real life shows it's bad for men because it changes them for the worse and (2) bad for women. Not to mention all the underage kids looking at it, who are able to do so because efforts to block porn and fought off by perverts and pimps (investors/producers).

What's harmful for individuals on a massive scale has structural consequences for society. That harm warrants a societal, coordinated response to stop or minimize that harm. A healthy society would recognize this.

---

So we are now in favor of government banning anything that we perceive to be bad for people? So you are in favor of banning swimming pools, bicycles, family dogs, cars that are capable of going over 35 mph, refined sugar, tobacco, and alcohol? All of those things kill or injure a ton of people every year, so why should they be allowed to exist? How about hammers and clubs...lots of people get killed by them every year too. What about swimming at the beach? That is dangerous too, dozens of deaths or serious injuries every year. I won't even get into snow skiing, sky diving, bungie jumping, skateboarding, etc. So where do you anti-porn and anti-libertarian folks draw the line on how much government should dictate what people can and can't do? What is your red line that makes you say "whoa" to the full on nanny state declaring everything but work, eating, and sleeping to be illegal? At what point do people have the right to make their own decisions about things that could harm themselves?

---

When did we lose the capacity for reason and the ability to differentiate between different flavors of evil and act accordingly.

Swimming pools can be used properly, as can fast food, tobacco and most things. Pornography cannot, there is no good end possible with pornography. It has massively evil fruits that lead to societal ills.

As always, the red line is what makes sense. It's the same reason 18 is old enough to vote and not 17.5, or 45 is the speed limit and not 46. The fact that something is cumbersome or imperfect doesn't mean it isn't needed.

---

So if a consenting adult agrees to strip naked and take pictures, and a consenting adult agrees to pay for those pictures, to you that is an evil that will cause irreparable harm to all of society that is worse than a kid drowning in a swimming pool or a toddler being killed by their family's dog? You and I are just going to have to agree to disagree on that one. There are certainly aspects of porn that can be harmful, but to pretend that it is any business of government to stamp out all porn is stupid and you should be laughed at for thinking so. People are sentient beings with freewill, and the constitution defines very tightly the powers of government. I don't see anything in there that gives government the power to ban what a small group of puritans considers to be "evil" in the name of protecting the rest of us from ourselves.

---

I also don't really give a **** about the Constitution, as it sits now it's only used as a weapon against the actual right and rarely ever used for what it's meant to be used for.

The country was founded by a bunch of puritans who figured they didn't need to put a bunch of **** in because there's no way possible society would ever degenerate to the level it has now, but we've proved them wrong.

---

Yeah, I think we are done here with anything words can fix. Probably about time for you to go start a little porn free totalitarian enclave of your own somewhere with the rest of the puritans, because I happen to care alot about the constitution and will defend it with arms against your type.

---

Wish you'd defend it with arms against the people turning our country into a 3rd world bordello, but I guess you have to pick and choose your battles.

---

If everybody is legal age and consenting, it is absolutely none of my business what they do, who they show it to, or what they charge to see it. America would be a much better place if we stuck to that attitude about most things.

---

Why do you give a **** about the legal age? What if they change the legal age to 3? They're legally killing unborn children now, so there's nothing beyond the pale. Why is it any of your business if they're not legal age and they don't consent?

None of you non-aggression types make any sense. You say that there shouldn't be laws, and it's no business what other people do, then define what should be law and when it is your business to intervene.

I also don't understand the "I'll pick up arms to make sure that birthright citizen is the law of the land" hostility. What is it about having chicoms squat out citizens that gets you so ready to attack conservative tax paying religious fathers?

---

Nice job putting words in my mouth that I never said. You seem to excel at knocking down strawmen that you build for yourself. Legal age is a concept that society has decided on when people are able to make decisions for themselves on various subjects. Abortion and porn have nothing to do with one another, but I can see why you brought it into the discussion to give you something to dunk on. Abortion isn't about a question of consent, because the fetus will never be able to consent. It has always been a debate about when life begins and has no role in what we are discussing here. I care about consent because it distinguishes an adult woman who has worked hard to make her body beautiful and wants to monetize that by selling pictures and videos to others who enjoy them, as opposed to a teenage kid being forced to do it by somebody who is victimizing her.

