Prostitution, Pornography,and the Pondering Pig.

I see where Belladonna has posted her thoughts on pornography. In her post, she confronts her own ambivalence about the subject - her personal distaste, her belief that pornography can be addictive for some, but also her deeply held belief in free speech as a key American value.
Her analysis makes sense to this pig, but she comes at it from a different perspective than I do. I'm not a bit ambivalent about pornography.
I feel there are some cosmic issues buried beneath its skin, so to speak. My intuition tells me that pornography breaks, batters and burns the humans posing in front of the camera, creating fountains of shame and feelings of worthlessness -- enough sorrow for a lifetime of repentance --and the pornography consumer is okay with that. It's the price those souls must pay for his pleasure. Their loss will be his gain.
I am not talking about Sin with a capital S here. That's God's department and he is a forgiver. I am talking about human hearts. I am talking about the hearts of eight year olds, eighteen year olds and twenty-eight year olds. I am talking about the guys too, although I have less compassion for them because I am one.
Some young guys may have a different perspective. When I was young I thought Playboy Magazine's Playmate of the Month was a definite advance in human society and when, along about 1971, the Playmates began to show pubic hair, I thought I was living through great times. Now that's freedom of expression! More to ogle on the wall while hanging out down at the print shop. I would just love to talk with those Playmates today and see how they feel about that episode in their lives. (How about that for a blog project?). Maybe I'm completely wrong. Maybe they look back on that time, when millions of guys used their photograph for secret purposes behind locked doors, as a high point of their cute little lives. I just doubt it.
Playmates were and are socially acceptible, normal, heterosexual cheesecake girls. Not scrungy models for pornography, which was that creepy stuff with closeup shots of human organs entangled. In those days I assumed pornography was made for socially inept freaks and was just an odd byway of society. It was an object of curiosity to me but not desire. I didn't know a single guy with a pornography collection. And, come to thing of it, I knew some really socially inept freaks.
San Francisco psychiatrist Melissa Farley has done a lot of counseling to prostitutes. She writes she has never yet ever met a woman who chose prostitution (or pornographic modeling) as a career because she thought it would be fun and rewarding. I believe she said without exception every prositute she worked with had been sexually molested within the family as a child.
So I believe (but I have no conclusive proof) that pornographic models are mostly kids and young adults who have already been battered into numbness in homeless homes, loveless laps, and hopeless couplings. Kids who are already seriously into soul-dulling drugs and who need access to a lot of money to get more of them. Kids who own nothing but sorrow and nothing left to lose.
Like most pigs, I have a heart and a mind as well as a penis. And my piggish mind tells me these two "coupled" industries - prostitution and pornography - are just two more examples of the powerful preying on the weak, the winners enslaving the losers, and the fat cats once again lighting their cigars on the bodies of the hopeless and helpless.
And it just freaks me out and I start getting mad, and I storm around the Pigsty until that frustrated feeling goes away. And then I sit down and try to forget it by reading some foolishness about how John Carter of Mars saves the beautiful Dejah Thoris from certain destruction by the Toad-Monsters of Illyria. Is there a relationship here?
And I keep hearing that little kid crying in the jungle. Or on the streets of Las Vegas. So I think, "I know. I'll give more money to the International Justice Mission or somebody like that. They'll save the kids with their lawyers and undercover investigators and white hats." (I like these guys, this is not satire) They do a great job, but it's no good. I don't get that warm feeling of satisfaction I'm craving (see Christian Hedonism and thanks Phil Plympton) from looking at my stupid Visa statement.
There has to be more. Something we can DO to make the world right again. And don't tell me I should go pray. Because I already did that. And you know what He said? Go read Psalm 10. So I did. I should just quote the whole thing here, but here's a link instead.
Somehow I don't think God's plan is for us to pray for Him to "break the arm of the wicked" and then go mow the lawn. I think that's the whole problem, in fact. Did the Christian Abolitionists pray to God to end slavery and then go to Bermuda on their Christian Luxury Prayer Cruise (thanks, Spoke for that unforgettable image) Did they go watch TV, secure and comfortable in their knowledge they had done all they could have done? No, they started the Underground Railroad!
What's wrong with us? What's gone wrong? I feel like something big has gone wrong, including in me and I'm just starting to see it again.
I hope I'm not making anyone uncomfortable here. If I am, I'll drop everything and make tea and little sandwiches. And then we can do a nice Bible Study and all feel better.
Screech! Little sweat drops fly off the Pondering Pig's forehead like in old-time comics.
I know there's a million holes in this argument. It's okay if you want to point them out. But, please, is there anybody out there who thinks I might be right?
Labels: Meaning of Things, Pornography, Psalms

75 Comments:
Yeah! The pondering pig is in the house!
Yep, action is where it's at. I confess, I all too often stop at the prayer and give money end. But I do get a warm and fuzzy feeling when I read about the benefits I am able to provide to my sponsored child. Like getting a picture of her with her new pig and goat and sending her to school and stuff.
