 |
My maternal grandparents were German and I remember having wine when I was about 12. I admit I got drunk once when I was in grade 12 at a graduation party but I quickly outgrew it and from then on, I only drank in moderation. I never saw what was so fun about getting drunk and sick every weekend like typical Canadian people.
You can TRY to make it sound innocent all you want
What about it do you find so alarming?Quote:
Originally Posted by zippit
Is nudity and sex a bad thing to you or part of who we are?
I'm not saying that you should put on hard core porn and sit your kids down to watch it, either is Cats. I think you're reading too much into this.
Sex is a natural act, it's people that make it unnatural and something to be ashamed of. Nudity is also natural, but society has deemed it as inappropriate and taboo. My kids haven't seen porn, but if I was watching it and one of them walked in, I would explain, I wouldn't just rush to hide what I was doing, making it seem like a bad thing.
I would like to hear what you find so alarming about all of this. I would recommend that you re-read Cats post before you respond because I think you missed something when reading it the first time.
Zippit, did you happen to read Cats follow up post that it was the music that put the kids to sleep? They didn't even stay awake long enough to hear any sounds that could be construed as 'sexual'.
Taste and morality are not always easy to justify. Why should the fork be on the left? "Why does it matter and why do I have to remember that?", asks my 16 year old son. I give him answers, but they aren't good ones.
Sex and nudity are similar. If you belong to a tribe of natives who habitually go nude, the idea that you would need to cover up at all ever would seem bizarre. On the other hand, if the CEO of Bechtel showed up at the office in the buff, it would be an issue. So I think we have to respect what people are accustomed to.
There is nothing intrinsically wrong with nudity, but nonetheless it makes some people uncomfortable. I went to a nude beach once by accident. I got there early in the morning when no one else was there, and was just sitting watching the waves. Gradually more and more nude people began to show up and soon I was one of only a couple of people with clothes. I tried to be cool about this, but one naked guy kept walking by and trying to start a conversation with me, and another couple came and set up immediately behind me and they smelled really bad, in a genital sort of way. Yuck. I got up and left. Not my thing. That's me. Their beach, I won't go back!
Frankly, sexual mores are no different in my opinion. Bonobos, which are the "other" chimpanzees, the ones that have sex constantly and are semi-matriarchal, engage in passionate kissing, oral sex, you name it. They are probably our closest relatives and they also engage in sexual activities with juveniles (children). Is it "wrong" for them to do this? It's hard for me to say that it is. They obviously don't think so. Is it wrong for humans to do this? We nearly all agree that it is. And partly because we all agree it's bad, it becomes bad. Someone who has been sexually abused as a child feels shamed. I'm not defending child sexual abuse by any means. I am just saying that nudity in front of kids may feel fine for Alty and not fine for Zippit. I have a hard time saying that either of you is wrong (or right). (Nor do I feel like I am a moral relativist generally.)
I feel that the important question is always whether someone is injured. In the case of household nudity, I don't know of any evidence that it injures children. But it still feels wrong to me, like putting the fork on the right, only more so. When my 7-year-old starting coming into my bathroom specifically to stare at me naked, I began to feel uncomfortable and asked him to leave. Maybe that was wrong, but that was my decision. I was trying to be relaxed about it up until then. I was certainly more relaxed than my own mother. But I just wanted some privacy. He was making me uncomfortable.
I think pornography falls into a different category, because so much of it is not simple depictions of love making between consenting adults or of simple unaffected nudity, but mostly depictions of various kinds of humiliations and inequities in power. My opinion is that humiliation and inequality are never good for people. I'm really clear about that in my head.
A long time ago, my ex pressured me to watch pornographic videos with him and they left me feeling kind of sick. I particularly remember being disturbed by Behind the Green Door. After a while I wouldn't do it anymore. On the other hand I had a boyfriend in my 20s who liked to look at Penthouse with me and somehow he made it seem safe and amusing. He was just a nicer person and I never felt like a third wheel. During my marriage, I tried to share what felt like safer pornography with my ex husband and he rejected it and made fun of it. So that was that.