I happen to agree with you about anchor babies, but our society has a framework for making changes to the constitution. We don't just get to ignore the constitution when it is convenient to the cause we care most about. Every bit of anger and venom you can put into this subject and how righteous you feel about how important it is to ignore the constitution to ban porn could be matched with equal fervor by a progressive atheist who is absolutely convinced that organized religion is the root of a whole host of ills that harm society. Would you agree with their belief that we should ignore the constitution to allow the banning of organized religion?

If not, then you are a hypocrite. You don't get to pick and choose when you think our constitutional rights apply. The bill of rights enumerates rights that exist, not ones that are granted to us by the government. So government doesn't get to just take them away when some zealot sees fit.

---

I don't care about being a hypocrite, all we've been doing is blaming the left of hypocrisy while they continually win. Congrats on the moral victory, I'd prefer actual victories rather than explaining to my family "at least we lost the right way" in FEMA Camp #1411.

When society is ****ed, the laws will be ****ed as well. A degenerate society will have degenerate laws so pointing to something as "hey, it's the law it's no business of mine" makes zero sense if you ascribe to any sort of moral code outside of the current legal framework. Society once conceptualized that men could own other men, it is currently conceptualizing that a fetus isn't an actual person. You've come up with your own moral code on when society's laws are wrong (in the case of abortion above) but don't have the gumption to do so when it doesn't suit your purpose.

The difference between myself and the progressive atheist is that you're the one threatening me with taking up arms. Why aren't you threatening them? That's my entire point. They're the one's shredding the constitution to make our country Marxist, I want to do it to make america great again, and I'm the one being threatened.

Joe Boudain said:

---

txags92 said:

---

Joe Boudain said:

---

txags92 said:

---

Joe Boudain said:

---

txags92 said:

---

Joe Boudain said:

---

txags92 said:

---

Joe Boudain said:

---

txags92 said:

---

Jason C. said:

---

Joe Boudain and Rebel

Porn is bad for men psychologically and physically; it's bad for women for all the obvious exploitative reasons. "We can't eradicate it completely therefore we shouldn't even try to" is the same non-sequitur used by libs who want abortion, drugs, or any other type of evil.

And you porn-addicts/enablers' appeals to libertarian principles are sort of reasonable superficially ("it's not hurting anyone", or "what I miserably and compulsively do in the confines of my *everywhere* is none of your business"). But then those arguments fall apart because, again, (1) evidence and real life shows it's bad for men because it changes them for the worse and (2) bad for women. Not to mention all the underage kids looking at it, who are able to do so because efforts to block porn and fought off by perverts and pimps (investors/producers).

What's harmful for individuals on a massive scale has structural consequences for society. That harm warrants a societal, coordinated response to stop or minimize that harm. A healthy society would recognize this.

---

So we are now in favor of government banning anything that we perceive to be bad for people? So you are in favor of banning swimming pools, bicycles, family dogs, cars that are capable of going over 35 mph, refined sugar, tobacco, and alcohol? All of those things kill or injure a ton of people every year, so why should they be allowed to exist? How about hammers and clubs...lots of people get killed by them every year too. What about swimming at the beach? That is dangerous too, dozens of deaths or serious injuries every year. I won't even get into snow skiing, sky diving, bungie jumping, skateboarding, etc. So where do you anti-porn and anti-libertarian folks draw the line on how much government should dictate what people can and can't do? What is your red line that makes you say "whoa" to the full on nanny state declaring everything but work, eating, and sleeping to be illegal? At what point do people have the right to make their own decisions about things that could harm themselves?

---

When did we lose the capacity for reason and the ability to differentiate between different flavors of evil and act accordingly.

Swimming pools can be used properly, as can fast food, tobacco and most things. Pornography cannot, there is no good end possible with pornography. It has massively evil fruits that lead to societal ills.

As always, the red line is what makes sense. It's the same reason 18 is old enough to vote and not 17.5, or 45 is the speed limit and not 46. The fact that something is cumbersome or imperfect doesn't mean it isn't needed.

---

So if a consenting adult agrees to strip naked and take pictures, and a consenting adult agrees to pay for those pictures, to you that is an evil that will cause irreparable harm to all of society that is worse than a kid drowning in a swimming pool or a toddler being killed by their family's dog? You and I are just going to have to agree to disagree on that one. There are certainly aspects of porn that can be harmful, but to pretend that it is any business of government to stamp out all porn is stupid and you should be laughed at for thinking so. People are sentient beings with freewill, and the constitution defines very tightly the powers of government. I don't see anything in there that gives government the power to ban what a small group of puritans considers to be "evil" in the name of protecting the rest of us from ourselves.

