The sex trade

[gamewell45]

Can you really not see it?

look at the children the porn industry has made. Girls are taught by watching your prime time tv that they are objects to satisfy men. They go to school dressing more and more suggestively. They have more partners than our generation had by the time they graduate high school. (and our generation was not that great, - I graduated hs in the early 90’s).

This weekend sit down and watch a few shows on prime time. Tell me that there is not soft porn there. And with teens doing the deed. Look at some of the most popular shows. Desperate house wives, comes to mind. In fact you don’t even have to watch the shows watch the commercials for the shows. Women running around in teddies to get their guys. Men unable to control their urge. Bisexuality, homosexuality. It is all being forced down our children’s throats. And it is not just on tv. It is magazines. Go to your local grocery story see what they have on the shelves next to the candies. Half dressed women. Headliners that talk about how to get better sex. Drive down the highway and look at the billboards. Adds for “gentlemen bars”, try explain to your eight year old what that is when he asks, with the barely dressed woman with her red lipped mouth opened suggestively larger than life. How do you think that effects our children both male and female?

And than we wonder why there is a sex trade? Don’t wonder and don’t look for the big bad mafia. Because it is in our back yard and in our house.

In less than 20 years children have went from watching full house to watching two and half men. It is amazing when you think about it.

So the question is; why are parents allowing there children to watch prime time programs given the sexual content? What happened to their responsibility as Adults/parents?

 

[st_lucy]

So the question is; why are parents allowing there children to watch prime time programs given the sexual content? What happened to their responsibility as Adults/parents?

That is the question but as i stated before, it does not end with prime time. There are magazines, billboards and the list goes on and on. When we allowed the sexual revaluation to take a hold of our culture we got this. And what is now done will be very hard to undo.

 

[gamewell45]

That is the question but as i stated before, it does not end with prime time. There are magazines, billboards and the list goes on and on. When we allowed the sexual revaluation to take a hold of our culture we got this. And what is now done will be very hard to undo.

Your correct that it dosen’t end with prime time; parents need to control all tv and movies watched by their children. As with magazines and other media formats/outlets including music. Granted, its tough to keep children from seeing billboards, but I think that would be a minimum influence. And while it may be hard to undo what has been done, you can’t throw up your hands in despair; you have to start somewhere.

 

[edwest2]

You have to start somewhere. Here’s how it got to this point.

1968 The Pope has Humanae Generis published and warns Catholics of what will happen if people begin using artificial contraception. The Pill was relatively new and the promise was you could have sex and the woman would not get pregnant. The Pope knew what a temptation this would be and asked Catholics to abstain from their use.

Guess what? A lot of money was at stake. Can’t have Catholics listening to the Pope.

Send in the Hippies. Free Love! Sex with anyone. As a Hippie friend of mine told me, “I don’t need no piece of paper to live with my old lady.” He called fornication “performing natural acts.” And smoke dope. Drop acid, (LSD, a powerful hallucinogen).

I was there. We went to Church and lived our faith. The media, including television, was reflective of Christian values. No, it was not perfect but young people understood what dating meant. What engagement meant. And what marriage meant. It was a serious, life-long commitment.

If the Hippies were not enough to convince both men and women to satisfy their flesh and forget about commitment, here’s more.

1969 The movie Bob, Carol, Ted and Alice introduces viewers to wife swapping.

1970s I’m driving around and I spot Adult Bookstores. No one I know asked for this. Graphic images of prostitutes, But it’s OK. It’s legal now. Isn’t that great?

Topless go-go bars. Oh yeah. That’ll help the guy keep his mind on his wife. And it’s OK. Because it’s legal.

High priced lawyers were paid a lot of money to make all this legal. People protested but you know what I heard? “You know what the problem is with you Catholics? You’re sexually repressed!” Translation: Why aren’t you out here fornicating with the rest of us?

All in the Family appears on TV and broaches a subject that was never discussed on TV before. The father is confronted by his son-in-law: “You know what your problem is Arch? You’re afraid of sex!” The father replies that if he was afraid of sex, his daughter, the son-in-laws’ wife, would not be here.

And I watched as TV added more suggestive, risque and off color situations and thought, “Oh, that’s not so bad.”

Meanwhile, the National Organization for Woman is yelling, “Sisters! Throw off the chains of your oppression!” The eternal enemy is men. Women are the eternal victim. This scared some women and drove a wedge between the sexes. Solution oriented? No.

1980s We now have Dallas with the very evil J.R. Ewing and his wife drinking liquor straight our of the bottle while driving. Cable TV appears and what do we get? I’m driving past a Motel that offers porn on cable. Who asked for this? By the way, it’s legal.

No-Fault Divorce completes its sweep of the country. I open the newspaper and see all these classified ads from lawyers. “No kids? $75 and you’re out. Call 800-DIVORCE.”

Are you with me? Throw porn at the people with Adult Bookstores, open strip clubs and put porn on cable. Then offer No-Fault, -Easy- Divorce. Then Hollywood puts out movies where the guy gets divorced, goes to the bar, and all his buddies tell him it’s OK, and he’ll find someone “better.” It’s just how things are, right?

This helps to break the traditional, intergenerational family ties. In-laws are angry at each other. Men are living by themselves, working to make ends meet and to pay child support. Young people watch mom or dad get married and remarried. Marriage becomes more unstable.