If you are uncomfortable with it then of course you shouldn't do it. My kids have never come into the room just to stare at me, nor does it make me uncomfortable to be naked in front of them.Quote:
I feel that the important question is always whether someone is injured. In the case of household nudity, I don't know of any evidence that it injures children. But it still feels wrong to me, like putting the fork on the right, only more so. When my 7-year-old starting coming into my bathroom specifically to stare at me naked, I began to feel uncomfortable and asked him to leave. Maybe that was wrong, but that was my decision. I was trying to be relaxed about it up until then. I was certainly more relaxed than my own mother. But I just wanted some privacy. He was making me uncomfortable.
It's not like I walk around the house naked shaking what my mama gave me, I just don't hide my nudity if my kids should happen to walk in on me when I'm naked.
The thing that bothered me about Zippit's post was the fact that he was judging because it's not okay to him. That's his right, but to admonish someone else because of a choice that they made, that's not his right and it made me mad.
We all have different parenting styles. We all have different boundaries with our kids. We all have been raised differently as well and that also reflects on how we raise our children.
I am a survivor of child molestation by my cousins hand. I am a lot more careful then most parents about who I leave my children with. Because of my fears we don't get to go out a lot, because there are only two people that I trust to babysit.
Most people would say that I'm being overly cautious, but I'm not comfortable changing my ways. I could do it, but I wouldn't be happy about it.
Would I look down on someone else because they leave their kids with teens they hardly know? No. I may not be comfortable with it but it's their choice.
I just don't think it's right that Zippit would dare to judge someone else. I'm sure that there are things he does as a parent that we wouldn't agree with either.
Good points all, asking.
Zippit, please come back with your reasons you think pornography is bad.
Unky started this to get a debate going, let's go.
Here are my points, please refute them in any order you choose:
- Simple depictions of men and women having sex are positive images/videos.
- Using implied sex and violence to sell Halloween costumes(among other things) is much more negative and harmful to developing personalities than explicit sex.
- Explicit sex movies are boring to those not interested in sex.
- False depictions are everywhere, not only in pornography.
- Poor dialogue, strained plots, forgettable music, and mediocre photography make for bad movies regardless of subject matter.
You see more hardcore stuff on billboards these days than in the old cheesy porn films...
Boom-chicka-waa-waa
It depends firstly on who is watching. If you take Zippit for example, I don't think he'll see it as positive ;). Hmm.. positive perhaps in the way that is provides some sort of experience of how to do things, except that nowadays, like you said earlier, it's not the real thing most of the time, but fake ones, set up, nothing like what really happens in life.Quote:
Originally Posted by Cats
I agree. However, that doesn't mean that explicit sex is not harmful at all.Quote:
Using implied sex and violence to sell Halloween costumes(among other things) is much more negative and harmful to developing personalities than explicit sex.
True, though some might have some weird reactions in seeing them (:p)Quote:
Explicit sex movies are boring to those not interested in sex.
Yes, but again, does that mean that we have to go forward with pornography?Quote:
False depictions are everywhere, not only in pornography.
Then, don't watch the movie!Quote:
Poor dialogue, strained plots, forgettable music, and mediocre photography make for bad movies regardless of subject matter.
~~~~
Okay, not my real me in there. I'm trying to simulate the arguments, trying to give rebuts. Sorry if that may sound 'offensive' or who knows 'defensive' but I consider that in a debate, you have to do everything, even if that may be insensible to some, to win.
Anyone has other ways to tackle with that? Or perhaps more arguments?
Oh, yes, Zippit, I'd love to hear your arguments. They will definitely help me :)
Please, Unky, no apologies for legitimate debate. I welcome the response, especially from other points of view.
- Refuting the rebuttal:
- The eye of the beholder is the entire point of the debate. Those of us who prefer complete nudity and cornstatch gel (used to simulate sexual fluids) over semi-nudity, knives, and red-dyed corn syrup (fake blood) get very defensive whenever the corn syrup crowd pronounces from on high that the cornstarch should be banned.
- There are six billion people on this planet. If sex is harmful, why is there so much of it? Depictions of anything will cause questions to be asked. Answering the questions, while sometimes awkward or embarrasing, is not harmful to asker or answerer.
- If, by allowing pornography to go forward, other subject matter escapes censure, does that not move everyone closer to wisdom?
- Cheap exploitation makes bad movies of all subjects. Foxy Brown and Navy Seals did not contribute to the art of moviemaking, while House of Dreams and 91/2 Weeks did.
In Conclusion:
Everyone has different tastes. The entertainment industry will try to profit from every subject imaginable. Sex is only one of many. Should only one be labelled "bad?"