---

I also don't really give a **** about the Constitution, as it sits now it's only used as a weapon against the actual right and rarely ever used for what it's meant to be used for.

The country was founded by a bunch of puritans who figured they didn't need to put a bunch of **** in because there's no way possible society would ever degenerate to the level it has now, but we've proved them wrong.

---

Yeah, I think we are done here with anything words can fix. Probably about time for you to go start a little porn free totalitarian enclave of your own somewhere with the rest of the puritans, because I happen to care alot about the constitution and will defend it with arms against your type.

---

Wish you'd defend it with arms against the people turning our country into a 3rd world bordello, but I guess you have to pick and choose your battles.

---

If everybody is legal age and consenting, it is absolutely none of my business what they do, who they show it to, or what they charge to see it. America would be a much better place if we stuck to that attitude about most things.

---

Why do you give a **** about the legal age? What if they change the legal age to 3? They're legally killing unborn children now, so there's nothing beyond the pale. Why is it any of your business if they're not legal age and they don't consent?

None of you non-aggression types make any sense. You say that there shouldn't be laws, and it's no business what other people do, then define what should be law and when it is your business to intervene.

I also don't understand the "I'll pick up arms to make sure that birthright citizen is the law of the land" hostility. What is it about having chicoms squat out citizens that gets you so ready to attack conservative tax paying religious fathers?

---

Nice job putting words in my mouth that I never said. You seem to excel at knocking down strawmen that you build for yourself. Legal age is a concept that society has decided on when people are able to make decisions for themselves on various subjects. Abortion and porn have nothing to do with one another, but I can see why you brought it into the discussion to give you something to dunk on. Abortion isn't about a question of consent, because the fetus will never be able to consent. It has always been a debate about when life begins and has no role in what we are discussing here. I care about consent because it distinguishes an adult woman who has worked hard to make her body beautiful and wants to monetize that by selling pictures and videos to others who enjoy them, as opposed to a teenage kid being forced to do it by somebody who is victimizing her.

I happen to agree with you about anchor babies, but our society has a framework for making changes to the constitution. We don't just get to ignore the constitution when it is convenient to the cause we care most about. Every bit of anger and venom you can put into this subject and how righteous you feel about how important it is to ignore the constitution to ban porn could be matched with equal fervor by a progressive atheist who is absolutely convinced that organized religion is the root of a whole host of ills that harm society. Would you agree with their belief that we should ignore the constitution to allow the banning of organized religion?

If not, then you are a hypocrite. You don't get to pick and choose when you think our constitutional rights apply. The bill of rights enumerates rights that exist, not ones that are granted to us by the government. So government doesn't get to just take them away when some zealot sees fit.

---

I don't care about being a hypocrite, all we've been doing is blaming the left of hypocrisy while they continually win. Congrats on the moral victory, I'd prefer actual victories rather than explaining to my family "at least we lost the right way" in FEMA Camp #1411.

When society is ****ed, the laws will be ****ed as well. A degenerate society will have degenerate laws so pointing to something as "hey, it's the law it's no business of mine" makes zero sense if you ascribe to any sort of moral code outside of the current legal framework. Society once conceptualized that men could own other men, it is currently conceptualizing that a fetus isn't an actual person. You've come up with your own moral code on when society's laws are wrong (in the case of abortion above) but don't have the gumption to do so when it doesn't suit your purpose.

The difference between myself and the progressive atheist is that you're the one threatening me with taking up arms. Why aren't you threatening them? That's my entire point. They're the one's shredding the constitution to make our country Marxist, I want to do it to make america great again, and I'm the one being threatened.

---

Yeah, I am done. FTR, I never threatened you. But I do think you are a totalitarian in mindset and you are not very different from the marxists and progressives you hate. You are fine with a totalitarian government as long as it is one you control that forces everybody to believe what you believe. That is an insurmountable difference that you and I will never agree on. Thanks for the discussion.

I'm not saying you personally threatened me, I'm saying your "I'll gladly take up arms against people like you" posturing is dumb since the Marxists are literally wrecking the country now

How did a PronBan thread deteriorate into threats? What in the heck happened?

People get cranky when you have a pron thread title and there are no boobs anywhere in the thread. Bait and switch, you know?

