Posts by Sarah Wood8

Morgan Bishop4 said:I actually think 😁
is pretty good. Sure, it’s total trash and the jokes are incredibly dumb, but that’s exactly why it works for me 🙏 🙏. I found myself laughing, and since I can't stand Twilight, I honestly love seeing people rip it to shreds.
Maybe I’m just a bit slow for laughing at such mindless humor, but hey, 😁 it beats sitting there pining over Edward and staring at a boring Twilight plot where absolutely nothing happens.

Look... I'd much rather watch a parody of stupidity than the actual STUPIDITY itself! I used to laugh at those teen parodies like Scary Movie all the time, even if they were generally ridiculous.
For instance, that scene where James Woods plays a priest pooping in a stall while flies swarm around him, followed by that exorcism where the girl gets shot—that’s one of the funniest comedic bits ever put on screen. That’s only within the first ten minutes, though... I don't remember a single thing after that, but that bit with James Woods alone makes it worth it because Woods is great and those scenes are so absurdly stupid you have no choice but to laugh.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j1pty_KWJ8c

☕

Just another trashy teen parody of what is probably an even trashier teen flick.
Honestly, just watching the trailer for Twilight made me want to gag. You've got all these meathead kids using their looks to drain the cash registers, all wrapped up in some moronic plot about werewolves and vampires... it's a complete disaster.

I can respect anyone's perspective, but I also feel obligated to voice my own convictions. 😁
For instance, I’ve never quite understood people who can't stand instrumental music. It always makes me think of those crowds obsessed with low-brow country music; it strikes me that they might actually lack any musical ear at all, or perhaps their mindset just gravitates toward that specific American style—those generically repetitive tracks loaded with mindless, cliché lyrics that all sound exactly the same.

I’ve always been more drawn to melody than to whatever "deep, profound lyrics" people try to sell. Maybe that's why I lean toward classical, or even certain pop tracks and various genre blends. I won't limit my taste to one box, but I definitely know when something hits right.
Take Ennio Morricone, for example. I love him because his music feels organic, aggressive, hyper-sensitive, neurotic, and visceral... there's a little something for everyone in there. Honestly, I found more intrigue in his experimental pieces than I did in that *Kind of Blue* album, but hey, we already established that tastes are subjective.

To me, when a certain genre becomes a tool for snobs to signal how much they belong to an "elite," it actually kills my affection for those artists. Nowadays, it's treated like a sacred truth that calling Nick Cave, Bob Dylan, or Leonard Cohen "boring" is automatically a sign of incompetence.
There was a time when people listened to what they actually enjoyed. Now, we’re surrounded by these deeply insecure types who will follow the global consensus of music critics to the letter, just so they can feel superior to the rest of the "unrefined masses."

And what happens as a result? Because of this growing mentality, artists like Dylan, Cohen, Cave, Waits, and even the entire heavy metal scene end up becoming music for the masses. Everyone listens to them just to feel special, but they aren't being unique anymore—they're just being predictable. Personally, I find that aspect of human character absolutely revolting.
Then you have the people who mock "mainstream" music or "suburban" pop, yet if you look at the follower counts for major metal bands on Facebook compared to those critically acclaimed artists, the numbers tell a different story. Compare that to someone like Michael Bolton or Barry Manilow, who are labeled as "radio-friendly" music for a "mass audience" that doesn't even exist anymore.
Today, the masses listen to a completely different kind of garbage because they’ve developed this manufactured "self-awareness," and their egos demand they consume what is deemed "quality."

So, on one hand, we had the trash MTV fed us since the 90s, and today we have the trash that is critically acceptable, which somehow makes it automatically valid.
Because of this, you see more and more people claiming to be jazz fans just so they can sit in a coffee shop and condescendingly judge others for not knowing Miles Davis, even though they've barely scratched the surface.
It’s a sad reality that music has become a way to perform "intellectualism."

I’ve heard plenty of great jazz that I loved, and plenty that irritated me, and that’s that. When everything boils down to mere technical playing, improvisation, and rhythm without any emotional shift, it just feels like background noise to me—though I couldn't tell you for what. I want to *feel* the music. Sometimes I want to feel like the music is there for me, not just for the person performing it.

