I am sick of all the enablers for the Religious Right

[mongo]

So called progressives who bitch about TV, and Victoria's Secret window displays, blah blah blah!

Usually with the caveat - "I don't think it (porn) should be illegal, BUT..."

Can't you see you are only being an ENABLER for the Religious Right to Sanitize our society in THEIR image?

When abortion and birth control are illegal, just remember the momentum you provided in pushing our country down this slippery slope.

And don't come crying to me - 'cause I'll be in FUCKING JAIL - for the heinous crime of selling a movie!

[rockymountaindem]

1. I have to say this

You're one of the most interesting posters on this site. I wish you posted here more often.

:toast:

[mongo]

2. Thanks, I needed that!

I only have internet access at work, and I'm out at the register taking care of customers in-between posting.

So, some days I only get involved in the cultural war threads.

[tavalon]

182. Cool business you got there

and in Ohio, no less!

[YOY]

123. I'd have to agree

Mongo has insight to an industry that has knowledge that is considered taboo to many folks. Most of us really don't know or are not willing to share information on the adult entertaiment industry.

but I still have a tough time feeling sorry for Max Hardcore.

Good to have you here Mongo.

[A-Possum]

3. Piffle

I can't stand the fundies, but neither do I want stuff pushed in my face in a public mall. I have a perfect right not to have someone else's sexual fantasies forced on me with my Starbuck's coffee, thank you very much. Yuck.

Got nothing to do with religion, and nothing to do with abortion or birth control, jeez. That's a bunch of straw man paranoia. You can do whatever you like and sell what you want to sell to the people who want to buy it, but that doesn't give you the right to pollute my vision in a public place. You won't be put in jail because Victoria's Secret doesn't have S/M in their window displays. That's just trying to have everything YOUR way.

And before you assume I'm an uptight prude, I'm a novelist whose last book had S/M sex scenes in it, so if I'm not skeeeered of the fundies, then why should you be? Bah.

[i_c_a_White_Ghost]

5. Interesting post A-Possum

;-)

[mongo]

6. Maybe because I can already be arrested any day of the week

for selling a movie. The way the laws are written, I can be arrested for selling a copy of Playboy.

Did you see this thread? The FBI is busting people for sites containing only stories. WORDS are illegal now. No pictures on the site.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=104x5005359

Call me paranoid all you want. In 1999, who thought we would be in an illegal war based on lies to the American public, routinely torturing prisoners, etc.

If Vicky's Secret is "polluting your vision in a public place", I would respond that you do not have a right to never be offended either.

[melody]

28. one thing about Red Rose

They were trading "questionable" images in chat rooms - it wasn't just the fiction. That seems to have been the target of the probe. Still, it comes one day after a raid on another place for fetish hardcore.

[mzmolly]

127. Look at why it was shut down.

According to a posting on the site’s main page, Red Rose Stories is facing obscenity charges for posting stories that allegedly involved bestiality, water sports, scat, bondage and domination, S&M, slavery, threesomes, orgies and sex with children.

I don't give a shit about the orgies etc. but promoting sex with children should be criminal.

I'm glad they shut this down.

[melody]

149. They were also reportedly trading illegal pictures in chatrooms

This isn't just a basic adult fiction site.

[mzmolly]

150. Yikes!

:(

[Occulus]

156. By that measure, "The Garden of Rama" should be pulled off the shelves.

In The Garden of Rama, by Arthur C. Clarke and Gentry Lee, one character, a thirteen-year-old girl, voluntarily marries her seventy-three-year-old UNCLE, for the purposes of providing the Ramans with a human reproductive pair for close study.

I'm just sayin'.

[mzmolly]

199. I don't see the comparison as valid.

I'm just sayin'.

[booley]

8. The problem with your arguement

I can't stand the fundies, but neither do I want stuff pushed in my face in a public mall.

Unless you LIVE in a mall, use the internet in a mall and have people shove your face into thier computer screens at a mall..your arguement doesn't apply.

FOR GODS SAKE!!! Look at what the Feds are actually doing! They are going after internet sites used by adults in the privacy of thier own homes! They are using Child porn laws to prosecute consensual sex between adults. I mean, your contention that the feds aren't goign to prosecute anybody is silly. Arresting and prosecuting people is what they do. and sinc ewhen has Shrub or his Theo con base ever had a problem ignoring someone's privacy so they could get rid of peopel they didn't like?

Sorry but it isn't paranoia. I run such a site and I had to have a lawyer look over my stuff when they redid the laws last June. Several site shave already shut down rather then face possible prosecution. I can go to jail for a mandatory 5 to 10 years becuase my paperwork isn't JUST the way they want. Not becuase I had underage models or couldn't prove ages and consent for any model or even becuase of any photos I did. And now they are goign after stories that don't "Pollute" anybody's vision. Much less in a public space.

and I am most certainly not in a mall shoving anything in your face.

[mongo]

10. They are going after movie producers too

Max Hardcore was raided this week, for obscenity.

And as far as 2257 (the age requirements) go, I can be charged because I sold a movie that says "S. Orenstein, custodian of records" instead of "STEVE Orenstein, custodian of records".

There is a new law that has just passed to add RICO to 2257 violations. So If I sell a movie where the notice is not correct, they can seize all of my assets - even if the movie is "Granny Gang Bang" and all the performers are obviously well over 18.

[melody]

148. Good point

It needs to be stressed - these stormtroopers are going after legal adult material in *paysites*. They're attacking the rights of consenting adults to view this material.

[bettyellen]

13. you lost us with "forced on" that's just a lie- just like the bullshit

descriptions of the VS windows. but what's the truth matter if it helps you censor things because they don't cater to your delicate sensibilitities?
wow, what happens in your book? does someone bend over? wooo hoo. that's hot.

[Inland]

225. Well, it's not "forced on" any more than it is being "censored"

There's no element of government compulsion.

The fact is that an individual store putting up a prurient windows is going to lead a greater number than usual to see this vision of sexuality. That's why its IN the window.

And the fact they look away in embarassment or disgust or just plain disinterest in the subject matter is going to hurt sales (and not just at that store, either) and could eventually lead to the window being removed.

In neither case is it anything more than people exercising their freedoms in a marketplace. Without the government acting, there is only a come-on and a no-thanks between private parties.

On top of that, the publicity leads others to opine on matters of taste and sexuality. That, too, is not compulsion.

How Mongo makes the leap from private parties' opinion and jail, I don't know.

[bettyellen]

230. because the people who find it "personally distasteful" are often

claiming it is a public space and it shouldn't be in their view- so without saying so , they think there ought to be some regulation of it, don't they?
most of them who dislike it aren't saying they support the stores rights are they?
and the RWingers are going after the marketplace by trying to get the govt involved.

[bettyellen]

14. Yuck? as in "i don't like it, so no one else should"

and you don't realise how prudish that sounds, huh?

[bee]

37. people get stuff pushed in their faces - all the time.

I dont like it when some whacked out fundie stands in the walkway down at the beach ranting at the top of his lungs about how were all going to die and shoving christo-nazi fliers in everyones faces...
Or when the anti-abortionists do the same thing with their dead fetus photos and signs.
But since this is America they have the right to do it whether I find it offensive or not. Its not about trying to have anything anybodies "way" its just protecting some of the dwindling freedoms we have left.

[Zhade]

39. Malls are technically private property.

And there is no fundamental right to shop in a mall, or to not be offended while shopping in a mall.

[Name removed]

52. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[A-Possum]

109. weak, dear

This is a general response, not just to TT, who managed such a clever insult that I'm of course squashed flat by the beauty of its originality and so stunned that I cannot summon a reply of similar verbal quality. My apologies, TT.

The theory being articulated by Mongo seems to be that because there isn't a line in private, that there is no line whatsoever to what should be shared with the whole community. That's flawed. If you enjoy having sex in your bedroom without needing or wanting to have sex in a public park, are you "repressed?" Is it ok to not want to watch somebody else having sex in a public park? Or is that just "prudish?" If you get all hot and bothered that I don't want to watch you going at it, why? Why SHOULD I want to?? Should I be perfectly happy if you squat down and take a shit in front of me and my kids? Where's the line? What if somebody wants to put a mannikin strangling dogs and hanging kittens in their shop window? how about a scene of a maniac disemboweling pregnant women? Is all of this to be something we should either enjoy and appreciate while shopping for shoes or be considered "repressed?" There are plenty of movies with that level of violence--why not put that in the mall too?

You can happily read porn or enjoy whatever fantasies you like, write about them, sell them and share them with all your friends and relatives, I don't care. I just don't want to have to watch them with you. Cause they aren't the same as mine and I don't want to have to walk through a mall with my eyes closed so that I can avoid the vivid images of YOUR sexual fantasies. I have my own, thanks.

And a mall IS a public place; it's a place where all sorts of people go all day expecting to do everyday things. It's not a Playboy Club. Trying to get off on the technicality that a mall is "private property" is just kinda silly.

This whole topic strikes me as pretty silly, in fact. I think you've got it totally backwards, Mongo. I think you just add fuel to the fundie fire by insisting that Victoria's Secret ought to be free to put any sexual fantasy they can think up in their window. That DOES get people upset, and then they DO start trying to legislate what goes in privately consumed media like books and movies.

You can all pile on me again as if somehow this proves I'm not "progressive" but it just makes you seem unable to understand human nature, in which sexuality is not just a commodity to list under "free speech or else" but a deeply felt and complex aspect of our personal selves. Do what you will with your own, but treat the sexuality of others with some respect in public.

[theHandpuppet]

121. No piling on from this quarter!

Excellent post.

[ToolTex]

198. Weak, really? Then why respond instead of to the 108 that preceded.

Your apologies accepted, A-Possum. But you didn't respond to my "weak" conclusion that your position holds no more validity for me to consider than would Lynn Chaney's. As far as her repression and maladjustment, if you claim them as your own it is fine with me, as long as you can show that you have also reared a homosexual daughter.

If you don't want to see something, just don't look! Nancy Reagan could have taught you that.

But when it comes to you deciding what I can look at, just stick it in your ear. We are not yet a theocracy.

[Scout]

292. How does one determine that one does not wish to look at something...

without actually looking at it first?

If you don't want to see something, just don't look!

just askin'...

[bettyellen]

205. you want to pretend the "sexuality of others" doesn't exist in public...

did you even see the VS windows this was about? no, you are ignoring the facts while seeking to limit others freedom of expression in a private (like it or not) place. the mall is a marketplace and reflects the market- human beings with cash. no ones asking you to love it. there's always another place to shop. equating this with hanging kittens or saying anyone here is advocating having sex in public parks is willfully ignorant as well as insulting and small minded.
the right to market porn is and was being attacked before the VS debacle, but you don't seem to care about it, because you don't approve, it's made obvious in the disrespectful and downright outlandish comparisons you make. hey, i don't like to watch two people engaging in heavy PDAs in public, but i don't compare them to kitten killers or rapists, i look the other way. it's a big universe, but i don't seek to mold it to my liking.

[mzmolly]

130. I agree with you, and if they made the male anatomy as much an issue

you'd see a change of heart - quickly.

Imagine these image plastered all over the mall:

[Warren DeMontague]

175. Wouldn't bug me.

Although if you want to see an extremely large male unit, I'd advise you to find someone who TIVO'd last week's episode of ROME on HBO. As Al Pacino would say, "Hoo-Ahh!"

(If you just want to see a really big dick, go here.)

[mzmolly]

197. APPALLING!!!

:P I want it banned! Or, uhm jailed.

[ErisFiveFingers]

176. I'm not seeing the problem.

It's guys. In undies. And...?

[mzmolly]

196. Hey *I* don't have a problem with it. But you can bet if these images

permeated our every existence in the way Pam Anderson's tits do, there'd be an outrage on the part of many who have no problem supporting the porn industry.

Take the beginning of the old television show Miami Vice for example. They show a women with large breasts, and zero in on them as she "jiggles" down the beach. Now, imagine that were a mans anatomy. And further imagine that kind of obsession were on the tele every 5 minutes or so. Also take into consideration how young men would feel about their bodies if the size of their unit (for starters) were a national obsession. If we were totally obsessed as a world, with "male beauty." My guess is you'd see a huge increase in the demand for penis implants? You'd also see male eating disorders and the use of steroids go through the roof.

As a women in this society, one can't watch 5 minutes of television without seeing several innuendo's about what values we have toward women in this society. Girls learn their value very quickly unless someone intervenes, and that intervention must be constant.

I wish as a society we placed more importance on the value of PEOPLE, than we do their body parts, is all I'm saying.

[ToolTex]

192. Beautiful! Please post more if you have them.

"Imagine these image plastered all over the mall."
I'd sure go to the mall a lot more.

[Pretty_in_CodePink]

269. No doubt about that!!!

I remember a few years back when The Body Shop posted advertising for sunscreen products in their windows. They were the same kind of giant signs like in VS. It was a male torso wearing bikini swim trunks with a bottle of the sunscreen peeking out the waist band.

It was fantastic!! Definitiely the male equivalent of VS. Workers in the mall and Body Shop said lots of conversation/complaints made about that display. I believe the response from The Body Shop was we'll continue the display as long as VS continues theirs. It was bold. I enjoyed the display. Alas VS displays continue. The Body Shop has moved on.....

[Scout]

295. don't forget, they have to be put into position too like the

female VS mannequins ... if we saw males in the same s/m and seductive positions, with some decent bulges, I think the reaction would be different.

[ErisFiveFingers]

174. Starbucks you say?

Enabling the religious right in their protesting over "public decency" issues?

That made me think of this:
http://www.365gay.com/newscon05/09/092005coffee.htm

Is that what you meant? I'm not sure I see much of a fantasy in Maupin's quote.

[tavalon]

183. Um,

neither Starbucks nor the public mall are pushing anything on you. You choose to be a consumer of their stuff.

Malls are not public places, they are consumer centered marketplaces geared toward our endless consuming. IMO, it's pretty uncool that you equate shopping malls with places that are truly public, like public parks or public libraries.

I don't think you're a prude though, just misguided.

[pagandem4justice]

246. Taboos are not inherent

Taboos are created by society, and perpetuated by society. Ergo, they can be eliminated. My point? if the female body wasn't censored to the point of hysteria, then that little bit of flesh at the mall wouldn't titillate people to the point of being a sales boon to the company. Thereore, they'd have to find a different method of marketing their product. :think:

[Scout]

297. you think the female body is CENSORED in this society?

that has to be one of the craziest things I've heard ... all you see everywhere if female bodies/parts to sell and advertise pretty much everything ... or to just show them for the enjoyment of others.

if the female body wasn't censored to the point of hysteria
are you sure you grew up in the US society??

[enki23]

260. while we're at it...

i'm entirely sick of christian shit staring me down everywhere i go. work, mall, highway billboards, tv, radio, newspapers. who is going to protect MY sensibilities?

and, dear god, what about my fucking CHILDREN?

[indepat]

4. The Religious Right has bred the anti-Christ IMHO

[booley]

7. I gotta rant as well

To often people forget that it isn't popular ideas that need to be protected but unpopular and even disgusting ideas. Dictators have always used the "for the Good of society" excuse to justify what they do.

I am hardly a fan of the Nazi party or the Klan or even the Theo cons themselves but I sure as hell don't think they should be censored. (OF course in this day and age THEY aren't the ones that have to worry.)

Too many people are willing to rationalize and legitimize the fascist stuff the Shrubbery run Justice dept does becuase they assume the Feds are going to be reasonable and only go after actual Threats to society. Well I got news for you, the Feds aren't reasonable nor do they have to be. Like any other organization, they just have to "justify" thier budget and thier existence. well now we have the FBI treating porn as a crime and they have to find people to prosecute to justify them doing that. whether society benefits or if these peopel put in jail were a threat to anyone is besides the point.

The new expanded and falsy named "Child protection Act" no longer requires any children be involved to be prosecuted under it. The feds and the Theocons are using this to chip away at anything they don't like. If the people who rationlize with the "porn shouldn't be protected becuase I don't like it" wait around til the Feds outlaw something they do care about, it will be too late.

I remember something I once read..."it is ironic we must protect those we despise. For it is in opressing the unpopular that Tyrants learn their trade."

[MichiganVote]

9. There's no business like porn business

Religious right my ass. Amendments have nothing to do with it. People in the business of selling sex at any point on the continum want to do business a hell of a lot more than they care about amendment rights for the "good" of society.

Give me a break. Just b/c I don't want to look at yet another skin commercial from Victoria Secret's does not mean I enable the religious right. That's like saying if I don't rent the next porn movie I erroneously don't support the porn industry. So what?

You sound as illogical as the religious right in your arguments. Abortion and birth control was legalized b/c of the work of the very same women who called porn what it is, the exploitation of females.

Deal with it.

[mongo]

12. You have no idea what I care about

People in the business of selling sex at any point on the continum want to do business a hell of a lot more than they care about amendment rights for the "good" of society.

And you have no idea how many people I help on a daily basis - mostly married couples, with my products.

By taking this whole "exploitation" angle, all you are doing is replacing one set of oppresive values for another.

And you are helping the religious right in their quest to sanitize our society to THEIR values.

[MichiganVote]

38. I know you're in business. That's fine I don't care.

But don't try to sell me on the idea that the porn business is akin to Mother Theresa for the poor slobs without a good sex life. That IS bullshit.

The porn business is huge. It lives to make money and so do you.

Why is it you can make assumptions about what I care about:

"And you are helping the religious right in their quest to sanitize our society to THEIR values." (A totally false statement by the way)

And no one can make assumptions about you?