The only boobs here are some of the posters

Joe Boudain said:

---

I'm not saying you personally threatened me, I'm saying your "I'll gladly take up arms against people like you" posturing is dumb since the Marxists are literally wrecking the country now

---

So I have to choose between the Marxists an the American taliban?

Was reading earlier about this. One content creator who was interviewed said she made $60k a month.

That's like the one person at the top of the dick shaped Amway pyramid!

OldArmyBrent said:

---

People get cranky when you have a pron thread title and there are no boobs anywhere in the thread. Bait and switch, you know?

---

ask and ye shall receive!

BAP Enthusiast said:

---

Spurswin5 said:

---

RebelE Infantry said:

---

Themselves. What sort of man debases himself like that with his bride? Disgusting.

---

A "swinger" couple I know. She is mid-40s, kids are out of the house, got the requisite boob job, is in great shape, she has "skills", they are free spirits, and the hubby works in corporate America and his face is never shown.

I would never pay for this crap but she promotes her Only Fans on her Twitter page (no lie!!)

Consenting adults doing what they want in this case.

She is very friendly and a great host at parties and fundraisers for the various causes that they support (Animal shelters, support for spousal abuse, etc.) as they are very well off.

Her Mississippi accent is quite charming.

Met through friend of friend and most of their friends are "vanilla", they just are into kink.

---

95% of swinger couples end in divorce. This is playing with fire. I wouldn't take the opinions of any couple involved with that lifestyle as someone who was well-adjusted or normal.

---

Normally I would agree. But they have been "swinging" for years. Been married since their early 20's. Kids very successful. Give back to their community. Decided that they are freaks and have acted on it. Why she/they decided on an Only Fans, I have no idea. But what ever voyeuristic thrill she gets out of it pales in comparison to the crazy wild stuff that she and her husband are into.

Again if you met them you would have no idea, except that they makes a "handsome couple", and she is a bit of a smokeshow if she decides to dress that way.

Spurswin5 said:

---

BAP Enthusiast said:

---

Spurswin5 said:

---

RebelE Infantry said:

---

Themselves. What sort of man debases himself like that with his bride? Disgusting.

---

A "swinger" couple I know. She is mid-40s, kids are out of the house, got the requisite boob job, is in great shape, she has "skills", they are free spirits, and the hubby works in corporate America and his face is never shown.

I would never pay for this crap but she promotes her Only Fans on her Twitter page (no lie!!)

Consenting adults doing what they want in this case.

She is very friendly and a great host at parties and fundraisers for the various causes that they support (Animal shelters, support for spousal abuse, etc.) as they are very well off.

Her Mississippi accent is quite charming.

Met through friend of friend and most of their friends are "vanilla", they just are into kink.

---

95% of swinger couples end in divorce. This is playing with fire. I wouldn't take the opinions of any couple involved with that lifestyle as someone who was well-adjusted or normal.

---

Normally I would agree. But they have been "swinging" for years. Been married since their early 20's. Kids very successful. Give back to their community. Decided that they are freaks and have acted on it. Why she/they decided on an Only Fans, I have no idea. But what ever voyeuristic thrill she gets out of it pales in comparison to the crazy wild stuff that she and her husband are into.

Again if you met them you would have no idea, except that they makes a "handsome couple", and she is a bit of a smokeshow if she decides to dress that way.

---

Link to Twitter or it didn't happen...for a friend.

txags92 said:

---

Joe Boudain said:

---

txags92 said:

---

Joe Boudain said:

---

txags92 said:

---

Joe Boudain said:

---

txags92 said:

---

Joe Boudain said:

---

txags92 said:

---

Jason C. said:

---

Joe Boudain and Rebel

Porn is bad for men psychologically and physically; it's bad for women for all the obvious exploitative reasons. "We can't eradicate it completely therefore we shouldn't even try to" is the same non-sequitur used by libs who want abortion, drugs, or any other type of evil.

And you porn-addicts/enablers' appeals to libertarian principles are sort of reasonable superficially ("it's not hurting anyone", or "what I miserably and compulsively do in the confines of my *everywhere* is none of your business"). But then those arguments fall apart because, again, (1) evidence and real life shows it's bad for men because it changes them for the worse and (2) bad for women. Not to mention all the underage kids looking at it, who are able to do so because efforts to block porn and fought off by perverts and pimps (investors/producers).

What's harmful for individuals on a massive scale has structural consequences for society. That harm warrants a societal, coordinated response to stop or minimize that harm. A healthy society would recognize this.

