Age Verification

WARNING!

You will see nude photos. Please be discreet.

Do you verify that you are 18 years of age or older?

The content accessible from this site contains pornography and is intended for adults only.

Watch Absurd adult free free intellectual porn Sex Movies

Squirting pissing anal porn. Rachel ray sex scandal. Funny test questions. Judy Nero Arielle. Carla and mario fucking. Crazy sexy cancer watch online. Asian people walk. St therese rose stories. Watch Free Absurd adult free free intellectual porn SEX Videos Jump to navigation Skip navigation. Had he lived in Absurd adult free free intellectual porn state of Washington, been under 18 — and, of course, been a real person — Adam might have been branded a sex offender. This much should be Absurd adult free free intellectual porn Selfies taken by minors are not child pornography. When he was 17, E. The woman reported the incident to police, click at this page the prosecutor chose to charge E. He was convicted and required to register as a sex offender after the trial court rejected a motion to dismiss for insufficient evidence. No crime is being committed when a teen photographs himself of his own volition. Nudity alone is not criminalized, even among minors. What E. The average teen now sends approximately 60 text messages every day. Criminal justice officials are beginning to recognize that child pornography laws are not meant to Absurd adult free free intellectual porn teen sexting. The president of the National Here Attorneys Association has publicly urged prosecutors to use their discretion to avoid criminal charges in many such cases. Courts are also finding that sexting should not be handled through child pornography prosecutions. And 20 states — but not Washington — have enacted new laws that provide a range of charging and sentencing alternatives to prosecutors that avoid the sledgehammer impact of a felony child pornography charge and conviction in sexting cases. Watch PORN Videos Teddy bear puppies for sale in chicago.

Free panty poop porn. So it is no surprise that the most creative use of the data that is produced by digital distribution comes from the porn world. The company that does this best is also the largest—and unless you are a pornography expert, you probably haven't heard of it.

BBC Sport (International version)

It claims to have over million daily visitors click here its sites, and its Alexa scores Pornhub is 27 globally, just one step behind Netflix—and Pornhub is just one of Mindgeek's many assets suggest these figures are accurate.

But first we explain how the porn industry changed with the advent of streaming—and how it stays alive despite enormous quantities of easily available free content. So the first key question about the industry is, how, in a world of almost unlimited free porn, does the porn industry exist at all? As streaming high quality video became technically viable the consumption of pornography has moved almost entirely online. The impact on the adult industry was rapid.

As the New York Times reported inas the first "porntube" sites were gaining market share:. The Internet was supposed to be a tremendous boon for the pornography industry, creating a global market of images and videos Absurd adult free free intellectual porn from the privacy of a home computer.

For a time it worked, with wider distribution and social acceptance driving a steady increase in sales. But now the established pornography business is in decline — and the Internet is being held responsible. Absurd adult free free intellectual porn

Mallu nude Watch XXX Movies Sexy murga. But what is most interesting is how it uses data to shape the production of new porn. In the paper we detail this process of "data-driven authorship," using a script Mindgeek shared with us. Mindgeek does what Netflix, Spotify, Amazon and others also do—it uses consumer data to recommend, to categorize, and to invest. But Mindgeek goes one step further. It actually makes creative decisions based on the data. And that process, we believe, has big implications for intellectual property law and theory. We turn to that tomorrow. College PC. Administrator says they "were unable to reach consensus as to what we wanted to achieve with this event," which is pure doublespeak. Robby Soave 4. Mueller Investigation. There is, without question, a great deal to be said for liberalizing our attitudes toward homosexuality and decriminalizing homosexual behavior. Nevertheless, the particular argument for decriminalization that Posner makes-an agnostic tolerance for any and all preferences, sexual and Posner goes to some lengths to distinguish his libertarian argument from liberal arguments for sexual autonomy, which he regards as a species of "moral" arguments. It is one that, in the long run, would ill-serve the gay community. For while it follows from Posnerian assump- tions that there is no reason to condemn homosexual preference, it also follows by the same logic that there is no particular reason to condemn homophobic preferences. From an economic, morally neutral standpoint, preferences for homosexual sex should be satisfied; but from the same perspective, our collective or communitarian "preference" that we rid our homes, schools, and armed forces of our homosexual sons, brothers, and fathers should also be honored and "satisfied" whenever the economic weighing of costs and benefits counsels that result. Rather, Posner would invoke a pragmatic tabulation of "costs and benefits" that purportedly point in the direction of ''rational" social policy. Not surprisingly, the costs and benefits as tabulated by Posner almost invariably dictate a reaffirmance of preexisting practice, although of course, for reasons of scientifically sound policy rather than communitarian moral- ism. The result-which should alert gay rights advocates of the profoundly conservative foundation of Posner's superficially "libertarian" argument for decriminalization of homosexuality-is an astoundingly crisp endorse- ment of the sexual status quo. While Posner insists that our criminal law should be changed to reflect an agnostic attitude toward sexual orienta- tion,6" he cannot bring himself to condemn another single social practice or communitarian "preference" as unjustly harmful to the rights and freedoms of gays and lesbians. Accordingly, Posner cannot identify or endorse a single significant legal or social change that might enhance either homosexuals' freedom or their overall well being. Two examples should suffice. First, as a number of reviewers have already noted,6 1 and lamented, on the basis of a "cost-benefit" analysis, Posner ultimately fails to condemn or even seriously critique the exclusion of gays and lesbians from the armed services. That failure is a direct consequence not so much of his theory of sex, as of his more general methodological refusal to engage in moral inquiry: Posner fails either to engage sympathetically and thereby assess the magnitude of the felt pains and pleasures of peoples' lives, or to take seriously the possibility, much I say "sons, brothers, and fathers" because lesbians are indeed almost invisible from Posner's account. See generally Ruthann Robson, Posner's Lesbians: Eskridge, Jr. Posner's tally of the "costs" and "benefits" of the military exclusion, for example, shows not only an ex- treme deference to military judgments, 62 but even more strikingly, almost no understanding of the psychic costs of this policy on the homosexual community, and even less understanding of the psychic costs of homopho- bia on the community at large. There is almost no discussion in this "cost-benefit analysis" of the psychic costs to homosexuals of being ex- cluded from this pivotal rite of citizenship. Posner is opposed to any blanket rule prohibiting homosexuals from parenting. While in theory such a rule might make sense if it were shown that homosexuals make poor parents, there presently is no research, he argues, suggesting that is the case. The psychic cost warrants only one mention by Posner, included, inexplicably, in a laundry list of potential benefits to the military: Among the benefits to the military would be saving the cost of administering a policy of excluding homosexuals, expanding the supply of soldiers, reducing the incentives to fake homosexuality when a draft is in force, and bolstering the self-esteem of homosexuals by deeming them fit to serve their country in positions of responsibility and danger. Common sense suggests that to do so is to undermine badly a child's or adolescent's fragile sense of self-worth. What is trou- bling, and again revealing, about Posner's use of this observation is that there is no similar condemnation of the widespread-indeed, near universal- practice of heterosexual parents condemning homosexuality, a practice surely as damaging, if not more so, to the homosexual child's or adoles- cent's developing sense of self and self-worth. It may seem perverse, and it should surely seem unfortunate, that Posner, although devoted to "moral neutrality" with respect to sexual practice, cannot bring himself to criticize a social practice so profoundly damaging to the lives and fortunes of a sizeable number of citizens with so little-indeed, with no-justification. Were parents of vanilla-preferring children to impress upon those children the necessity, moral and other- wise, of eating chocolate ice cream their entire adult lives, surely Posner would be struck by the undesirability of the practice. Here as well, however, Posner's failure to criticize this pervasive harmful practice stems not from his views on sexuality, but from his insistence on moral "neutrality"-the same insistence that, ironically, leads him to advocate the decriminalization of consensual homosexuality. As Posner himself insists, the "moral neutrality" urged toward sexual orientation is not pre- mised on any liberal or otherwise principled support of sexual liberty or privacy; indeed, he finds such arguments as spurious as conservative argu- ments for sexual repression. As a result, there is no more reason to second-guess the homophobic prefer- ence behind the social practice of "compulsory heterosexuality" than there is to second-guess the homosexual preference itself. Thus, his discussion of homosexual marriage ends with the inconclusive observation that "the public hostility to homosexuals in this country is too widespread to make homosex- ual marriage a feasible proposal even if it is on balance cost-justified. That neutrality does not derive from a liberal commitment to liberty, nor an egalitarian conviction that sexual orientation should not serve as an axis of subordination. Pos- ner's sexual libertarianism, in short, is simply an abandonment of moral practice. I will comment only briefly on the second "liberal-sounding" implication of Posner's conception of the rationality of individual sexual choice be- cause I have addressed it in detail elsewhere. This "commodification" theory of sex, in turn, implies a particular conception of the wrongness of rape: A rapist, Posner insists, is essentially a "sex thief'; 71 rape is the theft of one's sexuality. Rape is therefore wrong, and criminal, for the same reason that any theft of property-any nonconsensual transfer of assets without transaction costs that might jus- tify bypassing the market-is wrong and criminal. Whatever might have been believed in the past, or presently is believed by feminists or moralists, the wrongness of rape inheres in the property right of each individual to his or her own body and his or her own sexual services, and in the gain in wealth and efficiency that comes from permitting each individual sovereign power to decide how that commodity like any commodity might be put to 2 7 use. See Robin L. The reason stems, again, from defects not so much in Posner's view of sexuality as in the agnosticism toward preferences that is at its root. The problem with Posner's conception of rape as a form of theft and sex as a commodity is what critical theorists have labelled the problem of "legitimation. If rape is wrong because it is theft, and theft is wrong because it is nonconsensual, then consensual sex must be as right as rape is wrong: The property conception of the wrongness of rape quite directly legitimates the consen- sual sexual transaction and thereby perpetuates our collective blindness to the pervasive systems of sexual coercion that render all of our heterosexual practices, and not just rape, morally suspect. For a general discussion of the history of rape law, see Donald A. Dripps, Beyond Rape: For a lucid treatment of a commodity theory of sex and a challenging set of proposals for legislative change, see generally Dripps, supra note I offer a limited endorsement and partial criticism of Dripps's proposal in West, supra note 70 arguing that commodification theory tends to legitimate morally problematic, albeit fully consensual, sexual transactions. The commodity theory of sex correctly identifies the woman as the victim of rape, but mischaracterizes the nature of the injury. As common intuition holds, rape is a violation of personhood in the deepest sense imaginable, not simply a violation of property. And again, this refusal to undertake the moral work required to see the problematic nature of consensual no less than nonconsensual heterosexual- ity follows from Posner's general ethical claim that preferences, including sexual preferences, are given and beyond critique. It is surely that premise- and not his view on the nature of sex-which implies that the act of consent whitewashes or absolves that to which, and the person to whom, consent is given. Given Posner's insistence on "neutrality," when consen- sual transactions reflect our preferences, the value of those transactions, in a quite literal sense, is absolutely insulated against any sort of political or moral doubt. Let me end my discussion of Posner's treatment of individual choice by commenting more impressionistically on the central metaphor he uses to describe both our quest for sexual pleasure and the moral attitude we should bring to it: But Posner's metaphor also trivializes consensual sex, and does so in spite of the obvious fact that, at least on some level, sex is indeed "like eating": It is manifestly not the case, however-not these days and not in this culture, anyway-that our sexual "preferences" or orienta- tions are "like" our tastes for vanilla or chocolate ice cream. To compare or conflate the two is a truly comic falsification. We do not "know" our sexuality or our sexual preferences with anything like the clarity with which we know our tastes in ice cream. In fact, for many, if not all of us, our own "sexual preferences" are utterly mysterious in a way that our ice cream preferences simply are not; this mystery heightens rather than diminishes as we learn more about human sexuality. Many women, for example, have felt themselves to be heterosexual only to later discover a much richer, truer, somehow more authentic identity as a "woman-identified-woman. Perhaps just as tellingly, gay men and women who have thought HeinOnline -- 81 Geo. To put this point autobiographically, I know with utter confidence what flavors of ice cream I prefer, but I am no clearer now than I was twenty years ago in what direction my sexual orientation lies, or what my "preference" is, or even whether or not I "have" one. I have no idea whether I'm a "Kinsey one" or a "Kinsey three" or a "Kinsey six. The social science method that Posner emulates and employs may indeed help us "know more" about our sexual behavior. But it brings us not one inch closer to "knowing" anything at all about our sexual preferences. On that illusive quest, all we know is how we feel. How we feel about our fluid and changing "sexual preferences," and "sexual orientations," I suspect, is as much unlike how we feel about our preferences for vanilla over chocolate ice cream as just about anything could possibly be. Posner's metaphor trivializes consensual sex in a second sense as well: Eating ice cream may be fun but it does not transform us, at least not very often. Eating the ice cream we least prefer does not traumatize us, discovering we like a brand that we thought we disliked is not particularly enlighten- ing,8" and being required to eat some when we do not want to similarly will leave few scars. Much the opposite is true of sex: It creates a person, not a preference. By the same token, mandatory, compulsory, violent, forced, coerced, or simply unwanted sex creates injuries and psychic wounds so deep that it can easily take a lifetime to transcend them. Ice cream does not. It is this difference that renders the first topic so morally charged and the second morally For a short summary of the debate, recently sparked anew by research evidencing a biological basis for male homosexuality, see Darrell Yates Rist, Sex on the Brain: Are Homosexuals Born That Way? But see DR. All humans, according to Posner, are genetically programmed to reproduce-to see their genetic makeup replicated in healthy offspring. Because of their different reproductive organs, however, men and women have profoundly different strategies for achieving this genetically given end. Men's contribution to the biology of reproduction takes only a few minutes, and they can accordingly impregnate thousands of women over the course of a lifetime. For the woman to maximize her reproductive potential, then, she must be far more concerned about the health and well-being of each of her relatively more scarce babies. One way to do so is to seek out sexual mates who will be helpful fathers and providers. The male cultivates the extensive margin, the female the intensive. The male has a vast potential reproductive capacity because his only abso- lutely indispensable role in reproduction is to inseminate the female, a task of minutes The reproductive capacity of the individual female is so much more limited-twenty children a lifetime was a realistic maximum before in vitro fertilization. The man who wants to father hundreds of children must practice some form of polygyny, and must have, therefore, a taste for variety in sexual partners. A person who indulges such a taste is called, in our society, promiscuous. We should expect many men to be promiscu- ous, in taste if not in action. A woman who wants to maximize her reproductive success must be charier of her sexual favors than a man. She must try to make every The stark absurdity of juxtaposing sex and eating in precisely the way Posner advo- cates has not been lost on comics. So, especially in the evolutionary period,.. Before I start defending her husband, Richard Timney, let me be blunt about just how invidious that position is. Though it is common practice for parliamentarians to employ their spouses, the Home Secretary's employment of her husband was bound to draw scrutiny to her broad interpretation of what constitutes a legitimate expense. A bedroom counted as a primary home. It looked even more unduly cosy when her husband started claiming his expenses, including the purchase of a bath plug and a home entertainment system. Some might have thought, the modern world being what it is, that although the bath plug might be morally neutral if used responsibly, the same might not apply to the home entertainment system. While the Home Secretary was away on official business, on the evening of 1 April at Since these movies were available only on subscription, he had to pay for them. He charged the payment to the public. It is doubtful if the Home Secretary was entertained at all when she found out this was going to be made public at the very time in her career when she has legislation going through parliament to regulate such adult entertainment matters as businessmen putting visits to pole dancing clubs on expenses as if they'd just been to the pub. Tough on pole dancing, tough on the causes of pole dancing - it's a New Labour policy in the grand modern tradition, which takes a moral view that includes the economics, or, if you like, an economic view that includes the morality. Either way, when you hold the position of Home Secretary and have been so outspoken on the topic of adult entertainment on expenses, it isn't the best moment for headlines to be telling the world that your husband has not only been watching porno movies, he has been off-loading the cost of doing so on to the tax-paying public. Her husband has dropped her in it. Some would say that she was already in it, because she has patently never been able to judge the effect of an expenses claim in which a principal item is a salary for her husband's efforts in running her constituency office, a salary with an expense allowance down to and including bath plugs. But he has dropped her further in it, as if that were possible. If she was already in it up to her lower eyelids, he has now stood on top of her head. From where her fringe was previously visible, bubbles are coming up, and it's all his fault. Is there no-one to speak for him? As a professional critic of the media I have always felt it was incumbent on me, as a public duty, to keep up with developments in all the means of expression however disreputable. So for purposes of research I began checking out the adult entertainment channels in hotel rooms all over the world. If I was filming in Hawaii or Tokyo or Berlin I would switch on the adult entertainment channels late at night to see what was on offer and make notes. One of the first things I noted was that although there were hundreds and even thousands of pornographic movies, they all had the same few half-witted story structures. Almost without exception they were manufactured in Los Angeles, with a cast of characters that soon became recognisable, no matter where in the world you were watching. Indeed that was the chief comfort they offered. If you were lonely in a hotel room in Sydney or Amsterdam, there on the screen were the same old familiar few faces from the San Fernando Valley, the men with their improbably low foreheads and permanently puzzled expressions, the women with their enhanced lips and strangely rigid chests, as if wearing a tungsten basque internally. For a student of bad acting, there could be no richer field. It's not as if the porno stars merely lack dramatic talent. They have the opposite of dramatic talent. Yet touchingly they're more interested in the acting challenges offered by the roles they play than the sex. The man pretending to be the scientist whose job is to check the sexual sensitivity of the female astronaut just back from space keeps adjusting the collar of the white coat which proves that he is a scientist. Referring to the revelations around mass surveillance of citizens by the National Security Agency in the US through consumer internet firms, Wales said "billions had been wasted shopping on ordinary people's data in a fruitless search for terrorists". Wales also announced that Wikipedia is to introduce encryption to the site so that users are protected once they sign in, following a similar announcement by Facebook on Thursday. It's non-trivial to do it well, so we have to do it right. This article does not intend to say that teens that send unsolicited sexually explicit photos should not face repercussions. The boy in Washington did engage in sexually harassing activities, and the adult woman could have gotten in legal trouble for possessing the unwanted picture he sent her. The point as I see it is that there are laws other than child pornography laws that could have and should have been used to address the situation. And I'm not a lawyer, but it seems like applying child pornography laws to the case in Washington could establish precedence that unduly restricts the rights of teens to express themselves. Know your rights. For almost years, the ACLU has worked to defend and preserve the individual rights and liberties guaranteed by the Constitution and laws of the United States. Speak Freely. Facebook Twitter Reddit Email Print. View comments Read the Terms of Use. Web page addresses and e-mail addresses turn into links automatically. Lines and paragraphs break automatically. Leave this field blank. Anonymous I can see Sexual Harassment or indecent exposure as a sex offense also punishable by Washington state law as she reported it and did not ask for him to send a dick pick..