[Maat]

122. I see your point.

This retired social worker is more concerned with the following kind of help going on - before any other kind - helping families to put food on the table for their kids, and secure medical insurance.

And, sorry, when I take my kid to the mall, I don't appreciate the more strident Victoria's Secret displays.

I think recent obscenity and porn prosecutions are disgusting - as long as no children or nonconsenting adults are being harmed, what do I care? And, I support the ACLU to maintain adherence to 1st-Amendment guarantees.

But seeing porn peddlers as heroes is a stretch for me.

[mongo]

286. Without the movies, I couldn't sell toys

But I suppose that a woman who wants to buy a vibrator or a man getting up there in years who could use a cock ring should have to drive to another city.

And, because of our repressed society, I end up being a de-facto sex educator and therapist. People tell me things they can't even talk to their own spouse about.

I used to be a systems analyst:

I worked on a credit card system for student tuition, so that students could enter the job market thousands of dollars in debt.

I helped an upscale dept store chain sell overpriced shit to people who had more money than they could spend wisely.

I helped a major institution trust manager make and break other companies with their investments

I helped a major coal burning utility rape the earth and pollute the air.

I think what I am doing now is way more karmically correct.

[Cats Against Frist]

76. Mongo, you're providing them with an "alt-narrative"

because they don't like each other, very much. I'm VERY sorry if that sounds harsh, but that's partially how I see it.

[lildreamer316]

15. To many

what you veiw as exploitation is very freeing and powerful. I could spend all day and night backing up my assertions (with help from BenBurch and Mongo) but it all comes down to this: do not judge what you do not understand. Take a walk in my five inch heels before you pass judgement on what I have done for a living (btw; not porn but dancing). Each is a life, and a craft, unto itself; just because you cannot wrap your mind around it does not mean it does not have value for someone else. Just for the sake of argument there are many lifestyles I cannot even begin to comprehend.......but I do not EVER judge them. I am not those people; I do not know what motivated them to embrace that.
Did you ever think that, like the demonization of marijuana, not everything you READ and SEE about porn is true?
Some of the most intelligent and of course open-minded people I know are in the sex industry. I married one of them.

[MichiganVote]

41. I don't understand porn? Ok, right, now its an art form?!?

Pornography is a business and if you don't get that, you must be about 10 years old lifting mag's from the dumpster.

I don't care who frequents porn, I don't care that there are decent people doing, selling, creating porn...I don't care.

But to make the jump as Mongo does that somehow people who object to it are "enabling" the religious right is just plain nonsense.

People want freedom to choose or not to choose porn. Mongo wants to restrict that freedom in the same way the religious right does.

Sorry can't go there.

[Zhade]

58. "Pornography is a business"

Really? So no one gets into it without the intent to make money?

Answer carefully - there are only about ten thousand websites I can show you to prove you completely, utterly wrong.

[MichiganVote]

59. How should I know why people get into pornography?

The sale of pornography is a business.

You're off the point. The point of the Mongo post was that those who exercise their freedom to ignore or resist porn are enabling the religous right. That is stupid.

[Zhade]

63. No, the point he was making...

...was that people who aid those who want to eliminate those things with which they disagree, like porn, are doing personal freedom a disservice.

Not wanting to look at, say, the VS display is one thing. Demanding it not be in the mall - which is NOT a public place where people are FORCED to shop - is another thing entirely.

[MichiganVote]

70. Oh really....

Mongo quote:

"I am sick of all the enablers for the Religious Right
So called progressives who bitch about TV, and Victoria's Secret window displays, blah blah blah!

Usually with the caveat - "I don't think it (porn) should be illegal, BUT..."

Can't you see you are only being an ENABLER for the Religious Right to Sanitize our society in THEIR image?"
---------------------

Its pretty clear to me what Mongo meant. If progressives complain about Victoria Secret's ad's you're enabling the religious right against the business of skin, porn, using sex to sell stuff, whatever. Pure crap.

Who died and made him God?

[Hello_Kitty]

141. Thank you. There's a HUGE difference

Between criticizing something and demanding that it be banned. If someone starts out their opinion with "I don't think X should be illegal...", then they are declaring that they are not interested in making it illegal! So what's the problem?

Funny how so-called free speech advocates can become pretty intolerant of speech that doesn't agree with them, eh?

[melody]

207. No one, but if the ones complaining have a right, Mongo doesn't? lol n/t

[MichiganVote]

238. Mongo does more than complain. He makes an assumption

about the people who have a differing opinion from his. Further, he has nothing to back it up. This logic is no different than the religious right who could or would asseert that if a person is not in some way offended by Victoria Secret ad's they support pornography.

[melody]

241. I don't see that assumption in his words n/t

[mongo]

287. Who made you God?

And yes, you add fuel to the fire of the religious right, especially the people who post utter BS like:

Porn is made by sex slaves
Most porn is "rape" porn
Most porn is degrading to women
Porn is a civil rights violation against ALL women.

All you are doing is providing more support to those that would ban my business and put me in jail - because you find something DISTASTEFUL.

If you find a woman who makes porn as being more exploited than a casheir at Walmart, then your problem is with other women that have sex on camera, not the status of women in our society.

[melody]

206. At this point

It's becoming a fight to have the last word, I think. I'll have mine, you have yours.

I'm not off point. And Mongo's point (I think) was that those who scream like a Sussex nanny every time they see an inappropriate image or something, are enabling the religious right. I think the feminists who protest against adult materials and complain about women in porn being demeaned (as if porn actresses making $200,000 a year are somehow less empowered than a pool secretary making 20K) also enable the religious right. I am a feminist, but I certainly see Mongo's point.

[Cats Against Frist]

77. Porn is only an art form, insofar as the participants don't know

that the only thing artful about it is the fact that they aren't aware that their non-ironic, oblivious participation IS the art form.

[Warren DeMontague]

120. You could say the same thing about religion

or any other belief system or mindset that requires insularity, and whole-hog acceptance of self-validating tenets that seem kind of goofy from the "outside".

[lildreamer316]

115. Actually, you are right

and it seems I got a bit off-topic with the intent of my post. I jumped on the tone of your post being judgemental and did not really address the subject at hand. To backtrack a little; I actually agree that it MAY be a bit too much for a store window display to show what this one did; however I am not sure as to the causes, OR the correct solution. I think it defintately deserves more discussion. What I am concerned about is that we all approach said discussion with clear heads, and no judgement about the "kind" of people who either view, participate, or sell porn and S&M. Our culture's views and obsession with it are deeply rooted in a patriarchal fear of women and their sexuality,and sexuality in general. That is a whole other discussion.
I guess I just see alot of self-proclaimed "open-minded" liberals on this board who act just the opposite.(NOT pointing at you, just in general) To me, the definition of a liberal is someone who not only has tolerance for the diversity of life, but is also curious and eager to advance their knowledge of such in order to grow as people and as a culture. I welcome the chance to expand my mind here and concquer predjudices I may not have even known I had. I also want to do my part in this for others, and there seems to be a great many "liberals" who are very conservative and judgemental when it comes to this side of free expression.
Hope that we understand each other a little more. Sorry for the long post. I get a bit defensive.:hide:

[Maat]

126. Like I said, I fight for 1st Amendment rights consistently ..

having a J.D. (law degree), I've volunteered for legal orgs., both as a student and a researcher.

I believe that the U.S. Department of Justice should focus on prosecuting serious crimes, such as murder and dangerous conspiracies to bomb, and not on porn or obscenity prosecutions (rather on child-abuse-related crime).

And, I'm one of the ones that doesn't appreciate 'Jerry Springer' commercials on Home and Garden Television at the time families may be watching a family program together (specifically, the 'nurse' in her fishnet stockings, or whatever, stripping). I've been a bit concerned about some of the Victoria's Secret displays in the mall.

These are corporte efforts, however, and I address my complaints to the corporations involved.

So, I get that much.

[lildreamer316]

136. Hey..

Just making sure you realize I was adressing MichiganVote, right?
I believe you (Maat)and I definately agree that this is a ridiculous thing for the govt/FBI to be wasting their time and our money on. You have my thanks for your hard work on behalf of our rights.Always.

[Maat]

138. Oh .. I guess I was just blathering on in general.

Sticking my two cents' worth in.

Interesting discussion.

(P.S. I didn't mean to offend. Take care!)

[lildreamer316]

145. No no

No offense at all dear! Just making sure you weren't pissed at *me*. 's all good.......
Good luck in all you work......

[Maat]

146. Thanks.

I actually think that you made many good points in the discussion.

:)

Take care!

[Tigress DEM]

100. No judgement here.

I know some dancers and other people who like porn who are very good people.

But it's not my thing and I don't have to agree that places like the mall should be displaying super sexy stuff. Was the VS display too sexy? I don't know if I've seen it.

I saw one this week in MN, but the only thing I noticed is one of the mannequines looked like she was an annorexic because her hip bones protuded like an inch and a half. Women in their underwear. Women in bikinis. Not a huge deal if that's all it was, unless the stuff was transparrent and I didn't notice.

I know the mall isn't technically a public place, but neither are bars and because alcohol is served we don't let kids in there. It's "adults only" that have full freedom to make those kind of choices. I bet wherever you dance they don't let minors in that room either.

We don't need disney world or anything, but some wanting some common sense guidelines about how much to show in public where kids can wander up doesn't make me a supporter of the "religious right" unless a person extrapaltes that themselves. I respect many people's religious beliefs, it doesn't mean I share them 100%.

[melody]

18. your rights are directly tied to the rights of the people who create it

If they're not free to express themselves, neither are you. No reasonable person wants to expose sensitive people to gross stuff, but for the sake of free speech, those of us who are sensitive should just look away. It's easier to do that than it is to win back lost rights.

[MichiganVote]

43. Sensitive? Try bored. Most of the sex ad's and porn are just plain boring

In a perfect world people would choose porn without the judgement of others. Ok, why is it that for those who do not choose porn somehow end up charged with enabling the religious right? That's not judgement? That is what is called Mongo judgement.

Drumming out pornography from society is about as easy as drumming out cockroaches. Porn is a huge business, its not going anywhere.

[melody]

118. Pornography is illegal...adult materials are definitely endangered

Anyone who has worked in or near the "erotic industry" knows too well how the field has been attacked from all directions over the last five years. I have traffic-selling friends (all responsible people with age-restricting precautions, etc.) who once made $250,000 a year who are now making a tenth of that. I'm not joking - and that's more the rule than the exception. If you think that doesn't hurt the economy, you're mistaken.

Sorry, but I would much rather have my sensitivities offended than have some omnipodaddy stormtrooper trying to tell me what I can think.

That said, no reasonable people want to shove grossly explicit stuff in the faces of people who aren't seeking it. We're talking about "not looking at the Playboys", et al.

[MichiganVote]

186. Trying to frame those who object to this or that in porn as having

"sensitivities" has the effect of painting porn advocates as insensitive. How exactly does that help the cause of those who advocate free speech?

As to the drop in income that those in the erotic industry have supposedly incurred, I would ask this; When or where is any degree of income guaranteed in the US? How can anyone be sure that this drop is due solely to a religious perspective? Too simplistic.

The issue in this string is and has been; can so called "progressives" have and speak an opinion that differs from others w/o being accused of supporting the religious right? I say, yes they can and yes they do and yes they will.

[melody]

211. you're misreading my words

You are the ones who are seeming hypersensitive. I meant "sensibilities". Censoring public display to a certain degree is advisable. No one wants children exposed to such things. However, adults have the right and responsibility to look away. This is tantamount to people complaining about all the sex and violence on TV -- it's the same thing. Well, if you don't like it, turn the channel. Look away. Close your eyes. That hardly impinges on your rights as a citizen. Highly censoring all public display DOES impinge on the rights of others.

>How can anyone be sure that this drop is due solely to a religious >perspective? Too simplistic.

Not simplistic in the least - it's an actual fact. I speak from actual information, not opinion. The reason for the drop in income is directly attributable to the religious perspective. The Bush administration put pressure on Visa/Mastercard, due to Bush's religious opinions, to scrub harder those transactions coming from "high risk" (in reality, adult content) sites. Never mind the fact that auction processing has a much higher rate of fraud -- the transaction scrub was only heightened for adult content transactions. THAT is a direct result of religious opinion against adult material.

We all have the right, as interpreted under the Constitution, to equal treament under the law. Wishing to absolve religious people of all responsibilities while castigating the adult industry is going against that tradition.

Incidentally, you ought to be concerned about our "right" to an income. It's what provides the tax base.

>accused of supporting the religious right

No one has an issue with your speaking up. I am merely speaking up myself, so how could you disagree with open discourse if you are supporting it?

The problem is with political action. When progressives back censorship, it's merely aiding and abetting the religious right - I agree with that. We then come to the point of making a choice that will benefit everyone. The open display people give a little, but you must also give a little. Otherwise, it becomes another control freak trying to make everyone behave to the extremes of your personal preference.

Another point is that, quite often (and though I wasn't directly in the adult content business, I interact with people who are), the most extreme right-wingers are, in private, the most incredibly perverse. They almost always scream in direct relation to their own personal preferences. I know of two very high profile right-wing, anti-porn people who belong to extremely nasty paysites. There are many other instances. The online fetish industry couldn't survive without Washington, DC. lol

That's not to say that reasonable people like you guys are necessarily like that, you're not, however that does give you additional information about the adult industry perspective. They all know who the hypocrites are.

[MichiganVote]

236. Melody I agree with many of your points

Where I draw the line is when Mongo or others support the notion that if a person expresses distaste for, in this case he examples Victoria Secret ad's, somehow, some magical way---these opinion holders support the religious right. That is just ridiculous.

[melody]

240. I think you're exaggerating what he said

He over-spoke to make a point. But just as you have the right to express your dislike about Victoria Secrets ads (myself, I had more of a problem with the Carl's Jr. Playboy cups), he has the right to express his dislike about your dislike. lol As long as we're not passing laws, we're fine.

[MichiganVote]

108. Freedom, Rights, Entitlement, are not necessairily

equal to one another.

[melody]

119. And who are you to determine where one ends and another doesn't? n/t

[MichiganVote]

184. I can determine it for myself as no doubt you can also.

The rub comes in when and where the views of one impinge upon another. Is it an impingement to express an opinion?

[melody]

202. No, and that's what I'm doing also :)

It doesn't impinge upon your rights to look the other way. It impinges on everyone's rights if we don't have some freedom of expression in terms of display.

[benburch]

19. Bullshit.

Since when can the depiction of a legal act be itself illegal? I'll tell you when; When you allow the Christofascists to make laws.

If you don't want to view porn, then don't view it. Nobody gives porn away except movie pirates, and you still have to ask them for it by starting the download.

And my good friends, mostly females, in the porn industry don't feel exploited whatsoever, and I am talking about people who were in it back in the 70s and are now long retired, and didn't feel any more exploited by the job than by the "straight" jobs they have done, as well as a few young women who are doing it today. And if you don't believe I have friends in the porn industry look at the colophon in any copy of AVN magazine.

Deal with it.

[melody]

26. Well said, Ben. n/t

[MichiganVote]

45. Basing your arguments on your friend's freedom to choose

does not diminish the right's of others to avoid porn. That too is a free choice and IS NOT an endorsement of the religious right as Mongo asserts.

[mzmolly]

140. Would you ask your good female friends how many of then have been

raped/abused?

To my understanding many of these women were abused from the time they were children, and they learned that providing sex is what makes/made them valuable?

Jenna Jameson wrote about her experience as such:

"Jameson's career began at 16, when she fell for Jack, a tattoo artist. At a party, Jack's neo-Nazi uncle raped Jameson. Unable to face her father, a Las Vegas cop, she moved in with Jack. Within a year, she went from high school cheerleader to stripper to nude model to porn actress, with a stop along the way to become a crack addict. Jameson's life wasn't so much a downward spiral as a freefall into darkness."

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0060539097/103-5826537-6251809?v=glance

My guess is that MOST of these women were sexually assaulted and have had addiction problems?

An aside:

I had a friend who's brother/father molested her from a young age. I remember her having large amounts of money when we were kids, and she'd buy us all candy with it. At the time, I wondered why her much older brother gave her so much money, but it didn't dawn on me what was happening at the time. As an adult my friend turned tricks at local pubs, and she bought lots of beer instead of candy.

I don't know what percentage of these women were victimized but my guess is it's a large percentage. I would also venture to guess that men in the industry may have had similar experiences?

Edited to add. I have another friend who was a stripper years ago, she's happilly married has been for years and she's naaaaaaaaasty. ;) I have learned not to open emails from her as I don't care for the subject matter. I consider her very intelligent/well adjusted - and to my knowledge she's never been abused/raped. So I DO realize that all sorts of people enter the industry, I just think the majority of those involved have likely been victimized and that troubles me.

[readmoreoften]

23. Then why do so many sex workers hate anti-porn feminists?

How dare you insinuate that adult-material friendly feminists have not worked for abortion or birth control!

The ties to adult material and the exploitation of women is slim. What porno mag did Vlad The Impaler read? Or Jack the Ripper? And all those absurd notions that GAY MALE PORN hurts women. What a stretch.

If you don't like porn, don't be in one or watch one.

YOU deal with it. Leave me alone. You don't speak for me.

When it comes to anti-porn tirades by feminists, all this anti-porn stuff isn't about men: it's about the need for WOMEN to CONTROL WOMEN.

