Should Marriott Hotels Sell Pornographic Movies?

When I was a kid, I was somewhat surprised that the local grocer, being Latter-Day Saint like me, had a large assortment of cigarettes for sale behind his counter. After all, smoking is against the Word of Wisdom of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints. But, I told myself, not everyone is LDS, so they should have that choice. Now I am beginning to wonder.

The proprietors of the Marriott Hotel chain are LDS as well. Yet in some of their hotels pornographic movies are sold. I think this is a bit weird--much more weird, actually, than a Mormon selling cigarettes. Do you think Marriott should sell porn?

I attend one or two computer conferences per year, and almost invariably my hotel room has "Adult" movies for sale. Occasionally, I stay in a Marriott hotel room. It surprised me greatly the first time I stayed there, and it still does when I stay in a Marriott room, that Marriott is one of the hoteliers that sells adult pornographic movies in addition to other movies.

The first thing I do when I get to my room is to delete the ability to select anything from the adult movie genre. A pro-family group is now attempting to encourage Marriott to stop selling pornographic fare.
Officials with Marriott International have agreed to meet with pro-family leaders to discuss the hotel giant's policy of selling in-room pornographic movies to consumers at some of its properties.

"We certainly think Mr. Marriott has a heart for children and families," Randy Sharp, director of special projects for the American Family Association (AFA), told Cybercast News Service.

The AFA is one of 47 pro-family groups to sign an April 3 letter, addressed to Marriott Chairman and CEO J.W. Marriott Jr., asking that the corporation cease offering adult entertainment in its rooms. ...

The letter stressed that pulling the plug on pornography would be in keeping with Marriott's public statement of "promoting the well-being of children and families."
The libertarian in me says that people should be free to choose what they want to see, but the same libertarian side of me thinks that Marriott should also have the choice as to what amenities to offer. I think the AFA is right in trying to persuade Marriott to stop showing pornographic movies.

What do you think? Is the American Family Association sticking its nose where it doesn't belong?



Comments

  1. This issue is emblematic of the problem with conventional free-market economic ideology--or idolatry. The root idea, that people should have the choice of what they produce and what they consume, as long as those choices don't harm or hinder the freedom of others, is a virtuous one. But the free market idolatry espoused by conventional free market theorists takes things further. Neoclassical economic liberalism, a la Friedman, suggests that anything which maximizes profit is good, or that any action to fill a market is ethically valid, even noble. This leads to situations in which otherwise presumably upstanding religious people, such as the owners of the Marriott chain, concluding that providing porn is morally acceptable (there is, after all, an obvious market for that product, and it is enormously profitable). That they should have the right to peddle porn is a fair argument; that conventional economic wisdom encourages them to do so, or at the very least rationalizes their trade in porn, is very morally problematic.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Derek,

    Very good point.

    As relates to our previous conversation about Friedman and Chicago-style economics, you have now blown a hole in their theories big enough that even I can see and concede your point!

    ;-)

    Thanks.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Thank-you. I appreciate your willingness to recognize the problem I'm talking about. I think once free-market partisans are more willing to acknowledge the inherent moral weaknesses of conventional free-market wisdom and more openly and sincerely discuss social solutions to those challenges, we advocates of social justice and non-financial values will be more willing both to soften our stance regarding those weakness and to consider solutions other than government (coercive) solutions.

    ReplyDelete
  4. In answer to your question, "Is the American Family Association sticking its nose where it doesn't belong?"

    No.

    If they were trying to make a law that outlawed the selling of porn the answer might be yes. If they were threatening the Marriott management with anything more than a boycott the answer would probably be yes again. But trying to convince a business owner to change a business practice they disagree with is within their rights.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Some say that a lot of the casino employees in Vegas are LDS. Isn't that the sane in principle?

    ReplyDelete
  6. Oops-- that was supposed to say: "Isn't that the same thing in principle?"

    ReplyDelete
  7. Derek,

    My wife and I have been talking about this concept--"stance softening"--with particular regard to the FLDS Eldorado issue lately. I completely agree with you that we need to see the good points on both sides of any argument. I'm not always the best at this, but I do realize that in the long run it makes our opinions more respectable/trustworthy.