I believe it is an injustice to prosecute someone who has committed that crime as if they had committed the separate crime of creating child pornography. These are disparate acts that should warrant different sentences. It is a further injustice to prosecute a consenting minor who sends naked photographs of themselves to another consenting minor the same way you would prosecute Absurd adult free free intellectual porn adult who created child pornography. Alison in my day we had phones and our phone we received crank calls.

And some of these calls click the following article very distrubing. What you did is I believe you can block and unfriend and above all don't open an attachment you may or may not have requested, recognize the sender. But placing a stupid, ignorant minor to possible jail, prison and on the registry for pic, sexting and other stupidity is a slap in Absurd adult free free intellectual porn face for those that have been violently sexually assaulted or killed.

I have worked with several juveniles who have done sexual stuff online, and who have interacted with others sexually online, and have also done various other boundary crossings that are borderline criminal depending on age of other juvenile. Some of them have conduct disorder, and if we allow our youth to text pictures of their genitals to one another, how do we expect young people with sexually deviant behaviors, like exposing themselves, to understand boundaries?

You're a special kind of stupid aren't you? No one here is saying that it is okay to be harassed or be sent unwanted nude photo's and we already have indecent exposure laws and others that cover these crimes. What your small brain fails to Absurd adult free free intellectual porn is that prosecutors are applying child porn laws to these situations which turn a child into a sex offender for life.

They never even get a chance, Pull your head out. In the absence of adverse third party effects, consensual transactions, or trades, maximize welfare by Absurd adult free free intellectual porn each See generally Margaret J.

JOHN S. We ought to permit all such voluntary transactions between consenting adults for essentially the same reason. Click Sally wants to have sex with John and John wants to have sex with Sally and no one else is affected one way or the other, they ought to have sex; both prefer having sex with each other over not having sex, and both would therefore be better off if they did so.

In the absence of third party effects, consensual Absurd adult free free intellectual porn transactions between adults ought to be permitted, then, not to honor the liberal principles of privacy and individual dignity,5 6 but for the purely economic reason that to do so maximizes efficiency by honoring consumer preference. The virtue of this approach from the viewpoint of anyone concerned with gay rights should be obvious: The economic approach to sexuality Absurd adult free free intellectual porn a strong argument, then, for the decriminalization of homosexual conduct.

Indeed, many of Posner's repeated admonitions to treat sex as "morally neutral" are aimed at precisely that result: We should regard homosexuality as we presently regard left- or right-handedness: Although animosity toward homosexuals and their lifestyles may be explicable-and Posner spends a great deal of time explaining this animosity-it is not justifiable. Therefore, in the absence of identifiable costs the Absurd adult free free intellectual porn should be changed to permit homosexual encounters.

There is, without question, a great deal to be said for liberalizing our attitudes toward homosexuality and decriminalizing homosexual behavior. Nevertheless, the particular argument for decriminalization that Posner makes-an agnostic tolerance for any and all preferences, sexual and Posner goes to some lengths to distinguish his libertarian argument from liberal arguments for sexual autonomy, which he regards as a species of "moral" arguments.

It is one that, in the long run, would ill-serve the gay community.

  • Dorothy black sucks cock
  • Partner fuck
  • 60 70
  • Porn pic teen of sexy tight ass and pussy
  • Real sex contacts scam
  • Victoria schukina porn movie
  • Teen pregnancy ads

For while it follows from Posnerian assump- tions that there is no reason to condemn homosexual preference, it Absurd adult free free intellectual porn follows by the same logic that there is no particular reason to condemn homophobic preferences. From an economic, morally neutral check this out, preferences for homosexual sex should be satisfied; but from the same perspective, our collective or communitarian "preference" that we rid our homes, schools, and armed forces of our homosexual sons, brothers, and fathers should also be honored and "satisfied" whenever the economic weighing of costs and benefits counsels that result.