There is so much of it because people have to procreate. It is only natural to do that. Porn, on the other hand is affecting people. From the previous page, I posted a link to an article, showing that a great majority of people showing misconduct were watching porn through their computers during work hours. Teens are being affected by it in a way that they want to perform sex as soon as possible, resulting in early motherhood.
A better way to wisdom is (perhaps) to separate all censures, and deal with them separately.
Ok, I had to think of that one for a while:
1. There are many other films that certain people call bad. Films involving violence, too much sudden colours (an example are some video games and cartoons where some children suffered from epilepsy).
2. And what about the free ones, that circulates around through mobile phones, internet, etc? Film companies have nothing to gain, but everything to lose! Their audience is largely reduced.
Why should it be banned, because you can't stop watching it?Quote:
Porn should be banned imo.
Here's the great part about being a human being, you have a choice. You don't have to watch porn if you find it distasteful, you can walk away.
Freedom of choice. If you ban porn how long before you ban cigarettes, then beer, then perhaps chocolate, or milk. If we banned things because a small portion of the world didn't like it, we'd have nothing.
You find it disturbing but you need it in order to get off? That's disturbing!Quote:
Originally Posted by Serious Student
Then you need to develop your imagination. You might even imagine how to ask a girl out nicely, just to have fun with.Quote:
Originally Posted by Serious Student
I agree it's possible to masturbate without porn. So that's an option, Serious Student. Or wean yourself from this porn and use something more innocuous.
But about banning things, I don't agree that banning things is necessarily bad. I am no libertarian (although I joined the libertarian party briefly, before I knew they objected to public schools and public libraries :) ). There are lots of things that we all agree are not good for us, either individually or as a group. We ban child pornography to protect children; nobody with a felony is allowed to teach children. Why not protect young women as assiduously as we protect children? A 19 year old may be an adult, but if she is unable to escape from an abusive pornographer like Chuck Traynor, aren't we all partly culpable for not making laws that limit the power of people like him?
Banning shouldn't be banned. The main reason not to ban cigarettes for example is not that it is essential to human life, but that banning creates a black market, provides a revenue stream for organized crime, and makes a deadly product more difficult to tax and regulate. (The other reason is that the industry has bought certain congressman.) We learned these things with prohibition. The failure of prohibition was not because alcohol wasn't a dangerous product that destroyed families. We ban or regulate all kinds of things, including a lot of materials needed to build bombs, and the distribution of thousands of pharmaceuticals. Why is it okay to tightly regulate a drug like Nexium or to ban speech that incites to riot but not things that kill thousands of people annually--like cigarettes and unhealthy foods?
It's become clear from the epidemic of obesity and diabetes that the food industry is destroying our health with what they call "eatertainment." Yes, we should resist eating too many nacho cheese doritos, but it would be a lot easier to resist if we were not bombarded with similar foods everywhere we went. These products appeal to us at a biological level that is difficult to resist and I think it's disingenuous to say to people, "just say no." It doesn't work for sex and it doesn't work for food.
I'm not saying individuals have no willpower, but average lifespan is getting shorter instead of longer. Are we going to let that happen and just shrug and let it happen because banning things is never good?
As far as I know, porn isn't being regulated anyway. Why not regulate it?
I have just convinced myself that pornography should be regulated! To be honest, I really hadn't thought much about it before.
You hit the nail on the head Asking. That's what would most likely happen if porn was banned. After all, child porn is illegal but still available, it's just gone underground.Quote:
The main reason not to ban cigarettes for example is not that it is essential to human life, but that banning creates a black market, provides a revenue stream for organized crime, and makes a deadly product more difficult to tax and regulate.
No, I'm not saying child porn is okay, of course not, but porn is supposed to be with consenting adults. Bad things happen in every industry, that's life. If porn was banned then it would be even more difficult to monitor people like Chuck Taylor. They'd still exist but we wouldn't have any control at all.
It depends on what you mean by regulated. There are laws in place to protect every person against sexual acts, porn isn't above that. So in a way it is regulated.Quote:
As far as I know, porn isn't being regulated anyway. Why not regulate it?
I have just convinced myself that pornography should be regulated! To be honest, I really hadn't thought much about it before.