[WritingIsMyReligion]

32. I'm a feminist, albeit a young one,

and I freely admit to hating porn. I despise it, for exploiting other women. However, porn between consensual adults--NOT fucking wacko rapists taking over women "just because we can"--is a different ball of wax. If you want to fuck in front of a camera, be my guest. Fucking is different from raping.

[benburch]

36. I know of nobody who has ever been raped in a professional porn shoot.

All actors and actresses know in advance what is to happen.

[WritingIsMyReligion]

42. Very good.

Being a minor, I really wouldn't know much about porn--I've never watched it, and I don't particularly plan to. As long as porn isn't done with the guy totally domineering the woman, acting like a masochist, I don't think it's very terrible.

[benburch]

53. Remember, real adult people exist who CHOOSE to be sexual masochists.

They derive pleasure that way. And you shouldn't judge them because they are acting according to their free will. And those same people would really enjoy porn in which there was a power relationship portrayed.

Remember though, this is a PORTRAYAL. The woman on the film is not really being dominated, she is acting the role she was paid to act. Porn folks are most often very, very different from the roles they portray on the screen.

And I have to tell you; I am a fairly kinky guy, and I find some porn disturbing. But this does not make me want to suppress it or criminalize it or deny it to anybody else. And it does not make me project that it thereby degrades anybody, even those involved in its production, but especially not women who never saw it!

[Cats Against Frist]

78. But, darlin', that IS the narrative in the lions share of pornography

and that's why I see it as harmful. I think the kind that's not exploitative has about three titles, and they're buried underneath the fucking Empire State stacks of the ones where an off-screen cameraman undresses a teenager for lonely guys.

[mongo]

289. Again - more totally unsubstantiated claims

Do YOU get all of your opinions from James Dobson?

The largest and most sucessful companies make couple-friendly porn that is not "degrading".

Why don't you get a clue before posting your personal fantasies about what porn is and isn't?

[Cats Against Frist]

294. Mongo, please stop that

I don't get any of my opinions from James Dobson. My opinions come from 12 years of pornography viewing, perusing sex shops, writing erotica, being a near-professional cybersex-er, reading pornography reviews, scanning the line-up on the payTV, visiting online porn sites and researching the industry of pornography.

Can you conceive, for just 30 seconds, that I am not an asexual prude -- I explained to you my sexual history, in another thread -- and also, do you understand that I am a writer, who is trying to get a poetry manuscript published that is all about (wait for it) SEX!!! Smutty sex with "all the words," and violence, and rape and a very candid and comprehensive look at the sexual narrative? That, from the Religious Right, my career is as much in jeopardy as yours? That, because of their lack of distinction between art and titillation, that my career is already threatened? I can't use my manuscript to apply for teaching positions at small, private, more conservative schools in a job market that is so tight, that brightest future that I probably have is working at the local broasted chicken outlet? That I will probably be automatically rejected for an NEA fellowship, as long as Bush has appointed an arch-conservative to the chair position -- because of the content of my work? Can you understand that I have a vested personal interest in censorship of "objectionable" material -- perhaps, as much as yourself? That, because of "community standards," I could probably not have a radio reading, at the local NPR affiliate, like most of my peers, when and if I get my book published?

So, I hope you understand that I see a clear distinction between what I do, and what you sell, and that I have to defend what I do, perhaps at the expense of what you sell? I've repeated time and time again, in these threads, that I am NOT for government censorship -- in any case, but, in the "marketplace of ideas," I wish to win a war that I cannot fight, for you, and use my argumentation to win a war that you may never win.

In addition, I'm serious about the critique of dehumanization/objectification, and it's awful hard for me to come down on, say, a widget company for outsourcing their widgets, and to defend the eroticization of children (as in the case of the web site that was shut down), and the replacement of individual humans with archetypes and icons. To me, the root of both problems meets at the SAME PLACE -- lack of a holistic regard for human individuality, singular, un-cliche beauty and seeing the human, in front of you, with the widest eyes possible, unclouded by the constructs, the binaries, etc.

I am only 30 years old, and I am still learning -- we all are -- trying to figure out this world, and this reality that we have been catapulted into -- and to make as much "sense" out of it, as possible, before we're snatched back out. The question of "picking" and choosing your arbitrary value set is a HUGE one, for me, and leaves me so incapacitated, at times, that I have a hard time doing much of anything. The question of postmodernism, that I alluded to, is all-pervasive.

You see me as furthering James Dobson's cause by rejecting pornographic narrative. I see you as furthering it, by further relegating women to "object" status. What to make of that? I don't know -- it's why we talk, and why I enjoy barbing with you.

[mongo]

300. The only difference I see

Is that you think what you produce is "art" and that what others produce is "smut".

If there was ever a time to defend BOTH what you write and what I sell, it is NOW!

And if you know so much about porn, are you going to tell me that what Vivid, Wicked, and Adam & Eve sell is "degrading"? They ARE the largest companies.

Your difference between art and titalization are YOUR PERSONAL TASTES.

Somehow, if you write about a woman being raped, you aren't objectifying her but if a woman has consentual sex in a movie she is being objectified.

This is about as much as I can say without getting this post deleted.

[sadiesworld]

135. Hedge your bets.

You can't go wrong with a career that doesn't involve a discussion of your cup size. Be strong, be smart, be tolerant.

Edit to add a :hug: --you're swimming with the sharks tonight! :)

[Finder]

79. Many feminists are pro-porn...

just saying...

I agree with Mongo.

[libnnc]

117. lesbian feminist who supports sex workers checking in here

:hi:

You are absolutely correct. Not all porn is 'bad' porn. Not all sex work is 'bad' sex work. Maybe it's because as a lesbian, I'm not afraid or embarassed by my libido nor am I afraid or embarrassed by yours--I don't know. But I support woman-centered/driven erotica and those who freely choose to participate in that industry.

If you feel empowered (and that's what it's all about--empowerment), who are we to criticize?

I'll stand up for Mongo's right and your's too.

[nvliberal]

194. Nonsense.

Those feminists who are anti-pornography are like those in minority groups who attack racism in the media.

The exploitation of women in the sex trade isn't "freedom."

Libertarian nonsense has really polluted a lot of progressive thought.

[mongo]

290. Telling a woman what she can do for a living

isn't "freedom" either.

[Tomee450]

97. But no one forces you

to look at a display. What ever happened to just turning away from something that offends you? What's next? Outlawing the wearing of bikinis, short shorts, mini skirts, low rider jeans, baggy jeans? Any of the above may offend some people. I think in one of the southern states, a legislator attempted to pass a law banning the wearing of jeans that hung low on the hips, the kind that many kids in urban areas wear. There was a great outcry and the proposed law was dropped. I think people go too far when they demand that their standards be accepted by everyone.

[MichiganVote]

107. The fashion industry is just that, an industry

The original post protested the opinions of "progressives" that some sexual content in TV ad's is distasteful to them. The poster evidently read something somewhere that was offensive. Should he have looked away? Should you have ignored posts in this string that you disagree with?

You didn't and no one forced you to read and comment. Yet you did.

Both the porn and fashion industry are business interests. Sex sells or they wouldn't use it.

When you look at TV ad's or other sexy material, how does it feel to be used? These industries know exactly what will appeal to people and they spend millions of dollars marketing their products. You think that they somehow care about liberalizing ideals in society? Do you actually suppose that the lobbyist's for these business interests care one whit about progressive ideals?

Get real. Sex sells and it is used to sell to you.

[mzmolly]

132. Here here!

:yourock:

[pagandem4justice]

247. The Fallback Argument

People always fall back to the "exploitation of women" argument when they cannot discuss their opposition to the sex industry in a logical manner.

As I'm sure mongo and others can tell you, yes, an adult "underground" exists, which trives on selling illegal material, and by exploiting underage males and females. But this is not the adult film/publication industry.

The sex industry sells material to males and females, of sex acts and nudity portrayed by consenting adults. This is not exploitation.

[Not Me]

11. I have a friend who was born Catholic, and

-is gay,
-believes women have a place on the altar,
-believes it is wrong to deny communion to *anyone* (especially non-catholics and catholics who disagree with the church),
-disagrees with their stand on abortion,
-disagrees with their position on birth control,
-beleives that the celibacy rule for priests is nonsense,
-beleives they are abdicating their social justice voice,
-believes that certain priests and bishops should be tried for conspiracy (child abuse)...

but yet, he still attends and contributes to their coffers.

Talk about enablers.


edit:typo

[melody]

16. As an erotica writer, here's a bit of contrast for you

And amen, btw, Mongo.

Still and all, it's just another notch up in the water temperature on the frogs.

[TimeChaser]

21. ...

:hide: What about Sirius and Remus?

[melody]

25. I've never seen or read Harry Potter, so I've no idea who those people are

btw, I edited the post to which you've responded for various reasons. lol (We have the head of a no-censorship fan fic archive here and I didn't want to turn this into a flame thread).

I'm just against any kind of fan fic (and fic) with underage characters. I think it's slimey.

[TimeChaser]

27. Ah

Yes, I personally don't like anything involving the children and the teachers. My favorite HP couples are all adults however ;)

[melody]

29. Adult fan fic in any universe is fine by me

A write a lot of it myself. lol (though not Harry Potter)

[readmoreoften]

17. As a former sex worker...I support you, mongo.

Seriously, when I was working as a dancer and a dominatrix, the girls I knew despised anti-porn feminists for abandoning them, talking down to them as if they were 'less-enlightened', and blaming them for 'ruining' their children and their marriages.

That's a heavy burden to put on a single mother trying to make a better life for her child, or a college student trying to pay bills.

The sex industry is neither good nor bad. It is like the food industry. Does your local hamburger joint exploit its workers and subject you to health risks? How about your local strip club? When the girls try to unionize, do you help them or laugh at them? Or censure them?

What about all the lesbians who have historically been sex workers because, as 'outlaw women' they have had no access to other forms of legal work?

Anti-porn feminists hurt REAL WORKING WOMEN for the sake of keeping the IMAGE of women intact.

(For this reason, I have very few heterosexual feminist female pals.)

[benburch]

20. I run a mailing list for sexworkers and sexworkers rights activists...

IM me if you would like to join.

[readmoreoften]

24. I pm'd you! :) nt.

[WritingIsMyReligion]

33. See, I personally don't understand

how the hell anyone could ever be a sex worker, and I don't mean to offend you or other sex workers. It just does not make any sense to me. All the risks... plus, it just seems...degrading. And I admit that, yes, I DO want women to have a better image than they do now.

[benburch]

40. Well, you should read some writing by sexworkers!

I would start with "Sex Work", Priscilla Alexander, editor, "Working" by Dolores French, "Cop to Call Girl/Why I Left the Lapd to Make an Honest Living As a Beverly Hills Prostitute" by Norma Jean Almodovar, and "Post-Porn Modernist" by Annie Sprinkle.

Unless you have listened to these women's voices, I don't think you can begin to understand their perspective.

[WritingIsMyReligion]

44. That's very true.

I might have to wait a few more years, though, to do so. Not so sure what my parents would think of me, a high schooler, reading that. They're both very liberal, but my mother is a kind of feminist herself, and my dad really gets a bit uptight about sex. If it were just information, not really "explicit" material, they wouldn't care so much, but otherwise....

[Zhade]

60. Your dad sounds like mine used to sound.

I had a copy of a Xavier Hollander book in high school, and he told me it would warp my brain.

[Maat]

129. What you say makes sense.

This retired social worker, and current legal assistant, has met a few porn-industry workers and dancers who were happy in their jobs.

I can't say the same for prostitutes, however. Everyone I have met was CRUELLY exploited because of their methamphetamine habit.

That made me sad. I didn't look down on them, and I always have treated them with respect and dignity in our court (that's where I speak with them - at court).

[Qanisqineq]

22. As someone who frequents adult bookstores, I support you

Well, I am not frequenting them now since my husband is overseas. But when he is around we think it's fun to go and look at all the toys, etc.

No complaints from me.

:evilgrin:

[TallahasseeGrannie]

30. You seem like a passionate person

and you are obviously all for porn. I assume you make a living at it? That's fine; I have no intention to fight against it.

But I have seen my share of porn and I always feel women are very degraded and that saddens me. Prostitution saddens me, as well. But I feel if a woman wants to degrade herself that is her choice, just as abortion is her choice. But I do not believe that my lack of enthusiasm for pornography is enabling the Religious Right. And of course, you appear to have a vested financial interest in the issue, yourself, and that I am sure drives your political agenda.

No flames, please. I'm not arguing with you. You do your thing and I'll do mine and we will each be responsible for our own lives, and in the end, individually accountable.

[WritingIsMyReligion]

34. In agreement, TG. n/t

[Zhade]

48. Not all porn is degrading.

Clearly, you have not seen the kind that does not degrade anyone.

[TallahasseeGrannie]

49. No, you are right. I haven't

and I'm quite open to it, actually. It is the degradation of the women that I don't like, not the sex. But one woman and three men at the same time..well, to me that's degrading.

Now, a good plot and getting to see it all? I'd be quite interested in that! But it would have to be well written and well acted and I'll bet that is hard to find.

[Zhade]

50. And if the woman actually WANTS three men, is that still degrading?

I've seen amateur porn where that happens, and all I see is a woman being very, very happy to be so...attended to.

Of course we don't want anyone, women or men, to be degraded. That's a given.

[TallahasseeGrannie]

51. Well, it's just a matter of personal opinion

I guess. I was going to say personal taste but decided against it.

Yes, three and one to me is degrading because it totally reduces it to objectification. And I think we probably have a gender issue her. I'm kind of assuming you are a male? Because usually males don't see that as degrading...jut hot!

But most of the women I know want a little more subtlety.

And there you have it, I think. Because it is about men and what they want, and that just gets to me sometimes. I hope they make a LOT of money. (the porn stars who do this stuff)

And I'm not even a feminazi!

[benburch]

54. I could introduce you to a friend of mine...

She dreams day and night about such encounters, and sets them up for herself whenever she can. And she is intelligent, literate, well-educated, and the mother of four really cool kids.

[TallahasseeGrannie]

56. A very unique individual, I would say

I hope she finds what she is looking for!

[Zhade]

61. It sounds like she already has.

Who are you to judge her as wanting?

[TallahasseeGrannie]

67. Let's review

the post stated..

"She dreams day and night about such encounters, and sets them up for herself whenever she can."

Obviously she "wants" these encounters. Who am I to judge her as wanting? Not judging at all; it is stated.

I simply said she was a unique individual and I hope she finds what she is looking for, which I felt was a very positive statement.

I would hope we all can find what we dream for about day and night.

[Zhade]

80. Perhaps I should have said "lacking".

I meant the same thing with "wanting", but now I see that can be read another way.

Your post seemed to imply she was searching for something, and was thus lacking something. I saw her as already having found what she was searching for.

[Tigress DEM]

90. Here is a thought. Porn = 2 dimensional. Life is multidimentional.

With porn, like any other movie someone plans it out from beginning to end and the script may or may not be deviated from, but the finished product is the result of trying to get everything "right" so it is artificial.

Has its uses, some people like it, but it is a representation of real life.

When a person sets up these scripts in real life, I guess that's ok, but I would wonder about the rest of their life being out of balance. Still, a lot of people juggle a lot on their plate every day.

Other people go bungie jumping for an adrenaline rush.

Still with aids out there and all the other complications of those kind of liasons, I'd personally feel safer bungie jumping.

[Zhade]

98. You, too, are incorrect.

There are entire genres of pornography (or "pr0n", as we young people call it) that don't even have a script.

Swingers, parties, amateur, drawn, just plain photos, whatever.

Ironically, it's your definition of porn that's 2-dimensional.

And of course, responsible people take precautions against the kinds of things in your last sentence.

[TallahasseeGrannie]

102. I have read

about surveys of women on what they would find erotic in film and just like with women sexually in general, what they appear to crave in erotic film is nuance, slow build up, emotional investment in the characters, and of course the standards for any good film: believable acting, scenery, etc.

But then any good art form involves all the senses. And that begs the question, can porn be art? I believe it can, with a lot of money and effort.

I'm sure that is a tall order for any film company.

Another thought: Perhaps men look upon porn as a means to an end while women would enjoy a wider experience? Although I am sure there are times women want efficiency as well.

Then again, the definition of pornography is not just film, but still pictures, writing, cartooning, etc.

It is an interesting conversation. It is a subject that I don't spend much time thinking about, although I believe kiddie porn (with real kids) is immoral. I am conflicted about topics such as posed violence (the real stuff, not just bondage) or computer generated kiddie porn. I suppose if there is no real victim, there can't be a crime. But the concept of stimulating desire for behaviors harmful to others has to be considered. I do not know what the professional judgment is there, or even if studies have been done.

In general, sexuality is complex and diverse.

[Tigress DEM]

106. I was being respectful and you're just wanting to be right. Whatever.

I was talking about porn in the context of the OP - Mongo says he makes professional movies.

However, taking your direction, even if it is unscripted, it's still artificial and less than the full dimension of life. It's art imitating life even if it's capturing the actual moments of life in that moment in time.

In regard to the person themself taking these fantasies to the max, I decided it was like any other rush, something people might find fun to do, but not anything I'd risk personally.

How can I be wrong about my own opinion of what I find personally worth taking a major risk about?

[TallahasseeGrannie]

110. Gosh

I have read my post over and just can't see where you are picking up that I want to be right. There is not right and wrong with opinion. I am enjoying the discussions immensely and certainly agree you were being respectful.

Here's a question. Is there a bit of ageism in your responses to me? Because I call myself Grannie? I've run into that a bit here and there online.

Agreed that even the best movie, never mind porn, is artificial. All entertainment is just a mirror. Even reality TV is artifical!