Rather, Posner would invoke a pragmatic tabulation of "costs and benefits" that purportedly point in the direction of ''rational" social policy. Not surprisingly, the costs and benefits as tabulated by Posner almost invariably dictate a reaffirmance of preexisting practice, although of course, for reasons of scientifically sound policy rather than communitarian moral- ism.

The result-which should Absurd adult free free intellectual porn gay rights advocates of the profoundly conservative foundation of Posner's superficially "libertarian" argument for decriminalization of homosexuality-is an astoundingly crisp endorse- ment of the sexual status quo. While Posner insists that our criminal law should be changed to reflect an agnostic Absurd adult free free intellectual porn toward sexual orienta- tion,6" he cannot bring himself to condemn another single social practice or communitarian "preference" as unjustly harmful to the rights and freedoms of gays and lesbians.

Accordingly, Posner cannot identify or endorse a single significant legal or social change that might enhance either homosexuals' freedom or their overall well being. Two examples should suffice. First, as a number of reviewers have already noted,6 1 and lamented, on the basis of a "cost-benefit" analysis, Posner ultimately fails to condemn or even seriously critique the exclusion of gays and lesbians from the armed services.

That failure is a direct consequence read more so much of his theory of sex, as of his more general methodological refusal to engage in moral inquiry: Posner fails either to engage sympathetically and thereby assess the magnitude of the felt pains and pleasures of peoples' lives, or to take seriously the possibility, much I say "sons, brothers, Absurd adult free free intellectual porn fathers" because lesbians are indeed almost invisible from Posner's account.

See generally Ruthann Robson, Posner's Lesbians: Eskridge, Jr. Posner's tally of the "costs" and "benefits" of the military exclusion, for example, shows not only an ex- treme deference to military judgments, 62 but even more strikingly, almost no understanding of the psychic costs of this policy on the homosexual community, and even less understanding of the psychic costs of homopho- bia on the community at large.

There is almost no discussion in this "cost-benefit analysis" of the Absurd adult free free intellectual porn costs to homosexuals of being ex- cluded from this pivotal rite of citizenship.

Posner is opposed to any blanket rule prohibiting homosexuals from parenting. While in theory such a rule might make sense if it were shown that homosexuals make Absurd adult free free intellectual porn parents, there presently is no research, he argues, suggesting that is the case. The psychic cost warrants only one mention by Posner, included, inexplicably, in a laundry list of potential benefits to the military: Among the benefits to the military would be saving the cost of administering Absurd adult free free intellectual porn policy of excluding homosexuals, expanding the supply of soldiers, reducing the incentives to fake homosexuality when a draft is in force, and bolstering the self-esteem of homosexuals by deeming them fit to serve their country in positions of responsibility and danger.

Free porn movies insoector

Common sense suggests that to do so Absurd adult free free intellectual porn to undermine badly a child's or adolescent's fragile sense of self-worth.

What is trou- bling, and again revealing, about Absurd adult free free intellectual porn use of this observation is that there is no similar condemnation of the widespread-indeed, near universal- practice of heterosexual parents condemning homosexuality, a practice surely as damaging, if not more so, to the homosexual child's or adoles- cent's developing sense of self and self-worth.

It may seem perverse, and it should surely seem unfortunate, that Posner, although devoted to "moral neutrality" with respect Absurd adult free free intellectual porn sexual practice, cannot bring himself to criticize a social practice so profoundly damaging to the lives and fortunes of a sizeable number of citizens with so little-indeed, with no-justification.

Were parents of vanilla-preferring children to impress upon those children the necessity, moral and other- wise, of eating chocolate ice cream their entire adult lives, surely Posner would be struck by the undesirability of the practice. Here as well, however, Posner's failure to criticize this pervasive harmful practice stems not from his views on sexuality, but from his insistence on moral "neutrality"-the same insistence that, ironically, leads him to advocate the decriminalization of consensual homosexuality.

As Posner himself insists, the "moral neutrality" urged toward sexual orientation is not pre- mised on source liberal or otherwise principled support of sexual liberty or privacy; indeed, he finds such arguments as spurious as conservative argu- ments for sexual repression.

As a result, there is no more reason to second-guess the homophobic prefer- ence behind the social practice of Absurd adult free free intellectual porn heterosexuality" than there is to second-guess the homosexual preference itself. Thus, his discussion of homosexual marriage ends with the inconclusive observation that "the public hostility to homosexuals in this country is too widespread to make homosex- ual marriage a feasible proposal even if it is on balance cost-justified.

That neutrality does not derive from a liberal commitment to liberty, nor an egalitarian conviction that sexual orientation should not serve as an axis of subordination. Pos- ner's sexual libertarianism, in short, is simply an abandonment of moral practice.

I will comment only briefly on the second "liberal-sounding" implication of Posner's conception of the rationality of individual sexual choice be- cause I have addressed it in detail elsewhere.

This "commodification" theory of sex, in turn, implies a particular conception of the wrongness of rape: A rapist, Posner insists, is essentially a "sex thief'; 71 rape is the theft of one's sexuality. Rape is therefore wrong, and Absurd adult free free intellectual porn, for the same reason that any theft of property-any nonconsensual transfer of assets without transaction costs that might jus- tify bypassing the market-is wrong and criminal.

Whatever might source been believed in the past, or presently is believed by feminists or moralists, the wrongness of rape inheres in the property right of each individual to his or her own body and his or her own sexual services, and in the gain in wealth and efficiency that comes from permitting each individual sovereign power to decide how that commodity like any commodity might Absurd adult free free intellectual porn put to 2 7 use.

See Robin L. The reason stems, again, from defects not so much in Posner's view of sexuality as in the agnosticism toward preferences that is at its root. The problem with Posner's conception of rape as a form of theft and sex as continue reading commodity is what critical theorists have labelled the problem of "legitimation.