---

So we are now in favor of government banning anything that we perceive to be bad for people? So you are in favor of banning swimming pools, bicycles, family dogs, cars that are capable of going over 35 mph, refined sugar, tobacco, and alcohol? All of those things kill or injure a ton of people every year, so why should they be allowed to exist? How about hammers and clubs...lots of people get killed by them every year too. What about swimming at the beach? That is dangerous too, dozens of deaths or serious injuries every year. I won't even get into snow skiing, sky diving, bungie jumping, skateboarding, etc. So where do you anti-porn and anti-libertarian folks draw the line on how much government should dictate what people can and can't do? What is your red line that makes you say "whoa" to the full on nanny state declaring everything but work, eating, and sleeping to be illegal? At what point do people have the right to make their own decisions about things that could harm themselves?

---

When did we lose the capacity for reason and the ability to differentiate between different flavors of evil and act accordingly.

Swimming pools can be used properly, as can fast food, tobacco and most things. Pornography cannot, there is no good end possible with pornography. It has massively evil fruits that lead to societal ills.

As always, the red line is what makes sense. It's the same reason 18 is old enough to vote and not 17.5, or 45 is the speed limit and not 46. The fact that something is cumbersome or imperfect doesn't mean it isn't needed.

---

So if a consenting adult agrees to strip naked and take pictures, and a consenting adult agrees to pay for those pictures, to you that is an evil that will cause irreparable harm to all of society that is worse than a kid drowning in a swimming pool or a toddler being killed by their family's dog? You and I are just going to have to agree to disagree on that one. There are certainly aspects of porn that can be harmful, but to pretend that it is any business of government to stamp out all porn is stupid and you should be laughed at for thinking so. People are sentient beings with freewill, and the constitution defines very tightly the powers of government. I don't see anything in there that gives government the power to ban what a small group of puritans considers to be "evil" in the name of protecting the rest of us from ourselves.

---

I also don't really give a **** about the Constitution, as it sits now it's only used as a weapon against the actual right and rarely ever used for what it's meant to be used for.

The country was founded by a bunch of puritans who figured they didn't need to put a bunch of **** in because there's no way possible society would ever degenerate to the level it has now, but we've proved them wrong.

---

Yeah, I think we are done here with anything words can fix. Probably about time for you to go start a little porn free totalitarian enclave of your own somewhere with the rest of the puritans, because I happen to care alot about the constitution and will defend it with arms against your type.

---

Wish you'd defend it with arms against the people turning our country into a 3rd world bordello, but I guess you have to pick and choose your battles.

---

If everybody is legal age and consenting, it is absolutely none of my business what they do, who they show it to, or what they charge to see it. America would be a much better place if we stuck to that attitude about most things.

---

Why do you give a **** about the legal age? What if they change the legal age to 3? They're legally killing unborn children now, so there's nothing beyond the pale. Why is it any of your business if they're not legal age and they don't consent?

None of you non-aggression types make any sense. You say that there shouldn't be laws, and it's no business what other people do, then define what should be law and when it is your business to intervene.

I also don't understand the "I'll pick up arms to make sure that birthright citizen is the law of the land" hostility. What is it about having chicoms squat out citizens that gets you so ready to attack conservative tax paying religious fathers?

---

Nice job putting words in my mouth that I never said. You seem to excel at knocking down strawmen that you build for yourself. Legal age is a concept that society has decided on when people are able to make decisions for themselves on various subjects. Abortion and porn have nothing to do with one another, but I can see why you brought it into the discussion to give you something to dunk on. Abortion isn't about a question of consent, because the fetus will never be able to consent. It has always been a debate about when life begins and has no role in what we are discussing here. I care about consent because it distinguishes an adult woman who has worked hard to make her body beautiful and wants to monetize that by selling pictures and videos to others who enjoy them, as opposed to a teenage kid being forced to do it by somebody who is victimizing her.

I happen to agree with you about anchor babies, but our society has a framework for making changes to the constitution. We don't just get to ignore the constitution when it is convenient to the cause we care most about. Every bit of anger and venom you can put into this subject and how righteous you feel about how important it is to ignore the constitution to ban porn could be matched with equal fervor by a progressive atheist who is absolutely convinced that organized religion is the root of a whole host of ills that harm society. Would you agree with their belief that we should ignore the constitution to allow the banning of organized religion?