I agree that more regulation would be a good thing, but not banning, because of what I stated above. :)
I never knew anyone who talked about his "massive boner" who actually HAD a massive boner. Maybe it's in the eye of the beholder.
This is one person who two user names -
Too funny!
Yes, masturbating must rot the mind.
So far I haven't seen anyone saying that pornography is itself bad or wrong. Unky posted a link about workers misusing government computers. Asking and Alty talk about nicotine and alcohol and raping children. Serious Student explains his impulse control issues.
Does erotic material cause any of these things? There were "no personal phone call" policies long before there was the internet or even phone sex companies. "Altarboys" has meant something other than religious for generations. Chronic masturbators have been around so long that hairy palms and going blind are jokes. Worldwide, the temples in Cambodia (Angor Wat) and the Kama Sutra are how many millenia old?
As far as banning things, Robert Heinlein said it best:
"If any government, any church, any group says 'This you may not see, this you may not read, this you may not know," the result is tyranny and oppression."
Unky, have you got enough material for your debate project yet?
This is one argument that keeps being brought up usually by those who forget human history and biology. They seem to have a tendency to believe that humans do not become aware of their bodies in a sexual sense until they are over the age of 18 years old and those that have an earlier awareness had to have been subjected to sexually related materials by someone else. They tend to deny that humans start exploring their own bodies as toddlers.Quote:
Originally Posted by Unknown008
Children have a natural curiosity about touching and finding out what 'feels' good. As they mature the curiosity extends to other people. Potty training can be very interesting as the child learns that males and females have different genitalia that causes them to urinate in different ways resulting in urinals and toilets.
Children have to be taught the boundaries of what is permissible. Those boundaries change as the society/culture children grow up in changes. It wasn't too long ago (due to a shorter life expectancy) that it was common in most societies for females to be 'married off' not long after their menstrual cycle began (sometimes as young as 13 years of age with 18 years old being considered abnormal). They were considered adult women and capable of producing offspring to further the family and the community. Males were given a little longer to mature only because they were expected to learn a trade (even if it was taking over the family farm) before marrying.
Life expectancy increased. The age at which children become sexually aware didn't. Teenage pregnancy has always been around. As mentioned, it was (and in some places still is) considered normal. However, many societies set an arbitrary age at which youth become adults and ignore that biologically the reproductive and sexual drives are still there. Those new 'laws' resulted in a lot of young people still being driven by hormones and nature to reproduce or at least explore those 'sensations' with no legal outlet for those 'needs'.
As for teen pregnancy and society, 'shotgun' weddings or sending the girl off to 'visit' relatives or to a 'special' school was the way to handle the 'inconvenience'. Today, it is still frowned upon, however, it isn't hidden like it was a few decades ago and more teens are choosing to raise their children rather than for the child to become their 'sister/brother/cousin' or to put the child up for adoption.
Catsmine, I feel misrepresented by this statement. Just for the record, I did not use the phrase "raping children." And I barely mentioned child abuse. But I have talked about the denigration of women, which occurs in pornography. You didn't mention that I said that but that is my main objection to it. I feel that to characterize some men's rape fantasies, as well as milder forms of humiliation, as merely normal erotic sex is misleading.Quote:
Originally Posted by Catsmine
Erotic is one thing. Pornography is rarely merely erotic.
Unky, this might be of interest to you.
BOLD - Violence Against Women on the Internet -
Cats, I want to state that my comments in the beginning were about porn and my thoughts on the subject.
As most conversations go one thing leads to another, talking about rape fantasies etc.
It's all connected, sadly.
But, since I've obviously gone off track, I will leave the debate.
Good luck Unky, I hope you got what you were looking for. :)
For example:
I don't see how anyone could argue that reducing men's inhibitions to rape is a good thing.Quote:
In Maxwell and Check's 1992 study of 247 high school students described above, they found very high rates of what they called "rape supportive beliefs", that is, acceptance of rape myths and violence against women.
The boys who were the most frequent consumers of pornography and/or who reported learning a lot from it, were more accepting of rape supportive beliefs than their peers who were less frequent consumers and/or who said they had not learned as much from it.
Also, according the Department of Justice, although rape rates declined dramatically between 1980 and 2002, they have been rising again since 2002.
Bureau of Justice Statistics Rape Trends
I'm actually typing a post in a different window, but email notification after email notification is telling me to see xxx thread. I'll be answering soon, OK? :)
Yes, thanks for the input everyone, I really appreciate :) I hope that this will go on like this, or who knows, perhaps better?
