A famous thought-experiement states that if you drop a frog into a pot of boiling water, it'll try and get out. Whereas if you raise the temperature slowly, giving the frog time to acclimate to the increasing temperature, it'll stay put and eventually boil to death. In instances where this experiemtn is used as an example, it's in how when done all at once things rarely work, whereas if you do thema little bit at a time they do work. This then is what we see in California with the proposed adjustment to Bill AB 640 which required all porn films made in the state to have male actors wear a condom. But the adjustment is trying to get goggles added to protect from bodily fluids like semen from getting in (presumedly through the mouth, eyes, or other entry point to the body as with cuts or abrasions.)

Porn goggles? Reading up on HIV/sti infections rates in the California porn industry there are in fact occurences of HIV, syphallis, gonorhea, chlamidia, and other things, but statistically the numbers are lower than the general population because of mandated testing long in effect. So I think this is less about worker safety than it is trying to require porn to make films the ones pushing such laws know is economically unpopular. I personally don't care for porn if it features condoms. Part of the enjoyment of porn is fantasy and I don't think many fantasize about having sex if part of it requires a condom. Ths the ones who'd love to see porn vanish completely are forcing laws that will make consumer demand less, and that in turn will reduce the amount of porn made and sold. At least in California. While California might produce a lot of porn, globally it isn't the epicenter so these kinds of laws aren't going to be much more than reduce tax revenues from the California porn industry as consumers get their porn from other states and countries.

When Usenet binary newsgroups were stripped of all porn years back it resulted in about 20 seconds inconvenience for me as I simply got it elsewhere online. Since porn's a business, instead of attacking it like a regular moral issue, all the attackers succeed in doing is hurting themselves when they loose revenue as they disable local incarnations of it. If this proposed adjustment passes, it'll get talked about, made fun of, but ultimately not change much of anything as totally unprotected porn will still get made, and some industry insiders say many wont even abide by it. Look out folks, here comes Orwell's "1984" Anti-Sex League and Police state.

Guess writing about this the other day has my mind in this sort of setup to make connections from seemingly unrelated things. Below is a copied forum post I was gonna make, but it's more a personal blog entry than on-topic sorta thing.

Following learning that NYC is going to make sales of tobacco products in the city restricted to age 21+ (when the federal age to use such products remains 18) I decided to take a look at age of consent laws in the US (since I live here, though curious I'm less-so about other places except for comparative purposes.) But since posting here I'm mainly going to speak on the sexual age of consent laws.

I've long been curious how these laws came about, having a more general interest in the origns of things as with etymology (the origin of words.) But usually having other things on my mind I realize I've never actually looked into it. Until today:

The first age-related sex law on record appears in an English statute from 1275, which made it punishable by two years' imprisonment and a fine "at the King's pleasure" to "ravish" a "maiden within age," regardless of her consent. "Within age" meant younger than 12, the accepted age at which a woman could marry, as determined by the fact that most girls passed their menarche, or first period, at about that time.

The 1275 statute and comparable laws from that era were not predicated on the desire to protect female children per se. Rather, their chastity was at issue, since defiled women were not considered fit to marry. That this social code motivated the first age-of-consent laws is made clear by the fact that girls "known" to be promiscuous were exempt from protection—once ruined, fair game.

Since that time, age-based consent regulations have been established around the world for a number of reasons: to protect the virginity of women from predatory men, to keep predatory women from entrapping older men, to limit sex before marriage, to disrupt colonial subjects' traditionally young marriage practices (e.g. the British in India), and, more recently in the [b]U.S., to combat teenage pregnancy.[California's Penal Code makes specific mention of this in their legal statutes - "The Statutory Rape Vertical Prosecution Unit of the Stanislaus County District Attorney’s Office is an integral part of a concerted effort on the part of our citizens to reduce teen pregnancy."] (Source: http://www.ageofconsent.com/california.htm)[/b] Unsurprisingly, America's consent tradition began as a take on the British model, setting the initial age at 10. Individual states set the bar from 10 to 12 until the turn of the 20th century, when moral-reform movements successfully lobbied state legislatures to increase the age to 16 or higher.

Currently, ages of consent in the U.S. range from 14 to 18, while internationally the spread is slightly larger, from 12 to 18. Most Western nations set the bar at around 16, but Spain is a notable exception, at 13. In some countries—especially those controlled by religious orders—legal ages of consent matter less than cultural norms, such as a strict ban on sex outside of marriage.

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/explainer/2011/02/16_going_on_17.html

Since one of the major reasons for these laws is combatting teen pregnancy we should ask who stands to benefit politically (since nothing politicians do is out of the goodness of their hearts, there's always a political angle.) Republicans in the US are the party against abortion for the most part. And they like to portray themselves as the moral/religious party as well. So they often are the lawmakers pushing restrictions on sex type laws as with ages of consent.

If Republicans succeed and make abortion illegal again, the birthrate will go up. And since abortions are often seen in lower income women who aren't likely Republican, by controlling the teen birthrate and reducing or eliminating it in this demographic they're...