    David,

    I couldn't have said it better myself. I am tempted sometimes to think that we should have a law banning such stuff, but such laws almost always have much worse unintended consequences than the purported advantages of the alleged solutions. I'm starting to think that the drug war is a great example of this.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Richard,

    I'm not sure what you mean. I do know at one point it was impermissible to work on the strip and still get an LDS temple recommend, but the LDS church changed that policy a while back.

    I, however, would never seek a job there, because I can't stand the place. ;-)

    ReplyDelete
  9. If Marriott stops selling porn, should they stop selling alcohol as well?

    Maybe Mormons should get out of the hospitality business altogether, and convenience stores as well.

    By the way, the negative effects of porn are way overstated anyway.

    ReplyDelete
  10. I think that Marriot should not offer pornographic material. The fact that they do says something about them as suppliers, but it also says a lot about the demand side of the equation - the people that stay in hotels.

    I also think that the AFA is fine in bringing this to light and requesting Marriot to put an end to porn offerings in their hotels. Marriot is free to say no, but there's nothing wrong with asking.

    Derek brings up an interesting point about free market ideology coupled with morality. I had a business ethics class at the U and on a number of occasions I was astounded at some of the "profit first" mentality I heard expressed there.

    I think that the human nature that drives business and capitalism is what requires regulation. Of course, the regulation of human nature in a business context requires definitions of morality. We have all sorts of regulations for wages, working conditions, and environmental issues. Those seem to be fairly agreed upon "moral" issues for the gov't to be involved in. One could argue that porn is every bit as destructive both societally and economically as those other issues, but so far very little has been done to regulate it. And those that do try to point out the destructive nature of pornography are dismissed as prudes.

    So does Marriot get to be labeled a prude or a purveyor of porn?

    ReplyDelete
  11. Hmmmm. Anon's argument sounds familiar. Maybe he should just leave Utah if he doesn't like it here.

    Moreover, if anything pornography's negative effects are understated. Porn causes sexism, racism and violence.

    ReplyDelete
  12. Cameron,

    I agree with both of your comments. I remember years ago in a Dixie College sociology class, I made the same statement that

    Porn causes sexism, racism and violence.

    I was laughed to scorn by most of the males AND females in the class.

    ReplyDelete
  13. I appreciate you mentioning your experience in your business ethics classes, Cameron. I believe your experience is common, and a great example of the free-market idolatry of which I'm critical.

    Yes, Richard, I believe that the number of Mormons who work in Las Vegas casinos is another excellent example.

    Frank, while I fully agree that porn causes a number of terrible social problems, including misogyny and violence, I'm not sure I understand how it leads to racism. Could you explain?

    ReplyDelete
  14. Hello Friends,
    What you may not be aware of is that Marriott only owns less than 10% of the hotels which bear their name. Marriott is a management company and it is the Owners of the hotel that are selling Porn, Alcohol, Gambling, etc, NOT Marriott.

    ReplyDelete
  15. Derek, one specific example from that class was a scenario put forward by the professor:

    You have a boat full of food to sell to a fairly isolated island. You arrive and find people starving. Do you raise prices because demand is so high? What does that mean for the poor people? What is your responsibility to the people of the island? What if you are not the owner of the goods, but are just the agent? Do you have a responsibility to your employer to get top dollar? What if you know that there's another boat just a day behind you with plenty of food for everyone? Does that change your answers?

    It was an interesting discussion with a bunch of 19 and 20 year olds just starting their business careers.

    To answer your question to Frank, pornography causes racism the same way it causes violence and sexism - because of what is portrayed and how it is portrayed.

    ReplyDelete
  16. Ron & Jessica have a good point. Perhaps some of the judgments of Mr. Marriott here are a bit rash.

    I have a variety of investments. I'm not even sure of all of the companies in which I am invested. Do some of them have dealings with which I morally disagree? Probably. Anyone that has a 401k is likely in the same boat.

    Of course, I'm not the CEO of any of these companies. But anyone that has had much experience with corporate governance will know that even CEOs don't have the kind of power that posters here seem to think they have.

    It seems so black and white when you're pointing fingers at them. If you were in their shoes, it probably wouldn't look that way.

    ReplyDelete
  17. I don't have time at the moment to review the comments, so I apologize in advance if I'm repeating something that has already been said.

    Libertarianism has more to do with freedom of association than it does with providing something for everybody.