Cats:
The article was about misconduct among governmental workers, who happen to be also watching porn on their working computers. I'll be using this as one of the consequences of porn
I have scribbles here and there. By next week, I'll be having all well planned and reviewed. Any more sources that might help me is most welcomed! :)
Cat:
Yes, I know that teens (female) were married early and it still is happening in India. Since 3/4 of the mauritian population consists of indians, I can say I quite know their culture. Also, when we have teenage pregnancy, the body of the teen is not yet prepared to bring the baby. The skin, the tissues of the womb are not 'elastic' enough to endure it (if I remember my biology class well). In some countries, it is some sort of humiliation. Sometimes, the parents put pressure on the teen to abort, and that is the thing that would definitely not be much beneficial to the teen.
Asking: I just had a glance at the sites, they seem very interesting indeed. Now I have to read them all! Thanks! :)
Alty: Yes, they are linked, one to the other, one chained to the other. :(
Alty, Asking, I did not mean to give offense, nor to misrepresent anyone's position, merely to highlight certain points.
My point was that pornography is blamed for many problems, like guns being blamed for violence. That's as silly as blaming Burpee for spots on your homegrown tomatoes.
Asking, that is the exact sort of evidence that was needed. A direct causal link between pornography and harm. Very, very good.
Alty, don't leave. There's still more to come and your input is invaluable.
As for denigrating women, Western society treads a very narrow ridge right in the middle of that one. We don't bind feet or insist on bhurkas, nor do we sell our daughters and orphans into prostitution, as a norm. Those things are denigrating. I do not think looking at and enjoying the beauty of the female form is, despite the views of Betty Freidan and the N.O.W.
[QUOTESerious Student
This message has been deleted by Fr_Chuck. Reason: under review, this is evil deeds
?[/QUOTE]
Do I get points for my spidey senses tingling? I KNEW it!
At any rate - my concern with pornography (and in this instance it is unfortunate that this post had to be pulled as Evildeeds/SeriousStudent made an argument that he "had" to use porn in order to masturbate in order to relieve tension) is the addictive nature, more so from the point of needing to see more and more in order to be "intrigued."
I have no problem with porn if the adults participating and watching are consentual. I think everyone feels the same.
I question whether the addiction "requires" more and more (or, for example, for people who like to watch rough sex, rougher and rougher sex as time goes on).
I don't really know.
What 'spider-sense'? Lol. It should have been obvious it was me.Quote:
Originally Posted by ScottGem
Make no mistake, I am a troll at heart, but I came here to contribute. Occasionally I might post something with an underlying trollish tone, but I always try and contribute when I post.
I don't want any arguments please. Now put back my previous, I think it was pretty lol but truthful.
Personally, I believe porn is degrading in reference to women. Have you ever seen a bukkake scene? It's really disgusting I always get turned off.
What is frightening however, this kind of aggression sex seems to 'hit the spot'. When you blow your load after watching an anal scene you know that it DID appeal to you somewhat. What I don't know is whether this an underlying psychological problem with people who end up watching porn regularly to relieve tension like I do.
I would love not to watch porn, but if I try and use my imagination it seems like a wasted effort when I blow my load. However when I do watch it, I'm ashamed but satisfied. I don't want to go through life like this until I have it for real.
Why is this happening to us?
Hello:
The idea that there even IS a gateway to anti social behavior, or that it can be identified, is preposterous. I reject the notion it on its face.
excon
Quote:
Originally Posted by zippit
I understand watching porno can be very helpful if a man is having difficulty obtaining or maintaining an erection. https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/adult-...ml#post2065712
Apparently, the evidence is all there that watching pornography predisposes males --those most likely to watch it-- to imitate what they see and reduces inhibitions to rape and other aggressive behavior. This is particularly true in young males.
Here's another sample.
BOLD - Violence Against Women on the Internet -Quote:
In a more recent anonymous survey of 247 Canadian junior high school students whose average age was 14 years, James Check and Kristin Maxwell (1992) report that 87% of the boys and 61% of the girls said they had viewed video-pornography. The average age at first exposure was just under 12 years.