[ Continued ]

Something that literally just occured to me is that back when the tobacco companies were being sued and it came out in testimony or internal documents that they were manipulating nicotine levels to make cigs more addictive, it's exactly what's happening now with food companies formulating their snack foods to have the right blend of sugar, salt, and fat to be more edible or addictive. So many people suffer from clinical depression and other psychological issues in just the US, I wonder how many of those cases are a direct result of diet, and in particular, something like addiction to junk food. Caught a segment on one of the news channels the other morning discussing the spicyness of Cheetos and how kids are showing up in emergency rooms for it, then it went into new detergeent 'pods.' But during the segment the doctor being interviewed made mention of food companies manipulating the levels of salt, sugar, and such to be more consumable and delicious. And it just clicked that that's what the tobacco companies got in so much hot water for among other things. Yet why aren't we expressing our outrage over that if obesity and diet-related psychological issues are plagueing the nation? I can't be the only one to make that connection so let's hope it's coming soon.

Most mornings I watch a bit of news switching between the big 3 cable guys from interesting item to interesting item or to whoever isn't at commercial. Yesterday and this morning, items about young teens commiting suicide after enduring all the bullying they could handle appeared along with a 12yo school shooting where the shooter might have been bullied and also commited suicide. I'm left in a state of stunned upset wondering why kids are commiting suicide because of bullying. I was bullied mercilously in grade school but never got suicidal or felt murderous. So I wonder if it's something new, or if it's always been like this but not covered as well. Reading around, I'm surprised to find scientific papers written as far back as the 70s addressing this very topic. More surprising, solutions have been discovered yet don't seem to have left the halls of academia as yet for the real world, been implemented, and solved this problem. So we're all left to scratch our heads and ask why, when we know why. If you're being violent, the capacity to think and feel love and affection is literally disabled in the brain, and vice-versa. In other words, if expressing positive love-filled thoughts you're incapable of expressing hate-filled ones.

source:
http://ttfuture.org/bonding/blog/brain-pleasure-systems-inhibit-brain-violence-systems#!

The larger issue being too, a lack of affection and love and sex in a person's life often will result in hate filling in those gaps and violence acting out instead of love.

source:
http://www.violence.de/prescott/bulletin/article.html

We know why violence will occur. We know how to prevent it. Yet we still decry sexuality at every turn so I'm forced to ask this question: Is it deliberate to perpetuate a violent country's militaristic agenda of domination of energy reserves in the middle east?

Didn't know there was a name for my set of beliefs, but reading this I don't find myself disagreeing with any of it:

HUMANISM AND ITS ASPIRATIONS
Humanist Manifesto III, a successor to the Humanist Manifesto of 1933*

Humanism is a progressive philosophy of life that, without supernaturalism, affirms our ability and responsibility to lead ethical lives of personal fulfillment that aspire to the greater good of humanity.

The lifestance of Humanism—guided by reason, inspired by compassion, and informed by experience—encourages us to live life well and fully. It evolved through the ages and continues to develop through the efforts of thoughtful people who recognize that values and ideals, however carefully wrought, are subject to change as our knowledge and understandings advance.

This document is part of an ongoing effort to manifest in clear and positive terms the conceptual boundaries of Humanism, not what we must believe but a consensus of what we do believe. It is in this sense that we affirm the following:

Knowledge of the world is derived by observation, experimentation, and rational analysis. Humanists find that science is the best method for determining this knowledge as well as for solving problems and developing beneficial technologies. We also recognize the value of new departures in thought, the arts, and inner experience—each subject to analysis by critical intelligence.

Humans are an integral part of nature, the result of unguided evolutionary change. Humanists recognize nature as self-existing. We accept our life as all and enough, distinguishing things as they are from things as we might wish or imagine them to be. We welcome the challenges of the future, and are drawn to and undaunted by the yet to be known.

Ethical values are derived from human need and interest as tested by experience. Humanists ground values in human welfare shaped by human circumstances, interests, and concerns and extended to the global ecosystem and beyond. We are committed to treating each person as having inherent worth and dignity, and to making informed choices in a context of freedom consonant with responsibility.

Life's fulfillment emerges from individual participation in the service of humane ideals. We aim for our fullest possible development and animate our lives with a deep sense of purpose, finding wonder and awe in the joys and beauties of human existence, its challenges and tragedies, and even in the inevitability and finality of death. Humanists rely on the rich heritage of human culture and the lifestance of Humanism to provide comfort in times of want and encouragement in times of plenty.

Humans are social by nature and find meaning in relationships. Humanists long for and strive toward a world of mutual care and concern, free of cruelty and its consequences, where differences are resolved cooperatively without resorting to violence. The joining of individuality with interdependence enriches our lives, encourages us to enrich the lives of others, and inspires hope of attaining peace, justice, and opportunity for all.

Working to benefit society maximizes individual happiness. Progressive cultures have worked to free humanity from the brutalities of mere survival and to reduce suffering, improve society, and develop global community. We seek to minimize the inequities of circumstance and ability, and we support a just distribution of nature's resources and the fruits of human effort so that as many as possible can enjoy a good life.

Humanists are concerned for the well being of all, are committed to diversity, and respect those of differing yet humane views. We work to uphold the equal enjoyment of human rights and civil liberties in an open, secular society and maintain it is a civic duty to participate in the democratic process and a planetary duty to protect nature's integrity, diversity, and beauty in a secure, sustainable manner.

Thus engaged in the flow of life, we aspire to this vision with the informed convi...

[ Continued ]