Connecticut Prisoners Express Anger Over Porn Ban

Associated Press HARTFORD, Conn. (AP) _ A group of prisoners has begun a letter-writing campaign to protest what they see as an unfair ban on pornography inside the state’s correctional institutions.

The Department of Correction announced in July that it would be banning all material that contains “pictorial depictions of sexual activity or nudity” from the prisons beginning next summer.

The state says the ban is intended to improve the work environment for prison staffers, especially female staffers, who might be inadvertently exposed to pornography.

...

The department has received about three dozen letters from inmates, many of them from letters, claiming the recently adopted ban violates the inmates’ First Amendment rights. Some of those letters also were sent to The Associated Press.

Read more: http://connecticut.cbslocal.com/2011/10/08/connecticut-prisoners-express-anger-over-porn-ban/

What cruel and usual punishment.......

This is a workplace that is also the only place of residence for the prisoners.

And it seems to me that any woman who is a guard in a men's prison has a lot more to deal with than worrying about magazines.

and crack him over the rail and load him like a shotgun. Sound good to you?

do not act like that. Maybe you do. I don't know.

Who is REALLY harmed by these guys who are cut off fropm the company of actual women, being able to look at pictures of them?

I'll tell you who: no one. And the 'work environment' argument is just an excuse, an excuse for people who think the miserable experience of being in prison isn't uite miserable enough. It's the "Sheriff Joe" mentality. And honestly, if our prisons were REALLY full only of violent, hurtful people, I might be more inclined to agree. But we've been letting murderers out to make room for pot smokers.

So as long as we insist on filling our prisons with non-violent drug offenders, I think we should cut them some slack.

"It is a relatively harmless item that could make an intolerable situation SLIGHTLY more bearable..."

Booze, also. :shrug:

It also has a documented connection to violence and other risk-taking behavior. I don't think any serious scientific studies have shown anything similar with, say, pictures of naked women.

Also, porn doesn't kill people, or cause some people to go into life-threatening DTs when they look at it every day for a year and then stop for 72 hours.


But you raise an interesting point, which is, what is the point of prison? To be so terrible that people are afraid to commit crimes? To separate the violent from the rest of us? To actually rehabilitate criminals and prepare them for productive citizenship? (Yeah, right)

I mean, it's a good question, and one that bears thinking about.

:blush:

I will try to delete my post.

Sorry.

:blush:

Thats what prison is supposed to be; a horrific place where one has no freedom, used as a deterrent to crime.


:shrug:

unusual punishment', though, then.

I mean, if they REALLY wanted to make it intolerable, why feed the prisoners? Why provide them with health care? Books? Why not just put them in a big cement pit and let them kill and eat each other?

It would be some deterrent.

You might have something there.

'course, we could save a lot of money if we weren't filling the prisons with non-violent drug offenders in the first place, too.

in the US Constitution?

Do you think prisoners should have any privacy at all? Should they, like the prisoners in Florida, be charged with a crime if they masturbate in their own cell? Should prisoners be allowed to have reading material? How about pictures of wives or girlfriends? What if the picture is of the wife/girlfriend nude? :shrug:

My position is, if it's not causing a safety issue, there's no harm in letting them have it. I don't think it's going to be the thing that makes prison suddenly sound real appealing or 'not deterrent enough'.

And I am not arguing for or against porn here, merely trying to get a better sense of your position on this subject, considering the fact that prisons are supposed to be terrible places where one has no freedoms. I mean, isn't that why we have them?

and that people are determined to stay out of. That would be the case whether or not porn is allowed. We need to stop pretending that any and all punishments are OK simply because we're dealing with people who have committed crimes.

The topic at hand here is whether not having access to PORN is cruel and unusual punishment.


Do you feel that not having access to porn is cruel and unusual punishment?

Sex is listed in the human hierarchy of needs. Most prisoners can't have sex, so porn provides the next closest thing. I certainly think it's cruel, I don't know if it reaches unusual.

Isn't t whole experience designed to be a place where only the most basic human needs are met, as a deterrence to further crime?

Isn't the whole point supposed to BE a denial of freedoms and privileges?

I already told you what the point of prison is. You can say that it's meant to be a form of torture, but that's never been the case.

If you cant or wont read what I wrote, I can't help you.

Victoria Secrets catalog, playboy, penthouse, straight video, gonzo video, ....


What is and is not porn, in your opinion?

that if everyone involved is a consenting adult, it shouldn't really matter whether you call it "art" or "erotica" or "porn".

In the case of the Conn. Prisons, it's pretty clear from the article that their intent is to remove all pictures of nudity or semi-nudity that might be considered arousing. That would include everything on your list from the victoria secret catalogs on down. Basically anything these guys might look at while masturbating. I suspect that "video" doesn't even enter into the mix, here-- I don't think these guys are watching DVDs in their cells.

And we're not just talking about "oh, you're not allowed to get your Playboy subscription anymore", once they implement this, the guy who has a crumpled up picture of a naked woman stuffed under his mattress will be committing an actual crime, with actual sentencing implications, sentencing implications that actual taxpayers will have to pay for with actual tax dollars. That strikes me as not just a bit Orwellian, but also idiotic, frankly.

