They're my friends. Why wouldnt I socalise with them. :|
If that's true, fair enough.
I admit I'm sceptical, but you seem to be a Christian, and you can't be a Christian and a liar.
Steve
Upvote
0
By clicking “Accept All”, you agree to the storing of cookies on your device to enhance site navigation, analyse site usage, and assist in our marketing efforts
These cookies enable our website and App to remember things such as your region or country, language, accessibility options and your preferences and settings.
Analytic cookies help website owners to understand how visitors interact with websites by collecting and reporting information anonymously.
Marketing cookies are used to track visitors across websites. The intention is to display ads that are relevant and engaging for the individual user and thereby more valuable for publishers and third party advertisers.
They're my friends. Why wouldnt I socalise with them. :|
If that's true, fair enough.
I admit I'm sceptical, but you seem to be a Christian, and you can't be a Christian and a liar.
Steve
If that's true, fair enough.
I admit I'm sceptical, but you seem to be a Christian, and you can't be a Christian and a liar.
Steve
Where are the stastics on that![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
There's already grumbling about this thread being taken completely off topic which we need to respect - but I can tell you behind those glossy photoshoped touched up images are many many stories of naivety, drug and alcohol abuse, mental health problems, and thats not going anywhere near the coersion, intimidation, violence and slave trade involved with some.
I thought not lying was part of being a Christian?
Or am I wrong? I'm not a Christian so I may have misunderstood.
Steve
Do your friends use those tactics when they're making porn?
Steve
I thought not lying was part of being a Christian?
Or am I wrong? I'm not a Christian so I may have misunderstood.
Steve
possibly the most off topic thread I've ever seen!
Hahaha yes, good idea! What should we call it? The Law of Rational Thought? The Law of Reason? Or perhaps The Law of The Argument That Stops Ridiculous Discussions In Their Tracks?We need the equivolent of a Godwins Law for every time someone trots out that tired old chestnut that religion has killed more people than - (insert topic of choice)![]()
I dont know. The outreach I was involved in only discussed business if thats what they wanted.
Ahhh. So, when you said you were friends with pornographers, you meant you knew people from the porn industry that were part of an outreach programme?
Perhaps not a lie, but very misleading at the very least.
Steve
Lol .... not in the least. We offered outreach to those working in the industry and street prostitution. When you go to someones place of work (even if it's a bloomin freezing park at dawn because they can get more money for outdoor shoots than indoor shoots) or a very dangerous street at 3am, when you go for a drink and meals with them, when you talk about life, families, friends, when you help and listen, when you call them on significant dates like birthdays and when they call you up because they just want someone to talk to - then thats a friend in my book. Maybe not yours. But definately in mine.
Maybe you just don't get this... but this doesn't make these people representative of their industry.
It's like taking some people who quit a job because they didn't like the boss and asking them what they thought of the boss. They fact they quit means you're automatically going to get a skewed answer.
Earlier in the thread, you talked about the motivations of pornographers. It turns out your negative characterisation of them isn't a result of knowing them, but is a result of knowing people who don't like them.
As I said, "misleading".
Steve
Maybe you just don't get this... but this doesn't make these people representative of their industry.
Earlier in the thread, you talked about the motivations of pornographers. It turns out your negative characterisation of them isn't a result of knowing them, but is a result of knowing people who don't like them.
As I said, "misleading".
Steve
Is a result of knowing them, experiencing them being used by them, fooled by them. That often results in not liking them and that is fair enough.
Who says th OP is talking about young vunerable women? For all we know there is a verging market in crinkly grannies making mince pies in thick tights and piniesThere are a lot that get on well with it, like the fake blonde bimbos who marry the millionaires, like the ones that use it for a wink as it is preferable to them than a real woman, the ones who make money from it.
I do not subscribe to all the women being involved being expoloited, they put themselves up for it and they make their money but there are many victims of it. I still do not think the industry is moral at all just because it is legal and has its "uses".
Chimney sweeping had many victims but there were some kiddies who were up for it and saw it as a challenge and liked whatever they got out of it and the industry needed them because they got in the awkward bits that others couldn't perhaps and the money makers just kept making their money.
Why did those against it have to oppose chimney sweeping, it destroyed an immoral business sector which was perfectly legal.
We hear more about slavery than we do about our own child slaves. We must not forget them or history will repeat itself.
Way too many delusiuons of "rightness"
Try Amnesty: http://www.amnestyusa.org/document.php?lang=e&id=80256DD400782B8480256E850048C185
Or have a look at the work of the Helen Bamber foundation or the Poppy Project.
This report here is also interesting: http://www.amnesty.org.uk/uploads/documents/doc_20461.pdf
37% of those identified as trafficked were for the purposes of sexual exploitation. This doesnt account for the numbers sexually abused in forced domestic servitude.
Current figures are something in the region of 5000 persons in the UK currenly trafficked.