As for Erykah Badu... she’s alright. Not exactly my vibe, but she’s good. I know a girl who is absolutely obsessed with her.

Look, the links you posted are definitely an improvement over "Kind of Blue." Personally, I’ve never really been a fan of that specific vibe compared to what John Coltrane was doing, but there's actually some life and genuine creativity in this stuff.

Robert Kim44 said:Good grief, I can't even remember the last time I stumbled upon this much absolute garbage all in one place. Honestly, bravo! 🙏 🙏 🙏
I have to give it to you, your writing style is solid, but man, you completely missed the mark on this one. 🙏
Look, I’m telling you right now, you clearly don't know the first thing about real music. Your peak probably tops out at Britney Spears. Honestly, you can look at my handle and my avatar with all the disgust you want—just make sure you have a trash can nearby so you don't accidentally vomit from the sheer level of revulsion you're feeling. 😁

Look, Prika, you’re clearly suffering from that syndrome where you can only digest simple, cookie-cutter pop structures. I’m not saying that to be condescending or look down on you, but it’s just how most people work. When you’ve spent your whole life surrounded by the same predictable patterns, you start expecting them every single time. Then, the second you encounter something that doesn't follow those basic rules, you just toss it aside as if it's somehow "wrong."
Jazz is an incredibly broad term. Honestly, I’m right there with you on the whole snobbery thing—it absolutely nauseates me when people try to brand jazz as this high-brow music for some pseudo-elite crowd that doesn't know the first thing about actual music. It’s always the same scene: some pretentious jerk shows up to a poolside lounge in Miami, acting like they're sophisticated while listening to endless, boring, stereotypical jazz ballads that have zero soul. 🤮 I have a massive bone to pick with this, mostly because those people who only listen to jazz when they’re dealing with a bout of food poisoning end up having a completely warped perception of what the genre actually is. It’s that same crowd you see swarming around some overpriced table at a high-end gala, where two hundred snobs in tuxedos and evening gowns are just sitting there looking down their noses. $167 That's just disgusting. Honestly, give me a break.

Look, I’ve already said this: "jazz" is such a massive, sweeping term that the subgenres are worlds apart. Most people listen to it through the rhythm—that’s the heartbeat of everything. Once you actually lock into the rhythm first, then everything else starts to make sense. But most listeners? They just latch onto a trumpet line or a sax riff and completely miss the actual structure of what’s happening. They don't even realize what they're listening to. There's this tired stereotype that jazz is just "chill" background music, but for me, it’s the exact opposite. It hits me with this intense, moving energy that makes it almost impossible to sit still while listening, especially when the arrangements get complex. 😬

When it comes to *Kind of Blue*, I’ll admit it’s probably overrated and played out, but that doesn't mean it's bad, hollow, or depressing. On the surface, it feels light and slow—someone used to high-strung, frantic rhythms might find it sounds anemic—but that’s only if you approach it with impatience or preconceived notions. Honestly, maybe you need to be high just to actually perceive what's happening on that record. You're probably too wound up and restless to actually listen to the music instead of just projecting whatever you want to hear onto it. 😬
Funny enough, I also happened to be listening to this for the first time when I was stuck in a nasty depression. But for me, it worked in the exact opposite way—it felt incredibly engaging and positive, actually helping me pull myself out of that bottomless pit for a bit. Then again, maybe I was just too numb at the time to perceive it any other way, huh? 😁

Here’s something a little more positive so you don't end up puking right this second. 😁
http://www.dailymotion.com/video/xez...hings-19_music

Or maybe this Pharoah Sanders - Colors

Or Lonnie Liston Smith - Imani

Sun Ra - Where Pathways Meet

Alright, fair enough!

But there's one thing I just don't get. Why is it that whenever someone dares to touch a sacred cow, people immediately act like if you don't like it, you must be stuck listening to "Britney Spears"?
Is that some kind of rule? Is her name just shorthand for "garbage"? Look, I don't listen to Britney Spears, nor anything remotely like it, but I've heard much worse music than hers. And honestly, the "Kind of Blue" album falls right into that category because, in my opinion, it isn't just overrated—it's exceptionally bad.
And no, I'm not avoiding complexity because I crave simple song structures; if that were the case, I’d still be vibing to all that Modern Talking dance and techno junk I grew up with back in the 90s.
It seems to me like there are two types of people in this world. There are those who love a good melody that everyone else dismisses as low quality. Then there are those who will insist a terrible melody is actually high art.