    We should be free to choose as we please, yes, but that does not mean that we can demand that others cater to our desires.

    While Marriott is no longer controlled by the man himself, he does still exert some influence. He should not feel that he has to cater to every individual's possible desire. Instead, with freedom of association intact, he should determine what he himself wants to offer.

    Some of his clients may clamor and demand that the company provide them with such "entertainment" offerings, but by no means are they entitled to these things.

    It's ultimately up to those who control the business dealings at Marriott. I'm not sure how much control the man himself wields these days, with a board of directors and all, but I would hope that he would speak out and voice his opinion and preference.

    ReplyDelete
  18. I think this is a problem that a lot of LDS businesspeople will run into. For instance, I would love to open and run a restaurant someday. However the idea of a restaurant without coffee or a wine list seems absurd to most non-LDS and even a number of LDS. I've personally resolved it; if you don't consume the product and can't vouch for its quality, don't sell it. Certainly the Marriott family can take the same tack, though it's a much more difficult change to make when you have shareholders.

    ReplyDelete
  19. The comments of several people point out why the whole corporate system stinks. Reach Upward suggests that the CEOs don’t have the power to make changes on very fundamental business practices and choices. Yet the same claim could be made about the lower level managers and decision makers; they will pass the buck by saying they are only maximizing profits as the executives and shareholders demand--if they don’t, they’ll be out of a job. The shareholders will also plead innocent; as Reach Upward points out, they often don’t even know in which companies they hold stock, let alone the business practices of those companies. Very broadly speaking, the entire system creates a faceless impersonal entity which responds only to profit and deflects any sense of responsibility for any other values. This leads to all sorts of problems, from the abstract (the over sexualization of our society) to the very concrete (the concentration of wealth and accompanying social injustice).

    Even IF we were to agree with the libertarian/free market agenda on moral grounds (individual liberty is the most important value), we who seek to obey Christ’s admonition to stand up for and care for the disadvantaged should use that liberty to buck this trend at all levels. As shareholders, be aware of our portfolio and the moral/ethical nature of their business decisions so that we can attempt to use our ownership to influence those decisions. As employees at every level--from CEO down to entry-level--seek to make decisions in our areas of responsibility which will promote the important non-financial values we hold and convince other decision makers of the importance of honoring those non-financial values. As consumers, take values besides financial cost into consideration when making purchasing decisions. If we don’t, and we instead merely go with the flow, rationalizing things as complicated, we’re simply serving Mammon.

    ReplyDelete
  20. My point of view is this. Not everyone accepts the idea that observing others engaqing in sexual activity is wrong. Should Marriot as a business man exclude services from his customers on the basis of his own moral beliefs?

    My grandparents (my grandfather was a high councilman) ran a grocery store that also allowed people to buy beer. Many people who are not LDS don't have a problem with people consuming beer unless under the influence of beer they act in a way that is innapropriate.

    I don't fault Marriot from what they are doing. Is porn ok? It's certainly better than anything Joseph Smith did with young girls, using his own religious authority to gain sexual favors from sincere teenage believers.

    Humans are sexual animals. We are not as sexual as our close cousins the bonobo chimpanzees who use sex as a sort of social currency. But sex is important to our species. My fellow atheist Richard Dawkins acknowledges that humans are nominally polyginous. Sex has a role in human culture and social structure that victorian culture seems to suppress. I'm still trying to understand sex and what it means within our species.

    Admittedly, I don't accept the admonitions of Mormon religious authorities who were strongly influenced by the puritan beliefs they evolved from. The Mormon experience is one of religiously coercing young women to submit to older men because of their religious status. There is nothing coercive about observing pornography. I personally don't have a problem with guys getting their jollies in a Marriott hotel watching pornography. That make me a minority, but hey, I'm used to fulfilling that role.

    ReplyDelete
  21. Derek,

    Of all the insightful comments to this post, I think yours is the most insightful. The "faceless impersonality" gives everyone a false alibi when the whole thing comes crashing down.

    To answer Ron & Jessica and others--yes Marriott is largely a management company, but based on empirical evidence that pornography makes at least some people sexist, racist, and violent, I think that Marriott should do what it can to influence good morals in the companies that it manages.

