Amazon Defends Pedophile Book

[nguirado]

Originally Posted by boxcorner

TVs outside the US have an on/off switch, instead.

In the US, broadcast signals are regulated by the FCC. The first ammendment doesn't apply to some things.

[nguirado]

Originally Posted by AGB

Isn't that an oxymoron?

I suggest Song of Bernadette. Ten Commandments is OK. Going my Way is fine.

[kennyc]

I only give Karma deservedly.

[AGB]

Originally Posted by nguirado

I suggest Song of Bernadette. Ten Commandments is OK. Going my Way is fine.

I was mostly being facetious, but I have no interest in watching religious films.

Originally Posted by kennyc

I only give Karma deservedly.

Thanks

[nguirado]

Originally Posted by Fbone

I never saw 9 1/2 weeks. How are the women portrayed in the movie?

Are they abused, forced, demeaned, or dishonored in any way?

It has a lot of explicit sex. Again, I think if you want to show your kids explicit sex, you should do so. I'm guessing in Copenhagen children are exposed to many kinds of sexual activity earlier and without a "moral majority" complaining about it?

[AGB]

Originally Posted by nguirado

It has a lot of explicit sex. Again, I think if you want to show your kids explicit sex, you should do so. I'm guessing in Copenhagen children are exposed to many kinds of sexual activity earlier and without a "moral majority" complaining about it?

You have a couple of huge, glaring errors in that post of yours:

1) Fbone is from NJ, I assume that is short for New Jersey, New York. It's certainly not Copenhagen, I can assure you.

2) 9 1/2 weeks does NOT have "explicit" sex. You need to watch some real porn if you think that a bare bum and breast amounts to "explicit sex"
Here's the link for the imdb-entry:

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0091635/

3) Your guesses is unsubstantiated, but they do speak volumes of the attempted tactic.

4) We have the internet these days, so of course it's easier to find porn than before, that is the same all over where there is an internet connection.

But you have one point: We don't have The Moral Majority over here in Denmark (Copenhagen is merely our capital, not the country) to cry about lack of morals and whatnot based on their favourite interpretation of scripture. We do just fine with education of the youth instead of moral gatekeepers reading from scripture.

In fact, we don't teach kids to be abstinent, or have abstinence-only programs, nor do we have the kids swear solemnly on the bible to be abstinent, not teaching them about birth control, so more of them end up pregnant than people receiving proper sex education.

I can't for the life of me remember the name of that abstinence group in the US where they swear to not have sex before marriage (and end being married very early).

Someone, what's the name of that group?

[nguirado]

I read "Copenhagen," which is in Denmark. Who thinks Copenhagen is a country? The first part was to answer his question and the second part was a response to you.

I met a lovely Danish girl in college. I didn't ask her about her sex education classes or how many sex movies she saw so I was asking if its typical for Danish boys and girls to be exposed to sex earlier. I don't know how your system of sex education and your typical attitude towards sex works for your country. I guess most Danes are happy with it.

I gave an opinion that children shouldn't watch sexual movies and you became upset. I also said that it shouldn't be illegal for people to show their children sexual movies. Do you have a problem with people having a different opinion on this?

[AGB]

Originally Posted by nguirado

I read "Copenhagen," which is in Denmark. Who thinks Copenhagen is a country? The first part was to answer his question and the second part was a response to you.

That wasn't very evident, was it?
You didn't mention my name, you quoted Fbone, and then it was me you was responding to? And you "read" Copenhagen? Perhaps, but not under Fbone's information.
To make a switch mid-paragraph to another person is really bad communication. Unless of course, you actually did think he was from Copenhagen.

Another gripe is the Copenhagen/Denmark thing. The reason I pointed it out is that it seems odd to mention Copenhagen and not the country. Just like I wouldn't write "The bible bashers of New York are a detriment to the separation of church and state in the US", when the reality is that it's a matter of the entire country, especially in our little corner of the earth (our country as a whole has just under 6 million citizens).

I met a lovely Danish girl in college. I didn't ask her about her sex education classes or how many sex movies she saw so I was asking if its typical for Danish boys and girls to be exposed to sex earlier.

Surely you must realise I have difficulties responding to this, because I don't know if you mean actual sex, or pictures/literature/films about sex. And since it can be the latter, AND the fact that you consider 9 1/2 weeks to have explicit sex in it, it seems that almost any suggestion of sex goes for "explicit sex". Hence, I don't know what to answer you in this regard. If "exposure to sex" entails watching a thing like 9 1/2 weeks, or a catalogue from an lingerie shop, well, they might be.