First off, music isn't math. It might look like math on paper, but that’s not its purpose. Its purpose is to move me on some level.
And no, I’m not some massive jazz fanatic, nor will I ever be, but I think I’ve listened to enough jazz, classical, and various other genres to earn the right to have an opinion.

Sometimes, a great pop song is nothing less than a classic musical work that doesn't constantly evolve. That’s what defines true classical music at its highest level—the way it develops and improvises a basic melody almost endlessly without being trapped by strictly defined forms. Even Beethoven's Fifth Symphony, which I love, is simple compared to certain classical pieces where motifs never repeat, and the composition just builds upon itself.

But getting back to jazz... okay, I’m not obsessed with it, and I won't lecture you about it, but I think Glenn Miller is great, and I’ll listen to Ella Fitzgerald, who has plenty of jazz influence. Personally, I can't stand "pop jazz," like Diana Krall or those modern, half-baked jazz subgenres that are just death by boredom.

Maybe I just prefer the kind of jazz you’d hear in a 1940s Tom & Jerry cartoon, but I’ve heard enough different styles of jazz to conclude that, for me, "Kind of Blue" remains a total pile of trash.

I don't find any depth in it. Take "So What"—it starts out sounding like someone is playing the saxophone and just saying "so what," circling around two tones for, what, ten minutes? It’s dry and monotonous from start to finish. Whether that musical torture lasts two minutes or twenty hours makes no difference to me, because you'll have heard everything in two minutes that you would have heard in twenty hours of that lifeless dragging.

You can try to paint me a picture of some groundbreaking new jazz movement within that album or present it as the greatest miracle on earth. You could send a group of musicologists to explain to me why it's a masterpiece from a scientific or mathematical standpoint. Someone could even write a new Bible about this record claiming it's overflowing with emotion, but there's one small problem: I've listened to it a few times, and no one can sell me that story anymore. From beginning to end, the album is literally just stumbling around in the dark. I don't feel it; I don't see it. It’s not even good background noise. It doesn't convey anything, doesn't spark the imagination, and doesn't stir any emotions. From a musical perspective, it’s completely uninteresting to me. In fact, it actually repels me because it is so dry and senseless that it makes life itself feel a little less meaningful when you realize people consider this not just a good album, but one of the greatest masterpieces in history.
The sheer emptiness and lifelessness of this album hits me on such a deep mental, psychological, and emotional level that it honestly feels soul-crushing.
It makes me lose faith in humanity. This record is just repulsive. It’s incredibly basic, lacks any real creativity, and there isn't a single decent improvisation to be found... just a tedious loop of a few tones that lead absolutely nowhere.
I’ve heard more compelling jazz passages in some of Ennio Morricone's lesser-known soundtracks.
Look, I won't sit here and claim they don't have technical skill, but listening to this made me want to scream, "This can't be real; life actually exists out there, surely this whole thing isn't just one giant lie or a hideous nightmare—there has to be something more than this total nonsense."

Afterward, I actually had to take a Xanax just to settle down.