You imagine those to be the only two possibilities...?

Prison rape is a HUGE deal. If more people are raped because of this ban (as I greatly suspect will happen), the people who support such a ban should go straight to hell.

It's not very inductive to conversation if at every turn, one misrepresents what the other is saying.

I never stated prison rape was not a big deal, I alluded to the fact that the vision most seem to have on the subject seems to be what we would see on the show Oz, when I'm sure Hollywood's caricature is not even close to mirroring reality.

Secondly, it would seem that you are suggesting that having access to porn does (or will) curb the amount of violent rape in prison. Am I understanding you correctly? If that is the case, can you point to some evidence that supports that conclusion?

Prison rape is a huge issue in prisons. And you bet your ass I believe that access to porn would curb prison rape, it would seem to be absolutely self apparent. Just because you don't see such an obvious connection doesn't mean it's not there.

http://www.slate.com/articles/arts/everyday_economics/2006/10/how_the_web_prevents_rape.html

It's plain common sense if you take away many of these violent prisoners' only sexual outlet that they're going to direct it elsewhere. People who support this ban are supporting additional prison rape. It's disgusting.

"So, the auxiliary evidence is all consistent with the hypothesis that Net access reduces rape because Net access makes it easy to find porn."

And this link should only be far stronger in a prison with violent offenders, especially when their primary sexual outlet is removed from them. It's only common sense. Then again, common sense ain't so common. You apparently still believe that the majority of men don't view porn regularly.

Do you think they've got some bias or dog in the fight? I'm sure you don't believe them. But will you attempt to provide any evidence to the contrary? Or am I just supposed to accept your emotions as factual evidence?

It's cruel and ignorant. Following that logic, would you have people who are in prison be put into little cages with only bread and water? It seems like your argument is ALWAYS applied to any sort of idea that people held in prison deserve the least bit of comfort or humanity.

people in prison are a good place to start.

It has zero to do with safety issues in the prison, and everything to do with a petty attempt to make these guys' lives even more miserable than they are IMHO.

That sure is a HUGE leap you have made there. What do you base that on?

Being locked up for years is the cost of being a criminal.

How we treat them when they're in there is on us, not them.

n/t

n/t

rapists and those who committed crimes against women can't get their porn? Too bad...good for the women working there.

Though you seemingly would like to imagine so.

How about the poor young black kid popped for holding an ounce? Do you want to treat him like a rapist?

How about his white, middle class counter-part who isn't incarcerated because:
A. Daddy can afford a lawyer to jack with the system?
B. Is held to a different standard because of his race?

Should their rights also be abrogated?

Your argument appears to be based on emotion rather than logic, perhaps tinged with a little self-righteous Puritanism.


I can't imagine how a guy wanking his weenie in a cell after viewing a nude photo of his girlfriend provides a better work environment for a female guard; perhaps you'd care to explain that assumption (or, rather, presumption)?

secondly, i imagine you dont get how porn infested work environment makes it difficult for women employees. and i dont think you would bother to think it thru. so, what name calling, accusations and allogations can i assume about you?

Since I'm not a prisoner, I have the right to entertain myself in any legal fashion I see fit.
As does my hypothetical white doper not punished by the system for racist reasons.


I don't believe that a prison is a normal "work environment", but apparently you do.

Hypothetically, since it is fact that it is non-traditional work environment, I suppose that both men and women that have the calling for this line of work *expect* to lose the protections of a *normal* work environment.

Do you really think that female prison guards are not tough enough to handle their work conditions. I bet some female guards would consider you weak.

BTW, make any "allogations" about me that fit into your personal world-view; I personally allege that you're too lazy to use the spell-check feature.


Name-calling? Please be specific; I don't recall any names-called, or accusations in my post. Perhaps you merely imagined them. Personal insults are an alertable offense; if I've broken any rules I suggest you hit that little red button.

prisoners have basic rights spelled out in our constitution. porn is not one of them.

the rest of your post? just as much garbage, lol.

I taste prejudice in the air.

I was not speaking of Constitutional rights. Very narrow of you to think so.

Basic human rights, and the penal system should not deny those to prisoners except for reasons of control and protection of society.

Denial of access to pornography fits neither criteria; hence, you wish to deny them access to harmless entertainment out of meanness and a desire to punish.
How very limiting for you as well as them.

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

I would think that would contribute to a generally less tense atmosphere in the prison and a SAFER environment for the guards.

Sorry, couldn't finish that with a straight face

geeesh, tough for guys i guess.

. . . it is treated as a disciplinary infraction.

http://www.abajournal.com/news/article/eight_inmates_in_prison_masturbation_case/

And just Google the question, "Are prisoners allowed to masturbate," and you'll see exactly what I'm talking about.

provided: "...All were charged by the same female deputy, according to the Sun-Sentinel...."

It almost appears that this deputy was targeting this sort of behavior.

The only times I heard of this being a punishable offense when I was a prison guard were the instances where the inmate was obviously using one of the female staff members as 'inspiration', or exposed himself (all male prisoners) to a staff member.