If not, then you are a hypocrite. You don't get to pick and choose when you think our constitutional rights apply. The bill of rights enumerates rights that exist, not ones that are granted to us by the government. So government doesn't get to just take them away when some zealot sees fit.

---

He's not picking and choosing, God is and he's just carrying out his divine will. Surely you can see how that's different from those that are in the wrong about nudity, sex, or any other issue that pits them against another person's faith.

Spurswin5 said:

---

BAP Enthusiast said:

---

Spurswin5 said:

---

RebelE Infantry said:

---

Themselves. What sort of man debases himself like that with his bride? Disgusting.

---

A "swinger" couple I know. She is mid-40s, kids are out of the house, got the requisite boob job, is in great shape, she has "skills", they are free spirits, and the hubby works in corporate America and his face is never shown.

I would never pay for this crap but she promotes her Only Fans on her Twitter page (no lie!!)

Consenting adults doing what they want in this case.

She is very friendly and a great host at parties and fundraisers for the various causes that they support (Animal shelters, support for spousal abuse, etc.) as they are very well off.

Her Mississippi accent is quite charming.

Met through friend of friend and most of their friends are "vanilla", they just are into kink.

---

95% of swinger couples end in divorce. This is playing with fire. I wouldn't take the opinions of any couple involved with that lifestyle as someone who was well-adjusted or normal.

---

Normally I would agree. But they have been "swinging" for years. Been married since their early 20's. Kids very successful. Give back to their community. Decided that they are freaks and have acted on it. Why she/they decided on an Only Fans, I have no idea. But what ever voyeuristic thrill she gets out of it pales in comparison to the crazy wild stuff that she and her husband are into.

Again if you met them you would have no idea, except that they makes a "handsome couple", and she is a bit of a smokeshow if she decides to dress that way.

---

Yeah I don't believe you. All of these relationships fail because human emotions always get in the way since one person always enjoys it more than the other, which eventually causes major issues.

txags92 said:

---

Spurswin5 said:

---

Normally I would agree. But they have been "swinging" for years. Been married since their early 20's. Kids very successful. Give back to their community. Decided that they are freaks and have acted on it. Why she/they decided on an Only Fans, I have no idea. But what ever voyeuristic thrill she gets out of it pales in comparison to the crazy wild stuff that she and her husband are into.

Again if you met them you would have no idea, except that they makes a "handsome couple", and she is a bit of a smokeshow if she decides to dress that way.

---

Link to Twitter Fetlife or it didn't happen...for a friend.

---

FIFY. Also got a friend who may appreciate a link, so hop to it!

Okay, having read through the thread, didn't see this mentioned, and it is another possibly important reason against this kind of thing. Depending on just what it is.

Its hard to tell for sure from whats in the thread, but is this the equivalent of the old nude modeling studio approach being done `virtually' from the girl's homes over the Internet, and basically sending pics (or videos?) for download of whatever is wanted to be look at on request? And this is why it is said to not be `dangerous' -- no interaction per-se?

Well here's the catch: since youth by default are pretty brainless about such decisions in college days that can come back --- what about the real problem of this could serve to scuttle the career of a great many of them later on should they want to enter one of the careers the `media smear mob' controls, like politics, administration, even some corporate positions? Isn't this setting up a very large number for later harrassment like was done to Romney about trivialities in high school?

What I mean is --- the action will be with them on and on, and will later be used to destroy careers in some cases. (Especially if not Left). Is this a valid concern?

titan said:

---

Okay, having read through the thread, didn't see this mentioned, and it is another possibly important reason against this kind of thing. Depending on just what it is.

Its hard to tell for sure from whats in the thread, but is this the equivalent of the old nude modeling studio approach being done `virtually' from the girl's homes over the Internet, and basically sending pics (or videos?) for download of whatever is wanted to be look at on request? And this is why it is said to not be `dangerous' -- no interaction per-se?

Well here's the catch: since youth by default are pretty brainless about such decisions in college days that can come back --- what about the real problem of this could serve to scuttle the career of a great many of them later on should they want to enter one of the careers the `media smear mob' controls, like politics, administration, even some corporate positions? Isn't this setting up a very large number for later harrassment like was done to Romney about trivialities in high school?

What I mean is --- the action will be with them on and on, and will later be used to destroy careers in some cases. (Especially if not Left). Is this a valid concern?

---

It is a valid concern, but not one where intervention by agencies, public or private, is appropriate.