33% of the boys versus only 2% of the girls reported watching pornography once a month or more often. As well, 29% of the boys versus 1% of the girls reported that pornography was the source that had provided them with the most useful information about sex (i.e. more than parents, school, friends, etc.). Finally, boys who were frequent consumers of pornography and/or reported learning a lot from pornography were also more likely to say that is was "OK" to hold a girl down and force her to have intercourse (abstract).
I think it is interesting that approximately a third of these boys got most of their information about sex by watching pornography, because another study showed that about one-third of male college students felt that it was sometimes okay to use force to get sex. That is, they were accepting of the idea of rape if they could justify it in their minds, which apparently they could.
And this:
My italics.Quote:
"over 50% of various categories of paraphiliacs [sex offenders] had developed their deviant arousal patterns prior to age 18" (Einsiedel, 1986, p. 53). Einsiedel goes on to say that "it is clear that the age-of-first-exposure variable and the nature of that exposure needs to be examined more carefully. There is also evidence that the longer the duration of the paraphilia, the more significant the association with use of pornography"
If in 1992 a third of 14-year-old boys were regular consumers of pornography, I wonder what the numbers are now?
Hmm, many thanks Asking! :) You're truly valuable here. I haven't read everything in the previous link you posted, yet. I go through them thoroughly tonight.
I can do this all day, but I shouldn't.
I have expanded abbreviations to make this more readable.
http://psycnet.apa.org/index.cfm?fa=...TOKEN=47514459Quote:
Victim reactions in aggressive erotic films as a factor in violence against women.
By Donnerstein, Edward; Berkowitz, Leonard
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. Vol 41(4), Oct 1981, 710-724.
Abstract
Investigated whether the behavioral characteristics of the people in erotic films and the nature of the targets available for aggression afterward can affect subsequent aggression. In Experiment I, 80 male undergraduates were angered by a male or female confederate. They were then shown a neutral film or 1 of 3 erotic films. The erotic films differed in terms of their aggressive content (2 were aggressive and 1 was not) and the reactions of the female victim in the 2 aggressive films (positive vs negative). Subjects were then allowed to aggress against the confederate via electric shock. Results indicated that films had no effect on male targets, whereas both types of aggressive erotic films increased aggression toward the females.
In Experiment II, with 80 male subjects, the effects of the above films on nonangry viewers were investigated with only female confederates. Results indicate [again] that angered subjects were more aggressive toward the female after viewing either aggressive erotic film but that only the positive-outcome aggressive film increased aggression in nonangered subjects. The theoretical and applied aspects of aggressive and nonaggressive erotica are discussed. (40 ref) (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2009 APA, all rights reserved)
Sorry, Asking I have a little difficulty to understand the second experiment's conclusion here.
Which one is supposed to be the positive-outcome aggressive film? :confused:
There were two kinds of erotic films with aggressive content. In "positive outcome" films, the woman basically liked being attacked or reacted positively. In the other, the woman resisted or cried or fought back. (Hard to say from this abstract. But basically the woman reacted negatively and that was a negative outcome.)
So (in Experiment I) if you show a mock rape to angry men, they will punish the woman they are mad at more than if you don't show them the mock rape. (If they are mad at a man, they will not punish HIM more after viewing a mock rape.)
In Experiment II, if you show a mock rape to non angry men, even they will punish a woman more--IF they viewed a mock rape where the woman responds positively (but NOT if she responds negatively to being assaulted).
So, to simplify, men viewing pornographic rape fantasies increases male aggression towards women. In men who are already angry with a woman, it doesn't matter how the woman in the film reacts. In men who are not angry with a woman, the mock aggression increases real aggression if the woman in the film responds positively to being assaulted but not if she reacts negatively.
In addition, other studies report that boys and men do try out what they watch.
Edit: Actually, I have no idea what the aggressive content here consisted of. I'm assuming some kind of mock rape. But it could be something milder for all I know.
Ah, that clears up the thing. I wonder whether a million thanks would ever be enough ;)
You are welcome!
I'm surprised that all these studies are rather old. I haven't been able to find anything recent. Did psychologists lose interest when it became so clear? Or did funding dry up for some reason? Or maybe they are using new jargon that I haven't been searching on.
The quality of the research with controls and such is better than I expected. I find it really persuasive myself...
Asking - this is really GREAT research.
My hat is off to you!
Judy,
Ahh. I'm blushing! Thanks!
Asking
| All times are GMT -7. The time now is 06:28 AM. |