I absolutely celebrate your personal right to your opinion regarding what you feel is worth taking a major risk about. If I intimated that was wrong, I just can't see where.

[Tigress DEM]

128. Above you Gran, #98. Did I mispost? Apologies if I did.

[TallahasseeGrannie]

179. Thanks for straightening that

out. I'm relieved..thot I was sending messages I didn't intend!

[Tigress DEM]

272. No prob, I had to double check make sure I posted to the right one

after I got a reply from you. It's easy to get confused in here especially if we both reply to the same post at the same time which is what I think happened here. Visually it looks like mine goes with yours, but in the upper right corner I think is the number of the post each person is replying to.

I was a bit worried because I think I read yours after I made my post, but then I thought maybe my mental circuits had gone faulty for a minute.

[Zhade]

265. It's not that I want to BE right...

...it's that I AM right. Specifically, in addressing your incorrect assumption that all porn is scripted in some sense.

There are entire genres which are not scripted or faked in any way. That was my entire point.

I never said your OPINION was wrong, just your conclusion that all porn is scripted or 2-dimensional.

Sorry you concluded the wrong thing from my post. I agree, you were being nice - I wasn't trying to be anything other than that, myself.

[mongo]

298. Um, I don't make movies

My wife and I run a mom-n-pop erotic boutique. We sell lingerie, movies and toys.

We only sell things for adults to enjoy in the privacy of their own homes.

[Tigress DEM]

308. Pardonnez-moi

mis-read the line...

"cause I'll be in FUCKING JAIL - for the heinous crime of selling a movie!"

Some of those arguing were referring consistently to the American Commercially made porn that follows strict guidelines and protects minors - which is one of the areas of concern for me.

Then when I bring up the art imitating life argument, I get well there are all these avante guarde types of films that are full dimensional. Sigh - to me it is a film and one could not put in all the subtleness of life even if it had Meryl Streep and a 13 level plot- which the adult film industry doesn't have the budget for anyway.

I was just hoping to clarify that IMO the porn that couples share or helps a single person have a good time really isn't a problem for me, but that I think kids see way too much these days and don't need to necessarily be coddled - just not bombarded with sexual images in the mainstream.

It's an issue of balance and if there were as much regulation on the poultry industry as there is on the porn industry less people would die.

[benburch]

65. Hardly unique!

Except in how often she wants that.

The swinger's community in this country numbers about a million people, and many of the women involved have multiple partner fantasies. The lucky ones get to live them out.

[TallahasseeGrannie]

68. Then if she is one of the lucky ones who

gets to live out her fantasies, I personally believe she is unique.

And also by definition, being part of a population of one million in a country this size is also unique.

[benburch]

71. Well... If you are in a movie theater with 300 people...

One of them will likely be a Swinger. It's not that rare.

And there are many ex-swingers, and future-swingers... People move in and out of the swinger's community over time. One million is the swinger's club owners group's estimate for those active right now.

[TallahasseeGrannie]

72. I have had a number of parents

confide in me that this was their chosen lifestyle..or perhaps that is too encompassing a word. Hobby, I guess. They usually mention it because they have questions about how it affects their children.

[benburch]

73. Like any part of an adults sex life...

That is no business of the children, and you should not expose them to it until they are already young adults, if then. Sometimes, however, children are snoopy and figure things out. When that happens I tell people to be honest but not to give more than the minimum information appropriate for the knowledge of the child at that time.

[TallahasseeGrannie]

75. You know

that is pretty much what I tell them. I tell them that all adults should be discreet with their sexual activities regardless of whom they are with. I have mentioned making sure the children are well cared for at all times, never leaving them alone, etc.

I think I have had this discussion was about half a dozen mothers, actually, over the years, and I think they belonged to the same club. And come to think of it, I haven't had this conversation for about a decade.

I HAVE had two daddies turn into women, however. That is an entirely different situation. Way more complex.

[benburch]

82. A friend of mine became a woman and had two children...

They grew up to be amazingly well adjusted adults.

[TallahasseeGrannie]

105. The cases I am familiar with

were very very rough on the kids but I think they have come through. It certainly produces a tough, tough child. The boys had more trouble than the girls. Both of them got very macho for a bit. Once they got past puberty and out of high school they dealt with it better.

[benburch]

112. I won't say it was easy.

It was made worse by my friend's ex and her new husband who did all that they possibly could to alienate the affections of the children.

[TallahasseeGrannie]

180. I guess the whole

gender thing really stretches us. You have to develop flexibility or you're sunk.

[benburch]

222. Amen, Sister! nt

[Maat]

131. Just hope that the kids aren't around when she sets that up.

Kids are taken into protective custody for that.

[benburch]

223. NEVER.

She is very, very good about that.

[Maat]

263. Whew!

That's a relief.

That's all I care about.

[Zhade]

57. With all due respect, that's just your opinion.

The fact that I am male is irrelevant, and that you would insinuate that because of my gender I don't see the degradation you see is not only wrong, but ironically sexist as well.

I have known women who want more than one man at a time, because they like to feel good all over at the same time.

Frankly, you're coming at it from a flawed and semi-Puritan stance, and you're wrong in your assumptions. Every female I know enjoys sex, some of them with more than one partner of both sexes, and your generalizations are not very true to the reality I've seen - which is a non-exploitative, non-degrading one.

[TallahasseeGrannie]

64. I don't think the fact that you are male

is irrelevant at all. If you study Kinsey, Masters and Johnson and other later researchers you will see that men and women have very different sexual needs and expectations, both emotional and physical. If there is one area where it is okay to be a genderist, this is it.

Now, what I will give you is that you cannot guarantee that any one particular man or woman will respond in the same way, or even according to the same pattern, but there ARE patterns. It is genetic.

I disagree that I am coming at it from a flawed stance because I stated that my opinion is that it is degrading for one woman to be with three men. Ergo, obviously I am extrapolating that I would be degraded to be with three men at one time and I can promise you that is true. I don't believe there is such a thing AS a flawed stance when it comes to opinion. Now, the semi-Puritan stance is perhaps overstated. I doubt that many Puritans even knew this was possible, except in their fantasies, so I'd have to go way below SEMI! LOL

I am happy for you that you have only encountered females who enjoy sex in non-explotiative non-degrading ways, and that is certainly a goal for women, but I have a 30 year professional history of dealing with probably hundreds of high school and college girls who are not as fortunate, and who have quite a challenge in these areas.

[Zhade]

81. Now tell me how your generalizations apply to me, since I'm bisexual.

"I disagree that I am coming at it from a flawed stance because I stated that my opinion is that it is degrading for one woman to be with three men. Ergo, obviously I am extrapolating that I would be degraded to be with three men at one time and I can promise you that is true."

No, you are intimating that ALL women who engage in such a practice are degraded.

You are flat-out wrong on that.

[Tigress DEM]

91. As a woman, here is my 2 cents.

The fantasy is erotic. The reality not so much some times.

Not all people who have rich erotic fantasy lives want them fulfilled. Learned that in therapy after being cohearsed into fantasy fulfillment that turned out to be emotionally hurtful and abusive.

Real people come with complications attached.

The same partner who talked me into things (months and months of "no, I really don't want to" and "but what can I do to make you comfortable with it"). Later he called me all those names that go with it, even though it was his idea and orchestration.

Culturally, men are encouraged to be independent, go-getter action types and are shooled to not get "caught" by a "ball and chain" or conned into a "shotgun wedding" and such.

Culturally, women are "allowed" to have more "feelings" so we tend to be more aware - not all of us, and there are some men who are very aware of their feelings too.

In general, I think that makes it more likely that a woman would be more aware of the whole cultural background that says if she isn't a virgin with only one man, then she is a slut vs a man with many women is a stud school of thought.

I know at this point it's better to know what you want and are comfortable with and not let people talk you into things because they are projecting their desires into your fantasies.

[Zhade]

99. Culturally, our society is completely insane about sex.

We are an incredibly conservative, uptight nation when it comes to sex.

That's half the reason porn is such big business in the first place - when society labels sex as bad, or dirty, or only for procreation, or issues any number of diktats about what consenting people should or shouldn't do with their own bodies, it turns sex into something forbidden, and thus elusive and appealing to hidden desires.

Your situation was obviously not healthy. Coercion is wrong, and I am vehemently against all forms of it. I am sorry that it happened to you.

[Tigress DEM]

103. I'm not a prude. I believe in balance and adults making these decisions.

Thanks for your kind words also. No one else I've been with treated me that way and I learned to be ok within me about it.

I think adults should be open and affectionate with each other, but the main ilk of their sex life is theirs. So porn being something that is shared by adults who make that choice is one thing, public display is another.

I think prior to the new right wing revolution our country has made a lot of progress actually.

In general if a woman has the self respect, she can have many lovers and still get out there and have a life.

In general I think most people agree that in settings where kids are bound to be there should be some compromise about how much t&a to show. Less riske display out front, maybe, spicy stuff once in the doors, so it's the customers who get the show, not tourists from a small town that has never seen a VS and was only trying to find Camp Snoopy.

[TallahasseeGrannie]

111. I doubt

there is any subject more complex in a relationship than sexual behavior.

[mongo]

291. Try some Candida Royalle

She make the most romantic HC porn on the market. Usually the plot and acting aren't bad either.

[ErisFiveFingers]

177. The first scenario I imagined was a woman degrading three men...

...and treating them as objects for her enjoyment. Is that what you meant? It doesn't seem so.

I'm sure there are lots of scenarios involving 4 charcters that could be degrading, or positive, for the four characters.

Edit: typo

[bee]

31. Im always in agreement with you Mongo

:toast:

and you know what else really pisses me off? Thats NOT even S&M. Its. Just. Lingerie. And if we allow these fundie freaks to frame a bent over mannequin as S&M... well then we're just fucked (no pun intended) since S&M is already named in this insane war on porn. :mad:

Furthermore, Ill take a life-like mannequin over a pasty, dismembered, female torso (department store style) ANY day thanks.
What the hell kind of message do those things send anyway.... its a whole lot scarier than sex. :scared:

[sadiesworld]

35. I'm not entirely sure I follow you.

The vast majority of DUers have argued in favor of your right to sell pornography. Many here enjoy porn. Is this is not enough for you? Must we also "approve" of some of the vilest filth (Max Hardcore and the pedophilia stories) and favor porn for children or risk being labelled "prudes", "femi-nazis" or people who are incapable of raising their children?

I am perfectly capable of supporting free speech while still disliking some of that speech. And I will use MY rights of free speech to articulate it.

edit for grammar.

[Warren DeMontague]

69. Max Hardcore is a shmuck

so long as he's using consenting adults, he should have the right to do what he does- but when I had that job in the Video Store, I put my foot down and told the owner to stop buying that crap. I don't think all porn is "misogynistic" but his certainly is.

[mongo]

296. I don't sell Max Hardcore

because he is a shmuck. But I do sell devils films, whose covers are pretty bad, but the two or so movies I saw, and from what my employee saw - the movies are pretty much run-o-the-mill wall to wall sex.

I still support his right to make movies, misogynistic or not. And when people start trying to assert that his porn is somehow what "most" porn is about, that's where I start having problems with the enabling of the Religious Right.

[incapsulated]

169. No. Unless you want to see porn everywhere...

You're a Feminazi (ironically a term created by none other than our good friend Rush, people seem to forget that feminism is a leftist issue) or a closet fundie "enabler".

And if you like vanilla, you must hate chocolate, as well.

[DanCa]

46. Then lets picket and protest the right and stop the infighting

cmon lets organize and picket dobson and phelps and the other sons of bitches. Whos with me. I am so sick of fighting the right from the inside on my own from a wheel chair that i am about to go postal
You know it doesn't matter if your in athiestc (sp) christian catholic protestan wiccan were all on the same team here lets start to mobolize and shut the policy makers down and stop being bullies and taking it out on the people in the pews. Whos with me. Sorry for the spelling the tremors in my hands are bad today.

[Zhade]

266. Of course you're right.

We do need to pull together to stop those who want us torn apart.

[jonnyblitz]

47. right on mongo!

:thumbsup: i know EXACTLY what you mean. there IS a prissy puritanical streak on the left . the anti-porn , anti-stripper type of folks. :eyes:

[Pepperbelly]

55. I don't much give a shit about porn but if these bastards are against

it, it simply cannot be all bad.

[peacefulpat]

62. Here's something every member of the Right needs on their fender

A good friend of mine has designed a new car magnet in response to those "Support our Troops" yellow magnets you see everywhere. You have to see it to fully appreciate it. It's at www.peacepositive.net. Mike's idea was to bring a symbol of peace to the ribbon message. The results are pretty powerful. The other cool thing is that he is donating 20% of the proceeds to charities that support peace. Now we just need everyone on the left to buy one for everyone on the right...

[Warren DeMontague]

66. It's a VERY SIMPLE CONCEPT

What consenting adults do with their own bodies, in the privacy of their own homes, is their own business. This applies to what movies they watch, what smut they peruse (presuming, again, said materials involve consenting adults again) what books they read, what plants they smoke, etc. etc. etc.

If you harm someone else, drive under the influence, neglect your kids, rob your neighbor, manufacture an energy crisis and rip off the citizens of california to the tune of billions of dollars (sorry, got sidetracked there for a moment) then hey-- you're a criminal. But making people into criminals for consensual adult activities is a collosal waste of time and fundamentally opposed to the twin basic bedrock concepts of self-determination and mind your own fuckin' business.

With VS lingerie displays.. yes, if the mannequins were really engaged in obscene things involving weird plastic genitalia, maybe an argument could be made about the "public mall". But the display I saw was no different from what's been in the window of VS since the beginning of time. I don't think it meets the threshold of "in your face smut". Now, once upon a time I worked in a Video Store that had a decent porn section. The owners were EXTREMELY dilligent about making sure that all that stuff was well hidden from everyone who didn't want to see it... but that didn't stop certain folks from deliberately seeking it out for the mere purpose of then expressing righteous indignation.

TV? I don't know what's on Network TV anymore, other than "Arrested Development", which is the first tv show I've watched in a decade and by the way damn funny. But I do know that I think any lie-and-deception filled, jingoistic, war-boosting "special address" by George W. Bush, not to mention the attendant death and misery it inevitably will cause, is a helluva lot more offensive than Janet Jackson's boob.. although I'm not terribly interested in seeing either.

But if it was just about what was in public spaces like store windows, viewable by anyone, that would be one thing. Scratch the surface and you will certainly find people on the "left" who are plenty eager to tell consenting adults what they can or can't do with their own bodies, if it involves posing nude or appearing in a porno.

[Cats Against Frist]

85. I agree with everything in your post, but still disagree with Mongo

That nuance is a BITCH, isn't it??? ;)

[Warren DeMontague]

116. Well I think there's a big difference

between finding something objectionable, aesthetic and otherwise, and calling for censorship. You seem to generally fall into the first camp.

[Zhade]

267. Great post.

It is surprising the number of good liberals who want to regulate things to suit their taste, or who like to describe the lives of happy, fulfilled people they've never met as less than what they think of themselves.

Humans in general have always had to fight the urge to control other humans, I think.

[Name removed]

74. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Tactical Progressive]

83. I've heard much of the porn industry is run by women

Don't know how true that is, but if it is true it kind of takes the wind out of the exploitation perspective. Not that you can't exploit your own for your personal gain at the expense of the larger group, but it would still be different than being exploited by others, in this case men.

[Tigress DEM]

84. Actually, those of us who can find common ground are a thin strand of hope

I am not about to ENABLE the Religious Right because I have my own opinions that happen to closer to theirs than yours.

Boo Hoo your fucking self. You might have to go to jail for your right to sell smut.

If I have to go to jail at least it will be because I'm protesting the bozos who are denying the truth, covering it up and trashing your rights. I don't have to agree with you to defend your right to say whatever you want to or make whatever movie you want to make.

But don't act like I HAVE to agree with you or support what you do in order to be a tolerant American. You're sounding a little Rove like with that sentiment and I'm not going to bend over for him or you so grow up and deal with your own choices and don't blame them on others.

It isn't even a religious thing for me. I just think it's all over done. It's become like bell bottoms or some stupid fad. Take women who bend over in public with low riser jeans and their thong shows.... they think they are so hot. So opposite of a turn on. Plumbers crack. Leave something to the imagination.

If a man has seen all you got as you walk on by and he can have whatever woman he wants whenever he wants, that's a plot for one of your movies, not real life. People can have their fanatsies, but adults should let kids be kids - that's where the public displays bother me.

I think we push too much information kids too soon so instead of being able to decide for themselves where they fall in the spectrum of opinions, they are over stimulated to the point of not even being able to conceptualize having a real realationship because that happens at a speed akin to baking a cake in an oven vs popping tarts in a toaster or something in the microwave.

It makes them easy victims for people in your industry who really are criminals and predators - people who make child porn.

There isn't a consenting choice involved when adults make kiddie porn and because those people are in your industry the Religous Right acts like every one of us who stands up for your rights is in thick with those predators.

And if you ARE one of them, FUCK you to hell and back and don't even think that you are involved in a first ammendment issue if you are hurting the most innnocent and least capable of defending themselves among us.

It would be a crime if it weren't on film and putting a camera up and calling it art isn't an excuse to get away with a crime.

[Cats Against Frist]

88. That's a good point --

MANY of the things that are fetishized in porn would be a crime, if they weren't on film. IMHO, I do support their right to make it, and the rights of consenting adults to pursue whatever dalliances they wish -- but, quid pro quo, I get the right to trash it and be condescending, and whatnot... :)

[benburch]

92. Like what?

What in porn would be a crime if not on film?