I have to admit, sitting through the "Kind of Blue" album was one of the most difficult and genuinely painful listening experiences of my life. During a particularly depressive and mentally neurotic stretch of my life, revisiting this record was even more agonizing. The whole thing just left me feeling utterly depressed because of its monotony, its emptiness, and that kind of soulless, colorless jazz noodling that some people—God help them—actually mistake for deep emotion or a "heavenly" experience.
To me, there was zero emotion in this album, zero creativity, zero anything. The only redeeming quality is that they actually know how to play their instruments.
Listening to such overrated garbage is like having someone hand you a piece of Styrofoam to chew on while insisting, "this is the best cake you'll ever taste in your life." The improvisations are boring, simplistic, repetitive, and pointless, and the sheer length of the tracks makes the whole ordeal even more painful.
Honestly, I’d love to see the faces of all those hypocrites and snobs who would look me dead in the eye after I finished listening to this crap and tell me, "you just don't understand music, you don't grasp the depth of this masterpiece, you probably listen to trash and have no taste." I want to look at those assholes with pure disgust while they try to lecture me.
And the performances are so lifeless... the music sounds like someone standing right next to me, whispering in fascination, "Look... there's a guy in the window! Look... a yellow car just drove by! Look... there's a sewer grate! Look... that man has a gray hat!"
And my response would simply be... "Yeah? So what? I DON'T GIVE A DAMN ABOUT ANY OF THAT!"
This music feels like a constant reminder that life is meaningless—that existence is gray, bland, and depressing, and that emotions are nothing more than a pile of dryness and a nauseating, monotonous impression created by this so-called "music."
I practically needed a double dose of antidepressants after finishing that pile of junk.
Just the realization that certain losers have written massive books *only* about this album makes me question the growing absurdity of life on this planet; it shows the exhaustion of the human spirit, joy, happiness, and everything that is supposed to give meaning to this already difficult life.
This isn't music you listen to with your heart, your soul, or your musical sensibility; it requires some sort of pseudo-intellectual approach, which is exactly what makes it even more revolting.
I’ve heard much better jazz in my entire life, even in the dive bars on the wrong side of town.

As far back as I can remember, the "Heavier Things" album has always felt like a massive bore, though I'll admit "Continuum" is a bit more tolerable.

Churches try to medicate people just as much as psychiatrists do, though I won’t dive too deep into that rabbit hole right now because I truly believe an individual has to be the one to save themselves—whether that's through faith, therapy, a good friend, or finding the right outlet.

As far as I can see, the only man who actually managed to heal hundreds of people from their most devastating illnesses all at once—with living witnesses whose stories have been filmed and documented—was Bruno Gröning. He described himself as nothing more than an "antenna" through which God performs the healing. Just being in his presence was enough; there were blind people who regained sight, cancer patients recovered, and those on their deathbeds were completely restored. And this wasn't ancient history; if I recall correctly, it was back in the 1950s. He healed people who didn't even believe in him; they’d just be standing there in a field with hundreds of others outside his house and suddenly, they were fine. Even today, those people can't explain how it happened, they just know they're healthy and hitting nearly 100 years old when they should have passed away decades ago.

It’s a shame that despite having this massive brain, we only utilize a tiny fraction of its potential. Personally, I believe in energy imbalances within the human body, something that aligns perfectly with acupuncture, which is recognized medical practice. We even have our own local experts like Zdenko Domančić working with energy concepts. I've heard it actually worked for some folks.
At the end of the day... whether you call it "Jesus" or something else entirely, it's all proof that there exists something far beyond our physical senses and current understanding.

Then you’ve got the absolute lunatics... those people who just wander the streets aimlessly.

Laura Ross57 said:To me, madness would be defined as:

that feeling where your consciousness just hits an irreversible, ruthless breaking point. It’s when your subconscious starts operating on totally broken logic, making you feel like everyone is out to get you—like there's this invisible repression happening, people meddling in your business, poisoning you, or following you. Real madness... it's probably that state where even a drink won't help you cheer up.😁

When you say "following," I'm guessing you actually mean "spying."😉

From what I understand, schizophrenia is most commonly linked to actual insanity.
Also, psychosis is much more likely to be categorized as madness than neurosis is. As far as I know, psychosis involves a chemical imbalance in the brain, whereas neurosis is more about an overstimulated central nervous system—and honestly, everyone deals with neuroses to some degree, just in different amounts.
For instance, if you see someone out on a street corner talking to someone who isn't there, we usually call that person crazy, and they probably have schizophrenia (though I'm not counting drunks or people just talking on their iPhones where we can't hear them).
Of course, there are plenty of other mental health issues out there, but they aren't typically associated with being "insane." Real madmen don't realize they've lost it, while most people claiming to be crazy (including most of the crowd on this subforum) aren't actually insane; they just deal with neuroses and anxieties.