I don't know how your system of sex education and your typical attitude towards sex works for your country. I guess most Danes are happy with it.

Yup, we believe in education.

I gave an opinion that children shouldn't watch sexual movies and you became upset.

I disagreed strongly. It takes more than that to upset me.
I disagreed because you seemed to imply that since we don't have such bible bshing moral groups dictating what can or cannot be said, of course our kids must have sex (or being "exposed to sex") earlier.
This put into the context of you claiming that 9 1/2 weeks have "explicit sex" in it, gives me a pretty good incling of your position.

I also said that it shouldn't be illegal for people to show their children sexual movies. Do you have a problem with people having a different opinion on this?

No, I have a problem with people's arguments, when it begins on a false premise, then adds to the false premise by making an assumption, and then rhetorically "asks a question", that is in reality a conclusion to the strawman.

[CWatkinsNash]

Originally Posted by nguirado

It has a lot of explicit sex.

Not by my recollection. But it did make me look at my refrigerator in a whole new light. And I remember being hungry after I watched it. Great, now I've got "You Can Leave Your Hat On" stuck in my head.

[nguirado]

I don't see what difference it would have made if I would have named the whole country than the capital, but it's an easy thing to clear up. I just really meant "where you are."

I used 9 1/2 weeks because I wanted to compare a mainstream movie with a lot of violence with a mainstream movie with a lot of sex. Somebody suggested it wasn't fair to compare an X-rated movie with Saving Private Ryan.

I don't know the effect of sex education and/or exposure to sexual material may have had on Denmark. Has it been good? Was it really bad before Danish children became educated about sex?

Here in the US, widespread sex education beginning in the early seventies has gone hand in hand with greater teen pregnancy, STD rates, and general cultural coarseness (hard to quantify). If sex education hasn't been the cause, it certainly hasn't been the cure.

[AGB]

Originally Posted by nguirado

I don't see what difference it would have made if I would have named the whole country than the capital, but it's an easy thing to clear up. I just really meant "where you are."

Okay, let's just say that, so we at least can put that part to rest.

I used 9 1/2 weeks because I wanted to compare a mainstream movie with a lot of violence with a mainstream movie with a lot of sex.

No, you claimed it had a lot of explicit sex in it, then jumped to make baseless inferrals from that.

Somebody suggested it wasn't fair to compare an X-rated movie with Saving Private Ryan.

Ah, yes, and you did that by claiming something that wasn't true, then made a false assumption to back that, all in order to end with a rhetorical that served as the invalid conclusion of your little "comparison".

I don't know the effect of sex education and/or exposure to sexual material may have had on Denmark. Has it been good? Was it really bad before Danish children became educated about sex?

We have tried to educate "the people" since Grundtvig for real. Sex education has always been considered to be a good thing, supported by all relevant research.
Further, statistically, abstinence, especially combined with attempts to keep people in the dark, are utterly useless to prevent teenage pregnancy and teenage sex, not to mention sex before before marriage.

Just like the death penalty doesn't actually work as a deterrant.

Here in the US, widespread sex education beginning in the early seventies has gone hand in hand with greater teen pregnancy, STD rates, and general cultural coarseness (hard to quantify).

If you break those numbers and take social status, education level, and the plethora of religious "abstinence" groups into account, you will see that the abstinence groups rate pretty high in the teen pregnancy department.
Why? Perhaps because such religious notions doesn't actually work, the education isn't good enough, or it's completely absent for a number of reasons.

I don't know what to do with your "general coarseness" assertion. To me you could just as well claim that the "general coarseness" of present day US has followed the car sales.

Unless, you're arguing that without education about sex, without education about prevention, you would have a less "coarse" society. That is quite the statement, and I look forward to hear how you couple those things in a valid manner.

If sex education hasn't been the cause, it certainly hasn't been the cure.

There are a number of reasons for that. In order for sex education to work, it has to be real education, not some religious nonsense about abstinence and nothing about prevention/birth control. It has to be real education, and it has to reach where it is most needed: The young people with parent's that aren't overflowing with resources. Of course, those are the very people that the religious groups targets with misinformation, so it has outdo them. Of course, that has wider implications.

[Worldwalker]

Originally Posted by nguirado

If sex education hasn't been the cause, it certainly hasn't been the cure.

The people who want to ban video games, when faced with the disturbing but true fact that youth violence has declined as the playing of video games has increased, answer "well, it would have gone down more if they weren't playing those awful games!" So, without a controlled study, it's impossible to say that sex education has not prevented even greater changes in American society than currently exist.