    Obi Wan,

    You are correct that we have a bit of a Puritan streak in Mormonism, which makes our discussion of sex a bit forced and uncomfortable. This is unhealthy, but I hope we're overcoming it.

    I'm not sure where you're getting the idea that Joseph Smith messed around with young girls. Maybe you've been watching too many slanted CNN reports lately about the FLDS community?

    ReplyDelete
  22. Frank: I'd wondered the same thing about Obi Wan's comments. Of Joseph Smith's wives, the youngest was 16 and only 3 were under 18 at the time of marriage. That sounds odd by modern standards, but in the standards of the 1830s and 1840s, that was perfectly acceptable. I seem to recall a number of his wives were in their mid-30s at the time of marriage; many of them married as a means of support, similar to Brigham Young.

    ReplyDelete
  23. OK, for you market moral purists, what do you think about LDS Church ownership of KSL TV, which features some of the raunchiest network programming in the U.S.? GAs preach constantly about avoiding the kind of junk that is broadcast in prime time every evening on KSL TV. If Marriott is sinning by allowing hotels in the chain to offer porn, then logically it seems you must also conclude that Pres. Monson is in a similar boat with respect to KSL TV.

    ReplyDelete
  24. Good point. I think we should impeach the prophet!

    Just kidding.

    I've often wondered why the church doesn't go with a television lineup at KSL that is not so smutty. (For that matter I've wondered the same thing about Larry Miller and KJZZ.) But I hadn't thought about it in this comparative context. It's a very illustrative comparison, and I don't know the answer to it.

    I don't, however, think anybody suggested that Marriott was "sinning" by allowing its subsidiaries to offer pornography. That appellation should be left to the consumer.

    ReplyDelete
  25. Reach Upward, I've rarely watch broadcast TV for the past several years, so I can't comment specifically on the content of KSL's programming. But I do very much question many of the ethical/moral decisions of the Church's commercial corporate entities. I believe we would be naive to think that every decision made under Church leadership is inspired and infallible.

    You are right, much of the material disseminated through broadcast television may not be as overtly sexual as porn, but they still contribute to the over-sexualization of our society.

    And yes, I do believe that those who peddle socially and personally harmful material are sinning. We are our brothers keepers, and we betray that role when we enable and profit off their weaknesses. We shouldn't gloss over that simply because market theories tell us it is rational and acceptable because we are meeting a demand.

    So Frank, we have some agreement that the corporate structure, which is the primary vehicle of the market in our modern society, discourages accountability and conscious decision making. I believe this leads to all sorts of problems, regarding which you may or may not agree (pollution, fair treatment of labor, public safety, etc), in addition to pernicious hypersexualization and its attendent ills (misogyny, violence, etc). Do we only use our individual liberty to insert our own accountability into the process and encourage others to do the same? Or is it the responsibility of the state to insert into the corporate structure greater opportunities for conscious decision making and accountability in the interests of all people? After all, the ability to incorporate is not a natural right, but a contract with the state.

    ReplyDelete
  26. Frank:

    The info I got regarding Joseph Smith, polygamy and teenagers comes from "In Sacred Loneliness" by Todd Compton and from http://familysearch.com. Fourteen year old Helen Mar Kimball Smith Whitney comes to mind as just one of his spiritual conquests.

    ReplyDelete
  27. If I may weigh in as well - albeit a little late in the discussion...

    I agree with the comments about freedom. I think as long AFA don't impose upon the freedom of any of the hotels, they are perfectly within their rights to make the request. And Marriot are perfectly within their rights to agree or disagree. If they were forcing people to watch adult movies it would be one thing, but ultimately people have the choice. I've heard somewhere that character is shown by what you do when no-one is looking.

    On porn, I personally try to avoid it, but that's my personal choice. It does some damage to a person's perception of sexual relationships, but ultimately I don't think it causes any behavior that wasn't there already. If you're going to molest kids, porn could feed that desire, but I don't think it causes it.

    On Joseph Smith, I've been doing a lot of reading on this and other topics lately, primarily from an LDS book called "Rough Stone Rolling". Ultimately the version of the history of polygamy held by the LDS Church is very different from how it appears to have happened. I am more convinced than ever that Polygamy was never a commandment, but rather a man made doctrine to cover up some very serious moral short comings.