Xxnxxx India Watch PORN Movies Milif sex. Viewed in the context of this explicit disavowal of the need or wisdom of any sort of empathic and intersubjective moral inquiry, it is not surprising that a book which, almost without qualification, trumpets efficiency as a regulatory ideal can unflinchingly identify clitoridectomy and female infan- ticide as examples of efficient regulatory apparatuses. The mind numbing pain of clitoridectomy, the infringement of liberty of sequestration, the societal tragedy of female infanticide, and the torture and terror of living in a society riddled by rape simply do not enter into the efficiency calcula- tion. Those pains, those terrors, and those fears, because they are experi- enced by the powerless, are not manifested in the visible choices of market and societal actors. They do not register and are accordingly invisible. The objective and morally neutral methods for specifying what is or is not efficient precludes the difficult labor of understanding the experiences and subjectivities of those whose lives are not reflected in, much less respected by, the choices and reproductive strategies of those whose voices and views are heard. What to a feminist are glaring instances of subordinating practices, to Posner are simply successful adaptations to biological market Indeed, as Posner's language continually suggests, women are acted upon, both sexually and otherwise, by the rational economic and biological male; women, in a fairly literal sense, do not really act at all. Even casual readers, whatever their assessment of the merits of Posner's arguments, will doubtless do doubletakes when confronted with the argument that female infanticide is like thinning trees with a footnote that tells us that the Japanese word for infanticide is also the word for thinning trees , or that men might "tumble toward" the practice of clitori- dectomy as an efficient method of keeping women loyal, or that, while unfortunately rape is a crime, it is underreported, which is almost just as good.. Interested women, though, are likely to react much more strongly to the tone and style of Posner's presentation. Few women readers, even mildly conscious of gender inequality, will fail to feel assaulted, infuriated, or belittled by the relentless male perspective shamelessly employed in this book, or by the descriptions of women, when described at all, as passive, or by the general depiction of women as objects rather than subjects of sexual desire, as receptacles of sexual activity, and as breeders of children replicat- ing some male's genes. Where moral revulsion is appropriate and moral concern called for, Posner's proud dispassion comes across as an amoral and decidedly distasteful reactionary blindness to pervasive injustice. His language, turns of phrase, and overall style, no less than the argument itself, reveal it as such. In a similar but I think more complicated way, Posner's treatment of reproductive sex reveals a blindness toward the moral issues concerning homosexuality. Here, the story is more complicated, because while there is little in Posner's text to cheer feminists, there is a fairly obvious sense in which Posner's sociobiological story of the naturalness of homosexuality is conducive to the liberation of gays and lesbians. Darrell Yates Rist puts the point succinctly in The Nation: Rist, supra note 78, at For that reason, the reaction of the gay-rights community to this book is likely to be different from that of the feminist community. See generally Eskridge, supra note Nevertheless, I think it is fair to predict that Posner's account of the biological origins of homosexual preference is ultimately unlikely to win much admiration from gays and lesbians for the simple reason that he combines his essentialism with a generally gratuitous and almost relent- lessly demeaning depiction of gay life. Furthermore, he does so in a manner that strongly supports the suspicion that the two are somehow linked. For example, Posner's insistence on a sharp, biologically given, dualistic divide between "real" homosexuals and heterosexuals seems to be moti- vated by a virtual passion for rational differentiation: This rational differentiation, should, and I am sure will, leave gay and lesbian readers feeling prodded, demarcated, labeled, and disciplined in near perfect Foucaultian fashion, and ought to leave the rest of us feeling at least perplexed, if not similarly assaulted. Why, for Pete's sake, does Posner have this extraordinary concern over the difference between, for example, real and opportunistic homosexuality, over who's really a homosexual, and who's just faking it because they can't get a girl, over who's a Kinsey 6 and who's a Kinsey 5, over whether an effeminate homosexual is "nelly," "swish," "blase," or "camp"? It is hard to see why the "who is and who isn't" question matters so much to See POSNER, supra note 1, at hypothesizing that for effective social interaction individuals need to be able to rely on the stable identities of people and things and that transvestism threatens that fundamental stability. Thus we learn, for example, that good looking men are more likely to have homosexual experiences whether they are genetically homosexual or heterosexual, because all men, including homosexuals, are more interested in good looks than women, which, in turn, is because all men, apparently now including homosexuals, are genetically programmed to be sexually turned-on visually. Since men are sexually more aroused by visual cues than women are, we expect both men who are sexually interested in men, and women who are sexually interested in men, to dress better that either men who are sexually interested in women or women who are sexually interested in women. But the connection is so tenuous, and the stereotypical norms incidental to this argument so hurtful, that one would think that any level-headed writer would at least contemplate omitting it. The purpose of the extended discussion of homosexual effeminacy is even less clear. The speculations and scientific "predictions" about "masculine" and "feminine" behavior that Posner claims derive logically from his extensive discussion of homosex- ual effeminacy sound, at best, like parlor games. What Posner never acknowledges, and perhaps what he does not realize, is that games of this sort can be harmful. Why gay men, who Posner insists are genetically programmed not to reproduce, and, hence, do not share in the heterosexual man's interest in big-breasted, fertile women, are nonetheless programmed to be turned on visually, is not made clear. His dangerous obsession with identifying, demarcating, differentiating, and cataloguing people into homo and hetero boxes; his manifest discomfort and hostility toward sexual ambiguity, whether transvestitism, transsexualism, bisexualism, or simply weakly held preferences; and perhaps most strikingly, his insistence on minimizing the amount of "true" homosexual preference, while by no means necessitated by his naturalistic claims about the genetic basis of homosexuality, are all certainly facilitated by those claims. If homosexuality is a genetic trait of the sort Posner describes, then perhaps we can definitively categorize people, declare the disorienting and confusing phenomenon of bisexuality to be a distortion of a truer and simpler reality, and state with certainty that it is this percentage-and only this percentage-of the population disabled by the extraordinarily vast array of legal, cultural, religious, and social barriers to an equal or free gay and lesbian identity in a predomi- nantly heterosexual world. Nevertheless, it is ultimately Posner's ethical theory-his steadfast re- fusal to sympathetically engage in the subjectivity of people's lives in order to make moral judgmentslS-and not his essentialism, demeaning though it may be, that skews his treatment of the political issues regarding homosex- uality. Posner collapses the transformation of the social and individual world that would flow from and cause such a profound change in our view of family and family law, into the generic concept of an "increase in self esteem. The failure to empathize is at least a problem with his treatment of the issues, and it is one that is independent, both logically and practically, of his conception of homosexuality as genetically determined. Posner does not, for example, consider the benefit to women, including heterosexual women, of legalizing same-sex marriage. For a discussion of the possibility that same-sex marriages could erode traditional gendered work roles in the home, and thereby ease women's now disproportionately high burden of domestic labor, see Eskridge, supra note 61, at It is, rather, his near-absolute refusal to think imaginatively and empathically about the subjective lives of others. Furthermore, although extraordinarily sensitive to the degree to which one's physical appearance may make it difficult to find a sexual mate of one's choice,13 1 Posner is seemingly blind to the degree-presumably at least as high-to which homophobic policies, attitudes, customs, and laws hinder one's ability to even perceive oneself as homosexual, much less find a willing and desirable partner. It is not unreasonable to suppose, to use Posner's language, that there are far more "true homosexuals" deterred from acting on their preferences than "true heterosexuals," or, to put it differently, that the amount of opportunistic heterosexuality swamps what- ever opportunistic homosexuality may exist. Indeed, the evidence of oppor- tunistic heterosexuality-the sheer numbers of people who discuss the often sizeable percentage of their lives spent "in the closet" as "opportunis- tic heterosexuals," and the needless anguish of those lives-is far less speculative evidence of the existence and extent of opportunistic heterosex- uality than the fanciful set of hypotheses and inference chains Posner uses to build his case for the near nonexistence of true homosexual preference. This refusal to recognize that opportunistic heterosexuality may be more pervasive than opportunistic homosexuality is not facilitated by anything Posner says about the "nature" of homosexuality. This refusal is, rather, entirely a function of his methodological or ethical presumption against the significance, relevance, and existence of widespread practices of subor- dination. And finally, although Posner's essentialism facilitates his obses- sion with demarcation, it is his ethical failure-his inability to recognize social subordination as a constraint on choice-not his sexual essentialism, that grounds his cramped argument against meaningful social and legal reform. If, after all, only two or four percent of the population is unfairly burdened by a homophobic society, rather than the ten percent popularly believed with the remainder engaging in "opportunistic" homosexuality , that is a different matter than if fifteen or twenty percent of the population is burdened, or heaven forbid, most or all of us. Such regula- tion has had the economically rational purpose of ensuring the well-being of children-an "externality" of sex. In what may be the most clever argument of this book, Posner argues that the apparently irrational regula- tion of consensual sex has largely consisted of rational responses to two historical conditions: Historically, Posner argues, cultures that heavily regulate nonmarital or deviant consensual sexuality-with laws against homosexuality, adultery, fornication, and the like-generally manifest two conditions: In these cultures, such as most "Christian" western societies up to and including modern U. Such sex is accordingly heavily regulated. By contrast, in societies in which women are economically dependent on men but the marriages are generally "noncompanionate"-husband and wife are neither expected to have, nor generally have, a friendship, and accordingly, sex between them is ex- pected to serve only reproductive ends-"deviant" sexuality has generally not been heavily regulated. In these societies such as ancient Greece , because sex between husband and wife serves only reproductive, rather than social ends, there is no need to deter nonmarital forms of sexuality that might otherwise threaten marriages. Deviant sex is, therefore, widely tolerated or encouraged, with few adverse effects on third parties, such as children. And finally, in cultures in which marriage is and is expected to be "companionate," but women and children are economically indepen- dent of men, nonmarital and deviant sex may threaten the fidelity of husband to wife, but is far