Henry Sullivan3 said:Come on, they're just kids. It's baby teeth; they grow back. You guys are being way too hard on these poor children. If we keep this up, we'll end up banning everything, like we're living under some kind of strict authoritarian regime...

hahaha... you're such a clown 🤣

Megan Nguyen22 said:I’ve been reading through several posts here lately, and honestly, it’s refreshing to see so many smart takes. It makes me feel a bit better knowing there are still people who realize when something just isn't right. Violence should absolutely be phased out. The tricky part is acknowledging that it existed long before modern cinema—just like pornography did—but things feel fundamentally different today. What exactly is that difference? It feels like we’ve actually become more sensitive to this stuff rather than desensitized. I see so many people reaching a breaking point where they just can't stand turning on the TV anymore, especially when you consider how bad it gets on networks like FOX with their bottom-tier programming.
A lot of us might argue, "Yeah, but we grew up watching violence and porn, and we turned out fine." But the truth is, none of us truly knows who we would have become if we hadn't. Would we be better versions of ourselves? Less frustrated? Less numb?

And don't even get me started on reality TV—the Survivor clones, Big Brother, or those "moment of truth" shows. That might actually be worse than the violence or the adult content. These shows send a message that the bigger the idiot you are, the higher your chances of being noticed and becoming "important." In a world where so many people feel lost in a gray sea of insignificance and feeling replaceable, these shows offer a roadmap for attention-seeking behavior. They basically provide a manual for kids who are starving for validation. Not to mention the way media outlets exploit stories about teen suicides just to drive up circulation, completely ignoring the terrifying possibility that they might actually be planting the idea in someone's head.

There was a time when people were more sensitive to tragedy because they weren't bombarded by it every single day. School violence wasn't this constant headline back then; it seems to have escalated since the 90s, perhaps fueled in part by the fallout from various conflicts.
We didn't used to hear stories about people being beaten to death in the streets, but now, America is slowly turning into Harlem.
Take the Hindenburg disaster, for example. The journalist reporting it live in 1937 actually wept on air. Fast forward to today, and you see news crews in Haiti filming a twenty-year-old kid right after he's been shot by the police. As he's literally dying, foreign journalists just aim their cameras at his face so we can all watch and consume the spectacle, while those mindless reporters don't even bother to step in with a rag to try and stop the bleeding... no, nothing. They just film him until he expires and feed it to us. That scene nearly traumatized me personally.
It’s simple: life just doesn't hold any value anymore. People go online and join forums dedicated to swapping photos of car wrecks and mangled bodies. TV does the exact same thing, and during wartime, filming executions and corpses became a literal trend.
Then we shouldn't act surprised by what our children turn into. Life means nothing to them. There was a case where a group of kids in England tied a boy to a chair, cut him alive, and eventually poured gasoline on him and set him on fire—they reportedly got the idea from Quentin Tarantino's "Reservoir Dogs," if I remember correctly. When you constantly broadcast this stuff, people don't just get numb to it; it subconsciously builds this idea that this kind of depravity is perfectly okay.
Even that series "Oz," which, I have to admit, drove me absolutely insane while I was watching it, might serve as a blueprint for some idiot kids to think those kinds of "interpersonal relationships" are cool to replicate in school... you know, survival of the fittest, demanding respect through fear, forming gangs, and ultimately bullying the weak or killing in the most horrific ways possible.

Quincy:

I honestly think instead of this endless debate over sex versus violence, we should be looking at how both actually impact people of all ages once you strip away all the conservative dogma and the excessive "liberalism" found in the mainstream media. The reality is that we’re bombarded with images of violence and sex every single day. The media pushes these totally unrealistic expectations regarding sexuality, while treating violence like some kind of casual entertainment. How do we escape that cycle? Overhaul the entire education system? That’s probably never going to happen because there's too much money to be made in it. So what's the move? Maybe we should just teach kids the truth behind the stuff they're being blasted with daily. If they can understand the manipulation, their development might be less conditioned by those messages, allowing them to actually distinguish between media-driven narratives and the real world. Since kids obviously can't grasp everything at certain ages, maybe some level of censorship is necessary where we haven't yet found a better way to handle the issue.