... that link was only one of many.

Do they poke your eyes out? :evilgrin:

Think of it as an emotional "lubricant".

BTW, I assume this same ban would apply to female prisoners, too. I doubt they enjoy a dry hump, and I know many woman *not* locked away from men that enjoy a bit of pictorial fore-play.


Or do you only want to punish men for being men?

:eyes:

"I assume this same ban would apply to female prisoners, too. I doubt they enjoy a dry hump, and I know many woman *not* locked away from men that enjoy a bit of pictorial fore-play."

You know many "woman" who enjoy porn. Ok. You doubt women enjoy "a dry hump" so want to make sure they have that "basic human right" to porn?

:rofl:

i.e. if it's not causing a safety issue and they're not using it to bother or harass guards or other prisoners, they should be free to pick their own legal reading material.

simply mocking "Real Man (tm)" mentality.

I mean, if you're just plain ol' steamin' mad about the masturbation habits of something like half the adult human race, maybe it's time to start a new thread on the topic? :shrug:

is fun to mock. That is all. I don't care who whacks off to what, so long as no one is hurt. But going all macho, all "Real Man (tm) do this..." is mockable.

but I think that's a misuse of the trademark(tm) symbol.

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

:spray:

Maybe the ban will help them use their minds more. Obviously since they are where they are they have had lapses in mind work. Not all but most I imagine.

Look, like I said upthread.. I understand that this isn't really driven by logic, instead by an authoritarian desire to make the miserable experience that is prison even MORE miserable. And if everyone in prison was convicted solely of violent crime, I might be more sympathetic to that urge.

As it is, we've filled our prisons with non-violent drug offenders, many in for simple possession. Who, honestly, is harmed by them having some pictures of naked women to masturbate to? No one.

What many people seem to fail to realize is that when you separate a person from his or her family and friends and from everything that person holds dear in the world, confine that person in a way that he or she has no real freedom of movement, and in an environment where that person's safety is at significant risk by virtue of some of those with whom he or she is incarcerated, you have already exacted an enormous physical, emotional and psychological toll. It really isn't necessary to go out of your way to heap misery on top of that experience. And I would argue that the desire to make the prison experience as intolerable as you can possibly make it is sheer stupidity from the standpoint of society's interest. The fact is, the majority of these prisoners will one day be released. They already face enormous hurdles in trying to reintegrate themselves into productive society such that many are effectively forced back into a life of crime. But who would argue that society's interest is best served by helping, rather than hindering, that transition? Does anybody seriously think it is wise, on top of all of the hurdles such prisoners already face upon release, to add to the mix the kind of pent up anger or other psychological dysfunction that almost inevitably results from an excessively punitive incarceration experience?

:applause:

Guess who the inmates are going to think about when they jerk it, if you cut off the porn supply? The only women they see on a day to day basis. ESPECIALLY if the blame them for the lack of porn. I'd be surprised if they don't wind up with a bunch more guys leering, making a show of spanking it, exposing themselves, and otherwise making life miserable for the female guards and staff.

from directing their sexism, misogyny and frustration at the female staff.

I think in the interest of full disclosure, the people who think prisoners shouldn't be able to look at porn because they think NO ONE should be able to look at porn, ever, ought to come clean about what they're really on about.

exacerbating their misogyny.

In fact, it's presumptuous to assume that any given prisoner is a misogynist. I bet many of them would be offended by your prejudicial assessment.


I would think that any female guard that allows herself to be victimized by inmates under any circumstances needs to find work she is more suited for. And, to block your rejoinder, that applies to male guards, also. If they can't control prisoners they shouldn't be in charge of them.

A bunch of guys who committed crimes and so now they're in prison are insisting they can view porn? Because men who see porn regularly are much better behaved than men who don't?

Porn is essentially degrading to women. So of course it's a good idea to let a bunch of men, at least some of whom in this prison probably committed crimes against women, view material which further reinforces their views.

Jeez.

You are obviously looking at the wrong kind. There's lots of that.

Some amateurs film themselves because one or the other are exhibitionists.

Then what??

So how are pictures of naked women (or men, for that matter) or naked women AND men having sex, "degrading to women"?

What if a prisoner has a naked picture of his wife or girlfriend that she wants him to have? Is that "degrading" to her?

We aren't talking about simple images of naked women.

YES, lots of porn is VERY degrading to women. It's disgusting to say the very least.

Why are women the last group of people on this planet worthy of any respect?

Are adult women suddenly rendered incapable of consent when confronted with a video camera?

Why are you so determined to infantalize other people who don't make the same choices you would (and maybe, just maybe, don't have the same definition of "disgusting" that you do)?

RESPECT means letting CONSENTING ADULTS make up THEIR OWN DAMN MINDS about what they CHOOSE to do with their bodies, as well as what they CHOOSE to look at and how they CHOOSE to express their sexuality.

them out for propagating misogyny.

you may approach art.