At 18 you are an adult and own your actions. Yes, that age is arbitrary, but it is also a bright line threshold.

We can't continue to attempt half-pregnancies on these policy matters.

Joe Boudain said:

---

txags92 said:

---

Joe Boudain said:

---

txags92 said:

---

Joe Boudain said:

---

txags92 said:

---

Joe Boudain said:

---

txags92 said:

---

Joe Boudain said:

---

txags92 said:

---

Jason C. said:

---

Joe Boudain and Rebel

Porn is bad for men psychologically and physically; it's bad for women for all the obvious exploitative reasons. "We can't eradicate it completely therefore we shouldn't even try to" is the same non-sequitur used by libs who want abortion, drugs, or any other type of evil.

And you porn-addicts/enablers' appeals to libertarian principles are sort of reasonable superficially ("it's not hurting anyone", or "what I miserably and compulsively do in the confines of my *everywhere* is none of your business"). But then those arguments fall apart because, again, (1) evidence and real life shows it's bad for men because it changes them for the worse and (2) bad for women. Not to mention all the underage kids looking at it, who are able to do so because efforts to block porn and fought off by perverts and pimps (investors/producers).

What's harmful for individuals on a massive scale has structural consequences for society. That harm warrants a societal, coordinated response to stop or minimize that harm. A healthy society would recognize this.

---

So we are now in favor of government banning anything that we perceive to be bad for people? So you are in favor of banning swimming pools, bicycles, family dogs, cars that are capable of going over 35 mph, refined sugar, tobacco, and alcohol? All of those things kill or injure a ton of people every year, so why should they be allowed to exist? How about hammers and clubs...lots of people get killed by them every year too. What about swimming at the beach? That is dangerous too, dozens of deaths or serious injuries every year. I won't even get into snow skiing, sky diving, bungie jumping, skateboarding, etc. So where do you anti-porn and anti-libertarian folks draw the line on how much government should dictate what people can and can't do? What is your red line that makes you say "whoa" to the full on nanny state declaring everything but work, eating, and sleeping to be illegal? At what point do people have the right to make their own decisions about things that could harm themselves?

---

When did we lose the capacity for reason and the ability to differentiate between different flavors of evil and act accordingly.

Swimming pools can be used properly, as can fast food, tobacco and most things. Pornography cannot, there is no good end possible with pornography. It has massively evil fruits that lead to societal ills.

As always, the red line is what makes sense. It's the same reason 18 is old enough to vote and not 17.5, or 45 is the speed limit and not 46. The fact that something is cumbersome or imperfect doesn't mean it isn't needed.

---

So if a consenting adult agrees to strip naked and take pictures, and a consenting adult agrees to pay for those pictures, to you that is an evil that will cause irreparable harm to all of society that is worse than a kid drowning in a swimming pool or a toddler being killed by their family's dog? You and I are just going to have to agree to disagree on that one. There are certainly aspects of porn that can be harmful, but to pretend that it is any business of government to stamp out all porn is stupid and you should be laughed at for thinking so. People are sentient beings with freewill, and the constitution defines very tightly the powers of government. I don't see anything in there that gives government the power to ban what a small group of puritans considers to be "evil" in the name of protecting the rest of us from ourselves.

---

I also don't really give a **** about the Constitution, as it sits now it's only used as a weapon against the actual right and rarely ever used for what it's meant to be used for.

The country was founded by a bunch of puritans who figured they didn't need to put a bunch of **** in because there's no way possible society would ever degenerate to the level it has now, but we've proved them wrong.

---

Yeah, I think we are done here with anything words can fix. Probably about time for you to go start a little porn free totalitarian enclave of your own somewhere with the rest of the puritans, because I happen to care alot about the constitution and will defend it with arms against your type.

---

Wish you'd defend it with arms against the people turning our country into a 3rd world bordello, but I guess you have to pick and choose your battles.

---

If everybody is legal age and consenting, it is absolutely none of my business what they do, who they show it to, or what they charge to see it. America would be a much better place if we stuck to that attitude about most things.

---

Why do you give a **** about the legal age? What if they change the legal age to 3? They're legally killing unborn children now, so there's nothing beyond the pale. Why is it any of your business if they're not legal age and they don't consent?

None of you non-aggression types make any sense. You say that there shouldn't be laws, and it's no business what other people do, then define what should be law and when it is your business to intervene.