less of a threat to the well-being of children, and therefore, the external effects of sexual deviance are much lower. In these societies such as modern Scandinavian countries , onewill typically find a high divorce rate and very little regulation of sexuality. Very generally, the chronological history of sexual regulation in western culture begins in ancient Greece, where there was little regulation of This argument is presented in several chapters. See the discussion of the history of western sexual mores, id. Regulation increases during times of female dependency coupled with companionate marriage. This story finally ends in modern times with less regulation as women become increasingly 4involved in the paid labor market and, hence, less dependent 13 upon men. These regulations, Posner argues, are just as "rational" as are our individual sexual strategies and, as such, cannot possibly be the product of any injustice, toward women or otherwise. The rationality of historical and modern regulation of sex somehow proves for Posner that such regulation has never been motivated by subordinating or misogynist attitudes toward women. Rather, he argues, apparently misogynist or simply discriminatory sexual regulations are the product of either justifiable or unchangeable ends, and are entirely rational means to achieve them: Since so much sex law seems harmful to women, or at least insensitive to their concerns, it is tempting to suppose that a good deal of that law must be a successful effort by men to redistribute wealth in the broadest sense from women to themselves. But there are several problems with the suggestion. The first is that many legally sanctioned or even compelled practices that are superficially misogynistic may actually be in the best interests of women. This most dramatic example is female infanticide in societies in which women's opportunities are severely limited not necessarily as a result of discrimination. In such societies, infanticide may increase the number and wealth of females who survive to adulthood. The second problem with the suggestion is that neither all men nor all women are identically situated with respect to the benefits and costs of discrimination against the other sex. Fathers of daughters do not benefit from discrimination against women Male employees may gain from excluding women from certain employments, but male employers may lose from such exclusion. Some women benefit from sexual freedom, others lose. And women linked financially or through altruism to men husbands, sons, fathers, brothers may be harmed by measures that redistribute wealth from men to other women. Since men and women have overlapping interests, it is simplistic to attribute a particular law to the interests of men or the interests of women. The problems with this formulation should be obvious: Women excluded from the labor market are rendered that much more dependent upon the men in their private and intimate lives, including men who are employers. This dependence presum- ably benefits such men, even if they are precluded, from time to time, as "employers" from hiring the best person for the job. An altruistic link between a man and a woman may be the foundation of a genuinely overlapping interest, or it may be the outward mask of a private life of self-denial, denigration, and subordination, in which case the woman and the man upon whom she is dependent and toward whom she may appear to be "altruistic" have anything but shared interests. A look at the substance-the subjective reality-rather than the form of women's lives, or an understanding of "dependency" as at least potentially a damaging status would alert Posner to precisely that possibility. Instead, Posner adopts a stance of blindness to the existence of either political subordina- tion or personal misery in the private lives he objectively demarcates as "companionate" and characterized by altruism and benign dependency. The unsurprising consequence of assuming both the intransigence and the naturalness of women's economic dependency upon men is simply that Posner can pronounce as "rational" the scores of sexual regulations that further entrench women's dependency. The only qualification-and then only occasionally and inconsistently noted-is that such regulation must also respond to the moral intuitions that are deeply held by a broad consensus of the community. First, Posner's insistence on the efficient satisfaction of given prefer- ences, constrained only by a weak respect for strongly and widely held His insistence on "neutrality" toward preferences, while unquestionably implying some libertarian reforms, rests on an under- lying conservatism toward the inclinations of individuals, the compulsions and imperatives of nature, and the traditions of society that vests those inclinations, compulsions, and imperatives with a near-absolule authority. This is indeed, as Posner insists, antiutopian work, whether or not it is premised on a rejection of the "plasticity" of human nature advanced by those seeking more radical societal reform. But unless we share Posner's firm belief that "rationality"-understood as the criterion by which we seek the most efficient means to satisfy ends that are themselves insulated from critique-is the best we have to offer and the most that we should seek from our own individual and societal behavior, there is nothing in this work that might lead us to think that this anti-utopian acceptance of the "way things are" is an attitude we ought to share, or that the insistence on the permanence of our individual and societal nature is a presumption we ought to embrace. We need not and should not be so satisfied with the way things are. Second, although the relation of normative economics and liberalism is well beyond the scope of this essay, it is worth noting briefly that Posner's insistence, in this work and others, that his prescriptions for efficient regulation and deregulation of sexuality are within the "liberal" tradition rests on a distortion of that political philosophy. Liberalism has never been committed to the view, itself quite modern and held in its purest form by maybe no one but Richard Posner, that the morally neutral satisfaction of as many preferences as possible will enrich everyone. Equating value with satisfaction of desire is arguably a proposition at the heart of norma- tive economics, but it is not at the heart or periphery of liberalism. Both liberalism and Posnerian ethics do share a commitment to a strong antipa- ternalism, which implies, in part, the wisdom of deregulating consensual sex. So for purposes of research I began checking out the adult entertainment channels in hotel rooms all over the world. If I was filming in Hawaii or Tokyo or Berlin I would switch on the adult entertainment channels late at night to see what was on offer and make notes. One of the first things I noted was that although there were hundreds and even thousands of pornographic movies, they all had the same few half-witted story structures. Almost without exception they were manufactured in Los Angeles, with a cast of characters that soon became recognisable, no matter where in the world you were watching. Indeed that was the chief comfort they offered. If you were lonely in a hotel room in Sydney or Amsterdam, there on the screen were the same old familiar few faces from the San Fernando Valley, the men with their improbably low foreheads and permanently puzzled expressions, the women with their enhanced lips and strangely rigid chests, as if wearing a tungsten basque internally. For a student of bad acting, there could be no richer field. It's not as if the porno stars merely lack dramatic talent. They have the opposite of dramatic talent. Yet touchingly they're more interested in the acting challenges offered by the roles they play than the sex. The man pretending to be the scientist whose job is to check the sexual sensitivity of the female astronaut just back from space keeps adjusting the collar of the white coat which proves that he is a scientist. He holds his clipboard in a scientific manner. Meanwhile the woman playing the astronaut delivers her line of dialogue. I guess something happened to me out there. None of them can act because none of them really has a personality: As a result, they are no more erotic when they disrobe than plaster casts of roughly the same size and weight. I hasten to add that not all of the women are low rent in their physical attributes. All the men look stupid beyond belief, but some of the women would be almost personable in the right light, which this definitely isn't. The lighting is harsh for the same reason that there is so little pubic hair in evidence. The aim is to make the whole thing look clinical. From the erotic angle, adult entertainment movies are made for men whose idea of the adult barely gets beyond the babyish. For anyone with a brain, there is not only no question of being aroused, there is a detectable shrivelling effect on the libido. In time, a connoisseur of the form learns to trust it as a sure-fire means of getting the mind off sex. Is your partner away in Brussels making a speech? Get your mind off sex by watching a porn video. Just don't watch too many of them, or you might burn out your circuits permanently. Plenty of men have done this. They watched Barely Legal Teenage Terminators once too often, and now nothing stirs - even when they eat blue pills like peanuts. Yes men, you can watch the stuff in perfect safety any time you want to quell that urge. The impact on the adult industry was rapid. As the New York Times reported in , as the first "porntube" sites were gaining market share:. The Internet was supposed to be a tremendous boon for the pornography industry, creating a global market of images and videos accessible from the privacy of a home computer. For a time it worked, with wider distribution and social acceptance driving a steady increase in sales. But now the established pornography business is in decline — and the Internet is being held responsible. The online availability of free or low-cost photos and videos has begun to take a fierce toll on sales of X-rated DVDs. In the intervening decade, this process has only accelerated. Today, pornographic DVD sales are a tiny fraction of what they once were. At the same time, streaming viewership has grown to enormous levels:. It's impossible to ignore the top-level stat: That's 50, searches per minute, per second. Wales also announced that Wikipedia is to introduce encryption to the site so that users are protected once they sign in, following a similar announcement by Facebook on Thursday. It's non-trivial to do it well, so we have to do it right. Wales criticised Twitter, which he said has needed faster systems for complaints to protect users from abuse, but also said that illegally abusive behaviour was an edge case that shouldn't deter mainstream internet users. And some of these calls were very distrubing. What you did is I believe you can block and unfriend and above all don't open an attachment you may or may not have requested, recognize the sender. But placing a stupid, ignorant minor to possible jail, prison and on the registry for pic, sexting and other stupidity is a slap in the face for those that have been violently sexually assaulted or killed. I have worked with several juveniles who have done sexual stuff online, and who have interacted with others sexually online, and have also done various other boundary crossings that are borderline criminal depending on age of other juvenile. Some of them have conduct disorder, and if we allow our youth to text pictures of their genitals to one another, how do we expect young people with sexually deviant behaviors, like exposing themselves, to understand boundaries? You're a special kind of stupid aren't you? No one here is saying that it is okay to be harassed or be sent unwanted nude photo's and we already have indecent exposure laws and others that cover these crimes. What your small brain fails to understand is that prosecutors are applying child porn laws to these situations which turn a child into a sex offender for life. They never even get a chance, Pull your head out. Because then any photograph of this nature that a teen takes of themselves is criminalized. Child pornography laws exist to protect children from being exploited by other people, typically adults. It was not intended to prevent them from exploring their own sexuality. This article does not intend to say that teens that send unsolicited sexually explicit photos should not face repercussions..