The closest thing we have to a controlled study is comparisons of abstinence-only education versus comprehensive education, and those comparisons have shown that abstinence-only leads to equal or higher pregnancy rates, higher STD rates, and earlier marriage (not to mention a lot of sex in ways that would make a religious moralist cringe). That tends to suggest that it doesn't work very well, and by extension, that more comprehensive sex education has had some effect in reducing those things. This indicates that it has, in fact, been more of a cure than a cause -- that is, that the problem stems from some other source, and sex ed has helped mitigate it.

As for Australia: the home of the Great Firewall of Australia, yes? The place where the pocket knife I carry would be illegal, despite its years of service as a simple tool, because someone might use it as a weapon (what's going to happen if someone stabs someone else with a screwdriver?). The place where various games, movies, and books aren't allowed, for anyone, because the moralists think they're eee-vil. The place with land use laws mandating deforestation. And, given their treatment of the aborigines, the place with no grounds to tell the rest of the world what is right and what is wrong. Get off that high horse, because it's made of withered bones.

[nguirado]

I was using "explicit" in the sense that the movie had sex scenes. I don't see this as a "lie."

I'm glad that people are happy with the sex education their children are receiving. I was just curious. I learn a lot from people from other countries. I see how you took the question the wrong way. I didn't make a judgment on Denmark or anybody else here, however. I don't mind discussing the situation in the US, but feel that we'd be going too far off topic.

To wrap up, I have three kids. The youngest is 10. I don't regret not showing them sexual movies. As far as education, both my wife and I know about sex so we decided to teach them about it ourselves. That way, we figured, we can teach them sexula morals along with it. They go to a public school.

I haven't shown them many violent movies either, but a movie with violence in a certain context like Gladiator or Saving Private Ryan is good for distinguishing between good and bad applications of certain virtues like bravery, honor, and patriotism.

If I owned Amazon, I would sell most books, but would stop at books that celebrated the sexualization of children. I'd hope that most Americans wouldn't feel that a huge loss.

[AGB]

Australia?

[AGB]

Originally Posted by nguirado

I was using "explicit" in the sense that the movie had sex scenes. I don't see this as a "lie."

Way to go. When proven wrong, you simply move the goal posts and rewrite the meaning of words.
Look up "explicit", it's certainly needed if you really believed that. But I know you actually DID mean "explicit" in the proper way (no pun intended):

If you just meant it had sex scenes, there would be no point in using the word in the first place, because you wrote it contained "a lot of explicit sex", which is factually dead wrong.
Then you went on to use the same word to ask about Copenhagen and there too you mentioned "explicit".

Sheesh, it's like discussing with Sarah Palin.

I'm glad that people are happy with the sex education their children are receiving. I was just curious. I learn a lot from people from other countries. I see how you took the question the wrong way. I didn't make a judgment on Denmark or anybody else here, however. I don't mind discussing the situation in the US, but feel that we'd be going too far off topic.

You're the one who brought it up, and made unsubstantiated claims masked as questions.

To wrap up, I have three kids. The youngest is 10. I don't regret not showing them sexual movies.

I really don't care how many kids you have, as it's not relevant.
Am I talking for showing kids sex movies, or as you put it so strawman-ish:Show kids explicit sex movies? No, not all. I'm arguing against the notion that lobbyist groups such as "The Moral Majority", "Mothers against [sex]" and so forth, should have any say whatsoever. They should take care of their own kids, and one of the best ways to take of your kids is to educate them, or have other, more qualified people educate them.

As far as education, Both my wife and I know about sex so we decided to teach them ourselves about sex. That way, we figured, we can teach them sexula morals along with it.

Be my guest. Noone is preventing you from doing as you please. I just hope for your kids, that that education is actual education and not moralizing preaching.

I haven't shown them many violent movies either, but a movie with violence in a certain context like Gladiator or Saving Private Ryan is good for distinguishing between good and bad applications of certain virtues like bravery, honor, and patriotism.

Patriotism ...

Okay, I'll just ignore that whole paragraph.

If I owned Amazon, I would sell most books, but would stop at books that celebrated the sexualization of children. I'd hope that most Americans wouldn't feel that a huge loss.

And we're back to the essense: Where precisely do you draw the line? Sex between a 17 year old boy and 21 year old girl? What about a 15 year old girl and fourteen year old boy, that is written as a romantic fiction novella, but with educational value also talking about condoms and so on?

Where exactly would you draw the line? And how you would you do it without being arbitrary based on some subjective morals that only you posses?