Anyway, I thought the poor, helpless women were the victims. Now we're "calling them out"? :shrug:

that it is a misogynist religion.

what is so challenging for you.

these women make a choice.

and it is still what it is

are you going to argue our religions are not filled with patriarchal misogyny?

The pope is hardly pro-porn.

Maybe you can post a graphic diagramming your sentences so they're a little easier to follow.

Who is this "we" you speak of?

Society? Or you and a few friends?

Personally (and I detest patriarchal religion) I see little correlation between the Bible and porn, though there are a few salacious passages in the Pentateuch.

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

So, yes, we ARE talking about "simple images of naked women", which also happens to be what the vast majority of what the hand-wringers among us consider 'porn', is constituted of.

... much of which, I'm sure, you would find "disgusting." Yet, oddly enough, they don't feel the least bit degraded by it -- nor do I, as a gay man who has not done gay porn.

and if that is their choice where's the degredation from within or without?

"Essentially" suggests that the essence of porn is degrading to women.

Please be precise.

I do believe that you find pornography to be disgusting. I can't determine if you find all sexual expression to be so from your comments to date.

On the other hand, many of us, male and female, do not find it so anymore than we find masturbation to be yucky.

We're talking about pretty normal human behavior.

and you assume that everyone else, including other women have the same attitude.



I agree with the others. This isn't about some new found need to "respect women". It's the authoritarian impulse to make those that transgress be punished more and more severely.

consenting adults.
masturbating is a single player sport.


just like rape is not 'sex'

Tell that to the fine people at Good Vibrations in San Francisco, who have spent years trying to educate women that it's okay for them to masturbate without feeling guilty.

So masturbation is not sex, and rape is not sex, does that mean that masturbation=rape?

Otherwise, why bring it up?

Did I stumble through some sort of time warp and end up in an alternate Victorian England filled with puritans, school marms, and the Catholic League?

So, if I don't like images of women having objects stuck up their vaginas, etc, that makes me a puritan?

Too funny. Just to inform you, women are human beings. Get used to it.

images of women having objects stuck up their vaginas.

I don't like 80s hair metal, but I don't spend my time and energy trying to eliminate it from the planet.

A little different from just not liking something. :eyes:

Well, at least a lot of them anyway.

:sarcasm:

I mean, they should just imagine them.

my god, how did humanity survive before porn? LOL, sorry, i just can't work up any sympathy for people lacking enough imagination to masturbate.

and no, i don't read romance novels so don't try that stupid line.

Yes, they should use their imagination. :eyes: Why do you give a shit?

The prisoners want it, it makes a generally shitty situation apparently slightly more bearable, there is no cogent safety reason to ban it.. so really, what this is about, is control freaks wanting to make prison life suck even more for these guys, like it doesn't enough already.

And like I said upthread, if I really believed our prisons were full of only the worst of the worst of the violent among us, I might be more sympathetic to the argument. But the fact is, our prisons are full of non-violent, low level drug offenders. Sure, let's "punish" them as much as possible, eh?

pearl clutchers, prudes, nanny-statists, puritans, etc etc etc?

it's a stupid lie, a false dichotomy, yet you and others like you continue to bitch and whine and moan and complain and stomp your feet....


"we want our porn, we want it anywhere and everywhere we want it, we don't give a flying fuck what anyone else thinks or wants, we want our porn!!!!! we have a right to wank to anything we want!!!!! waaaaaaaaaah, i'll get blue balls, i'll have to rape someone if i can't pull my pud to pictures of nekkid women, waah!"

see how stupid that sounds when you do that???



edit: stupid typos

It's VERY SIMPLE. Consenting adults. If consenting adults want to fuck in front of a camera, that's their business. If OTHER consenting adults want to WATCH the film of those consenting adults fucking, that's THEIR business.

Don't like porn? Great. Don't fucking watch it. You flail around and piss and moan because not everyone accepts the inherent 'logic' of your need to try to insert yourself into the personal choices of CONSENTING ADULTS. It's real fucking simple. Not everything is for everyone, and sometimes people are going to make choices you or I don't like. Being able to deal with that, and the multi-faceted, pluralistic world we live in, is part of being a grown-up.

i am not trying to run anyone's sex life. i am not out advocating against porn production. i am commenting on a fucking discussion board. did i try to make this rule about prisoners and their whacking off? no i did not. i said i got no sympathy for them.

you're the one who runs around calling people prudes, children, nanny-statists, and getting your knickers all twisted. sometimes people are going to make choices you don't like, such as not caring to have porn everywhere. being able to deal with that, and the multi-faceted, pluralistic world we live in, is part of being a grown-up. so live with it dearie. pull your pud to your heart's content, with whatever little pictures or videos you want to watch.

I'm usually the one arguing that, say, a smoking ban in a restaurant is not the same thing as "banning cigarettes". You can't look at porn (much less masturbate) in most restaurants as well. Which is as it should be.

But these guys in prison don't really have anywhere else to go; and like I said, the majority are poor minorities in there for low-level non-violent drug offenses- so should they not have any privacy? If they're not harassing the female employees with, say, their dirty magazine, who is harmed if they keep it under their bunk?

