More from this good Catholic columnist: http://www.denverpost.com/Stories/0,1413,36%257E28388%257E2139590,00.html
The problem is there’s so little female-oriented porn out there. It’s either a badly acted video of a wham-bam without a “Thank you, ma’am,” or it’s “Lights! Camera! Cut to the woman licking her lips.” Not to mention the women who star in these films look like bimbos.
It’s insulting and condescending, cutting women down to their body parts and erogenous zones. No wonder women avoid it.
Finally, 40 years after the sexual revolution, the porn industry is realizing the potential of the 108-million-strong adult female market.
[Once again, the preceding words are hers, not mine.]
So according to her porn is a substitute for “intimacy”?
Maybe that’s a euphemism.
Perhaps she sees porn as her ministry. It’s curious though that she rails against supposed partisan actions by the Catholic Church as justification for an inquiry into whether it should retain a tax exempt status, but doesn’t think to question the solidly anti-Catholic partisanship of Americans United and the justification of its tax exempt status.
She looks likes a guard at the new Catholic Internment Camp…..CIC….separate compounds for religious, laity, bishops?? The cardinals will be in solitary……
Maybe she thinks the porn industry should be tax-exempt because it provides a non-political public service.
(“Public service” — ha!)
Someone should send here the link to Democrats for Life (http://www.democratsforlife.org/) While there are a lot more pro-life candidates who are Republicans than Democrats, there are some who are both.
Which brings me to a questions: what if every candidate on the ballot is pro-abortion? Can the Catholic not vote for any of them?
More from this good Catholic columnist:
http://www.denverpost.com/Stories/0,1413,36%257E28388%257E2139590,00.html
The problem is there’s so little female-oriented porn out there. It’s either a badly acted video of a wham-bam without a “Thank you, ma’am,” or it’s “Lights! Camera! Cut to the woman licking her lips.” Not to mention the women who star in these films look like bimbos.
It’s insulting and condescending, cutting women down to their body parts and erogenous zones. No wonder women avoid it.
Finally, 40 years after the sexual revolution, the porn industry is realizing the potential of the 108-million-strong adult female market.
[Once again, the preceding words are hers, not mine.]
So according to her porn is a substitute for “intimacy”?
Maybe that’s a euphemism.
Perhaps she sees porn as her ministry. It’s curious though that she rails against supposed partisan actions by the Catholic Church as justification for an inquiry into whether it should retain a tax exempt status, but doesn’t think to question the solidly anti-Catholic partisanship of Americans United and the justification of its tax exempt status.
She looks likes a guard at the new Catholic Internment Camp…..CIC….separate compounds for religious, laity, bishops?? The cardinals will be in solitary……
Maybe she thinks the porn industry should be tax-exempt because it provides a non-political public service.
(“Public service” — ha!)
Someone should send here the link to Democrats for Life (http://www.democratsforlife.org/) While there are a lot more pro-life candidates who are Republicans than Democrats, there are some who are both.
Which brings me to a questions: what if every candidate on the ballot is pro-abortion? Can the Catholic not vote for any of them?