Gccgrad: Rougly 5% of the population has some sort of complusive addictive problem. Liquor, gambling, smoking, drug use. . . . . I would assume that some people may encounter problems with porn where they need to view it more and more often and/or material that is more and more shocking. Just becuase a small percentage of the population may have this problem does not mean we should ban it. We should offer options for some sort of treatment for the people who have become addicted. It never ceases to amaze me that the way the US handles its drug problem is by locking people up---not treating them. Nixon was the one and only US president who faught the drug problem with treatment. There is no way you are going to eliminate these compulsive problems entirely--and as long as the total percentage remains at around 5% or below, I would not consider it to be a problem but rather a function of society that needs help in dealing with their problem.
<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Originally posted by Canarsie: At least the topic is not "Should X-Rated Movies Be Banned From Airline Entertainment Systems?"
Hmmm....a way for airlines to quickly return to profitability???....</font>
....with Virgin Atlantic becoming the #1 airline in the world
Location: Grand Rapids, MI USA UA 1K, AA EXP 1MM, SQ PPS, BA GOLD, Hyatt D, Hertz Plat and AMEX Cent
Posts: 2,998
Incredibly stupid ideas like this are well up on the list of what gives America a bad name overseas - we really can be pathetic at times with our PC obsessions - and I AM politically right to boot!!!!
Tango: First, with the current value system of our society, I don't know that banning is feasible. The nature of our culture is that we let people make their own mistakes to a point (e.g. smoking). However, whether or not to ban it begs the question of it having detrimental effects. I would challenge that 5% of figure encompassing all additions as very low. One sneaky difficulty concerning addiction is that denial is usually present (making it very difficult for sociologists to accurately quantify population percentage). However, stats (flawed though they may be) on sexual addition alone range from from 5 to over 10 percent. I believe it is in somewhere in between:
"The National Council on Sexual Addiction Compulsivity estimated that 6%-8% of Americans are sex addicts, which is 16 million-21.5 million people."
Source: Cooper, Alvin, Dana E. Putnam, Lynn A. Planchon, and Sylvain C. Boies. "Online Sexual Compulsivity: Getting Tangled in the Net." Sexual Addiction and Compulsivity, 6:79-104. (Taken from Amparano, J. "Sex addicts get help." The Arizona Republic, p. A1. 1999
That would mean 1 in 14 Americans have some level of difficulty with this (the percentage being higher in men). I certainly consider this to be detrimental.
However, I do completely agree with you that as a country we handle the drug problem very poorly. People with any sort of an addition need to be set free from that addition by whatever means possible, and locking them up without treating them is not an effective solution. They need compassion and accountability. I think this is why many faith-based addition-help programs have much higher non-recidivism rates than the national average
[This message has been edited by gccgrad (edited 01-10-2003).]
The big difference between porn and other "vices" is all humans have a biological need to reproduce. To say that 5% or 10% of the population has a problem becuase they watch too much porn is a stretch. To lay claim that Porn is harmful becuase it is the reason why people go down the wrong path reminds me of the days when you would go blind if you used your hand on certain areas of your body.
One could argue that the US has a unhealthy approach torwads human sexuality. It is in our nature to be sexual and it used every day from everything in the way we dress to advertising but we are often told that it is "wrong" or "dirty". It is a pity that Public Schools do not talk about the other armies that followed the revolution armies around---the one's that were made up the familes/wifes and prositutes to give comfort to the troops---that would be a bit of honest history.
Programs: UA 1K, HH Silver, Reno Air MEGA Platinum, Alcoholics Unanimous ;-)
Posts: 7,668
As someone who worked in the hotel industry for quite a few years, I can assure you that pornographic movies are a HUGE source of revenue for a hotel. In this sluggish economy, with the hotel industry suffering greatly, it is VERY unlikely that they will allow such a big source of revenue to be removed.
Hotels do not list movie titles on your bill, but it is somewhat common for prices to vary for porno and non-porno titles.
Hotels (at least the ones I worked for) offer the option to have adult movies blocked for your room so that your children (or irresponsible employee ) can't watch them. This is a free service. If you don't like porno, block it when you check in. Its so simple really.
If those PC freaks don't like it, they can sleep in their cars.
------------------
"I just wanna wish you good luck, we're all counting on you"
-Dr. Rumack
Well, I'll quote my favourite theorist on the erotic mind on this subject, Dr. Jack Morin.
"If a brilliant misogynist were to devise a plan to increase the sexual mistreatment of women, he surely would begin a propaganda campaign to convince everyone that fantasy and behaviour are interchangeable. If it worked, we would gradually come to believe, as many already do, that demeaning, disgusting or brutal images are the same as destructive acts. Unfortunately, this is the same dangerous message the antipornography movement is unwittingly propagating. Those who target fantasy representations for suppression are subtly blurring the boundaries between fantasy and behaviour....lack of clarity about the difference between fantasy and action is responsible for more destructive sexual acts than all the violent pornography in the world - of which there is relatively little, especially compared to the unrelenting depictions of violence in the mainstream media committed by and against sexy people."
"In my limited experience working with sex offenderes, I've consistently seen their difficulties distinguishing thoughts from acts, a curious phenomenon also noted by pros who specialize in this area. "
[However] "in spite of my opposition to suppressing porn, I disagree with those who claim that pornography is totally benign. I"ve seen how porn sometimes contributes to very real problems...."