1990s Into the abyss. Kids are shacking up, and why not? What’s the point of getting married? Church parking lots empty and mall parking lots fill up. I’m driving home and two guys are talking, in graphic detail, about a recent sexual encounter on late-night radio. Shock jocks talking filth appear. Rap talking violence and filth appears on the radio. ABC TV decides to show partial nudity with profanity on network TV. [One of the actors in NYPD Blue is asked why this is. His response? “It’s the '90s.”]

And then the internet appears. Global access to porn 24/7.

2000s Now, your mobile device can display porn. Isn’t ‘progress’ great?

Wake up, my fellow Catholics. The Body of Christ was slowly, gradually poisoned. If we had gone from 1968 to internet porn that same year, the protests would have been incredible. As recently as the 1990s, George Michael’s “I Want Your Sex” was banned on US and British radio stations. A sample lyric: “You don’t need no Bible just look in my eyes.”

Peace,
Ed

 

[Jermosh]

But these prostitutes you speak of from this time era were there by there own choice, and they wernt teeny tiny little kids.

No actually, some were as young as 9 or 10, and many were forced into it by debt. In fact there was a study on why morphine suicide rates were so high with prostitutes in the west, some think that they were actually attempted abortions that killed them both.

To think that today is more or less evil then before is just a falacy IMHO, look at the birth of Christ, how many children were slaughtered then.

 

[aspawloski4th]

A very powerful statistic. Maybe you will be so kind as to link us to the source for it so we can examine the study in full, how it was conducted, and how it reached its conclusions?

Sorry to trouble you with this, but you know how it is: 98.548927348923% of statistics are just dishonestly made up on the spot so you can not just accept these things on face value and all

The old saying applies “figures lie, liars figure”.

 

[iamrefreshed]

The old saying applies “figures lie, liars figure”.

If you think I’m lying just do some research yourself.

 

[edwest2]

Some additional information about the harmful effects of pornography:

catholicnewsagency.com/resource.php?n=1082

Peace,
Ed

 

[Nozzferrahhtoo]

I’d suggest you read this near a restroom so you don’t get sick all over your house.

Ok there are many problems here.

Link 1:

This is not a study or a survey, but an excerpt from a book. There is no data here, no study and no methodology and no peer reviewed research. Basically you claimed most people in the sex industry were abused and all you did was link to someone else who claimed the same thing. This does not help at all. I could make up literally anything and find someone who agrees with me who wrote a book. Homeopathy alone proves that.

For example this link says “Research indicates the number is between 60%-80%.“ but it, like you, does not say WHAT research. Where? Also your statistic of 90% is not mentioned anywhere even once within this link and I (as you may recall) was asking where you got THAT statistic. This link certainly is not the source of it.

However as I said the glaring problem here is that you have said something without back up and just found someone else to say the same thing without backup. I am not looking for people who say it too, I am looking for the backup.

**Link 2: **

This link is only SLIGHTLY better. The slightness comes from the fact I can at least find the number 90 in there. However this link says:

Between 66-90% of women in the sex industry were sexually abused as children

Which does not match with your claim of:

Over 90% of porn actresses were sexually abused as children.

Aside from that however this link suffers from the exact same issue as your original claim AND link 1. It provides no links to the studies, claims, data, methodology, research or information upon which the wild claims are based.

Link 3:

This link is broken which ironically actually makes it MORE useful than the previous 2.

Link 4:

This is a link that at least links to some studies. However it does not link to your claim. It in fact claims that 57% were abused as children.This differs a lot from OVER 90%.

However this is not 57% of sex industry workersas a whole. It is 57% of people who are FORCED into sex industry work. This is a report of human trafficking, or prostitution against the will of the person BEING prostituted. In fact I am surprised that the figure claimed is not higher than 57% considering girls abused as children are at higher risk of being forced into slave sex.

The figure however may be artificially inflated as the childhood abuse on one hand and the being forced into sex on the other may in fact be the SAME event. The researchers may in fact be counting the forced prostitution AS events of childhood abuse. This distorts the figures horribly.

However extrapolating a vast generalisation over the entire sex industry based on one small and highly illegal part of it is not remotely useful.

Summary:

2 of your links have nothing to support your claim at all. One link is broken. The 4th is merely a report about forced trafficking of women as slaves and is not relevant as your comment was directed at Porn Actresses, a career that is not even mentioned once in any of your 4 links. Nothing therefore supplied here supports your claim one iota. Maybe you posted the wrong links and can try again?

Also, what none of these links do is show a causal link between the two things either. Just declaring that X% of a group Y experienced event Z does not in ANY way indicate that event Z is in any way linked to their presence in group Y. This is an important thing that any statistician or person referring to statistics has to realise. If you do NOT realise and account for this you are breaking the very first and most fundamental rule of Statistics which is the single worst rule you can break. It is this:

“You must not find your hypothesis within your data.”

Statistics are a dangerous thing and this is the most dangerous rule to break. In fact breaking this rule has lead to many deaths in medicine for example over the last century. People have in fact been jailed falsely because of this rule being broken when looking at the evidence against them.

 

[Jermosh]

One has to be careful of social statistics. Its a fact that 50% of the posters on this site are less intelligent then all of the posters here. 50% !!! What has happened to our education system, we need to wake up people!!!