I also don't understand the "I'll pick up arms to make sure that birthright citizen is the law of the land" hostility. What is it about having chicoms squat out citizens that gets you so ready to attack conservative tax paying religious fathers?

---

Nice job putting words in my mouth that I never said. You seem to excel at knocking down strawmen that you build for yourself. Legal age is a concept that society has decided on when people are able to make decisions for themselves on various subjects. Abortion and porn have nothing to do with one another, but I can see why you brought it into the discussion to give you something to dunk on. Abortion isn't about a question of consent, because the fetus will never be able to consent. It has always been a debate about when life begins and has no role in what we are discussing here. I care about consent because it distinguishes an adult woman who has worked hard to make her body beautiful and wants to monetize that by selling pictures and videos to others who enjoy them, as opposed to a teenage kid being forced to do it by somebody who is victimizing her.

I happen to agree with you about anchor babies, but our society has a framework for making changes to the constitution. We don't just get to ignore the constitution when it is convenient to the cause we care most about. Every bit of anger and venom you can put into this subject and how righteous you feel about how important it is to ignore the constitution to ban porn could be matched with equal fervor by a progressive atheist who is absolutely convinced that organized religion is the root of a whole host of ills that harm society. Would you agree with their belief that we should ignore the constitution to allow the banning of organized religion?

If not, then you are a hypocrite. You don't get to pick and choose when you think our constitutional rights apply. The bill of rights enumerates rights that exist, not ones that are granted to us by the government. So government doesn't get to just take them away when some zealot sees fit.

---

I don't care about being a hypocrite, all we've been doing is blaming the left of hypocrisy while they continually win. Congrats on the moral victory, I'd prefer actual victories rather than explaining to my family "at least we lost the right way" in FEMA Camp #1411.

When society is ****ed, the laws will be ****ed as well. A degenerate society will have degenerate laws so pointing to something as "hey, it's the law it's no business of mine" makes zero sense if you ascribe to any sort of moral code outside of the current legal framework. Society once conceptualized that men could own other men, it is currently conceptualizing that a fetus isn't an actual person. You've come up with your own moral code on when society's laws are wrong (in the case of abortion above) but don't have the gumption to do so when it doesn't suit your purpose.

The difference between myself and the progressive atheist is that you're the one threatening me with taking up arms. Why aren't you threatening them? That's my entire point. They're the one's shredding the constitution to make our country Marxist, I want to do it to make america great again, and I'm the one being threatened.

---

He might have sussed where you are coming from.

https://texags.com/forums/15/topics/3217662

Quote:

---

Unpopular opinion: We (Catholics) need to be more like the taliban

I have nothing but respect, grudging admiration, and disgust at the taliban. They have kept their eye on the prize and haven't been deterred from their goal of an Islamic Caliphate in Afghanistan.

There will be no abortions nor pride parades in Kabul. No rainbow flags flown over embassies. Their relationship to Allah informs their actions and influences every facet of society.

We need to be more like them, intolerance not tolerance is a Christian virtue. Jesus Christ is priest, Prophet, king of the World, and any society that does not claim him as such is doomed to failure.

---

Quote:

---

. . .
Abortions-Life in prison
Homosexuality and gay marriage- gay marriage wouldn't be possible but homosexuality would be criminalized like it was in the theocracy that was the USA until recently
Divorce- not allowed
Science in School- What?
Women's role in authority- Not able to vote or hold office, encouraged through tax breaks to stay home with children
Practicing any non-catholic religions- not publicly allowed
Secular Schools would not exist.

---

Quote:

---

Your cussing and carrying on is reminiscent of the way people behave when they're under demonic infestation. I would consult a Priest if I were you.

---

Quote:

---

Nice try FBI. Right now we are just out to find like minded people who are unhappy with the way liberal atheist democracy is progressing. We have a group of Catholic men in the Houston area who belive mens sano en corpore sano. We engage in fellowship with our families, we have a book club, we have a boxing club, and we challenge each other spiritually through frequent fasting, confession and daily mass attendance.
. . .

---

Quote:

---

I don't believe "actual democracy" actually exists nor that it's beneficial if it in fact does exist. Moral freedom is another name for moral relativism, which is another name for "no morality actually exists, except for the one that I say does, which is you can do whatever you want to as long as it doesn't imminently and immediately hurt anyone too much". Long story short, I don't consider most of what you're holding up as a good as an actual good.
. . .

---