    ReplyDelete
  28. BTW, Obi Wan, I do agree that sex is itself a natural aspect of humanity, and that the conservative tendency to consider it or describe it as dirty hinders healthy discussion and exploration of sexual issues. That does not, in my opinion, change the fact that sex can be explored in very un-healthy ways, of which porn and the general hyper-sexualization of our culture are examples.

    ReplyDelete
  29. Derek,

    I agree that unfettered free markets do cause pollution and the other things you mention.

    UK,

    Good point. Gordon B. Hinckley used to remind LDS priesthood holders that pornography does cheapen one's perspective of sexuality. I've placed a hold on "Rough Stone Rolling" at the BYU library--all 5 copies are out right now.

    Obi Wan,

    It would be hard to determine whether Todd Compton portrays an accurate history of Joseph Smith. If it describes Smith as abusive, I wouldn't believe it, because it does not comport with anything else we know about the man.

    ReplyDelete
  30. Rough Stone Rolling is an excellent book, although it's not exactly an easy read, and I think a lot of Church members would really struggle with some of the stuff in there. I believe it's factually accurate (or as accurate as history can be) but it does paint a very different picture of Joseph Smith than you learn in Sunday School or from Church movies.

    As for pornography, I think the problem with it and LDS people is that it does cause a chemical reaction in the brain which is addictive in and of itself. Add to that the additional 'high' gained by doing something wrong and having to hide it from your loved ones, and I think you end up with a highly addictive mix. In communities where it's not that big of a deal, I don't think the high is as bad (Or good if you want to look at it that way!)

    ReplyDelete
  31. Your "chemical reaction" reference reminds me of an anecdote told by an LDS psychiatrist: he asked a pornography addict, "How much money do you have in the bank?" The reply was $10,000. "Okay", he said, "write me a check for $10,000" and I won't cash it unless you regress into your addiction for one year. After several months, the guy came back and said, "I guess you'll have to cash the check." That was the last time the psychiatrist used a money penalty to try to help someone overcome a pornography addiction.

    ReplyDelete
  32. The Drug of the New Millennium documents the clinically measured addictive chemistry of porn.

    I loved Rough Stone Rolling. My 14-year-old is reading my copy right now. When UK says that it contains some material that LDS folks might find difficult to swallow, I think that is because of a phenomenon described by Richard Bushman (the book's author).

    Bushman said that the church has a Primary (referring to the church's children's auxiliary) version of LDS history where all Mormons wear white hats and their detractors wear black hats. Then there's the anti-Mormon version where the hats are switched, with the Mormons always wearing black hats. Bushman promotes a more informed understanding of LDS history that appreciates the complexities of real life. Like him, I see no dishonor in an open and reasoned study of LDS history.

    ReplyDelete
  33. Holy Cow! Some of you guys need to go to KSL and read some of the stuff on there. Some people of the LDS faith are so closed minded, it sickens me. I know Obi Wan will agree. The reason why I say that is because here we have people with understanding talking about how there are some harsh truths of the LDS faith that we have to deal with.
    I know that this is a repeat but I want to put in my two cents, but I don't have any problem with somebody giving the choice of adult movies. Would I partake? No. Do I think that some people would if they had the choice? Yes. If the Marriott decided to stop offering them, would those people find other means of getting pornography? Yes. I do agree with moral aspects of this that derekstaff as pointed out very well, although I disagree with some of his logic. If it were my business, I wouldn't offer it. Personally, I think that choice of not offering it would bring in more profits than offering it. That is my faith though.
    Derekstaff, I have to point out one thing that I extremely disagree on. You said in one of your posts "...we are our brothers keepers, and we betray that role when we enable and profit off their weaknesses." By that logic we are all going to Hell in a hand basket. I will give you an example. Frank is a computer programmer, I am not. Therefore that is my weakness. So when I need a program written and I go to Frank to write it for me and he charges me, he is profiting of my weakness. According to your logic the grocery store is wrong cause you don't grow your own food--your weakness, the bank that holds your mortgage(or landlord if you rent)cause you cant pay cash for your your house--your weakness, the gas station cause you can't produce and refine your own fuel--your weakness, or if you take the bus, UTA is wrong cause you don't have your own means of transportation--your weakness. I think you get my point. Like I said, I do agree that morals should be something looked at every level of any company. I work for a local credit union and have a small supervisory position. I do everything I can to improve our methods of collecting funds and charging fees to what I feel is morally right. It is up to each individual to do the same. Whether it is by asking a corporation to do a way with offering pornography, or simply trying to improve the moral value of your own company. There is no government that can do that for us. That is why the free market is so great. Is it perfect? Of course not. Will it ever be? I doubt it. It is our job to strive to that point though.