Elucidate?

I live in a "consenting adults" state where nothing two adults do is illegal, so you had better have in mind something that is not between two consenting adults.

Do you?

Can you cite even one example in a commercial american porn film that is not between two consenting adults. (And Traci Lords is not an acceptable response because she presented false ID, and because that was 20 years ago.)

[Cats Against Frist]

93. No, I, and the other poster are saying that

that which is depicted would be a crime -- I'm referring to rape fetish, barely legal, pedophilia etc. -- I'm not even referring to like animal porn and group sex and religious right "crimes," I'm talking about real violation.

[benburch]

95. People have dark fantasies.

As long as those remain between the ears, or on the printed page, or on film, I can see no problems.

I watched "Silence of The Lambs" the other day, and many of the things depicted in there would be illegal if acted out in real life.

But I do not criticize it for that.

Why does the same class of thing in an explicitly sexual rather than an explicitly violent film merit a different treatment?

Bear in mind that much of the classic literature of our civilization depicts extremes of life!

[Cats Against Frist]

101. Oh, Ben -- I absolutely agree with you

that people have dark fantasies -- and I've been flamed here, before, for insisting that women have rape fantasies -- which I know to be true, because I used to be one of them.

And, I anticipated your argument about other crimes, in "normal" films -- like action films, etc. I think that, while I also don't agree with censorship of those things, that there is an argument to be made about depictions of violence -- and, to me, there's no difference between screen "action" violence, and a forced DP by the poolside.

The problem is that pornography has no "artistic merit," in and of itself, because there's no distance or removal from that which is being depicted. For pornography to be "artful" to me, it has to be taken as a whole -- with its subtext which is my feminist critique, your defense -- and it relies on the participants in the pornography not being aware of the "crit." That's the difference, I think, between "art" and prurience. (Unfortunately, the religious right doesn't get THAT, either).

All of that said, please be assured that I do not wish for any of this to be regulated or prohibited by the government. That's the most important part -- and the crux of my argument is that they are allowed to do what it is that they wish, and I am allowed to raise issues and discussion points, about it -- and THAT puts us on a level playing field. You cannot demand the "right" to do something, and demand that no one judge you for it -- that's every bit as fascist as someone else invoking authority to prohibit YOU from doing what you want to do.

Also, I'm not judging the people -- I haven't called anyone who participates sick, or demented, or damaged -- though I've been accused of being a prude, taking it "personally" and another poster has been accused of being "ugly" -- isn't that the oldest ad populum, in the book? At worst, I think I wrote that there are people who don't mind participating in exploitation -- with which I'm sure you'll agree -- "consenting adults," and all. The resistance to my argument tells me much of what I need to know -- though I would love for an opponent of my critique to take it head-on. I am always open to that kind of discussion, and I'm often open to yielding, or adjusting my opinions in response to a good argument.

[benburch]

104. Artistic merit is relative.

And many films have quite a bit of artistic merit. I would recommend to you Rinse Dream's 1982 film "Cafe Flesh" for an example of what can be done in terms of artistic high concept along with hardcore pornography. Also many of the films from Femme productions. Also Annie Sprinkle's "Sluts and Goddesses Video Workshop". And I am sure my reviewer friends could rattle off a list.

And there are some very workable attempts at comedy; "Debbie Duz Dishes" with Nina Hartley was an example, and the later Nina Hartley "Debbie" films had quite a bit of political satire in them as well. Not horribly polished, but at least as good as most vaudeville.

Similarly, many mainstream violent action films are not terribly artistic. I would suggest that you look at the majority of the films by Troma Entertainment as having very little artistic merit and being largely "violence porn" with buckets of blood and realistic mutilations. And there are other examples that are as close as your local Blockbuster that are little more than a succession of teenagers being killed by some bad nasty critter in darkened sets...

If porn isn't as polished as mainstream films, I blame its ghettoization. You simply cannot have a proper mainstream film with a hardcore scene and hope to release it to theaters. It is not that the theaters themselves would not show it, as they will show anything that will sell, but usually the zoning laws or restrictive covenants in their leases prohibit showing films rated NC-17 or X. This was what drove hardcore porn off the big screen and onto video.

Were we to somehow restore the balance, as I believe the convergence of digital TV and high speed internet will soon do, I would expect to see many, many more high concept porn films, and mainstream dramas that have elements that would currently relegate them to the porn ghetto.

[Cats Against Frist]

281. Ben -- I'll check out the Dream film, and some others

What I find funny, in this thread, is that people have called me a "prude." I honestly don't think I am -- I've just run, I think, the whole gamut, and I've seen it from a "removed" distance, and I can no longer participate, both for political reasons, as well as that it makes me feel silly. That said, I'm not shy about much, and I actually like art that involves sex -- my entire poetry manuscript, which I'm just now, seriously, trying to get published, is about sex and the sexual narrative (which is another reason why I am attracted to these threads).

So I'm also keenly aware of the threat of fundies -- not only would they shut down the XXXBARELY LEGAL, but they'd also close down The Flowers of Kungshallen, which I'd take REAL fucking personally -- because, to them, there's no difference between the two -- WHICH may, in my eyes, amplify the difference between the two, as far as artistic merit -- all artists, I think, are keenly aware of the "defense" of their art -- be it to actual peers, publishers, university circles -- or to some non-specific entity that exists only in their heads. I'm aware of the argument that I would make to a fundie, in defense of my art. The problem is, I can come up with no such artistic defense for porn. The only argument, and the most important argument, is the First Amendment defense -- with which I agree -- but it's not an artistic defense, based on aesthetic, or whatever.

So, I would love -- particularly a line on experimental films that use pornography. I recently watched "I am curious (yellow)" and "I am curious (blue)," which sort of made a point of non-eroticism, through very explicit scenes. I enjoyed them, though it was definitely not sexy.

[benburch]

306. Experimental films...

My friend Annie Sprinkle has a number of them done in recent years;

Linda/Les and Annie: The First Female-to-Male Transsexual Love Story

The Sluts and Goddesses Video Workshop

Post Porn Modernist Performance Documentation

http://anniesprinkle.org/

[Tigress DEM]

113. I specifically cited child porn as illegal with or without camera.

Consenting adults can do what they want, but even if the group you work with is reputable, you know that runaways in large cities go through a lot and some of them wind up as porn actors because of lack of options just like some soldiers wind up in the army because it's the only way to support their family.

They may be adults by the time they get to you, but it doesn't mean that they aren't being compromised by your industry. I'm not saying you guys are all bad, but we here on the DU in addition to defending your rights to free speech and all also know that just because it's perfectly legal on paper doesn't make it right.

Walmart pays such low wages that their people are usually eligible for assistance. Is that a crime? Not exactly, but it makes our world difficult to live in.

Not every porn movie is bad, but there are some that are hurtful to people. If people can enjoy them and have real lives and realistic expectations afterward, fine. If not, if porn is part of America's problems, then DU will rip into it like a terrier. Right now it seems a whole lot less important in general than getting the criminals out of office.

[benburch]

114. There are ZERO commercial porn films with underage actors.

ZERO.

There are such strong federal requirements for proof of age now, and have been for nearly a decade, that runaways do not get cast into commercial porn film. Period. And before that there was, that I can recall, Alexandria Quinn, who had a fake Canadian Passport, and Traci Lords who also had fake ID. Not much of a record of exploited underage girls... I think more underage persons sneak into the military and into dangerous occupations like mining and high steel every month than ever snuck into commercial porn with fake ID.

[Tigress DEM]

124. And you agree that it is a good thing?

You obviously aren't supportive of any type of porn involving children or teenagers. You deal with commercial groups that submit themselves to regulation so they can show good faith in protecting innocent kids from predatory types.

However, child porn does exist. It isn't a figment of my imagination. People get busted with it on their computers on a regular basis.

However, if it isn't coming out of anyplace you are involved in then my beef isn't with you.

Point of clarification. I didn't say that your industry worked with any runaways that were underage. I said that runaways by the time they get to be 18 after living on the street might turn to porn as a good money option. In the same way that 18 year olds that have no job prospects turn to the army.

I'm really not trying to villify this, but as respectful as you are of the rights of those working with you I can't believe that you can truly know or care about the baggage someone may have coming in for a job. Employers aren't there to solve their employees problems.

For instance a lot of people who are co-dependent are nurses. Doesn't mean hospitals are wrong to hire them. Be stupid not to, they make good nurses.

I guess what I'm trying to say is I understand you are complying with the law and that's good. It's not your fault the world is fucked up and chaotic and porn is such a good business. Maybe you even help a lot of couples have great times together.

I just have dreams of a differnt kind of world. I can't compete with men's visions of porn goddesses and neither can most women. I don't try to anymore, but it's still there. It makes me sad and that's just where I'm at with it.

Still. I want everyone to have the right to free speech. We can't work things out and find better ways if we can't discuss it.



Were You There?

[Cats Against Frist]

162. But there's 150 "Brazillian" that advertise XXX BARELY LEGAL XXX!!!

So who's snatching that stuff up?

[benburch]

170. Barely Legal is legal.

What's your problem with it?

BTW, Most of the girls in those are well over 18... Not uncommon for a 23 year old to be called "Barely Legal".

Lots of guys have sexual fantasies that are about the girls that they lusted after but didn't get in their youth. That is the market here, and I can't see the problem with it. These are not pedophiles or hebephiles. they are just middle-aged geeks who still wish they had gotten Mary Sue back in High School or College.

Personally I don't get get turned on by that, but then, at that age I was seeing women in their 30s and 40s...

[Cats Against Frist]

275. Wrong-o

Lots of people like to attribute the "Anabelle" condition to the people who buy "barely legal," stuff -- that somehow poor Humbert Humbert got stuck in "sea-wall time," with a "little ghost in natural colors," and, so 20 years later, it's OK for him to fantasize about little girls.

I don't believe it -- I have yet to read/find anything that would suggest that that is a common psychological condition -- rather than the real reason being that these "young" girls are iconography for the weaker, the virgin, the "forbidden," which replaces the female, with a "sign" -- the brunt of which has to do with exploitation and violation. Since I would bet my left hand that either "barely legal," or "asiaphilia" (asian women also seen as demure/exploitable) OR straight up rape porn makes up a healthy 1/3 to 1/2 of the porn "catalogue" that plenty of men with wives and girlfriends are partaking in this -- which degrades them, too.

I don't believe the government should censor this -- but I don't think there's any way to defend this -- if you think that the dehumanization of women is OK, forget Halliburton, forget Bush, forget the Neocons -- fuck it all -- there is no outrage, and we're truly postmodern. Just light up a joint and toke it. You're saying "anything goes," so let the rich pillage, the mercenaries kill and the emperors build their empire. Why waste time raging, in a postmodern world, when you could be fucking a nine-year-old girl in the ass?

[mongo]

284. So, what religious right website are you getting your statistics from?

. Since I would bet my left hand that either "barely legal," or "asiaphilia" (asian women also seen as demure/exploitable) OR straight up rape porn makes up a healthy 1/3 to 1/2 of the porn "catalogue" that plenty of men with wives and girlfriends are partaking in this -- which degrades them, too.

You have no idea what you are talking about. Youth is beauty, but I couldn't put 1/3 of the 1,000+ titles every month into the pigeonhole catagories you set out. And if you go by SALES which is more important than some release that sells 5 copies, the majority of porn sold in the US, is couple friendly, stuff - hardly degrading to the average person.

And the rest of your post is about replacing one set of opressive values with another - that society should just conform to your personal tastes.

[benburch]

305. Can you back that up with cites to literature?

Because I think you are VERY wrong about this, and I don't think you can back this up.

(And I'm not calling you a prude! I just don't think this is a correct opinion.)

[Name removed]

94. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[mongo]

299. The people in MY industry aren't child pornographers

They are criminals. And they don't run a legit movie company on the side.

When you insinuate that child porn is part of the adult entertainment industry - a totally unsubstantiated claim meant to further YOUR personal tastes - you become an enabler for the religious right.

And insinuating that I am a child pornographer is just utter Bullshit.

So, you don't care if I go to jail for selling a movie - great. Just don't come crying to me when they go after something you care about next . Because all you are doing is helping the religious right turn America into a Christian fascist republic.

[Name removed]

86. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

87. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

89. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Cats Against Frist]

133. Thanks, mod, kewl, u rok, lol

Since I KNOW that this speaks to me, sorry that I came in late, on the thread -- I've been in a pumpkin patch, all day, and down at the Goodwill, putting together a used bedroom set, for my son, and at a local community arts fair -- oh, and I spent a large part of the day "fluffing" Phyllis Schlafly, pawning my diamonds off to give to James Dobson, and painting a picture of Ralph Reed on a semi-truck, and just, basically enabling the religious right.



What's the big deal???


Seriously, you're mistaken, Mongo, and it's too bad, because I think I like you. Turned around, I could make the same argument: that you enable the right-wing, third-wave version of fake feminism that has provided an "escape path," for those amongst us who wish to rationalize exploitation and be exploited and objectified. Your opinion (or at least the opinions of most of those who are arguing against my point) might not be like James Dobson's, but it's not so far off from Laura Ingraham, Ann Coulter, Tammy Bruce, and hella freepers. Remember, they're not all the puritain crowd, and most of those who are not, are the ones who subscribe to Maxim and beat off to those twins from Full House, and make fun of any woman who doesn't shave her legs, wears pants or spends her life making his corned-beef sandwiches.

You can defend it, all you want -- it doesn't change the fact that there is a very rational critique of pornography and sexual narratives that revolve around cliche, dehumanization, archetype and objectification. You can deny it until you're blue in the fucking face, but it doesn't change that. And don't try to make me your enemy, because I'm not. There is a clear distinction between the religious right, and their views on sexuality, and mine -- a "grand canyon" of difference, if I may. I despise the religious right, from top to bottom, and I don't play "the enemy of my enemy is my friend," with them -- no how, no way. You know, as having libertarian tendencies, that along with the right to sell your narratives, I have the right to opinion--- and on that front, we're equals.

I hope that we can keep this discussion good-natured, and I'd love to go in-depth with you -- but you have to respect my opinion, as I respect your right to sell your stuff, which I do.

[Zhade]

268. Point of order: he DOESN'T have to respect your opinion...

...just your right to have an opinion.

[Taxloss]

96. The worst excess of pornography I ever saw on TV

was on a Channel Four documentary shown here in the UK. I know I will be asked to provide its name and the name of the main participants, and I genuinely can't remember. It was all shot in the Nick Broomfield fly-on-the-wall style. It followed a British girl who wanted to be a porn actress. She went to LA to follow her dream.

She seemed like a sweet girl and the first part of the film was entertaining and quite amusing in parts. It then very rapidly turned very, very dark indeed. The girl was invited to the house of a noted porn producer. To cut a long story short, the documentary maker had to physically step in to prevent the girl being subjected to what seemed to be nonconsensual sex. The film footage of the documentary team extricating a distraught girl hurriedly from this smart house was simply harrowing. It was among the most disturbing pieces of television I have ever seen.

Porn will always be with us and for the most part there's little wrong with it. But the porn industry does have a very, very dark side and it is not "enabling the religious right" to say that.

[mzmolly]

125. Your comparing the desire to abstain from objectifying human beings

on a national level, to overturning Roe V. Wade?

I'm not a Democrat because I value porn. I'm a Democrat because I value people.

Also, who buys more porn than anyone? I would venture to guess it's white males - the same group that reliably votes Republican.

I really don't care who buys your porn, but I don't want to see women expolited on my tele every evening, whether said women enjoy it or not. I have a daughter who doesn't need to learn that "tits and ass" are her future contribution to society. I would also not want a son of mine to learn that women are put on this earth to please/submit to him, that is a Right Wing creationist position.

[Tigress DEM]

134. Agree and disagree.

As far as first ammendment goes, even though I'm not a "supporter of porn" I still think that whatever I don't like or would prefer kids not see, if it's something that other adults feel they want and enjoy still should be mostly none of my business.

I agree on keeping some basic common sense limits on displays or adult tv times/channels so that kids won't accidentally happen upon. I believe in giving parents the option to keep their kids away from it.

The group that gets me much more pissed than porn sellers is the KKK and other Right Wing Extreemist groups. If they have the right to spew their hatred, then all of us have the right to air our opinions about it.

Yet in all the "Liberal" Media the only time we get any attention is when we fight amongst ourselves.

Half a million people marched on Washington DC 9/25 and the local news gave more airtime and in-depth coverage to a dog that had swallowed a 13" steak knife and lived to bark another day.

370 people got arrested at the butt side of the White House the following Monday and the media said Cindy Sheehan and a "handful" of others were arrested. Big handful. Oh and they re-ran the dog thing.

[Warren DeMontague]

139. "Half a million people marched on Washington DC 9/25..."

1.2 Million People Marched in DC for reproductive rights (many of them pro-free speech social libertarians who don't see anything wrong with porn involving consenting adults, such as myself)on April 25, 2004- and while the march did garner some coverage, the major cable networks found Estee Lauder's death more important, and CNN spent the day tracking down the elusive "NASCAR Voter", who invariably loved George Bush.

They want to decide what is news- you know, stuff like Aruba, Jacko, and Scott Peterson. They REALLY don't like it when little people decide to make news on their own, even if there's 1.2 Million of us.

[Tigress DEM]

271. As terrible as it sounds I feel better being ignored in such good company!

I have been egregiously depressed since I came back from DC. I felt like I was part of something historical and wonderful and they shit on it.