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

What'll we do, if the million plus non-violent drug offenders we have cramming our nation's prison cells, aren't having an unpleasant enough experience? That would be TERRIBLE!

The real purpose of a prison is rehabilitation, so that criminals will not go out and commit more crimes. The US just does such a horrible job at this that we have forgotten the point of prisons in the first place.

(This is of course, not counting crimes that require life-sentences)

... and confine that person in a place where his freedom of movement is restricted and where his life is under constant threat by virtue of the persons with whom he is imprisoned, you are already exacting an enormous physical, psychological and emotional toll on that person. As I said elsewhere, it really isn't necessary to heap misery upon an experience that is already miserable.

And, in terms of society's long-term interest, it is the height of stupidity to do so. Look, eventually, most prisoners will be released. It is unquestionably in society's, as well as the ex-con's, interest that the former prisoner be integrated back into productive society. We have already made it extremely difficult for released prisoners to make that transition, such that many are forced back into a life of crime just to survive. So, does it really make sense, given all this, to utterly dehumanize an inmate, ith all the psycho-social damage such dehumanization inevitably causes?

Most women won't allow porn in their houses either, and for good reason. It objectifies women and debases men. Plus it's totally addictive, as bad as any drug. Considering how many prisoners are probably addicts of one type or another, feeding their porn addiction isn't going to help them get straight and hence stay out of jail once they get released.

Maybe they can try reading a book that doesn't have a staple in it.

I mean REAL science, not something out of an American Family Institute funded think tank that just got finished documenting how the grand canyon was formed in 15 minutes during "Noah's flood"

Also, lots of men AND women enjoy erotica, as do gay men and lesbians.

there's your evidence. Try doing 5 minutes worth of googling on "sex addiction" "porn addiction" etc. Which I will not do right now because my repressive work filters would get me fired. Speaking of which, if porn is just so awesome and wholesome why is it a fireable offense to view it at virtually any workplace?

Are you a major porn consumer? Judging from your defense here, the answer is obviously yes. Try giving it up for a few months and tell me how non-addictive it is. Nothing personal but you've got a pretty hostile reaction to this subject, which pretty much speaks for itself.

I asked for science. Sure, the people who make a LIVING treating so-called "sex addiction" are certainly going to argue vociferously that it's "real". Funny, how when there's a treatment industry involved, people can be "addicted" to just about anything, except maybe 12 step meetings.

No, I'm familiar with ACTUAL addiction, and calling every behavior -even detrimental behavior- people engage in that they or other people think they shouldn't engage in "addiction" does a MAJOR disservice to ACTUAL addicts who are dealing with REAL ADDICTION to ACUTALLY ADDICTIVE SUBSTANCES.

My "hostility" comes from being rag-ass tired of authoritarian shitheads trying to tell consenting adults how they can or cannot get their jollies in the privacy of their own home. It's VERY SIMPLE. Is everyone involved a consenting adult? Then it's not your friggin' business. There are a lot of things that you can't do at work, not just look at porn. Unless your job INVOLVES looking at porn, probably the reason your employer doesn't want you looking at porn at work is because if you're looking at porn, you're not doing your work.

Am I a "major porn consumer"? No, but like 99% of the rest of the men in this country, I've looked at it upon occasion.
(As has your guy, if you have one. If he tells you he doesn't, he's lying.)


"Consumer" generally implies paying for the thing. God bless the intertubes, that's all I can say.

Like the vast majority of heterosexual male homo sapiens, I like to look at, and am turned on by, naked women. (Gay male homo sapiens tend to like to look at naked men, and god bless 'em for that) The person with the "problem" is the one who is so fucked up in the head that he/she thinks there's something "wrong" with that.

John Stossel actually had a great piece awhile ago where he argued that there's really no such thing as addiction, where something completely controls you above and beyond your will. I agree with that, it's just some things require more willpower to resist than others, particularly if your body's chemistry has become altered.

Believe me, I love a naked woman as much as the next guy, nothing is more beautiful. Porn however, and I've certainly seen it as well, is not good in my opinion. That doesn't mean it isn't enticing, if it wasn't it wouldn't be so successful. I just believe it damages all parties involved. For men, it can refocus their desires from their wife to an ideal in an image, thus damaging the relationship, leading to cheating etc. No idea how this affects homosexuals.

Also agree with the idea that I'm sick of people telling others what they can do in their own home. As far as prison goes though, that's the taxpayer's house, and they make the rules.

Peace

If there is no safety reason to keep, for instance, pictures of naked women (to be distinguished, of course, from "porn", and like fmr. SCOTUS Justice Potter Stewart, I wonder how one draws the line) out of a prison setting, I question the justification of doing it.

And like I've said repeatedly upthread; if I really believed our prisons were full of ONLY the worst, most violent among us, I might be more sympathetic to the "punishment for the mere sake of making them miserable" argument. However, we let rapists and murderers out of prison to make cell space for mandatory minimum non-violent drug offenders, who constitute most of our inmate population. Since we're cramming our prisons with folks in for stuff like drug possession, I'm a little more inclined to cut them the tiniest bit of slack.