    ReplyDelete
  34. If we honestly can no longer distinguish between providing a meaningful service in an economic exchange and preying upon the weaknesses of others, then I believe we are indeed in a sad state.

    ReplyDelete
  35. While the examples cited may indeed seem to be at opposite ends of the spectrum, perhaps the question that should be asked is whether everyone considers Pornography as a bad thing or if this is a case of one group imposing a specific ideology on another....

    Once we coerce Marriot into removing the movies, do we then go after any alcohol in mini-bars (If Marriot has these). With that out of the way, we could force them to remove any coffee or tea from the rooms, and I'm sure we could take a few more steps after that.

    You and I may consider it wrong and offensive, but that may not be the case for another person.

    ReplyDelete
  36. You're right. I will admit that part of the reason I hate pornography being available (and for that matter, gambling) is because I'm afraid what would happen to me if I decided that I liked it.

    ReplyDelete
  37. I fell upon this discussion accidentally because I was thinking of switching into a hospitality career. My idea was to try it out first on a part time scale close to home. The two major hotels in my town are Embassy Suites and the Marriott. How funny my brain worked because when I went to the Embassy Suites site and found they are now owned by Hilton, I was bias and immediately went to the Marriott site. I had it in the back of my head that it was an LDS company and of course that must be a better place to work!

    Now I sit here with the dilemma of everything you all have pointed out. I actually appreciate it because it forces me to address an issue I did not think of.

    So on to this problem of whether to offer porn or not offer porn when we ALL know of the effects of it for SOME people. Two points….

    Point One:

    Can we afford to take the chance of letting people have free will to choose when we KNOW that some will kill and abuse children and adults?

    “THE CASES OF GARY BISHOP AND TED BUNDY, SERIAL KILLERS

    Another example of the effects of pornography comes from Gary Bishop, convicted homosexual pedophile who murdered five young boys in Salt Lake City, Utah, in order to conceal his sexual abuse of them. He wrote in a letter after his conviction:
    "Pornography was a determining factor in my downfall. Somehow I became sexually attracted to young boys and I would fantasize about them naked. Certain bookstores offered sex education, photographic, or art books which occasionally contained pictures of nude boys. I purchased such books and used them to enhance my masturbatory fantasies.
    "Finding and procuring sexually arousing materials became an obsession. For me, seeing pornography was lighting a fuse on a stick of dynamite. I became stimulated and had to gratify my urges or explode. All boys became mere sexual objects. My conscience was desensitized and my sexual appetite entirely controlled my actions."

    In the case of Ted Bundy, serial killer of possibly 31 young women, he stated in a videotaped interview hours before his execution, "You are going to kill me, and that will protect society from me. But out there are many, many more people who are addicted to pornography, and you are doing nothing about that." While some commentators discounted his linking aggressive pornography to his sex-murders (when he said it fueled his violent thoughts toward women), there seems little doubt that Bundy consumed a great deal of pornography, much of it violent, from an early age.”

    (From: Pornography's Effects on Adults and Children. By VICTOR B. CLINE, Ph.D.,
    Licensed Clinical Psychologist, Salt Lake City, Utah. http://obscenitycrimes.org/clineart.cfm)

    Good article I challenge you all to read it.

    I can imagine that Bishop and Bundy both thought long and hard about what happened to them and how they reached this point in their lives. These people do not have anything to gain by making these revelations except to analyze their path to where it led them and share their experience. Shouldn’t we listen to them? For someone who has not experience this pornography addiction it is impossible to comprehend the devastation that it performs on one’s mind. It seems that those writing in this blog do not, and are simply addressing this issue based on THEIR own experiences and feelings of “I can take it or leave it or I’m smart enough not to go there”. Remember, porn isn’t just pictures of naked bodies anymore. It has become bored with that concept and has moved into the inclusion of violence, children, incest, using instruments and unnatural and degrading acts. Add that to the ease of internet access and poor countries and/or sicko people taking advantage of and torturing the weak, with people willing to pay, where will it all stop? It has been a process from simple naked pornographic pictures to acceptable exploitation to killings and mutilations. No doubt some of you have not seen the movie “The Condemned”? We can all look back and see the progression of the porn of yesterday to what it has become today.