The fact that instances of child-on-child violence are climbing year after year—or maybe we're just finally starting to pay attention to it—shows that our education system isn't just struggling; it has completely failed. This isn't just about banning junk food for kids; it's about the fundamental lack of guidance that schools clearly aren't providing. Schools don't teach them how to actually live or how to be decent human beings. Either parents simply don't care, they're too busy, or they're worse than their own children. It's a tough pill to swallow, but we have to fix the way we raise and educate kids. Because if adults don't step up to guide them, they'll be raised by the streets, violent movies, and all that garbage that seems "cool" to some 15-year-old idiot who hasn't found themselves yet. Without a sense of self, they just go looking for identity in fringe groups that thrive on making life miserable for everyone else and recruiting mindless kids who have no backbone.

Look, I get it—most people don't want to sit through tedious dramas or those pretentious indie flicks where some guy just stands in the rain for twenty minutes while we watch.
Hollywood has always been synonymous with both quality and entertainment, but lately, it’s pumped out way more garbage than actual good cinema. Violence can work if it's woven into a solid story—because let's face it, it's inevitable—but violence just for the sake of being violent is pure stupidity. Take the original Rambo; that was a solid movie, meaningful and grounded, which made it a high-quality piece of work. But all the sequels after that? They exist solely to peddle mindless carnage. Once networks like FOX started flooding the airwaves with low-rent action movies starring guys like Michael Dudikoff or Dolph Lundgren, you really start to lose faith. It's just the same junk over and over, following a template where the only goal is to kill, kill, and kill.
There are plenty of violent movies that actually carry a message and aren't just designed to bait an audience with gore. For instance, Stanley Kubrick with Full Metal Jacket or De Palma with Casualties of War serve a much higher purpose than just showing bloodshed. Personally, I think anyone could find value in watching Casualties of War.
Then there are the absolute gems like Perfect World, or The Shawshank Redemption, plus a mountain of great comedies. Honestly, for me, the only truly perfect action series was the Deadly Weapon franchise because the humor was sharp, the themes were decent, and the violence wasn't the entire point.
Even Spielberg makes great films, and so does Sergio Leone—even if his first trilogy was a bit excessive with the violence, it still had substance—as does Ridley Scott. There is a massive range of fun movies and genres that can entertain people of all ages without everything having to boil down to slaughter.
Now, while I find Tarantino interesting, his movies definitely aren't for kids; I’d honestly rather my twelve-year-old son watch porn than sit through one of his films. Besides, the best thing about Tarantino’s work is how he basically lifted dozens of classic musical scores from Ennio Morricone for almost all his movies.
Since his films represent the peak of mindless violence, occasionally sprinkled with a bit of originality and craft, how can anyone justify letting their kids watch them while simultaneously whining about women drinking sperm on some science show or complaining about a pornographic video!?
It's funny how this supposedly ultra-moralistic, Christian society doesn't make a fuss when kids are watching crap like this nearly every single day (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kXOLjOI0cT0), yet they claim seeing a pornographic film would "emotionally damage" them.
It brings me right back to my original point: people are just incredibly foolish creatures who manufacture senseless, illogical rules to mask the worst kind of hypocrisy.

It’s the hypocrisy that really gets under my skin. You can’t force me to sit through religious sermons twenty-four hours a day, but then suddenly you want to ban adult content because it might "damage" a child's psyche? Give me a break! Who’s actually crazy here? At its most basic level, a sexual act is more natural than watching some scene in a Tarantinov movie where someone gets their ear sliced off, doused in gasoline, and slaughtered.
Kids don't have critical thinking skills, sure, but they start distinguishing reality from fiction by the time they hit puberty around eleven or twelve. Personally, I could always tell the difference, though certain disgusting scenes still get to me even now at twenty-nine, whether they're real or just movie magic. That said, I’ve become pretty desensitized to 99.9% of it; nothing really shocks me anymore.
But this whole movement to promote non-violence by scrubbing everything—not just adult films, but any movie with "explicit" sexual scenes (which is just a fancy way of saying people having sex)—feels like what I call the Jerry Springer syndrome.
Jerry Springer is the ultimate example of pure hypocrisy. You have this smart guy making a fortune off people brawling until they bleed over nonsense, broadcasting it to the masses as peak entertainment. Yet, the second some "white trash" guest says a single swear word, they hit them with a "beep." Hold on a second... you let us watch the absolute bottom of the barrel, which honestly has more culture and spirit than a pride of lions, but if someone uses profanity, you censor it and then wrap up the show with some moral lecture? All while two murders happen in the parking lot after the cameras stop rolling.
It makes me wonder... who’s the lunatic? It’s typical American hypocrisy. If you’re going to let us watch people act like animals, then let me hear them talk like humans. Let them laugh in front of the camera and say, "Hope you enjoyed the show," instead of having Jerry act all high and mighty, lecturing us while he rakes in millions from people with an IQ lower than Forrest Gump.