"Since we're cramming our prisons with folks in for stuff like drug possession, I'm a little more inclined to cut them the tiniest bit of slack."

:hi:

I'm 36...

Just an age..the curiousity is killing me!

Maybe that is an issue as well....

And cigarettes.

Not an addressable issue, it seems.

Poor entitled boys aren't getting their porn. Wahhh!!!! :cry:

If there is some safety issue or they're using it to intimidate female workers, that's one thing. If this is just a jihad to get every picture of a naked boob out of the prison, again, it serves no purpose other than to make these guys' existence that much more miserable.

Be honest, now-- this isn't about smut in prison so much as smut in general. No?

:shrug:

Prisoners lives more miserable? Hmmm, don't really care. They should have thought about the consequences and the changes to their lives when they, oh, committed crimes?

Prisoners, BTW, are disenfranchised, not "entitled". That's the point of this excursion.

Also, as has been pointed out to you, many prisoners are neither thugs, murderers, nor rapists.

Some of them aren't even "boys".

Your prejudice is showing.

Oh, my prejudice is showing. Thanks. :rofl:

They CHOSE to be disenfranchised, and are hardly poor victims.

So the guys behind bars who aren't thugs, rapists and murderers, just why are they behind bars again? Oh, a few probably committed petty crimes and will be out shortly. Well, then they can go out and buy porn to their little hearts' content!

When males act like spoiled, entitled, whiny little boys complaining about how they are "owed" something, then I will call them "boys".

(get it, time lol)

Anwhore, You are sitting there in prison with nothing to do. Shit, write your own damn porn! Grab a pencil and draw some hot ass women, make a book out of it.

Share it with others...call it "art" so you don't get in trouble :P

call the law! stop the presses!

poor babies!

And a very high percentage are in there for low-level, nonviolent drug offenses.

Your attitude is not very progressive, is it.

I know I'm supposed to 'understand' this shit about men, but I don't. and never will.

Too often these guys have not a fucking clue how to make love to a woman because she doesn't have staples. and treat women like a vessel for masturbation, like taking a good shit.

so put me up in the unprogressive list you have, I won't lose sleep.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Ever wonder why you can't make an argument against consenting adult behavior without bringing non-consent or non-adults into it?

Hmmmmm?

certainly you can't be so dense as to think these women are all enjoying their movie making experiences for the fine pay they get and the respect they get from fellow actors and producers.

certainly you can't be so dense as to think some of these women are not abused and fed with drugs and kept like animals to do their tricks for the likes of people like you.

why, of course it's all a consenual and sweet and lovely life to have! wheeeeee!

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

In fact, some women *do* enjoy working in various aspects of the sex-trade and only a small percentage are actually coerced.

Link to that is needed.

Should we outlaw them as well? Surely no one would actively choose to become a garbage man. Should we not allow people to become garbage men, then? Fast food work?

Ummm, just who here is condoning the illegal sex trade? We were discussing pornography. You know, the legal kind? People should be free to enter into whatever profession they want if it's a legal one.

It was in reference to the sex industry in general. Can you find a single post on this thread that condones the illegal sex trade or anything like pimps?

included legal and illegal. If that poster had enough qualifiers in there to mean only legal sex trade, then I am in error. But I read "sex trade" as all encompassing of sex trade.

You won't find it in this thread. And it's utterly idiotic to go onto a thread where people are specifically referring to and defending one's right to participate in the production of pornography and then twist it around to refer to people who are involved with something that's already illegal. If you can point out to me a single person who is defending pimps or the sex trade, you might have a leg to stand on.

who are in the sex trade, have been sexually abused as children. As high as 70%+ in some studies.

how does that make you feel, if you are pro porn, that that woman, when she was a little girl, had a member of her family or someone close to her, squirt his juice over her and gawd knows what else to her. That is why so many of these women Are in the industry - because they have been messed up, and usually by their own relatives.

do you ever think of that woman as a child, most likely was abused in this way? Does it change your mind that maybe it's not really all sweetness and freedom of choice and consent as you hope?

Either way, I wouldn't want to deny anyone a profession if that's what his or her choice was. It's not my job or the job of the government to tell consenting adults what they can or cannot do. It's as simple as that.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Without bringing up non-consent, or non-adults.

Merely saying "oh, no one would choose to do such and such" is not proof of non-consent. Coercing someone to do something against their will is a crime, as it should be. But despite your CERTAINTY that these adults aren't "really" consenting, why not take a minute and try to frame your arguments in the context of actual consent and actual adults.

Now, explain to me why consenting adults shouldn't be able to watch other consenting adults fuck on film. I'll wait.

Dogtown writes "In fact, some women *do* enjoy working in various aspects of the sex-trade and only a small percentage are actually coerced."

To which I replied "Because "some enjoy" does not = "only a small % are coerced". Link to that is needed.'

To which you reply this? What? Since I NEVER wrote "oh, no one would choose to do such and such" or your big bolded "your CERTAINTY that these adults are "really" consenting"....", not sure why you are writing this to me. Or why you demand "Now, explain to me why consenting adults shouldn't be able to watch other consenting adults fuck on film".