Every little bit that helps me crawl out of my pit of despair is appreciated. I'm back to writing emails to the editor etc... but even though I've got some of my Washington Pics developed the one below weighs the heaviest on my heart.

[mzmolly]

142. I don't disagree with a word you said.

As far as first ammendment goes, even though I'm not a "supporter of porn" I still think that whatever I don't like or would prefer kids not see, if it's something that other adults feel they want and enjoy still should be mostly none of my business.

Totally agree! It's none of my damn business who watches what, as long as what they enjoy involves other ADULTS.

:hi:

[Warren DeMontague]

137. I think censorship is a right wing position.

and to deflate perhaps one of your stereotypes a bit- I once worked in a video store in a pretty liberal part of the country- men do rent porn, so do women, and so do couples. As do all ethnicities, certainly not just white men and certainly not just Republicans.

Although the few people who complained about us carrying it (and it was very discreet, not "in your face") were INVARIABLY white republican types, of both genders.

Also, with regards to the "objectification" bugaboo we keep hearing about- what, precisely constitutes objectification? Looking at a naked person of the opposite (or same) gender and becoming aroused? Many gay men are VERY into visual representations of other men (which somehow manages to not destroy my self-image or otherwise impinge upon my quality of life as a male, despite my proximity to San Francisco).. are they guilty of "objectification"?

I'm trying to understand, here- are the folks crying objectification suggesting that because a man finds images of scantily clad women or even images of women having sex arousing, that he is incapable of dealing with women as human beings, under any circumstances?

I realize that may be the "narrative" or "critique" that is accepted as gospel truth in certain circles, but I would suggest that THAT viewpoint- i.e. that men who are visually turned on by erotica involving women are somehow turning women- all women, in all circumstances- to sexual "objects".. I would say that outlook, or critique, itself reduces people to one dimensional, cardboard stereotypes way more than any porn movie objectifies anyone: Namely, by saying that men are simpletons who, because they're turned on by naked women, don't understand that women are still human beings, and by positing women as perpetual victims who are incapable of consenting to, or having any control over, the sexual dialogue they are also participating in.

[mzmolly]

144. Certainly men and women can objectify one another and people of the

same sex. But, it is obviously far more pervasive for women in all societies to be objectified then it is for men. It's just how things have "evolved." I do think were catching up on objectifying men however. And, I don't think that's a good thing as men are developing eating disorders in larger numbers then ever before.

Further, I realize that men, women and couples rent porn. My point is that WHITE MEN rent the most porn. Perhaps that's because porn is mainly geared toward them?

As for censorship, I don't wish to censor anyone, I just want to think about the consequences of what promoting certain images of women/men do to our society as a whole. In fact, I have less of a problem with porn then I do fashion magazines as fashion magazines/commercialism as kids are exposed to these things on a daily basis.

Kate Moss is a recent example of what the beauty/porn industry can do to people. Many models have to use drugs to maintain a certain standard of beauty that is difficult to maintain without them.

Another thing I take issue with is that in America, in order to be an actor/actress one has to LOOK a certain way. It's far more important to have beauty then talent. (Look at Paris Hilton for example.) :eyes: In London on the other hand, one has to be a good actress in order to make it in acting. I think Americans are shallow as a whole, and that is a shame.

This is a societal problem and I don't know how best to address it personally.

All of this aside, I don't see how porn/victoria secret ads have anything to do with Roe V. Wade. And were that not part of the subject matter, I'd not have replied frankly. ;)

[Warren DeMontague]

171. Only connection I can see between Roe v. Wade & Porn

is if you believe consenting adults should have an across the board right to control their own bodies, the right to appear in or look at smut applies as does the right to use birth control or get an abortion.

And, the religious right is fighting against all of the above.

Beyond that, there isn't that much of a link, although I do wish that my Democratic party would find the nerve to articulate a clear, consistent stand for the rights of consenting adults to be left the hell alone about personal choices. I don't particularly appreciate my tax dollars paying for the incarceration of millions of non-violent drug offenders... if God Forbid I end up with a horribly painful injury or illness I would greatly prefer it that I be able to get adequate pain management prescribed without my doctor living in terror of the DEA, and if I end up terminally ill I sure as hell don't want Randall Terry and James Dobson deciding for me that I can't choose a pain-free exit on my own terms. I happen to be one person who thinks that if the Democratic Party would adopt (and stand behind unapologetically) an across-the-board advocacy of personal self-determination and small-l social libertarianism, they would GAIN more votes among educated urbanites than they would lose among these heartland "values" voters that they're not winning over, anyway.

I agree with much of what you've written. First off, while it is by no means a uniquely American pathology, many people in this country in particular seem especially incapable of distinguishing shit from shinola, style from substance, or superficialities from actual essences. I think the Hollywood/Vogue/Kate Moss concepts of beauty and sexiness are completely vacuous. I don't find Kate Moss sexy, nor do I find Pamela Anderson sexy. They're both kind of creepy, in my mind. Ashley Judd and Susan Sarandon are my idea of what constitutes sexy womanhood in Hollywood, because not only are they beautiful, but they're smart, and they stand up for their beliefs- which perhaps not too coincidentally mirror many of my own.

I don't think Paris Hilton is attractive OR talented, actually. She's another uniquely American Phenomenon, someone who is famous because she's famous. (And rich, which never hurts)

Clearly many people in our culture are flailing around in search of meaning, and not finding it in many cases because it's really not something you can BUY. You see it with religion- people living in anonymous subdivisions surrounded by strip malls and chain stores, they KNOW something is missing, but they can't figure out what- and as often as not they find televangelists and peddlers of similar easy answers waiting for them.

Certainly I think that sex can be many things, and at it's best (as far as I'm concerned) it is a transcendant, soul-merging experience for two people who love each other, or even lust after each other heartily. You're not going to get that by renting a video behind a blue curtain. Some smut I find erotic, much of it I find ridiculous and some I find distasteful- and I would feel bad for anyone whose entire sexual life is defined by it just like I would feel bad for anyone whose entire diet consisted of Cheetos.

Plenty of people in this country operate on the most superficial, surface plane- and not just about sex- but the solution to that, in my mind, if there even is one- is to create art, music, cultural touchstones, rituals, celebrations, communities and even erotica which explore the deeper and more complex levels to things.

[mzmolly]

195. Great post.

I wouldn't change a word.

:hi:

[Cats Against Frist]

282. Excellente

Plenty of people in this country operate on the most superficial, surface plane- and not just about sex- but the solution to that, in my mind, if there even is one- is to create art, music, cultural touchstones, rituals, celebrations, communities and even erotica which explore the deeper and more complex levels to things.

:toast:

I posted to Ben, either in this thread or the other one, that I thought it was funny that people said I was a prude, or that I'm for censorship, as my manuscript is wall-to-wall "smut" -- and I also would have to worry about fundies censoring my life's work. I make art, believe it or not, about erotica, about sexual narrative -- it is, perhaps, the de-constructing that's led me to the place that I'm at.

[mongo]

301. Yeah, what you make is art

and what other people make is "degrading".

[Cats Against Frist]

304. Mongo -- you're still doing it -- (WARNING! EXPLICIT LINK)

that is, ignoring 85 percent of the content of my posts.

First of all -- there's nothing degrading/dehumanizing about any of this?: http://www.adameve.com/catalog_name=adameve/category_name=video/page=4/sortby=/view=0/category.htm

Now...

1. I don't advocate government censorship.

2. I believe consenting adults have the right to do whatever they wish.

3. We see each other as helping the religious right -- just in different ways.

4. Neither of us are prudes, sick-os or mentally deranged.

Those things must be kept separate from my actual argument, because all of those are "strawman" arguments. As for the "art" argument -- yes, I do believe there is a distinction between what I and other artists do, that uses sexuality as a vehicle/motif/theme, and "ASS MASTER 5." You don't? The difference, as I've tried to explain, before, is in rhetorical structure, subtext, irony, distance, dislocation -- and other aesthetic considerations. Why can't you at least try to acknowledge that difference? Do you not understand?

And the war that you and I are fighting is in "ideas," not in legislation -- because, no matter what my personal opinion, I would vote and fight for you to do what you want to do -- HOWEVER, I will not humbly submit to your assertion that pornography, by and large, does not perpretrate dehumanizing/cliche/consumerist narratives, and continue to speak out against that aspect of it -- just as I don't expect you to shut down your business, because of my posts. The purpose for this, is in the process -- and, already, in this thread, I've been checked, by some other posters -- and I've even realized some other sides to other arguments, that I may have made in haste -- as in, compromising your beliefs for results.

You can feel free to PM me, Mongo, if you either need to yell at me, or show me something --

[HulaChicken]

160. bravo!

But isn't it a shame that the only options that we have that are "child friendly" or "family friendly" are right-wing type things like VEGGIE TALES??????

[mzmolly]

161. It sure is. Unless we buy british or canadian childrens shows.

:hi:

[HulaChicken]

164. THAT is a really good point!

Hmmmmm....there's a thread in that point alone! I wonder what we're doing wrong. Why aren't they as consumerist/sensationist/exploitative with regards to children... hmmmmmmmm????

[Warren DeMontague]

172. Two words. Public Broadcasting. nt

[HulaChicken]

143. I don't care for porn

so I just don't rent it. I don't like a lot about shopping malls...not just the sexuality that makes my 3-year-old stop & stare at, but also the consumerist nature of it (a local outdoor mall has a candy shop directly adjacent to the play area...shameless). So, I just don't go to the mall. I also don't have a TV. I will talk to people about why I don't like these things, if they are interested in my opinion & may want to free their lives of it, but I would never dream of going on a crusade against eliminating it forcefully from people's lives. Of course sex sells, and of course that's why VS uses sex in their windows. When you go to the mall, you may be hoping for a relaxing activity, but the reality is that the mall exists to take your money. If you don't want people to try to take your money, then don't go to the mall, and don't watch TV. Most salesmen don't make it. Most sales businesses fail. The ones that survive know that they have to appeal to what tastes good, looks good & feels good and they must be ruthless in the pursuit of the sale, ala "Glenn Garry Glenn Ross." As a retailer, myself, I see the conscientious manufacturers struggle and fail all the time. The ones that appeal most to people's hedonism are the ones that succeed. I sold questionable products on eBay (before they made it difficult & hidden) and made big money. Now I sell conscientious products, like beautiful wooden toys, and it's basically charity work. Sad, but that's what our consumerist-driven society is. If we should be mad about anything, it's not that there is sex in the mall, but that child-friendly businesses aren't more supported by the general public. And on a side note, I honestly feel like what comes under attack more often than VS window displays is public breastfeeding. Sometimes even "progressive" people who are totally okay with VS displays will attack a breastfeeding mother (like myself). I hope everyone who is in favor of free speech, women's choices & the beauty of the human body is also in favor of public breastfeeding.
Thanks!

[mzmolly]

147. Great post!

And on a side note, I honestly feel like what comes under attack more often than VS window displays is public breastfeeding. Sometimes even "progressive" people who are totally okay with VS displays will attack a breastfeeding mother (like myself). I hope everyone who is in favor of free speech, women's choices & the beauty of the human body is also in favor of public breastfeeding.

:toast:

WELCOME TO DU!!

[HulaChicken]

151. Thanks, I'm new...

but my husband isn't. I've done so much over-the-shoulder commentating on his posts, :popcorn: he finally said, "GET YOUR OWN USERNAME & POST YOUR OWN!" So here I am! B-)
When do I get to post my own stuff?!?!?

[mzmolly]

152. Who's your hubby?

My husband needs his own ID too.

You should be able to start a thread very soon. It only takes a few posts.

An aside, I practiced AP and EBF. You may or may not be familiar with those terms? If not let me know.

[HulaChicken]

154. electricray

and not familiar with the acronym EBF, but I'm pretty sure I know what it means. Do you in public? I'm not brave enough yet. I do, however, practice T-EBF... if that's the right acronym. I have two boys. You'd think in Oregon that AP would be all the rage...surprising that I meet so much resistance :eyes: And it makes me so OUTRAGED that BF is OUTLAWED in some states! Ridiculous.

[HulaChicken]

157. sorry to go so far off topic n/t

[mzmolly]

159. Your talkin to the queen of going off topic.

:hi:

You made a great point too.

[mzmolly]

158. I'm done with "BF" now as my child is a "school ager."

But, she weaned naturally and that was our goal early on. ;) I did not BF much in public though. I do have many friends who BF in public however, and I applaud them for it.

The E in EBF = extended. :hi:

[HulaChicken]

163. yeah, I thought that's what it was

my "T" was for tandem, but wasn't sure if that acronym actually exists. Honestly, the biggest reason I BF in public is because it helps nervous new mothers to feel more comfortable. It's hard to be the only one doing it & having people judge you and scowl at you. Also because my firstborn is a demanding, hungry little dude & it would make a bigger commotion to make him WAIT than it would to just discretely feed him. Oh, and it makes me so sad to see new mothers squatting precariously in the public bathrooms while people are stinking up the place. I think some of them do it just because they don't know it's okay/safe to feed their children in public. It's all so sad & ridiculous. Our nation just doesn't respect motherhood like it should...shaming women for taking care of their babies. ***sigh*** Why is it acceptable if I walk down the street with a practically see-through shirt on, with no bra, and a thong sticking out of my pants, but people get all offended when I'm nurturing my baby? Sad.

[mzmolly]

165. Agree fully!

And, I applaud your activism! Moms who can bf comfortably in the future will have people like you to thank.

:toast:

Have a great night.

[HulaChicken]

166. thanks

:pals:

[Warren DeMontague]

173. I agree completely, and I'm totally with you on the breastfeeding issue.

Seriously. My wife's been there, too. Here in California establishments have to allow women to breastfeed. It's the law.

Hey, I like breasts in a sexual context as much as the next guy, but to let our cultural obsession/fear of them restrict them to the point of interfering with their natural, primary function, i.e. feeding hungry babies, is absurd and WAY out of whack.

[porphyrian]

153. Censorship should never be embraced by Democrats.

Yes, I mean you, too, Tipper Gore. When the liberal party starts limiting our freedoms, where the hell does that lead us? There is no subject that we should not allow Americans to address. Control yourselves and your children, not the speaker. If you have a problem with what they say, get your ass up next and say your piece.

[mzmolly]

155. Is it fair to say that promoters of child porn are being censored if they

are shut down? The site that was used as an example here (as one that has been "censored") was involved in child porn from what has been said.

Also, I don't consider labeling censorship and/or an infringement on my freedom. I don't want to buy something for someone and find out it's not appropriate later on. That is a far greater limit to my personal freedom as I don't have money to burn. ;) Movies are rated, most people didn't take issue with that? So, why not music?

:shrug:

[porphyrian]

168. Child pornography is criminal.

Children are physically and psychologically hurt by it. Stopping child porn isn't censorship, it's law enforcement.

Simply labeling music is one thing, restricting who can buy that music is another. The PMRC was attempting to do the latter (if not ban certain music entirely) and was restricted to the former only after an extensive court battle. My point is that this is not appropriate behavior for a Democrat. Music does not equate to child porn.

Censorship allows people to externalize their own responsibilities in an unhealthy way for society in general. By censoring the music/movie/TV show/speech one takes issue with, one neglects their own responsibility to control what they and their families consume. I may find okra disgusting, but it isn't my place to get it banned because of it. If I don't like it, I shouldn't buy it. I don't have to. That's one of our freedoms.

[ToolTex]

190. Exposing children to religion should be criminalized!

Protecting children from religion should be a much more important priority than protecting them from seeing images of naked people. It should be equally criminal to involve children in religious practices as to involve them in sexual imagery.

[porphyrian]

203. It certainly can be as psychologically damaging...

...as well as physically, though that tends to be in a smaller number of cases of exposure to religion.

The truth is that censorship isn't about protecting children, it's about control. For some reason, there are a number of people who feel the need to control the access and behavior of other people. Perhaps this stems from their own psychological damage, where they feel they themselves are out of control, and are seeking to regain it in some barely-associated way. Maybe they feel that they cannot control their children, and that controlling everyone else is an easier task. I'm not sure. My point is that censorship does NOT belong in a free society, and it should not be embraced by anyone who is a Democrat.

[ToolTex]

264. Very good analysis of censorship advocates, I think. Thanks.

n/t

[mzmolly]

191. I don't believe in banning, nor do I believe that I should have to open

every music CD/game I purchase for a young teen and listen to it before I give it as a gift. I like labels as a consumer and I want them. I also don't want kids under X age, to be able to purchase a game that is intended for adults - no more then I want them admitted to certain films. However, if I choose to let MY 16 year old play a certain game or see a particular movie, that's my prerogative, but not all parents would make the same choice as I do.

I was not aware that people were attempting to "ban" music/games? I must be out of the loop on that one.

As for stopping child porn, you and I agree - it's criminal in ANY form. But, I'm not so sure everyone here feels the same? Some would cry "censorship" and an infringement on their "first amendment rights."

[porphyrian]

200. Well then, you are abdicating your rights and responsibilities.

In allowing others to decide for you what material may or may not be offensive or inappropriate for children, you are essentially handing your right to choose over to someone else for the sake of convenience. If that's what you choose to do, so be it. However, that should not be the law, nor should it be the option chosen for the rest of us who would like to decide for ourselves.