But I know what you mean. That's why Marc and I are where we're at. Couldn't just sit back and play gigs at fancy-schmancy cocktail parties for a lifetime or even just teach even though that's really fun and I am sure has lots of opportunities to change young lives. There's Work to do.
I thought of something else.
To fight Evil might look like other things than being the one who is breaking down the door of the brothel, busting up the customers and grabbing the the little girls and boys and running for it. The guy (or gal) back at headquarters running the servers and opening mail and doing the books so that the guy (or gal) breaking down the doors of the brothel can do that instead of work a day job- that person is fighting Evil too. And the dude back at home sending the money so both of them can be there doing that stuff. But maybe they don't get as warm fuzzy feelings as the person who knocked down the door. So what I am saying is we might not always FEEL like we're fighting Evil when we are, in fact, doing something very necessary in the uprising.
Actually, I know you get this stuff. I'm just putting it out there for the general audience.
Oh, and I just read my last post and in case anyone interprets it wrong, there's nothing in there against teachers, who are essential figures in the Uprising. Maybe some of the most important figures there are since you are directly affecting what the world will look like in the next generation. I just meant that for *me* being a violin teacher who saw kids for half an hour a week wasn't doing it. I felt my heart's calling somewhere else.
I'm glad that the Pig is getting out his warrior suit. Can't you just see him there in the sty, rummaging around in closet, comic books and what-not flying, dragging his suit of armor out and his spears and his swords and snout protector, lining them up, dusting them off? Drum beats and the pounding of hundreds of galloping trotters cue up on the sound track and you know the camera is about to cut to the next scene, where the Pig is astride Gabbin, leading the charge down from the mountains above the city of brothels? He sounds his giant battle horn...
It's going to be better than Braveheart!
Thanks, Kirst. Don Quixote rides again! Except we're not tilting at windmills. We're not seeing enemies that turn out to be flocks of sheep. Botheration, it would make life so much simpler and I could enjoy a nice nap in the sun after we save the world.
On the other hand, our wild boar ancestors were scary as anything. I wonder...
BTW, I accidentally posted a draft version of this yesterday. I hope nobody but Kirstie saw it because it was ugly looking. This is the final draft that expresses my heart on the subject.
Now, where is that snout-protector anyway?
Too much here for early morning comment, but on this Independence day, I am reminded that freedom isn't just freedom to do and look at whatever you want, it's freedom from oppression and evil. We often overly stress the former at the expense of the latter.
More after some breakfast and more thought.
"which was that creepy stuff with closeup shots of human organs entangled"
God Forbid! I'll try to keep my pants on! Not Vs and Ps together!
Mitter Pig, I thinks you fights a losing battle on this one. Horniness mankes the world go round, quite literally!
Goodness sakes, Mr. C-T-L-O-D, even if it were a losing battle to fight those who so evilly abuse their *good* gifts given to enjoy and procreate (and, in my worldview it isn't a losing battle at all), it wouldn't look like it to the little girl that gets rescued from the brothel. She's just glad someone rescued her and that one more bad guy is behind bars. That's what matters. Should we not fight just because it's a perpetual battle that will keep going until the world's end? Well, maybe that's not what you meant, knowing what I do of you and that you really care about kids, but I couldn't leave your comment just hanging there, unchallenged, could I?
So true and perfect, Mr. Chronicleer. Yet the bigger problem is not the immediate, committed sin. It's the creators and the way they exploit the first victims. You changed the subject.
Porno ain't about just who looks and what they see. That's probably the least of it. It's the purveyors and the people they exploit and abuse to create the product.
I know. The easy response is that people can choose what their jobs are. This is, after all, a free society and people are free, moreso here than anywhere else. But that's not the point. That is probably why Jesus let the harlot off, and all her customers too.
We can't turn around, on the internet, without being hit with porn. I really don't feel secure in my own home. I work in a school and I have teachers that are reticent, albeit with intense filters, to use the internet in their classrooms. I don't blame the sad, pathetic people that do the porn for the cameras as much as I blame the corporate purveyors, the Devil incarnate in our midst, that gets away with it on first ammendment grounds.
No simple answers here, but answers must be found. Regulation should be unnecessary when high-money pimps push our daughters and make money off our sons (literally) but it is. They are pigs of the first degree and they somehow suck money out of our houses daily. You can bet I will check even closer where my mutual funds monies go. Better yet, I will suck up more profit in exchange for the solace in knowing I don't invest with life sucking slugs.
Yeah, I even mean Hefner. I stopped reading the articles when I stopped looking at the pics. You know what? Some, not all, hired hack writers will write for anyone that pays them, we all know that. Playboy might provide some prestige for some people, writers and photogs, but at what price? Your soul?
Sorry. I've lost enough of my soul, I ain't gonna lose the rest. If I can stop it from happening to anyone else, I will.
I know the first amendment backwards and forwards, as well as the rest of 'em. Ten Commandments too. Nowhere am I more free than in those places.
Freedom is about what you give and not only what you get. It's about tolerance but not tolerating the intolerable. Throwing stones? I'll do it if I must. Jesus would have let them do it then. Judgement is his. We have to do as we see fit.