If rape is wrong because it Absurd adult free free intellectual porn theft, and theft is wrong because it is nonconsensual, then consensual sex must be as right as rape is wrong: The property conception of the wrongness of rape quite directly legitimates the consen- sual sexual transaction Absurd adult free free intellectual porn thereby perpetuates our collective blindness to the pervasive systems of sexual coercion that render all of our heterosexual practices, and not just rape, morally suspect.

For a general discussion of the history of rape law, see Donald A. Dripps, Beyond Rape: For a lucid treatment of a commodity theory of sex and a Absurd adult free free intellectual porn set Absurd adult free free intellectual porn proposals for legislative change, see generally Dripps, supra note I offer a limited endorsement and partial criticism of Dripps's proposal in West, supra note 70 arguing that commodification theory tends to legitimate morally problematic, albeit fully consensual, sexual transactions.

The commodity theory of sex correctly identifies the woman as the check this out of rape, but mischaracterizes the nature of the injury. As common intuition holds, rape is a violation of personhood in the deepest sense imaginable, not simply a violation of property.

And again, Absurd adult free free intellectual porn refusal to undertake the moral work required to see the problematic nature of consensual no less than nonconsensual heterosexual- ity follows from Posner's general ethical claim that preferences, including sexual preferences, are given and beyond critique. It is surely that premise- and not his view on the nature of sex-which implies that the act of consent whitewashes or absolves that to which, and the person to whom, consent is given.

Given Posner's insistence on "neutrality," when consen- sual transactions reflect our preferences, the value of those transactions, in a quite literal sense, is absolutely insulated against any sort of political or moral doubt. Let me end my discussion of Posner's treatment of individual choice by commenting more impressionistically on the central metaphor he uses to describe both our quest for sexual pleasure and the moral attitude we should bring to it: But Posner's metaphor also trivializes consensual sex, and does so in spite of the obvious fact that, at least on some level, sex is indeed "like eating": It is manifestly not the case, however-not these days and not in this culture, anyway-that our sexual "preferences" or orienta- tions are "like" our tastes for vanilla or chocolate ice cream.

To compare or conflate the two is a truly comic falsification.

Sunny leone kiss in ragini mms 2

We do not "know" our sexuality or our sexual preferences with anything like the clarity with which we know our tastes in ice cream. In fact, for many, if not all of us, our own "sexual preferences" are utterly mysterious in a way that our ice cream preferences simply are not; this mystery heightens rather than diminishes as we learn more about human sexuality.

Many women, for example, have felt themselves to be heterosexual only to later discover a much richer, truer, somehow more authentic identity Absurd adult free free intellectual porn a "woman-identified-woman. Perhaps just as tellingly, gay men and women who have thought HeinOnline -- 81 Geo.

Mindgeek, or the Biggest Digital Streaming Platform You’ve Never Heard Of

To put this point autobiographically, I know with utter confidence what flavors of ice cream I prefer, but I am no clearer now than I Absurd adult free free intellectual porn twenty years ago in what direction my sexual orientation lies, or what my "preference" is, or even whether or not I "have" one.

I have no idea whether Absurd adult free free intellectual porn a "Kinsey one" or a "Kinsey three" or a "Kinsey six. The social science method that Posner emulates and employs may indeed help us continue reading more" about our sexual behavior.

But it brings us not one inch closer to "knowing" anything at all about our sexual preferences. On that illusive quest, all we know is how we feel. How we feel about our fluid and changing "sexual preferences," and "sexual orientations," I suspect, is as much unlike how we feel about our preferences for vanilla over chocolate ice cream as just about anything could possibly be.

Posner's metaphor trivializes consensual sex in a second sense as well: Eating ice cream may be fun but it does not transform us, at least not very often.

Eating the ice cream we least prefer does not traumatize us, discovering Absurd adult free free intellectual porn like a brand that we thought we disliked is not particularly enlighten- ing,8" and being required to eat some when we do not want to similarly will leave few scars.

Much the opposite is true of sex: It creates a person, not a preference. This web page the same token, mandatory, compulsory, violent, forced, coerced, or simply unwanted sex creates injuries and psychic wounds so deep that it can easily take a lifetime to transcend them.

Ice cream does not. It is this difference that renders the first topic so morally charged and the second morally For license Woodward ok office drivers short summary of the debate, recently sparked anew by research evidencing a biological basis for male homosexuality, see Darrell Yates Rist, Sex on the Brain: Are Homosexuals Born That Way?

But see DR. All humans, according to Posner, are genetically programmed to reproduce-to see their genetic makeup replicated in healthy offspring. Because of their different reproductive organs, however, men and women have profoundly different strategies for achieving this genetically given end.

Men's contribution to the biology of reproduction takes only a few minutes, and they can accordingly impregnate thousands of women over the course of a lifetime. Order by newest oldest recommendations. Show 25 25 50 All. Threads Absurd adult free free intellectual porn expanded unthreaded. Indeed that was the chief comfort they offered.

If you were lonely in a hotel room in Sydney or Amsterdam, there on the Absurd adult free free intellectual porn were the same old familiar few faces from the San Fernando Valley, the men with their improbably low foreheads and permanently puzzled expressions, the women with their enhanced lips and strangely rigid chests, as if wearing a tungsten basque internally.

For a student of bad acting, there could be no richer field. It's not as if the porno stars merely lack dramatic talent. They have the opposite of dramatic talent. Yet touchingly they're more interested in the acting challenges offered by the roles they play than the sex.

The man pretending to be the scientist whose job is to check the sexual Absurd adult free free intellectual porn of the female astronaut just back from space keeps adjusting the collar of the white coat which proves that he is a scientist.

Man breast kissing girl hot

He holds his clipboard in a scientific manner. Meanwhile the woman playing the astronaut delivers her line of dialogue. I guess something happened to me out there. None of them can act because none of them really has a personality: As a result, they are no more erotic when Absurd adult free free intellectual porn disrobe than plaster casts of Absurd adult free free intellectual porn the same size and weight. I hasten to add that not all of the women are low rent in their physical attributes.

All the men look stupid beyond belief, but some of the women would be almost personable in the right light, which this definitely isn't.

The lighting is harsh for the same reason that there is so little Absurd adult free free intellectual porn hair in evidence. The aim is to make the whole thing look clinical. From the erotic angle, adult entertainment movies are made for men whose idea of the adult barely gets beyond the babyish. For anyone with a brain, there is not only no question of being aroused, there is a detectable shrivelling effect on the libido.

In time, a connoisseur of the form learns to trust it as a sure-fire means of getting the mind off sex. Is your partner away in Brussels making a speech? Get your mind off sex by watching a porn video. Just don't watch too many of them, or you might burn out your circuits permanently. Plenty of men have done this. Black have fun

Women eating women porn

They watched Barely Legal Teenage Terminators once too often, and now nothing stirs - even when they eat blue pills like peanuts. Yes men, you can watch the stuff in perfect safety any time you want to quell that urge. But it might, on the whole, be safer not to expect the public to nod with understanding if you charge the expense to them. I'm quite confident that Jacqui Smith's husband was doing her a service, as it were, when he switched on the purportedly hot movies. He was doing it to cool himself down while he counted the hours until her return.

But then he made the mistake of claiming the cost as a legitimate Absurd adult free free intellectual porn. Keria nightly here hole nude clips.

You are now logged in. Forgot your password? The adult entertainment Absurd adult free free intellectual porn has always been a technology leader. It was an early adopter of distribution via home video and the VCR—indeed, some claim that the porn industry's adoption of the VHS format Absurd adult free free intellectual porn the deciding factor that vanquished its rival, Betamax, in the s.

The adult industry was also among the first Absurd adult free free intellectual porn move from distribution on videotape to the DVD format, and then to online downloads and finally to streaming.

So it is no surprise that the most creative use of the data that is produced by digital distribution comes from the porn world. The Absurd adult free free intellectual porn that does this best is also the largest—and unless you are a pornography expert, you probably haven't heard of it. It claims to have over million daily visitors to its sites, and its Alexa scores Pornhub is 27 globally, just one step behind Netflix—and Pornhub is just one of Mindgeek's many assets suggest these figures are accurate.

But first we explain how the porn industry changed with the advent of streaming—and how it stays alive despite enormous quantities of easily available free content.

So the Absurd adult free free intellectual porn key question about the industry is, how, in a world of almost unlimited free porn, does the porn industry exist at all?

As streaming high quality video article source technically viable the consumption of pornography has moved almost entirely online. The impact on the adult industry was rapid. As the New York Times reported inas the first "porntube" sites were gaining market share:. The Internet was supposed to be a tremendous boon for the pornography industry, creating a global market of images and videos accessible from the privacy of a home computer.

For a time it worked, with wider distribution and social acceptance driving a steady increase in sales. But now see more established pornography business is in decline — and the Internet is being held responsible. Absurd adult free free intellectual porn online availability of free or low-cost photos and videos has begun to take a fierce toll on sales of X-rated DVDs.

In the intervening decade, this process has only accelerated. Today, pornographic DVD sales are a tiny fraction of what they once were. At the same time, streaming viewership has grown to enormous levels:.