I'm not sure where you've been, but people have been trying to ban music and video games for years. Perhaps you are too young to remember the PMRC trials of the '80s, but it was the second biggest legal battle against censorship after Larry Flynt. Here are some links to articles about the PMRC:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PMRC
http://www.science.uva.nl/~robbert/zappa/interviews/Option/The_PMRC.html
http://www.geocities.com/fireace_00/pmrc.html
http://members.aol.com/chrisv82/pmrc.htm

On edit: added "are"

[mzmolly]

210. That sounds like an argument for homeschooling.

"Your letting schools raise your children if you send them to public school."

I disagree with the premise of both statements.

Hilary Clinton wrote a book your likely familiar with titled "It Takes a Village." I agree with HC that we have a collective responsibility to children in our society.

I personally view what MY child does, and make sure that it's appropriate for her. But, I don't check out every video game I purchase for my young teen nieces and nephews, and thankfully I don't have to, I can check the label.

Regarding PMRC, I recall all the hubub. It was interesting to watch. As a teen I was pissed that people were making such a huge deal out of the music I listened to. ;) And, regarding PMRC's more vocal opponents, I am a huge fan of Frank Zappa and I've enjoyed the music of Jello Biafra in the past, but TODAY I tend to agree with Tipper Gore on the issue of labeling music personally.

I do recall some people called for banning XYZ, but I never took them seriously. I knew it wouldn't happen. I also recall others making the claim that banning was sure to follow labels, but it's 20 years later and that hasn't happened, nor will it.

Heck, labels are and have been a part of the film industry for decades - movies are still making money and first ammendment rights on the part of hollywood film makers remain in tact.

[porphyrian]

213. Hey, you can choose whatever you want.

However, just because you find labelling convenient doesn't mean that I should have to accept the consequences of your decision to allow others to make those decisions for you. That is my point. When you go to a music store, it is already put into categories for you - pop, jazz, country, whatever. However, if someone disagrees with the label that music store puts on their merchandise, we can choose not to purchase from them. Labelling across the board eliminates that choice, and it is a form of censorship, which is a fascist agenda rather than a liberal one, and Democrats should not embrace it.

I have no problem with a community deciding to all join together to help raise and protect our children. I do have a problem with certain members of the community deciding that what is inappropriate for their children is inappropriate for all children, especially when they take the further step of trying to enforce their opinion on all of us.

[mzmolly]

215. Do you feel the same about movie labels?

I've checked out the labeling standards, and I feel comfortable with them.

As for facism - I think it's pro-facist to say "earn a buck at the expense of my kid." Last time I checked, promoters/profiteers of video games/music were, by and large, corporations - not parents.

You are entitled to your opinion on the matter, however.

Peace

[porphyrian]

224. Yep.

Movie labels are arbitrary and virtually useless. Why is it more offensive or damaging to children to show a breast than to show fifty people murdered, as long as it isn't graphically portrayed? It's a fast-food bandaid to the real problem - parents don't want to take the time to raise their own children properly.

I agree that it is fascist to earn a buck at the expense of children. However, I hardly find music and video games more damaging to children than their own parents expecting companies to be responsible for teaching those children what they should and should not consume.

Yes, we are both entitled to our opinions. However, don't try to force yours on me.

[mzmolly]

227. I'm not forcing you to use the label system either.

You still have a right to let your children view any movie you wish - regardless of the rating.

[bettyellen]

208. where did you see anyone here supporting child porn?

that's a serious accusation... everyone i've read here understands it's illegal and for a good reason. so where is this suspicion coming from? there's also accusations of people wanting to hang kitties and have sex in public parks. i hope we would be a little more careful about hysterical rumour mongering than the right is.

[mzmolly]

212. If one reads the thread in it's entirety, one will see chagrin at a

particular website being shut down that website contained child porn, and people exchanging pictures of child pornography.

Sorry, but cry me a river.

[bettyellen]

216. i missed the "chagrin" entirely.... where is thie support for child porn

here? i'm still looking, really.

[mzmolly]

219. I'll PM you, it's against DU user rules for me to discuss the particulars.

:hi:

[Name removed]

221. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[mzmolly]

226. Is Hugh Heffner in danger of being shut down?

NO.

Hugh Heffner isn't going anywhere. And if people can be arrested for promoting porn, I would question what specifically they are promoting? I see no laws that prohibit Hugh Heffner or Larry Flint or Jeff Gannon from making a living via porn, and I don't believe they are in fear of being "shut down." YOU?

People here appear to take issue with a website being shut down for just "words." I say if those words endorse child pornography I'M GLAD THEY WERE SHUT DOWN. Read the thread linked in post #6 if you wish to learn more.

So, what specifically is the legitimate fear here? I think the broadbrush comes into play when people who view adult porn are asked to mourn the loss of a kiddie porn site because it's only "fiction."

Thus, I would ask WHO the hell is interjecting bullshit into this matter, cause it isn't me. I did not start a thread based on a non-sensical notion that porn is not going to be available tomorrow and Roe V. Wade is about to be overturned because a website endorsing kiddie porn has been shut down.

[bettyellen]

229. oh, you advocate for LIMITING FREE SPEECH. thanks for getting to the point

making no distintion between words and actions. gotcha. too bad there is a distinction, and people can and do write about all sorts of atrocities that others would prefer not to know about without fearing be accused of the atrocities themselves. i'm sorry, i don't trust our govt to decide what thoughts are suitable for my consuption.
no thanks, been there with the book burning non-sense, done that.
you can go and erode our freedoms, but don't kid yourself, you are helping the right wingnuts when you attack free speech.

[Name removed]

231. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[bettyellen]

232. i am for free speech without leaving it to you or our govt-god forbid-

to determine the difference between people retelling their true life experiences or writing fiction or what have you. the "promoting" judgement is worrisome and leads to the slippery slope you've heard of before no doubt, but does not seem to concern you.
there has been too much book burning in the history of this country- too much thought control for me to be comfortable going down that road.
and your subject line makes no sense at all. i'm helping the right wing how? wtf?
i'm sorry, you want to confuse the issue. you do not make a distinction between images and words, and i think it's a damned important one. free speech isn't going to hinder the prosecution of people who promote child prostitution or porno because it's already illegal, and if they are actually promoting or facillitating they can be arrested. we already have laws on the books. we don't need them against writing about illegal activity too, and that's an important distinction to make. so how does your wish for increased censorship help at all? it's a placebo. and a dangerous one.
and as far as the consenting adult/ porn laws go, there are no clear cut standards. people who sell the stuff basically have no guidelines as to what is okay except in states where certain items are prohibited. most areas are covered by community standards, which means somebody has to be offended and take you to court, and they can, even if the rest of commmunity is fine with it. so someone selling an erotic product is always on shaky ground, and this is why he says he can go to jail any day now, sincethe govt refuses to draw any guidelines as to what's okay.

[mzmolly]

233. What censorship am I suggesting we "increase" ????

Share that with me won't you?

What I suggest is that child porn continue to be illegal in ANY form. If you want to equate that to "book burning" be my guest.

You started out by saying no one here is defending child porn, but yet you appear to be doing so - as long as the medium is so called "words."

I'll check back later, I'm going back to real life.

[bettyellen]

234. listen to joe mc carthy over here, mischaracterising what i said in PMs,

accusing me of defending child porn. oh please, stop your hysterics.
sweetie, i said we don't need more censorship of the WRITTEN WORD, as it it is not the same as images. not the same at all.
there are already laws protecting kids from would be pornographers and pimps. i suggest we use them, and not start attacking novelists again, which is where the slipperly slope always leads.

[mzmolly]

237. What your saying is that it's ok for adults to write about molesting small

children, correct? That would not be considered child porn in your mind, correct?

It was you who originally stated that no one is defending kiddie porn, then you implied that I was not being upfront about my feelings/agenda.

Now it appears that you are defending child porn so long as the medium is print and not photos? Your calling stories about kiddie porn "novels" .. so why not call exploitive pictures of children "photography/art?"

Your posts illustrate that my original assertion was correct. People here are defending child porn under the guise of freedom of speech.

Also, I'm not a fan of Joe McCarthy, and I don't think one who disapproves of kiddie porn should be likened to him or Hitler.

I'm out ta here!

Have the last word.

[bettyellen]

239. i am saying i don't trust the govt to define what is profane as easily as

you seem to. they have a pretty shabby track record on this in the past, which you continue to ignore at the peril of the rest of society. yeah, some pretty good books were burned because the govt has a hard time figuring out the intent of the writer. and no matter what the intent of the writer, people are going to read the message differently. the truth is, lots of kids have consensual sex under the age of 18. so we should outlaw them writing the truth of their lives, good or horrendous because someone might take it the wrong way? where do you draw the line exactly?
as i said before, thee are existing laws to protect kids on the books as it is, your suggestion to limit speech does nothing to protect them further. so, yeah, it's useless and it helps the right wing, who don't give a fuck about anyone's right to free speech.

[mzmolly]

242. I gave you the last word, but I want to clarify:

Your saying that I continue to ignore the cost of burning books, but it is you that ignores the fact that kids are victimized daily and that "supporting" those who victimize them in ANY way - has a COST TO SOCIETY. You are equating defending children to nazi-ism and that's absurd.

You also toss out stories about teenagers having consensual sex and somehow compare that to kiddie porn? As to where I draw the line, it's not at teens having consensual sex or writing about it. In fact, if you know of any such teen being arrested, let me know.

As to where society ie the Government draws the line, it is my understanding, that legally the line is drawn at the age of 12, so long as the other party is not an adult.

The question is - where do YOU draw the line?

[bettyellen]

243. i'm so tired of this insinuating crap, fine, you don't value free speech

you think you can find somebody nice in the govt that's going to ban only the things you find offensive go ahead, dream on, while you open the door for more censorship. you're not the first one with good intentions that ends up helping the persecution of the wrong people.
i prefer we go after the people who commit crimes, not just write about them. that's where i "draw the line" cause that's a bigass slipperly slope- thought crimes. i don't like reading hate speech or violence in any form, but i recognise sometimes it's quite different than trying to incite someone to act. that difference seems lost on you.

[mzmolly]

244. That difference is lost on me - as I'd rather ride the slippery slope

that takes us away from promoting pedophilia in the name of so called free speech. That slippery slope you speak of - slides in both directions. So, if I'm anti-free speech, your pro-pedophile, I expect neither characterization is very accurate?

Peace

[bettyellen]

245. i think the idea of "thought crimes" is a very dangerous one.

and the differences between a person's actions and words are huge. if they are lost on you, then you should be advocating burning down libraries, not just books. it's a totalitarian mindset.
you're willing to open the door that equates words with deeds. i happen to think there's damned good reasons not to go there.
if you want to prosecute people for talking or describing commiting a crime, if you see no difference between the act and the words- what's next? why wouldn't you prosecute any writer who writes about violence- how would you discern the intent? jeeze, the whole country would be in jail.

[mzmolly]

248. I think the idea of supporting pedophiles in the name of free speech is

a dangerous one. You asked where I draw the line so I decided to find out where our society does - specifically.

First of all - Obscenity and child pornography, are not protected by the First Amendment.

Child porn = vulgar photos of children leaving no doubt about the intent of the photo.

And, non-visual child porn must be considered "obscene" as legally defined below.

* "Obscene" is defined using the Miller Test of Obscenity which specifies that content must "depict or describe patently offensive hard core sexual conduct."

The Miller test comes from the U.S. Supreme Court's 1973 decision in Miller v. California. It creates a three-part test to determine if an item is obscene. All three parts must be satisfied. Note: Most pornography does not meet this test, and is not legally obscene. The test asks:

(i) whether “the average person, applying contemporary community standards” would find that the work, taken as a whole, appeals to the prurient interest,

(ii) whether the work depicts or describes, in a patently offensive way, sexual conduct specifically defined by the applicable state law, and

(iii) whether the work, taken as a whole, lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value.

...

The Constitutional definition of obscenity was further narrowed by the Supreme Court in 1985, when it wrote that an item was not obscene if it provoked only normal healthy sexual desires. To be obscene, material must predominantly appeal to a shameful or morbid interest in nudity, sex or excretions. (Brockett v. Spokane Arcades, 472 U.S. 491, 498 (1985)).

More information here:

http://hutchison.senate.gov/98-670.pdf

Every society has to balance the need to protect free speech with the need to protect it's citizens. I am glad we as a society, do not promote a free for all on the victimization of children in the name of so called freedom.

[bettyellen]

250. all obscenity is not protected, i know that. i was explaining

this to you before, community standards, remember? it's also not so easily defined, is it?
when does normal healthy become a morbid interest in nudity of all things, LOL i wonder.... this is what makes obscenity laws a very tricky thing, no one can say what they really are. i was trying to explain this before, but again, you threw kids into the mix, but then again, i would have to define yours as a morbid interest.
at any rate, equating words and deeds is just wrong. ain't the same thing, ask anyone who's been victimized in the flesh and they'll set you straight.
goodbye.

[mzmolly]

252. I don't need to ask anyone else about victimization.

Also, I don't think the community standard issue is as hard to define as you claim it is. Society does have to tackle hard questions now and again though.

Additionally, regarding the child porn issue, it was not me who brought it into this conversation, however I did question the hand wringing about a site that was closed for promoting it.

"Goodbye."

:hi:

[bettyellen]

256. so you equate words with deeds, and i don't.

not hard to define? community standards are defined by a jury- after someone decides to bring someone else to court. so they are impossible to acertain as no two juries will be identical. whether someone gets prosecuted the outcome depends on the personal reaction of a dozen ramdom people. is that a good way to tackle things?
crimes in the real world and the laws against them are much more easily defined, juries try to figure out if the crime occured, not if something is of itself "offensive".
my point here is words , images (of adults) are not so much. there in lies the slope. and if you want to confuse images and words with actual crimes, well, go ahead, but all your wishing doesn't make them the same thing.

[mzmolly]

257. So you equate pedophilic obscenity with free speech, I don't.

See how that works.

A jury decides most cases in this country, that's why we have them. Juries decide cases "beyond a reasonable doubt" which is the standard of proof. I don't feel that defining "obscene" using the miller standards is any more difficult a task.

If you want to define promoting obscene pedophilia as a first amendment right, well go ahead, but your wishing doesn't make it so.

:eyes:

Cheers, I've said all I have to say on this matter.

[bettyellen]

258. i'll try one last time to explain

normally juries do not define what the crime is. they decide if there's evidence the crime occured.
in obscenity cases they decide if something is criminal-- not normally their jobs, and there is and has never been a clear standard because it changes from case to case from town to town, etc.
but it's easy for you , because you'd be happy to charge them with rape just for writing about it- same diff according to you. so, forgive me if i wouldn't want someone like yourself who doesn't know the very real difference between words and deeds (which betrays a loose grip on reality) on any jury.

[mzmolly]

270. I know the difference between words and deeds

and I also know the difference between kiddy porn and a novel.

Additionally, I would imagine in order to sit on any jury deciding a case like this, one would have to have to demonstrate that they have a grip on the actual law? For example, child porn does not require specific "intent," it is illegal all by itself. I certainly would not want you on any jury in a matter of this regard, until and unless you demonstrated the ability to make that distinction.

Further, the boundaries for different degrees of criminality are defined by the law and interpreted every day by jury's and other "people" across this nation. Grand jury's weigh evidence and decide whether people should be charged with a crime (or not) on a regular basis.

I maintain that the existing laws are clear and reasonable - as written - and once again, that child pornography is not/should not be protected under the First Amendment.

Now, if you can keep from tossing out insults I'll gladly let you have the last word.

[mongo]

302. Max Hardcore was shut down last week

Extreme Associates was raided last year. Neither produce child porn.

[mzmolly]

307. I was not familiar - MH, but after a slight bit of research ...

I would imagine given his "past" he was shut down for good reason.

Obscenity using the Miller Standard along with child pornography, is not protected by the First Amendment.

I don't know what he did to get shut down THIS TIME, but this article from 1998 may give some insight?



But male indifference to female discomfort is exactly the hook here: When Barbie Angel played a little-girl innocent in 1996's Max World 3, cooing, "I'm scared it'll hurt, Mister," the director said reassuringly: "Oh it's gonna hurt a little bit. But that's okay--it makes my c**k feel good." That about sums up the philosophy of Max "Hardcore" Steiner (a.k.a. Paul Little), who, through some half dozen hugely successful video series, has carefully cultivated the persona of an amiable-but-predatory sodomizer of young girls. ...

There are good reasons Hardcore is among the most hated men in the industry. He's rumored to have put several actresses in the hospital, and most starlets refuse to work with him; porn queen Nici Sterling calls him a "psychopath." "Apparently they think I play a little rough," he says of the European sex stars who dodge him in Maxed Out 2. Watching the video, it's not hard to imagine why. After finishing Sabine's aforementioned anal scenes, he grabs her hair and begins to plow her face, covering her in spit, c*m, and makeup smear--what Max calls "giving a facial." "The only way you're able to get the saliva out is to take your c**k and choke the girl," he once told Adult Video News. Mere dirty-sex aesthetics, you might say, except that by now it's obvious the actress is not at all "into it"--her eyes look dead, her mind perhaps in the far-off place you're supposed to go in moments like these. When it's over, the camera lingers above her, leering triumphantly. Fake lashes barely cling on, and her eyes well up with tears as the subtitles read: "Oh my God! Like on the phone all you said was you wanted to cuddle." Then: "This is one fucked-out stupid cunt! Go Max!!"

...