MY post you are replying to was about poor logic, nothing about consenting adults watching other consenting adults fuck.

To wit, frame an argument about how consenting adults should not be free to take off their clothes and/or screw in front of a camera...

now, here's the hard part--

frame that argument without dragging in non-consent, or non adults. Remember, we're talking about CONSENTING ADULTS.



...Did I mention the part about "consenting adults"?

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Like most fantasies, not a realistic assessment of most folks.

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Others like banal, missionary-position.

BTW, sorry you don't get satisfactory oral sex. Perhaps you should choose more generous partners.

and not just any vampire but a sparkly moody vampire that have lived for a hundred years but secretly crave meeting a bland high school girl with the personality of a sock and really disturbing attachment issues.

Yeah what guy doesn't wish he could be in a chaste relationship with an immature psycho?

:sarcasm:

Oh wait, no they don't . It's called FANTASY. Everyone has them and they typically seem weird to those that don't share them.

There are hundreds of millions of men who have watched porn. It's highly unlikely that none of them have ever been in a successful relationship with a woman.

:eyes:

I could go into the solid evolutionary arguments about why men (as well as other primates) might be wired for visual arousal, but experience suggests that would merely set off another round of tantrums by the folks who are convinced that hetero male sexuality (but no other sexuality) is somehow 'programmed by the patriarchy', and if we lived in a perfect, dworkinized utopia, men would no longer like to look at naked women.

The fact is, however, out here in the real world, most men DO like to look at naked women- AND pictures (be they CMYK or RGB or BW or even ASCII -hey, I'm old enough to remember that!) of naked women. You probably won't understand that any more than I'll ever understand the obsession with Jane Austen or shoes. C'est La Vie.

It isn't necessarily shit, but some of us tend to belittle what we're incapable of understanding.

I mean, that's what this is about, right? It wouldn't be about anything else.

Right?

environment for the women that work there.

that is clearly stated in the OP. you chose to ignore it. but regardless of ignoring, you cant make it about causing hardship to prisoners. not what the complaint is about

you have been sentenced and have to serve some time and are trying to pave the way .....
:D
or
maybe you should open up a website for donations and pressure the lawmakers. Put your name on it and ask others to do so as well.
Please let prisoner men have their porn! It's not fair!

maybe you can skim off some 99% protestors or some other worthy causes as this is right top shelf important issue to you.

Look, I can't be any more clear.

A) I think consenting adults should damn well have the right to watch other consenting adults fuck, and
B) I think there are way too many people in prison for shitty reasons as it is and
C) I think this is petty, "Sherrif Joe" style authoritarianism designed for the sole purpose of making these guys' lives MORE unpleasant, and it does zip- zero to protect or help 'rehabilitate' those prisoners.

I ALSO think that (speaking of people having personal issues and being unable to keep from making it ABOUT THEM) several of the folks weighing in on this thread don't really give a shit about the conditions in prisons, per se, they just have been personally wounded by men in their lives looking at porn and as such, this is as convenient an outlet (excuse the pun) as any for them to grind the old anti-porn axe.

Lastly, some of those 99% protesters you mention will probably end up IN prison. Perhaps you can pass along to them this "fuck you, waaaaaah" attitude you seem to carry towards anything anyone in prison might believe could conceivably make their lives more bearable.

personal life that you are clueless about.

so, now, if a woman argues porn, then not only is she jealous, asexual, prude, puritan, pearl clutching, swwoning on the couch, ugly, BUT she has personally been hurt by her man looking at porn.

wow

another wow

i have never been hurt by a man and never hurt by a man that has done porn. but then i can only talk about myself. i have seen porn used as a weapon against females a handful of times and i have seen one marriage end because of it.

the issue is the work environment for female employees. that is all.

To reiterate, prison is an abnormal work environment and the women who choose that line of work don't expect "normality".

They have a calling, or they'd be in an alternate line of work.

If they are unfit to control prisoners, they should seek alternative employment. Men are expected to handle the stress of the job and female guards would likely be offended by your decision that they aren't tough enough to hack it.

I know many strong women, capable of doing this work, and I find your lack of faith in them to be insulting.

of the female employees. there are laws regardling work environment. this is one.

that is the bottom line, regardless what you have to say on the matter.

doesnt take an einstein....

prisoners have taken right to porn to court. they have lost. so again, you can continue to state your EMOTIONAL argument with it, but it is not the facts. stick to facts and get away from the emotional argument.

Because you can't have men going to the bathroom while there are women around, right? It just wouldn't be fair to the women. So men need to hold it in until they get paroled. Doesn't take an Einstein.

Christ. It really helps to think about these things before commenting on them.

If the argument is that you can't have inmates masturbating in their own cells because it would create an uncomfortable workplace, they shouldn't be able to defecate in their cells either. I'd sure as hell rather have someone masturbate at their office desks than take a dump at their office desk. It's well beyond asinine to compare a jail cell with the typical work environment.

about no masterbating.

else. And yes, many people did mention the bans that many prisons have on masturbating, which is typically enforced very unequally. The question is WHY they'd create a ban on pornography. And so far, all of the reasons have been absolute bullshit.