    “In a society where some types of pornographic material are protected by the Constitution and obscenity laws go unenforced, some individuals may choose to immerse themselves in pornography. These individuals should be made aware of the health hazards involved. This kind of knowledge is most important for parents, since most sexual and pornographic addictions begin in middle childhood or adolescence, most of the time without the parents' awareness or the children have an insufficient understanding of the risks involved.“ (Dr. Victor Cline, see web page above).

    I don’t see warning labels on the packages. It would disgust me to think that it isn’t enforced because everyone is guilty of it and that Mormons are too naïve to believe the consequences.

    Point Two:

    Point two is a mute point after all that.

    ReplyDelete
  38. I wonder how this discussion relates to this news?

    ReplyDelete
  39. "But Broun contends that the sales of such material have contributed to an increase in sexual assaults in the military and other problems."

    Geez....an increase of assaults and other problems?

    Should we be concerned?

    ReplyDelete
  40. Not that I'm defending the porn industry, because I'm not, but could it be that porn is being used as a scape goat to hide other problems...

    In the case of Ted Bundy and others, if porn did indeed cause these problems, then surely we would have plenty of others with the same problems... Maybe Ted Bundy was just a really bad guy and liked porn. Using porn as an excuse just seems to be a way of avoiding personal responsibility.

    As for the military, do you really think looking at boobies in Playboy is causing an increase in assaults? Have you considered that more and more females are being accepted into the military and that due to the current war, many of the soldiers are developing mental problems as a result of the stress?

    If you look hard enough you can probably link porn to any social problems in our society, but if you could somehow remove it, I would bet that most, if not all of those problems remain.

    ReplyDelete
  41. I find your blog very interesting. I do, since I had to deal with the Marriott. It is a leading lodging company in the United States and other 67 countries of the world. It operates 2.900 lodging properties. At a very informative site, www.pissedconsumer.com, I found lots of negative feed backs in the address of the company. And it turned out to be useful. In my trip, I managed to avoid all the misunderstandings, due to the site.

    ReplyDelete
  42. Hillarious! I'm guessing you don't have your children with you at these 'Computer Conventions'? That you are 'alone' in this hotel room or with another adult?

    Yet as you say, "The first thing I do when I get to my room is to delete the ability to select anything from the adult movie genre"?

    Do you not TRUST yourself or your spouse to NOT order a pornographic movie unless it's blocked? Maybe you should dispose of the hotel phone as well, since all it would take is a call to the front desk to UNBLOCK them. Maybe you should make sure there is no internet access in your hotel room as well, since the vast majority of porn is delivered over that medium and you MIGHT not be able to control youself?

    What goes from 'hillarious' to 'sad' is that you somehow put more emphasis on this because the Marriott family's name is on the hotel. Not recognizing that Marriott International is a large publicly traded company, complete with outside directors, executive management, etc.. Why was Hilton or Hyatt or Sheraton in the title of your article?

    Marriott Corporation was incorporated in 1927. As a public corporation the LEGAL responsibility of the CEO and Board is to the shareholders, not to Mr Marriott's personal religious beliefs. It has done GREAT things in the way of spreading awareness of the church by the mear fact of having a Book of Mormon in every room. A large portion of the hotel's aren't in fact even owned by Marriott international but by others paying Marriott for management and reservation services.

    If you have a problem with pornography and the widespread access to it, I would appreciate an article on that rather then a short sighted (bordering on the ignorant) stance you take by using Marriott as a focus.

    cjsansom

    ReplyDelete
  43. probably not a good idea in Muslim Pakistan, eh?

    ReplyDelete
  44. IT ALL HAS TO DO WITH THE MONEY!!!

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Thank you for commenting. If you have a Google/Blogger account, to be apprised of ongoing comment activity on this article, please click the "Subscribe" link below.

Popular posts from this blog

"Mormon Leaks": What They Really Said-Senator Gordon Smith Discusses Politcs