Misogynistic theater like this should surprise no one; it is porn, after all. But in a medium that regularly traffics in taboos, the director crosses a subtle but important line: Max invites the viewer to share his pleasure in hurting and humiliating not a character, but a real woman. Here and elsewhere, he reduces porn to the rape propaganda anti-porn feminists have long claimed it to be. The Sabine sequence feels like a snuff film--that mythical bogy of anti-porn crusaders. And because this isn't obscure stuff--one of his tapes is always hovering in the top-20 adult video charts--Max might just be the miscreant that zealots need in the new age of Boogie Nights, when most people couldn't care less about squelching smut. This stroke-sadist's popularity represents a seismic shift in American porn, though no cultural eruption occurs without considerable historic foreplay.

...

This might explain why Max Hardcore's foul-mouthed revenge fantasies and clumsily staged deflowerings struck such a responsive chord in 1992, when the director introduced his Stagliano-inspired Anal Adventures of Max Hardcore series, then whipped out Cherry Poppers, a series exploring every last variation of the stranger-picking-up-little-girl-with-candy scenario. Over-aged and under-endowed for a would-be porn king, the sweaty Hardcore compensated by using younger and smaller actresses, mostly unknowns, to inflict the most painful sex possible without employing overt violence.

...

"We're not killing girls," Max told Adult Video News. "We're not hurting them more than minor discomfort. What's the big deal? When you get a girl and give her a good working over, you take her to the extreme of pain and pleasure, and that's exciting." Maybe so, but in most of his videos, the emphasis is clearly on pain ...

Max Hardcore has battled obscenity charges before, and given the fact that the prick is still making money on the pseudo rape of young girls - I wouldn't lose any sleep over his latest battle.

I'm far more concerned about my daughter growing up in a society that promotes/condones this shit, than I am the likes of "Mr. Hardcore."

[libnnc]

209. who here has ever advocated child porn?

It's illegal, immoral and horrible. Period. Please stop interjecting that into the discussion.

[mzmolly]

214. I am thankful you agree that it is horrible.

One would have to read the entire thread and come to their own conclusions.

I personally refuse to cry about a website being shut down that contained kiddie porn - in ANY form. But, unfortunately such a site was used as an example of how were in danger of losing our first ammendment rights.

[libnnc]

218. why would I not agree?

If there is indeed a website that was actually involved in selling/distributing child porn, then of course that site should be shut down and those responsible should be held accountable to the furthest extent of the law. If that is what happened.

I am an adult woman who respects other adults' rights to engage in mutually consenting, legal activities. The key words here are ADULT and MUTUALLY CONSENTING.

[mzmolly]

220. Agreed!

ADULT and MUTUALLY CONSENTING

That is where I personally draw the line as well.

[really annoyed]

167. Amen

:P

I totally agree with you Mongo!

[Name removed]

178. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[NorthernSpy]

181. the more unequal a society is, the greater the likelihood that...

... fundamentalist religion will hold a position of power in that society.

Libertarians are great at screaming about their rights. But in defending an economic structure that promotes serious inequality, they inevitably end up guaranteeing themselves a society that refuses to respect all those "consenting adults"-type freedoms that they hold dear.

All those less-puritanical European societies put far more constraints on capitalism than the US does. Laissez-faire economics typically go hand in hand with cruel vice laws and strident moralism -- but you'll rarely hear a libertarian admit this.

[seabeyond]

185. you are right. and how unequal is it for a society to feed our children

our adult world and say screw it to the children who dont want to see this shit. it is not age appropriate. the children dont like it, get it, want it. i am told, if it is on tv, turn it off. in movies, dont watch. in football games, dont watch. in the mall, dont go.

how unequal is this world of adult sexuality becoming for our children. and because parents stand up for our children to live in kid appropriate world to have a sexual adult free enviroment we are ridicule, not appreciated, nor listened to.

it is the advocates for sexual freedom that should be standing with me. i will protect your right to live in your world, if..... and only if, you stand with me, allowing me to protect my childrens right to live free of that world. (nah, i will still protect your right for what i see as a bunch of garbage, wink. i am that good)

dont you see

i am on your side. i would appreciate you being on mine. IF you cannot be on my side to allow me to raise healthy little boys of balance and love and health,

i the mama

will fight you

[Finder]

249. Sexuality is sexuality...

and as a mama...it is not what a child is exposed to, it is how we as parents help them to be able to process it. Sexuality is totally natural. Seeing plastic posed in erotic positions is not going to cause imbalance.

[seabeyond]

254. of course you are right, it is what the parent must then do

when the child is exposed to it. look, just in your simple statement you make the point. if it was kid appropriate, i wouldn't have to do anything with it. children dont want to be in the adult world. but they are forced, in many different ways, because of the adults that want it bold and in the face.

just as i have to explain abortion to my children before it is age appropriate because a right to lifer wants to express their gross expression of murdering a fetus (child, they say)

just as they are given a Marilyn Monroe caricature where the skirt flies up and she acts all coy, on cartoon network. she is difinitely adult world. why on a kid cartoon station? what is the point? the message?

just as i have to distract my 4 and 6 year old boys from a window of a trucker cause he wants to put a porn picture on his window of some woman with her legs spread for all the passerby to see

yes, it is my job to then address it with my children in a healthy and balanced way so they dont become retarded.

i can relate story after story after story, where we have stopped what we are doing to address what was given to my children, not because we asked for it, or the children wanted it, or we went looking for it, but because someone had the right to force it on us. my children are never going to be free of this, there is just too damn much. it isn't about sheltering the children from it, that isn't possible, they are inundated with it. but,.... a parent can and should be able to say enough is enough. do i now stop walking the malls? what about the women that are offended, do we stop shopping the malls? or are we just suppose to suck it up, cause you have the right?

the reality, we are talking about womens damn underwear. fuckin underwear. selling underwear to women. and this is what it has become. you dont find this odd? and then cause i shake my head i am called the repressed one, or perverted one or whatever.

[Finder]

259. Farmers had a similar problem...

explaining what the animals were doing when their children would ask. There is not an adult world or a child's world there is just the world.

Take the child to a zoo and he will inevitably ask what that baboon or monkey is doing, take them to a park and there will be a couple smooching most likely or sometimes some jerk smacking his child or wife or whatever. There is not much in this world that is not offensive to someone.

[seabeyond]

261. being a farmer gal myself , i saw the animals behavior

no it wasnt a problem, not nearly a problem. at least with animals it isnt all perverted. just animalistic, natural behavior. back in the old days, boobs used to be used to feed babies. babies were breastfed everywhere. i would run up on a mother breast feeding and not a blink of the eye. totally natural. i would talk to adult about what i wanted and then i got back to life. not a question, not an issue. today a woman cant be seen breastfeeding, but we can put our little 12 year olds in waterbras.

that is not what is happening today. what is happening today couldnt be further from nature. which is exactly my issue

we arent shy in my house. husband and i dont hide our sexuality. we as a family dont hide our body. it is the healthiest, balanced natural existance.

dont make assumptions. you know nothing about me. i am a calif girl in the 70's and a swimmer to boot. i was naked all my life, with a bunch of naked guys. that was all natural, and fun. my issue isnt sex, or nature, it is what we insist on giving kids before their time and say fuck them, i want it. my world. mine mine mine.

[seabeyond]

187. the liberal, the democrat, i protect your right, hard and fast

but the true liberal, would protect my right for me to walk into a mall, and allow not only me the freedom of not having to participate in this world, but allow my children to live in a kid appropriate world. if the mall becomes victoria's and spencer, in the kids visual, as we walk thru, i wont go to mall. easy for me. i am going to take care of the kids. my job.

i have stopped buying victoria. in the past it sold a product, in sexual play with mate, in a very respectful way to women. now they have become whores. they wont get my money anymore.

to get me to buy their product now, they go after my husband, trying to get him to masterbate to a lot of 20 yr olds on tv.

not my fun mongo.

a lot of people like that world. a lot of people dont like that world. i dont like that game

so i dont buy the product

what victoria secret has done of the years is lost a whole base of women, because we feel the presentation of female is not respectful

talk feminist, talk open, talk allowing

i get to feel that.

in the past, with victoria secret, it was the woman empowered in our own slutiness and play, however you want to see it, our choice, our power, our want. catered to women. it is different now. i dont feel honored in this, i feel it is about the husband now. the true liberalism in sexuality is me honoring, my sexuality, not my husbands. they took it out of my hands. now it is for the husband. not woman.

[seabeyond]

188. btw mongo. you are my very favorite, very cherry on the top of the

sundae favorite person on this whole board. a huge ass kiss on the cheek

[Finder]

251. Husbands will masturbate regardless...

It is ridiculous to blame a plastic manniquin or a catalog for something that any educated "liberal" or "progressive" should know is natural. They will get the same rise from a walmart catalog if need be.

[seabeyond]

255. so will wives

big deal. you purposely ignore the point. so be it

[Angry Girl]

189. Yes! Larry Flynt Rocks!

See the movie The People vs. Larry Flynt (1996)!

And for those of you who don't know his site: http://LarryFlynt.com

An important American hero. No joke!

Nightweed's Hurricane Katrina Aid Organizations

[nvliberal]

193. And I am sick of those

who trash the Democratic Party at every opportunity, because they, too, are enabling the right.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

201. "...sex is the most awful, filthy thing on earth.."

"Life in Lubbock, Texas, taught me two things: One is that God loves
you and you're going to burn in hell. The other is that sex is the most awful, filthy thing on earth and you should save it for someone you love." - Butch Hancock

[seabeyond]

204. aren't i lucky to have been raised in calif in the 70's, lol

i am in the panhandle of texas too

you know then, of course, teens dont believe that, even in the panhandle. teen preg per capita is highest nationwide in amarillo texas

[Tsiyu]

217. Please remember: This can be turned around

As a woman, I can say this in return:

People who continue to believe that women are no more than objects are actually helping the Religious Right in their quest to make women second class citizens.

Mongo, you face imprisonment simply for exercising free speech rights.

I face lower wages, increased chance of rape, men who believe in a religion that says I must "submit " to them, the inability to obtain birth control in some places...I could go on and on... simply because I was born a woman.

The dangers that I face impact women and children all over the planet in their very existence. The issues you face impact your current employment, but you could change careers and have far fewer hassles. Do I have to change my gender in order to be respected and have my life count for something?

Personally, the VC thing doesn't bother me as much as all the violent images in the toy aisle in the average Wal-Mart. But I also have respect for women because I know what we face. And I don't just have respect for a few women - when it's convenient.

I also respect the women who are sick and tired of seeing women objectified, who don't personally think the porn industry is as safe and healthy as is claimed here, and who wish for a little less condemnation and a lot more understanding.

Just because you enjoy seeing films of women gang-raped, does that mean you support what happened at Abu Ghraib? I'm just asking the question, because that is the same statement - turned on its heels - that you have made, Mongo.


Peace

[mzmolly]

228. Excellent post.

eom

[Tsiyu]

274. Thank you mzmolly

:hi:

[Finder]

253. But do you respect women that disagree with you?

I haven't seen any mainstream porn that shows violent gang raping of women so I am not sure what you are referring to. I am sure there are some, as there are undoubtedly books that depict that scenario but that does not mean every book store or library should be avoided.

Aren't men objectified(if you feel that term applies) equally as much as women in porn?

[Tsiyu]

273. Of course. My point is this:

Worldwide, women are battling for the most basic of life's necessities: education, decent pay, health care. We are denied birth control in some places, denied the right to control our own destinies. In some countries, women cannot go to school or even drive vehicles.

When you ask women to care about porn as much as they do about their own survival, when you say, "You have to accept any and all depictions of human sexuality whether they offend you or not, because you might take away our right to porn," you fail to see that some women just can't put the two issues on an equal level of importance.

And if you enjoy images of women being subjugated, exploited and demeaned, you can call that "just the way I get my rocks off and none of your business" but the women who are struggling to get a foothold in life, struggling to survive, just can't help but wonder if you care about THEIR issues as much as you care about your right to view those images.

To each his own. I just think we can all look at our positions on issues and see ways to improve. There are attitudes and behaviors that, when extracted and examined, might make any one of us appear to be less than "progressive."

[Cats Against Frist]

276. Damn.

Thank you for putting this all out there, and being a thousand times more eloquent than I ever could be.

:hi:

[Tsiyu]

277. Thank you for taking the time to read my post

Things could be so much better for all humans if each of us would try a little harder to understand one another. :)

[Finder]

278. But once we allow censorship based on a group feeling offended...

then we are on our way back to the day when any mention of birth control was illegal to mail because it was considered pornography. I agree public displays of the sex act should not be allowed but we are talking about posed manniquins with clothing--albeit sparse.

How would women feel if they disallowed showing our navels on the beach or in public? The same group/mindset is promoting modest dress etc...

[Tsiyu]

279. I don't think I mentioned censorship anywhere in my posts

I wasn't even contemplating censorship as any sort of option.

The OP stated that he was tired of people who complain about displays/material they find offensive, as they are "enabling" the Religious Right (the OP's words, not mine).

I merely stated that there are all sorts of ways to enable the Religious Right.

There are many battles taking place. If you were a woman, would you be more worried about the right to the Cervical Cancer Vaccine that fundies are trying to ban OR about the availability of porn?

Would you be more concerned that the public health official in charge of American women's health is a veterinarian or over the availability of porn?

Censorship is unAmerican. It should also be un American that I have to accept less pay in life, and may be denied lifesaving vaccines because ***oops!*** that woman ain't married and we don't want to encourage sexual activity among single women!, while men make more for the same work and can get a chemical hardon (Viagra) regardless of marital status.

You work yourself up over my issues, I'll try to work myself up about yours.

[Finder]

283. I am a woman...

and an American and know that censorship is the first step in oppression of any stripe. I am not aware of the cc vaccine you refer to so can't speak on that battle but since it is related to the reproductive system it is most likely part of the right wing agenda to control our bodies and sexuality so it fits right in to the porn question.

If you have proof that you are getting less pay than a male take it to court. It is against the law for an employer to pay less to women. If the employer is doing in a way that is legal then alert the women's advocacy groups and they will do what needs to be done.

[Greyhound]

235. Ah I love the smell of irony in the afternoon.

If it weren't for the religious wrong and our absurd puritan morality, the porn industry would be less than half of its current size. What makes it so desirable is the societal prohibition.
This is like the hypocrites that say "While I am personally opposed to abortion, it should be a woman's right to choose", the implication being that it's wrong but should be tolerated. The reality is it's none of your business and you have no right to decide whether it is right or wrong unless it is your pregnancy.
I have no doubt that Mongo does, in fact, help many of his(?) customers by making these items available and I can't see holding him personally responsible for what may be unethical actions of those he has no control over. This is no less totalitarianism than the corporate criminals that are running our country.
BTW check out who owns Victoria's Secret and who get their donations. :hide:

[proud2BlibKansan]

262. Saw a great bumper sticker yesterday

I FOUND JESUS
HE WAS UNDER THE COUCH THE WHOLE TIME

[Vektor]

280. I don't particularly feel comfortable viewing blatantly pornographic

images.

So I don't seek them out. Fair enough.

There are a lot of things that I don't really want to see, but still do, whether I like it or not, just because I left the house, and those images are out there.

I can point my head the other way and look at something else. Easy enough.

So yeah, some of the things I see in public don't sit well with me, but censuring things left and right because someone's uncomfortable with it sits even less right with me. Barring, of course, images of crimes or actual abuse, etc.

I don't advocate banning gay marriage because the fundies don't like to see it - there for I cannot advocate banning pornography because I don't like it.

So I deal and don't dwell on it. :shrug:

[MadHound]

285. Oh please, give me a break friend

Bitching about the ever increasing coarseness of our society isn't enabling the RR. Neither is thinking that Victoria's Secret, Ambercrombie and Fitch, etc. are going over the top in their in store and front window displays. Quite frankly I don't think that we need to have T&A in every window display simply in order to preserve our free speech rights! I certainly don't want to see that, for I think that it is vulgar and crude. It is done simply for the shock value, but after the umpteenth time of putting this shit in the window, it becomes mere drek, that's all.

There is a time and place for porn, soft porn, T&A, etc. We don't need, and shouldn't have to deal with it every waking instant of every day. If I want to look at women in lingerie, I know where to go for that, I don't need to have it thrown in my face around every corner.

And demanding that we stop bitching about it is rather funny on your part friend, since you are, after all, supposedly advocating free speech rights here.

Look friend, I will fight to the death to protect your free speech rights, and your right to make a living in the porn industry. However don't ask me to be quiet about legitamite criticism that I have regarding the ever coarsening nature of modern American society. Otherwise you are denying me that which you say you are advocating for, free speech. Ditch the hypocrisy friend, it doesn't become you at all.

[mzmolly]

288. Refreshing post.

Thank YOU.

:toast:

[Scout]

293. I just have a hard time working up sympathy

for people who are simply going to run out of new material to use when they masturbate, if somehow people/business/government made it impossible for new porn to be created. There is so much porn out there now, in such varieties ... what else can people do to each other's bodies? What new close-ups of the human anus can be achieved?

Yah, Yah, I know "free speech" but really ... right now it's so trivial to me, with all the other truly serious things we have to worry about being taken away from us, the lives being lost in senseless wars, and hurricanes, and no medical care, the destruction of the environment, reproductive rights under attack, election fraud etc.

I just have to laugh "OH no, no more pictures to use when I wack off!!!! ohmigod, what will I do, what will I do? won't someone please save me from this hell"

go ahead, flame away now and tell me I'm a prude and I'm not a progressive.

[NervousRex]

303. C'mon Mongo...

don't you realize the world needs an air-bag...."for the children". The world is NOT for adults!...It is to be Disney-fried so that the kiddies see nothing of any interest....this is the only way they will grow up to be bored suburban socio-pathic thrill seekers.