Unlike your opinions which are solely based upon your emotion. Emotion is fine, but it's worthless without facts.

work environment per law.

again, yours... is merely opinion.

ya, lets work on that ole logic

Otherwise, there wouldn't be toilets in them, right? Really, I'd suggest learning what logic is before trying to argue with it. Are you planning on responding to any of my previous requests? Or are you so intent on talking out of your ass you don't even plan on addressing them?

And your pithy replies mean absolutely zero without anything resembling facts to back them up.

That's why you continue to parade your asinine arguments around. And seriously, even for you, your posts are getting insanely hard to read. Maybe one of your sons could do some proofreading or something?

now you are on a rant about some other bullshit.... what is that?

The OP obviously states that the ban is in effect, so it's obviously law. What you're stating is a tautology. Don't worry, I'm sure there's someone in your life that can explain to you what a tautology is. Only thing is, if your posts don't demonstrate a tautology, they demonstrate ridiculously faulty logic or outright falsehoods. The discussion this thread has been about is to whether or not the ban is constitutional or morally right. Your responses as to such have been asinine.

"The discussion this thread has been about is to whether or not the ban is constitutional or morally right"

i have not been discussing the morality of it. i have merely addressed the right to porn for prisoners and the argument of creating hostile work environment for female employees. and the law has made rulings on both those issues.

i dont get what your argument is. pretty clear facts.

So basically what you're saying is "Connecticut has a porn ban in prisons". Umm, that's what the OP states. So if you're only capable of parroting what an OP states, you're not really doing anything, are you? People here are capable of reading. The people participating in this thread have already read the OP. A lot of toddlers are capable of repeating back words that adults say, that doesn't mean that they understand them. Are you going to do anything to prove to me that you have the intellectual ability beyond that of a typical toddler?

to porn. courts say no.

there

i went beyond the OP

courts have ruled consistently porn creates a hostile work environment for women.

again, went beyond OP

Because once again, one really can't consider a room with a toilet in it to be a "work environment". If they were truly concerned about the environment that the prisoners are creating, they'd have a separate bathroom for the prisoners to do their business in and wouldn't have a toilet sitting in the middle of their fucking room. But I really don't expect this to sink into your brain. Past history has taught me that you're incapable of understanding anything that doesn't fit into your prior beliefs.

The lack of capitalization, poor grammar and awful spelling I could understand. But you should at least try to make a salient point in your posts. Not doing so just makes you come off lazy.

it already, a number of times.....

you could understand the simple.

toilet has nothing to do with porn

at least, not in this argument. i dont know what kind of porn you watch

It was your feeble mind that made that connection. I was saying that having a toilet in the middle of the room does not make for a suitable work environment. Any other "work environment" would do away with something like that. Once again, I don't expect you to understand this. As you would so inelegantly say: "toilet has nothing to do with porn". I'll also say:

seabeyond has nothing to do with logic

Punctuation and communicating in an intelligent manner is totally overrated, right?

bureaucrats will say one thing whilst meaning another. Also, you can't trust reporters to always accurately report what they're told.

I don't consider all I read in a publication to be authoritative. I like to do my own thinking.

Can you explain why you feel the women that choose to be prison guards shouldn't be allowed to do their jobs humanely, ie, without unduly depriving said prisoners of a socially acceptable form of communication?

I'd like to hear (and be able to understand) *your* thoughts on this matter. If I wasn't interested, I'd have stopped reading immediately after the OP>

red herring!

Logic = zero.

:sarcasm:

But let's forget all those lesser beings known as women and have a pity party for those poor widdle criminals. :cry:

How pure some folks are, it's just uplifting!

A huge percentage of US prison population is doing time for (gasp) holding more than 28 grams of intoxicating plant material.

And you want to deny them every single emotionally-brightening diversion possible.
To *PUNISH* them for transgressing against society.

How enlightened!
How progressive!

Actually, how medieval.

Wow... does going to prison cause one to lose their imagination along with their freedom?

I guess other ways of marginalizing women are on your list too?

Very sad.

is that like a quantum non-locality effect, or what?

Not really. I have never understood anyone's fascination with porn. What little I've see was really offensive I thought. Never the less its none of my business what someone else wants to look at and if a guy is in prison he's got enough problems without taking away what little pleasure he might get from the crap.

nt

masterbate without it.

what is a person to do?

No pun intended :D

With all that goes on... I just don't see why this thread is still going. I guess it is just not an issue I care about, though the great interest here fascinates me.

pun intended. i was only remarking ont he fact a poster suggested it takes porn to masterbate, lol.

and i dont give a shit either. wasted my whole day on soemthing i dont give a shit about.

ah du...

for the addicted.

It's nostalgic, is what it is.

:rofl:

OK, I'll stop now :D

it's a masterbatin' mess.

but wtf... lets focus on that. geeesh. oh ya, you're the one that says a man needs porn to masturbate.

Where?

Okay, I'm done now.