"...a small segment of it is truly horrifying because it gives expression to the darkest impulses of the human mind. Nonetheless, perceiving porn as the enemy and seeking to eradicate it (a losing proposition) is counterproductive because it diverts our attention from the more realistic goal of forging societal consensus about acceptable behaviour."
Ah, now there's the rub. Acceptable behavior. Although I agree with Dr. Morin that such banning crusades are futile and even counterproductive, I can't go along with the 1960s credo, "do whatever you want, so long as it doesn't hurt anyone." The problem is, to unilaterally declare that something 'doesn't hurt anyone' i.e. is harmless, is no better than to unilaterally declare that it is harmful. Sigh, life ain't ever straightforward, is it?
<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">
Yes. But unfortunately the hotel had "£10" films and "£25" films. You can guess which rate applies to which type, and what were the amounts on the bill in this case.
</font>
25 Pounds? Isn't that about the total production cost of the average porn-movie;-)
Location: San Antonio, TX; CO Platinum; DL Gold; UA Premier Executive
Posts: 9,298
Quote:
<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Originally posted by Bradford: 25 Pounds? Isn't that about the total production cost of the average porn-movie;-)</font>
I think the ₤25 figure was a little misleading. The in-room movie actually only cost ₤10 to watch. The remaining ₤15 was for "room clean-up."
In all seriousness though, if you actually have an employee who thinks ₤25 per movie is a good investment, then maybe you should give him a pink slip. I sure as heck don't want somebody like that giving consulting advice to me. Maybe he's the guy that recommends that NASA and the USAF spend $150 per screwdriver!
<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Originally posted by QuietLion: What possible scientific significance could it have that a certain percentage of crime victims have a certain theory about the motivation of the perpetrator?
It reminds me of a spoof of "USA Today" put out by the Harvard Lampoon when I was an undergraduate. A colorful graphic below the fold screamed out, "Lead is heaviest element, poll shows."
"There are three kinds of lies: lies, **** lies, and statistics."
-- Mark Twain
QL</font>
It reminded me of a David Letterman item one time that said a recent USAToday poll showed that 75% of the American People make up 3 quarters of the American People!
My answer to the original question is absolutely No, and I believe that far more than 50% of the in-room viewing revenue comes from porn. I had a friend who used to work for Spectravision, and it was widely referred to as Spank-travision.
I posted on the GLBT forum once (too lazy to link right now) that I was surprised to see hard-core gay porn on the TV's at the Hyatt Regency in Chicago! I thought it might have been there for that particular weekend as a gay event was in town, but it has remained everytime I have returned.
I don't buy for a second the arguments that porn is responsible for domestic violence, murders, etc. People who have a propensity for the kind of fixation cited in gcc's studies will develop that fixation in any environment. There are people who read the newspaper or watch TV and get inspired/incited to go out and commit crimes, but that doesn't mean the newspaper is inherently bad.
The arguments are really similar to the arguments that books like Catcher in the Rye, etc. put the wrong ideas into people's heads and so should be banned.
I should also note that it appears to be a free market action the group is undertaking, not seeking nay new laws, which is well within their rights. I'm sure that a chain or two could carve out a nice niche by proclaiming themselves porn-free, but it won't be most chains.
It reminds me of an article I saw somewhere (maybe the Wall Street Journal) that described the AOL secret as being the porn king with a family-friendly face on it. chatrooms, instant messenger, webcams in messenger were all AOL innovations that first and foremost served their sex clientele. It was suggested that Time Warner ruined it all by getting all prudish about it, and AOL's innovations stopped. Intersting theory.
------------------ robb is clearly within the margin of sampling error - Googlism
FWIW; I read once that one of the biggest porn distributors in the world is the Mormon Church--through their stake in Marriott. This caused me to laugh my ... off for several minutes.
Best porn title of all time: Splendor in the ***
Religion--the opiate of the masses...that and NASCAR
[This message has been edited by csb (edited 01-22-2003).]
This story, pertaining to large corporations profiting from the sex industry, which appeared on ABC News on January 23 nationwide in the United States, might be of interest to those who are interested in this thread.
Especially of interest is the part concerning hoteliers and X-rated films, which coincidentally is the topic of this thread.
What is your opinion?
[This message has been edited by Canarsie (edited 01-25-2003).]
I know this is old, but it's already been bumped up anyway ... a few comments:
* One hotel chain, I'm pretty sure it's Omni, does not allow pornographic movies on it's PPV systems.
* Although most hotels tout that the movie title does not show up on your bill, most hotels seem to charge more for porn than non-porn movies somewhat negating this "benefit". I was checking in to a hotel last month and the guy in front of me paid cash for his $12.95 movie charge. Guess what kind of movies were $12.95?
* Porn is going high-tech. Two hotels I've stayed at recently had special WebTV/Porn services where you could pay $15.95 or so for the typical WebTV access but you also got access to on-demand porn through the web browser. The porn they had was what I would consider pretty hard-core (anal, groups, etc.).
) can't watch them. This is a free service. If you don't like porno, block it when you check in. Its so simple really. 