It's impossible to ignore the top-level stat: That's 50, searches per minute, per second. The global community was active as well, with over four million videos totalinghours uploaded.

If you were to watch that much porn in a continuous fashion, your eyes would be locked onto the screen for 68 years. The adult industry has adapted to this dramatic change by transforming how it makes money. And that allows it to continue to create new content. In the paper we detail the many adaptations, include camming which is live, and often literally directed Absurd adult free free intellectual porn fans ; the move to merchandising; the rise of custom pornography; and the monetization of social media.

In general, the key aspect is that content, once the core of the industry, has gone from product to advertisement. Content is what builds a brand that can be leveraged in other ways.

Porokia Sex Watch SEX Videos Xtube ebony. It becomes quickly apparent on even a casual reading that Posner's insistence on "moral neutrality" goes well beyond his liberal sounding tolerance of "deviant" sexual preferences and practices. Rather, the "moral neutrality" Posner advocates requires a studied moral apathy toward a bewildering array of practices, customs, habits, and inclinations that cause inestimable amounts of human suffering and reveal the existence of manifest unjust subordination of large groups of persons-primarily, women. I suggest that "moral neutrality" is not the attitude we ought to take toward such behaviors, as either scientists or legislators. Thus, what I argue in this review is that the great and indeed glaring flaw of this book is moral, not conceptual or factual: That flaw, I will argue, reveals deficiencies not so much in the author's understanding of human sexuality-peculiar though it may be-as in the normative economic approach to valuation that runs through- out the book: What this book most stunningly reveals, in other words, is the utter failure of normative economics as a moral theory of politics. We cannot and should not rely on the tools of economics to guide our individual moral judgments and intuitions about right and wrong or good and evil in matters of sexuality. And if Posner is right that our sexual behaviors are as rational as our other behaviors, then we should not rely exclusively on economics to guide our communitarian decisions about the rest of our social life either. What this book inadvertently proves is The last third of the book, entitled The Regulation of Sexuality, applies this general strategy to a range of regulatory topics. More specifically, I argue that the liberal sounding stance of "moral neutrality" toward sex that Posner advocates is, in practice, a profoundly illiberal refusal to engage in two particular moral practices, both of which are necessary to the task of doing justice: Both moral practices- the recognition of patterns of unjust subordination and the empathic response to the pain of others-are central to social criticism of existing social structures. Social criticism, in turn, ideally is the first step toward morally responsible regulation of social life. The willingness and ability to identify and critically assess subordinating practices, and to empathize with the undue suffering of others, are not prejudices that impede rational deliberation and social control, as Posner believes them to be. Accordingly, it is precisely Posner's refusal to judge morally the sexual preferences, practices, laws, and customs he discusses that not only leaves his book stylistically flat and distasteful, but also renders his normative prescriptions unsatisfactory. Posner's moral neutrality, in short, is not the strength of his book; it is its glaring weakness, and threatens to distort an appreciation of the book's virtues. Moral neutrality and dispassionate inquiry are one thing, but moral apathy and disinterest in the face of suffering and cruelty are quite another. Ignoring the difference-not knowing which practices or behaviors cry out for censure and which could genuinely benefit from dispassionate inquiry-is not benign, scientific hard- headedness. It is, rather, a form of moral obtuseness. It is an attitude that should ground neither the study nor control of human sexuality. Because of this academic judge's unwillingness, in this case, to judge his subject matter, Posner has not told a recognizably human story about where we have been, nor has he provided us any wisdom regarding where we ought to go. This essay addresses each of three quite separate claims that Posner makes about the rationality of sexuality. The first claim, summarized above and addressed in detail in Part I, is that individuals act as rationally in their quest for sexual pleasure as they do in any other aspect of their lives. The second claim, which I take up in Part II, derives from the recent work of evolutionary sociobiologists, that the two sexes are genetically rational in pursuit of their biological urge to reproduce. Thus, just as individuals rationally choose among their options to maximize sexual plea- HeinOnline -- 81 Geo. A vast array of social customs that may otherwise appear irrational, malig- nant, or misogynist, are in fact purely rational responses to biological constraints imposed on our desire to reproduce. The third claim, dis- cussed in Part III, is that not only are our individual hedonistic and reproductive strategies rational, but so too are our social customs, regula- tions, and beliefs regarding sex. Even the most apparently irrational sexual regulation-the regulation of entirely consensual sex-Posner con- tends, is a rational societal response to historically contingent conditions. Thus, taken as a whole, Posner argues that our individual sexual choices reflect rational responses to our biological desires for sexual pleasure and the production of offspring, and that our social customs and laws regarding sexuality reflect rational responses to historical and cultural conditions. To all three of these aspects of human sexuality-individual choice, repro- ductive strategy, and societal customs-Posner proposes an attitude of "moral neutrality. Rather, by making "neutrality" all, and by aggressively eschewing any empathic engagement with the suffering of subordinate people, Posner has embraced a moral method that is not only incomplete but fundamentally unjust as well. An individual will choose to have sex, Posner argues, for one of three reasons: We all have a desire for sex, although men have a far stronger one than women, that resembles the desire we have to scratch an itch: The third set of reasons for engaging in sex-the social-is not grounded in our "biology" but in our sociability. See infra Part II. Whatever the motive, our sexual choices, Posner argues, are "rational" in the sense meant by economists: When engaged in to satisfy a desire-the first of the three reasons-sexual behavior is much like eating ice cream. If we prefer vanilla over chocolate and both flavors cost the same, we will choose vanilla; but if vanilla costs much more than chocolate, or is not available at all, we may choose chocolate instead, even though we prefer vanilla. That, Posner explains, is the essence of rational deliberation and choice, and the study of such rational choice is the essence of the science of economics. Sexual behavior, when engaged in for the pleasure of satisfying sexual desire scratching the itch , has the same analytic structure as ice cream consumption. We each have a given-probably innate, but at least hard- wired and unchangeable-set of sexual preferences. If the costs of either option are the same, our choices will reflect those preferences. If, however, the cost of having sex with an object of our preference is very high, or if the option is not available at all, then we may substitute the less preferred alternative. Thus a heterosexual man-a male who prefers sex with women-will choose to have sex with women unless the cost of fulfilling that preference is extraordinarily high, or not available. If, for example, because of his appearance, manner, or some other undesirable set of attributes, a hetero- sexual man has no success in attracting a woman, then his "search costs" for fulfilling his heterosexual preference will be high, and he may choose sex with a man or boy instead. That is all that Posner means by the claim that our sexual behavior is rational. When we have sex for one of the more complicated "social" reasons-to cement relationships, or to fulfill some other social end-our choices are also rational. Thus a prostitute may choose to have sex for a particular price, reflecting her preference for the money over other uses of her time and sexuality. Or a woman may choose to have sex with the man who is the father of her children, even if she is not particularly attracted to him, in order to "keep him at home": If there are too many constraints placed on his preferred option, however, he may substi- tute some less preferred alternative and, if he does so, his choices will not reflect his actual preferences. Thus, if the heterosexual male lives in a society that does not recognize companionate unions between men and women, 9 he may opt for the less preferred alternative and create such a relationship with a man instead. I have extrapolated this example from what Posner says in Sex and Reason. See id. As several reviewers have noted, because Posner almost never presents his argument from a woman's perspective, the rationality of women's choices must be inferred from what he says about men's choices. See, e. Hadfield, Flirting With Science: POSNER, supra note 1, at explaining higher rate of homosexuality in ancient Greece by the fact that women were not considered companions for men and were treated as inferiors. Not only homosexuality, but most other nonheterosexual behavior, including so-called "perversions," are also often "opportunistic" in that they are rational choices in the face of constraints imposed on the preferred heterosexual outlet. Masturbation is the simplest case: Posner hypothesizes that about two percent of the male population is homosexual and even fewer fe- males and that it has always been such. Duberman et al. That there may exist a society in which most people eat choco- late ice cream does not necessarily mean that most people prefer choco- late to vanilla, if vanilla is very costly or not available. Similarly, a society, like ancient Greece, in which there is a lot of homosexual conduct, does not imply that a large number of males are homosexual, if heterosexual women are not available because, for example, they are sequestered , or if heterosexual companionate unions are not possible because the women are uneducated, and, therefore, too uninteresting to be worthy compan- ions. As charged, controversial, and fascinating as it may be on its own accord, Posner's descriptive account of the rationality of individual hedonis- tic sexual choices is, for the most part, functional: Because sexual behavior is rational and we can, therefore, subject it to rational control, Posner argues, the end toward which we should control sexual behavior is no different than the end toward which we should control any behavior: We can and should control sexual behavior with the traditional tools of the scientif- ically or economically savvy legislator. In Sex and Reason, unlike his earlier work, Posner simply assumes a general consensus on the normative proposition that, for the most part, regulation of public behavior should proceed on the normative economist's assumptions: Posner then argues in the bulk of the book that, contrary to the intuitions of most of us, the economic approach toward regulation can and should apply to sexual behavior as well. See generally Richard A. Posner expresses only one reservation. The efficiency of a practice, Posner concedes, does not preclude the "case for reform," in part because "[tihe assumption that efficiency HeinOnline -- 81 Geo. And, although ignorance, fears, and false beliefs in the past generated a vast array of censorious and for the most part repressive moral attitudes toward sex, there is no longer any reason for such attitudes to taint and distort the rational regulation of sex. We should, rather, take a morally neutral stance toward sexual preferences and inclinations, and take a rational approach toward their regulation. Although we may ratio- nally differ over what the costs and benefits of various regulatory policies may be, we should all agree on Posner's central normative contention that our sexual preferences should be regarded neutrally and our sexual behav- ior, no less than any other behavior, accordingly subjected to rational- meaning economic-study and control. Posner's repeated insistence that we should be "neutral" toward sexual preferences, then, is by no means a liberal argument for greater sexual privacy or anything of the sort, although it is likely to be read as such, as I will discuss in some detail below. It is, rather, an inference from his larger and longstanding ethical claim that we should be neutral toward all prefer- ences, or put differently, that the end of legal regulation of all aspects of social life should be the maximization of wealth. In all spheres of life, we should maximize wealth by satisfying preferences, and we should do so regardless of the content of those preferences. We have no more basis to judge some preferences as better suited to the good life than any other, and we have no reason to think of our sexual preferences any differently. Posner's normative thesis, then, is simply that, as is true of all behavior, we should regulate sexual behavior toward the efficiency governed end of satisfying as many sexual preferences as possible while minimizing their costs, regardless of the content of those preferences. From this premise, Posner draws out a wide array of normative conse- quences, some of which are familiar to Posner's readers,4 6 but which are re-argued, or argued in greater detail, in this book. We should permit, for example, the commodification and sale of reproductive services and babies because such transactions unproblematically maximize wealth and we have no legitimate basis, moral or otherwise, for interfering. He does not, however, even explain, nor at any point does he endorse, any argument against the position that efficiency should guide policy. Labeling not only masturbation but also rape and pedophilia as rational substitutes for sex,5" or regarding the commodi- fication and sale of sexual and reproductive services and babies as morally unproblematic5 1 sounds not just stylistically odd, but morally deaf. For many readers squarely within the mainstream and resolutely centrist in their politics, sexual and otherwise, the positive conception of sexuality Posner puts forward, combined with the "agnosticism" he advocates with regard to our sexual "preferences," may have quite the opposite effect than that which he intends. To the extent Posner convinces the reader that our sexual choices are as "rational" as our choices in nonsexual matters, the book may suggest not the viability of the economic control of sexual behavior, but rather the questionable status of the concept of rationality generally, and the dubiousness of a morally neutral stance toward any and all "preferences," sexual and otherwise. There is simply no good reason to be "neutral" toward all held preferences, and this book constitutes an unintentional reductio ad absurdum of the position that there is. The common intuitions shared by many of us that sexual commodifica- tion is in general not a good thing, that the commodification of babies would be a quite bad thing, and that rape evidences not a rational substi- tute for sex but a malignant impulse toward women are, indeed, grounded in moral practices. Those moral practices are not, as Posner assumes they are, 52 simply blinders to the rational and hence preferable attitude that idealized social scientist kings ought take toward sexual regulation. Rath- er, they are part of a complex understanding, itself grounded in a general sympathy for the human condition, a general feel for human experience, This is so even if our felt satisfaction from having those preferences met is of a greater magnitude than the misery inflicted on others. We do so, or we should do so, continually, both on an individual and on a societal level. Our "preferences," so understood, are not simply the given determi- nants of our choices, they are also the products of our social lives and interactions. Just as important, they are the objects of moral reflection and criticism, which we can and do change through moral critique. And 20 states — but not Washington — have enacted new laws that provide a range of charging and sentencing alternatives to prosecutors that avoid the sledgehammer impact of a felony child pornography charge and conviction in sexting cases. The word "perverse" is most commonly associated with a sex act. But in this case the judge and the system is truly where the perversion lay. I can see Sexual Harassment or indecent exposure as a sex offense also punishable by Washington state law as she reported it and did not ask for him to send a dick pick. But using the child porn law in this way is wrong. How the hell is getting a dick pic without asking for it not sexual harassment. How is being repeatedly asked for nudes not sexual harassment? How is this not criminal? There is an enormous difference between two adults consensual exchanging nudes and 13 year old girls being sent dick pics without asking for them and being constantly asked and harassed for nudes. He wasn't prosecuted for sexual harassment. A year-old girl who takes a nude photo of herself could also be prosecuted for child pornography, under this precedent. Do you think that's reasonable? I think sending naked pictures without obtaining consent should be considered sexual harassment, and it should be illegal. I believe it is an injustice to prosecute someone who has committed that crime as if they had committed the separate crime of creating child pornography. Well, why then, are beautiful women considered sexy, and are highly desired? Perhaps a correct perspective would be that sex is a feeling evoked by the mostly visual stimulus. Mike, Listowel, ON Canada. It's like a short, sharp espresso shot of what you need - not realistic but that's not the point of it. Getting upset or jealous about either pursuit is pure ignorance. RJ, London. I sincerely hope that this article is meant to be tongue-in-cheek, and not actually judging on the British people for living with outdated morals. I have no idea which expenses are able to be charged to the public directly gourmet food, fine wines? I would expect then it justifying an expense that seems absurd on its face, then there should be a showing of direct causation that his job effectiveness was increased in proportion to the cost of the movies. The article's meant to be satirical, right? Time to grow up perhaps? And definitely time to put MP's on fixed and realistic salaries, and scrap the gravy train. Stephen du Toit, London, UK. Clive James's view is an interesting one, but doesn't paint the entire picture. Porn appeals to the animalistic side of a persons sexuality, particularly male - no emotions, no ties, seemingly perfect blonde women. It's pure unadulterated sex, sex itself being a basic instinct. Now people may choose to enjoy porn for many reasons; partner is away, they can't find a partner themselves, they need to release a little tension. However, the rapid ascension of porn's popularity suggests a nation that is desperately sexually frustrated, and it's naive to suggest that Mr Timney was watching to "cool himself down". Steve, Leicester. Whether Clive James wishes to believe it or not, loads and loads of people love porn in the world. And while it may be dumb, and stupid, and intellectually vacuous, they still do! So while Clive can peddle his wonderfully morally upright view of the world where there is nothing more beautiful than Klimt's expressions of bliss, countless millions can go watch some porn and revel in their base, low desires. I know where I'll be. Sam Child, London. Needless to say my wife doesn't understand. Michael, Newcastle upon-Tyne. Most Popular Now 56, people are reading stories on the site right now. Search term: The BBC is not responsible for the content of external sites. Reuse this content. Order by newest oldest recommendations. Show 25 25 50 All. Today, pornographic DVD sales are a tiny fraction of what they once were. At the same time, streaming viewership has grown to enormous levels:. It's impossible to ignore the top-level stat: That's 50, searches per minute, per second. The global community was active as well, with over four million videos totaling , hours uploaded. If you were to watch that much porn in a continuous fashion, your eyes would be locked onto the screen for 68 years. The adult industry has adapted to this dramatic change by transforming how it makes money. And that allows it to continue to create new content. In the paper we detail the many adaptations, include camming which is live, and often literally directed by fans ; the move to merchandising; the rise of custom pornography; and the monetization of social media. In general, the key aspect is that content, once the core of the industry, has gone from product to advertisement. Content is what builds a brand that can be leveraged in other ways..