bluewolf0 said:"Sarah Wood8", nice post. Glad someone finally called it out.
It’s just one more thing that goes against basic human nature, pushed by some moral code I have zero interest in.
Humanity is full of paradoxes and most of them are backwards. We accept killing but act like sex is the problem. We all know where those twisted standards originally came from.

From Adam? 😁
Exactly. At the end of the day, people turn out to be nothing more than common hypocrites who commit the worst atrocities while hiding behind a thin veil of fake morality and pure pretension.
I remember when Joe picked a show that dealt with sexuality and science; there was a scene where women were participating in an experiment involving seminal fluid. Suddenly, a mob of self-righteous busybodies jumped down everyone's throats for broadcasting it. People actually risked losing their livelihoods because some moral crusader decided it might "harm the children."
Meanwhile, they don't say a single word about the mindless violence and slaughter kids watch on TV every single day! It's absolutely disgusting.

Honestly, I wouldn't be surprised if there’s some much deeper political agenda driving all this violence. I'm not trying to dive headfirst into conspiracy theories here, but this constant barrage of brutality is definitely desensitizing us. It's reached a point where watching these horrific scenes—whether in movies or real life—has just become our version of saying "good morning."
Take the last twenty years, for example. Back then, seeing a mangled corpse on TV was enough to make anyone turn away in horror. But over the last decade, thanks to endless shows like *CSI* or *Dexter*, we're constantly bombarded with the most revolting footage of human decay, autopsies, and gruesome crime scenes. Two decades ago, people would have been physically sick; today, we've become completely numb to it. It feels like these shows are specifically designed to strip away our empathy. And as for how this is affecting our kids? We honestly don't know yet, and that's the scary part.

Megan Nguyen22 said:It seems like there's an "either/or" mentality here based on some of the posts I've read—as if people think if they watch violence, they aren't watching porn, and vice versa. But let’s be real: one is bad enough, yet both are. It’s wrong. Both are harmful, and any psychologist you ask will tell you the exact same thing. Since when was it considered okay for kids to be exposed to violence? Just because parents might recoil and flip the channel during an intimate scene doesn't suddenly make the violence they allowed beforehand acceptable.
The point remains: constant, repeated exposure to pornography has devastating consequences for children. As for violence, I believe we need much stricter regulations on TV; honestly, I see it as the even bigger issue. And I don't care who tries to claim that pornography is somehow beautiful or connected to love. It simply isn't.

Pornography has nothing to do with love, but it serves as a decent release through masturbation. Besides, any healthy person has a sexual drive and will masturbate if they can't find someone to hook up with. But not everyone has a drive for violence, since that's inherently negative—you're inflicting pain on a living being or taking a life, etc.—yet we're still served up that stuff to watch.
The way a 40-year-old man masturbates to porn is exactly how a 12-year-old would want to do it, yet we tell him he can't. Why shouldn't he?
If we're going to say no, then let's stop with the double standards and get rid of all those slaughters that those same 12-year-olds watch on TV. Sex itself is a normal, natural thing, and it only leaves harmful effects on a child because we adults, in our infinite "wisdom," portray it as something immoral and twisted.
A century ago, women didn't even swim in the ocean; they'd wade in wearing dresses just covering their lower legs so it wouldn't be "sinful" to see their bodies. We don't live in those times anymore, and regarding sexuality, I think we're moving forward. It's good that people feel less shame and that sex isn't constantly depicted as something bad. How can something be bad when it's a fundamental need for everyone and the reason we're even here in the first place? I have the urge to masturbate more times a day than I have the urge to eat, and when people eat, they show it on TV. Why isn't nutrition a taboo? I don't care what someone has for dinner at 5 PM! I'd rather have porn!

And I agree with casualharbor9.