Mindgeek, as the world's biggest repository of free porn, is at the center of these changes. Because Mindgeek is so big, it harvests massive amounts of data about what, and how, viewers watch. It makes money via advertisements and subscriptions, of course. But what is most interesting is how it Absurd adult free free intellectual porn data to shape the production of new porn.

Sex personals Watch XXX Movies Michelle Sexysat. He wasn't prosecuted for sexual harassment. A year-old girl who takes a nude photo of herself could also be prosecuted for child pornography, under this precedent. Do you think that's reasonable? I think sending naked pictures without obtaining consent should be considered sexual harassment, and it should be illegal. I believe it is an injustice to prosecute someone who has committed that crime as if they had committed the separate crime of creating child pornography. These are disparate acts that should warrant different sentences. It is a further injustice to prosecute a consenting minor who sends naked photographs of themselves to another consenting minor the same way you would prosecute and adult who created child pornography. Alison in my day we had phones and our phone we received crank calls. And some of these calls were very distrubing. What you did is I believe you can block and unfriend and above all don't open an attachment you may or may not have requested, recognize the sender. But placing a stupid, ignorant minor to possible jail, prison and on the registry for pic, sexting and other stupidity is a slap in the face for those that have been violently sexually assaulted or killed. I have worked with several juveniles who have done sexual stuff online, and who have interacted with others sexually online, and have also done various other boundary crossings that are borderline criminal depending on age of other juvenile. Some of them have conduct disorder, and if we allow our youth to text pictures of their genitals to one another, how do we expect young people with sexually deviant behaviors, like exposing themselves, to understand boundaries? Bernini almost did it, Gustav Klimt almost did it, and if you're a man dying for lack of love you could start with them. But looking at porno movies will get you so far in the opposite direction that you might as well watch a programme about stock car racing. The real story in this matter, however, isn't about a man watching images. It's about a man leaving a paper trail. In that respect, it was he who hadn't caught up with the modern age. In a hotel, they promise you that the name of the porno movie you watched won't show up on your bill. But if somebody else is paying your bill, they can easily figure out that you watched it. Richard, if you had resigned yourself to paying for those two stupid movies with your own money, Jacqui wouldn't be paying now. Clive has this one wrong. With smoking, it became clear that there were physical dangers. And then the tide turned against it. With porn, there are psychological dangers, maybe not the TV porn Clive watched but internet porn he hasn't. Free, and some of it uploaded by amateurs, including teenagers, of themselves. When people talk about a clash of cultures, the obsession with porn and easy accessibility and apparent lack of concern should be right up there with the worst of reality TV as something that denigrates our society. Gary, London. I'm not so sure of the "conclusions" of the author. In my humble opinion, one views porn not to take one's mind "off" sex, but to take one's mind "on" sex. Mostly, it's my experience that married folks view porn to view sexual acts that they aren't likely to do with their partners If they DO have partners. Clive James really is living in the past with bygone blinkers on his specs if he thinks the British public are still fixated with a view of pornography akin to Carry On movies. As any adult with internet connection can access the most hardcore of material and visitors to Ann Summers' sex shops are more familiar with a smorgasbord of exotic sex toys and other explicit paraphernalia - it's unlikely than anyone under the age of forty five in the UK equates adult entertainment with the ribald laughter of Barbara Windsor and Sid James. Get real James. Richard Bevan, London. Interesting observation, "sex is about feeling,.. Well, why then, are beautiful women considered sexy, and are highly desired? Perhaps a correct perspective would be that sex is a feeling evoked by the mostly visual stimulus. Mike, Listowel, ON Canada. It's like a short, sharp espresso shot of what you need - not realistic but that's not the point of it. Getting upset or jealous about either pursuit is pure ignorance. RJ, London. Peter Suderman 4. The cops were there to break up a fight, not start one. Pete Buttigieg. Mayor Pete pitches a vague policy as a cure to help fix "the lack of social cohesion" that he says defines contemporary America. Nick Gillespie 4. Search for: Email Address. As we write: As the New York Times reported in , as the first "porntube" sites were gaining market share: At the same time, streaming viewership has grown to enormous levels: Most Read. This heavily footnoted, exhaustively researched, and immi- nently accessible book is a welcome introduction to the interdisciplinary study of sex. For the lay reader it presents an arresting set of speculations about human sexuality, drawn from the author's evident familiarity with a sizeable library of studies representing at least half a dozen scientific and social scientific disciplines, assembled in a readable and lively way. Of more interest, perhaps, to academicians and social scientists familiar with the literature, the book also proposes an ambitious, counter-intuitive, and sure to be controversial sociobiological argument about the essential na- ture of sexuality. This argument aims to account for both the universality of some sexual behaviors, on the one hand, and the extraordinary diversity of sexual customs, beliefs, and practices, on the other. Posner concludes on the basis of "cost-benefit analysis" rather than principle that we should, for the most part, abandon all attempts to steer or control purely private, consensual sexual behavior through the criminal law. As important as all of these projects may be, they are clearly secondary to the author's central purpose, which is neither sociological, biological, nor legal, but rather, economic. Above all else, Sex and Reason is an attempt by our most prominent rationalist to prove the absolute universal- ity of economic reasoning in human choice and behavior by showing the rationality of our presumably most irrational choices and behaviors: Thus, as the author states in his opening remarks,6 the large purpose of this book is to explain the rationality of our sexual behavior, and thereby limit, if not disprove the Aristotelian dictum, quoted in the book's opening epigram, that "[Sexual] pleasures are an impediment to rational deliberation,. On the contrary, Posner insists, although forces beyond our control heavily determine our sexual "preferences," this hardly distinguishes them from other preferences that are similarly given rather than chosen. Accordingly, the determinism of our sexual preferences hardly disqualifies them from the benefit of dispassionate study and con- trol by the trained economist's eye. The overarching purpose of this book, then, is to draw an analogy from areas of life in which Posner assumes there is some consensus that eco- nomic, or rational, choice governs conduct, 8 to those areas of life touched by sexuality, in which it is largely but erroneously believed that rational choice plays no part. Posner concedes that our sexual preferences them- 4. HeinOnline -- 81 Geo. Rather, our conduct is rational within the parameters set by our preferences. Just as our "preference" for one bundle of commer- cial commodities over another determines not our choices, but the costs we assign to them, so our sexual preferences, Posner argues, also largely beyond either individual or social control, determine not who or what we choose-same sex, different sex, fetish, whatever-but the costs we place upon our available options. Our sexual choices are rational responses to the costs placed on various sexual acts just as our commercial choices are rational responses to other costs. In both spheres, our behavior reflects a thoroughly rational response to the perceived costs and benefits of the different courses of action open to us. Not surprisingly, Posner couples his substantive claim about the rational- ity of sexual behavior with a normative claim about the appropriate social and legal control of sexuality: Both for purposes of study and for purposes of regulation, we should regard sexual prefer- ences as of no greater moral moment than a preference for vanilla over chocolate ice cream. It becomes quickly apparent on even a casual reading that Posner's insistence on "moral neutrality" goes well beyond his liberal sounding tolerance of "deviant" sexual preferences and practices. Rather, the "moral neutrality" Posner advocates requires a studied moral apathy toward a bewildering array of practices, customs, habits, and inclinations that cause inestimable amounts of human suffering and reveal the existence of manifest unjust subordination of large groups of persons-primarily, women. I suggest that "moral neutrality" is not the attitude we ought to take toward such behaviors, as either scientists or legislators. Thus, what I argue in this review is that the great and indeed glaring flaw of this book is moral, not conceptual or factual: That flaw, I will argue, reveals deficiencies not so much in the author's understanding of human sexuality-peculiar though it may be-as in the normative economic approach to valuation that runs through- out the book: What this book most stunningly reveals, in other words, is the utter failure of normative economics as a moral theory of politics. We cannot and should not rely on the tools of economics to guide our individual moral judgments and intuitions about right and wrong or good and evil in matters of sexuality. And if Posner is right that our sexual behaviors are as rational as our other behaviors, then we should not rely exclusively on economics to guide our communitarian decisions about the rest of our social life either. What this book inadvertently proves is The last third of the book, entitled The Regulation of Sexuality, applies this general strategy to a range of regulatory topics. More specifically, I argue that the liberal sounding stance of "moral neutrality" toward sex that Posner advocates is, in practice, a profoundly illiberal refusal to engage in two particular moral practices, both of which are necessary to the task of doing justice: Both moral practices- the recognition of patterns of unjust subordination and the empathic response to the pain of others-are central to social criticism of existing social structures. Social criticism, in turn, ideally is the first step toward morally responsible regulation of social life. The willingness and ability to identify and critically assess subordinating practices, and to empathize with the undue suffering of others, are not prejudices that impede rational deliberation and social control, as Posner believes them to be. Accordingly, it is precisely Posner's refusal to judge morally the sexual preferences, practices, laws, and customs he discusses that not only leaves his book stylistically flat and distasteful, but also renders his normative prescriptions unsatisfactory. Posner's moral neutrality, in short, is not the strength of his book; it is its glaring weakness, and threatens to distort an appreciation of the book's virtues. Moral neutrality and dispassionate inquiry are one thing, but moral apathy and disinterest in the face of suffering and cruelty are quite another. Ignoring the difference-not knowing which practices or behaviors cry out for censure and which could genuinely benefit from dispassionate inquiry-is not benign, scientific hard- headedness. It is, rather, a form of moral obtuseness. It is an attitude that should ground neither the study nor control of human sexuality. Because of this academic judge's unwillingness, in this case, to judge his subject matter, Posner has not told a recognizably human story about where we have been, nor has he provided us any wisdom regarding where we ought to go. This essay addresses each of three quite separate claims that Posner makes about the rationality of sexuality. The first claim, summarized above and addressed in detail in Part I, is that individuals act as rationally in their quest for sexual pleasure as they do in any other aspect of their lives. The second claim, which I take up in Part II, derives from the recent work of evolutionary sociobiologists, that the two sexes are genetically rational in pursuit of their biological urge to reproduce. Thus, just as individuals rationally choose among their options to maximize sexual plea- HeinOnline -- 81 Geo. A vast array of social customs that may otherwise appear irrational, malig- nant, or misogynist, are in fact purely rational responses to biological constraints imposed on our desire to reproduce. The third claim, dis- cussed in Part III, is that not only are our individual hedonistic and reproductive strategies rational, but so too are our social customs, regula- tions, and beliefs regarding sex. Even the most apparently irrational sexual regulation-the regulation of entirely consensual sex-Posner con- tends, is a rational societal response to historically contingent conditions. Thus, taken as a whole, Posner argues that our individual sexual choices reflect rational responses to our biological desires for sexual pleasure and the production of offspring, and that our social customs and laws regarding sexuality reflect rational responses to historical and cultural conditions. To all three of these aspects of human sexuality-individual choice, repro- ductive strategy, and societal customs-Posner proposes an attitude of "moral neutrality. Rather, by making "neutrality" all, and by aggressively eschewing any empathic engagement with the suffering of subordinate people, Posner has embraced a moral method that is not only incomplete but fundamentally unjust as well. An individual will choose to have sex, Posner argues, for one of three reasons: We all have a desire for sex, although men have a far stronger one than women, that resembles the desire we have to scratch an itch: The third set of reasons for engaging in sex-the social-is not grounded in our "biology" but in our sociability. See infra Part II. Whatever the motive, our sexual choices, Posner argues, are "rational" in the sense meant by economists: When engaged in to satisfy a desire-the first of the three reasons-sexual behavior is much like eating ice cream. If we prefer vanilla over chocolate and both flavors cost the same, we will choose vanilla; but if vanilla costs much more than chocolate, or is not available at all, we may choose chocolate instead, even though we prefer vanilla. That, Posner explains, is the essence of rational deliberation and choice, and the study of such rational choice is the essence of the science of economics. Sexual behavior, when engaged in for the pleasure of satisfying sexual desire scratching the itch , has the same analytic structure as ice cream consumption. We each have a given-probably innate, but at least hard- wired and unchangeable-set of sexual preferences. If the costs of either option are the same, our choices will reflect those preferences. If, however, the cost of having sex with an object of our preference is very high, or if the option is not available at all, then we may substitute the less preferred alternative. Thus a heterosexual man-a male who prefers sex with women-will choose to have sex with women unless the cost of fulfilling that preference is extraordinarily high, or not available. If, for example, because of his appearance, manner, or some other undesirable set of attributes, a hetero- sexual man has no success in attracting a woman, then his "search costs" for fulfilling his heterosexual preference will be high, and he may choose sex with a man or boy instead. That is all that Posner means by the claim that our sexual behavior is rational. When we have sex for one of the more complicated "social" reasons-to cement relationships, or to fulfill some other social end-our choices are also rational. Thus a prostitute may choose to have sex for a particular price, reflecting her preference for the money over other uses of her time and sexuality. Or a woman may choose to have sex with the man who is the father of her children, even if she is not particularly attracted to him, in order to "keep him at home": If there are too many constraints placed on his preferred option, however, he may substi- tute some less preferred alternative and, if he does so, his choices will not reflect his actual preferences. Thus, if the heterosexual male lives in a society that does not recognize companionate unions between men and women, 9 he may opt for the less preferred alternative and create such a relationship with a man instead. I have extrapolated this example from what Posner says in Sex and Reason. See id. As several reviewers have noted, because Posner almost never presents his argument from a woman's perspective, the rationality of women's choices must be inferred from what he says about men's choices. See, e. Hadfield, Flirting With Science: POSNER, supra note 1, at explaining higher rate of homosexuality in ancient Greece by the fact that women were not considered companions for men and were treated as inferiors. Not only homosexuality, but most other nonheterosexual behavior, including so-called "perversions," are also often "opportunistic" in that they are rational choices in the face of constraints imposed on the preferred heterosexual outlet. Masturbation is the simplest case: Posner hypothesizes that about two percent of the male population is homosexual and even fewer fe- males and that it has always been such. Duberman et al. That there may exist a society in which most people eat choco- late ice cream does not necessarily mean that most people prefer choco- late to vanilla, if vanilla is very costly or not available. Similarly, a society, like ancient Greece, in which there is a lot of homosexual conduct, does not imply that a large number of males are homosexual, if heterosexual women are not available because, for example, they are sequestered , or if heterosexual companionate unions are not possible because the women are uneducated, and, therefore, too uninteresting to be worthy compan- ions. As charged, controversial, and fascinating as it may be on its own accord, Posner's descriptive account of the rationality of individual hedonis- tic sexual choices is, for the most part, functional: Because sexual behavior is rational and we can, therefore, subject it to rational control, Posner argues, the end toward which we should control sexual behavior is no different than the end toward which we should control any behavior: We can and should control sexual behavior with the traditional tools of the scientif- ically or economically savvy legislator. In Sex and Reason, unlike his earlier work, Posner simply assumes a general consensus on the normative proposition that, for the most part, regulation of public behavior should proceed on the normative economist's assumptions: Posner then argues in the bulk of the book that, contrary to the intuitions of most of us, the economic approach toward regulation can and should apply to sexual behavior as well. See generally Richard A. Posner expresses only one reservation. The efficiency of a practice, Posner concedes, does not preclude the "case for reform," in part because "[tihe assumption that efficiency HeinOnline -- 81 Geo. And, although ignorance, fears, and false beliefs in the past generated a vast array of censorious and for the most part repressive moral attitudes toward sex, there is no longer any reason for such attitudes to taint and distort the rational regulation of sex. We should, rather, take a morally neutral stance toward sexual preferences and inclinations, and take a rational approach toward their regulation. Although we may ratio- nally differ over what the costs and benefits of various regulatory policies may be, we should all agree on Posner's central normative contention that our sexual preferences should be regarded neutrally and our sexual behav- ior, no less than any other behavior, accordingly subjected to rational- meaning economic-study and control. Topics Internet. Reuse this content. Order by newest oldest recommendations..

In the paper we detail this process of "data-driven authorship," using a script Mindgeek shared with us. Mindgeek does what Netflix, Spotify, Amazon and Absurd adult free free intellectual porn also do—it uses consumer data to recommend, to categorize, and to invest. But Mindgeek goes one step further. It actually makes Absurd adult free free intellectual porn decisions based on the data. And that process, we believe, has big implications for intellectual property law and theory.

We turn to that tomorrow. College PC. Administrator says they "were unable to reach consensus as to what we wanted to achieve with this event," which Absurd adult free free intellectual porn pure doublespeak.

Robby Soave 4. Mueller Investigation. The president heedlessly created the appearance that he was trying hard, though ineptly, to hide something. Jacob Sullum 4. Was the president saved by the swamp he campaigned against? Peter Suderman 4. The cops were there to break up a fight, not start one.

Pete Buttigieg. Mayor Pete pitches a vague policy as Dildo sissy strap cure to help fix "the lack of social cohesion" that he says defines contemporary America.

Nick Gillespie 4. Search for: Email Address.

Absurd adult free free intellectual porn

As we write: As the New York Times reported inas the first "porntube" sites were gaining market share: At the same time, streaming viewership has grown to enormous levels: Most Read. Meaty muscle cock facilas.

Related Videos

Next Page
Age Verification
The content accessible from this site contains pornography and is intended for adults only.
Age Verification
The content accessible from this site contains pornography and is intended for adults only.
Age Verification
The content accessible from this site contains pornography and is intended for adults only.
Age Verification
The content accessible from this site contains pornography and is intended for adults only.
Age Verification
The content accessible from this site contains pornography and is intended for adults only.