Maybe, politically, we oughta just try and ignore them, the purveyors and their filth. Morally, we can't. How do we save them, their victims? I don't know. I just know they deserve more than we give them and they deserve to be free too. It's not all about business. It's about people.
With the Pig, I know there are holes in all this. But who walks and talks without some holes to contend with? I've fallen in plenty and probably will for a long time to come.
Kiddie porn is wrong, amoral, illegal and sick.
Adultery is wrong and amoral.
Adult porn is none of the above.
Come on, naked people and people doing the deed are not offensive or creepy. Watching people being naked and doing the deed is not offensive or creepy!
If one happens not to have a life partner for what ever reason (ugly, fat, zits, Mechanical Engineer, shy, large birth mark, dead twin still attacked by small fold of skin) what is one to do to satisfy ones natural desires? One masturbates!! Come on, God can't give you the button and say don't push it.
Has anyone in the history of man- or womankind ever masturbated without thinking of some naked body? It would be awful tough to get worked up thinking of Nothing. (The Buddhists in the audience may disagree, I don’t know)
What if a healthy imagination and heavy friction just can't get the job done? Throw in a little visual stimulus! The poor soul rents a copy of "Let Me Tell Ya 'Bout White Chicks (from more Dark Brothers)" and Gods going to send him to the fiery pits of hell? No way.
Porn, for those who do not get any or who do not get enough, serves a healthy need, a human need! It, like sex, should not be stigmatized.
Now, with all that said, Porn and marriage does not mix well. When one chooses, one should CHOOSE.
Again, someone misses the point. Mr. or Ms. or Mrs. Crossing the line... It ain't about naked bodies. It's about people exploiting other people's weaknesses and making billions. It's about using, to death, boys and girls and women and men, entrenching them in slavery because they need the almighty damn dollar to survive and these leeches utilize them to the point of death to make some dinero.
What's wrong here is not people choosing to be naked and screwing on camera. Nor is it about other people watching. It's about slugs manipulating children and psychologically hurting people to make a buck. It's about people thinking that it's ok to let people make bad choices and not feeling in any way responsible for tolerating, no, ignoring the fact that people get hurt and killed for other people's pleasure.
It ain't about sexual release or healing or masturbation or anything normal. It's about exploitation and treating people like holes and plumbing instead of human beings.
I know I'll catch some heat because some out there feel that there should be no regulation or penalty for those that cross these lines. After all, they're exerting their constitutional right, no matter how tweaked they are.
Well, get a load of this. We fight, as Americans, a damned war over stuff not a whole lot different than this. If we're willing to go after terrorists and Sadaam in other parts of the world and try and teach their people about freedom, why do we condone shit in our own country? It's no wonder Islamic fundamentalists think we're devils. Maybe, probably, because we, generally speaking, are. Or, at best, we're horribly mistaken.
Don't anyone get on the "better than somewhere else" bandwagon. It ain't about them, It's about us. Let's talk about us and leave out the rest of the suffering world. We so easily jump on their shit and then sleep in our own, content with the thought that ours doesn't stink quite as badly.
Hell, we're proud of our country and our freedom, proud to the point of suggesting, no, demanding that they act like us. Trouble is, they don't wanna act like us.
Too much for a day recognizing freedom when there are those that suffer and die because of our complacency and ever-so-intelligent ignorance.
As much as I love and cherish where I live, I can't help but grieve when we are so far from shore and so self-righteous that we can't comfortably address our errors without being accused of being unpatriotic. A thought for a new motto:
"America, Fix it or Forget it."
There were little or few fireworks out here in the desert tonight. It rained. It was a more perfectr blessing than fire in the sky. The heavens wept the tears of the world and we didn't get to see our rocket's red glare.
At least not where I live.
My apologies for a comment in a previous comment when I called porno producers pigs. Mea Maxima Culpa.
They can't be confused with pigs, nor should they ever hold such hallowed ground. It was a cultural faux pas on my part, non not to be repeated.
Poron producers and parasites, leeches, infected vermine of the worst kind.
Because one needs a buck, one shows one's butt on camera.
Somewhere else, a lonesome soul beats it in the safety of his own home.
Somewhere else, someone thumps a pulpit.
Elsewhere, a man gets rich for making it all come together so beautifully.
I see no shame in nakedness, sex with your left hand, or making a boatload of cash.
If other crimes are being committed, if people are treating each other badly, then that should be address separately.
Pain comes from shame. The only shame-dealer in the equation is the man with THE BOOK in his hand.
What about the notion of taking the log out of our own eyes before straining to take the speck out of someone elses? Yes, I worry about the evils out in the world, but self-examination must come first, and I think that's the biggest issue here and not how we are somehow better off and our laws so efficient or our presidents, no matter what they espouse, somehow shining examples of how well the freedom business works.
I don't want us to take on the weight of the world. You were correct, Ted, about the woman at the well. That falls right in with what I'm talking about. But how can we help the woman at the well when our pride blinds us so badly that we don't even see the woman to begin with, all the while patting ourselves on the back like the pharisee in the temple who was so glad he wasn't like the evil tax collector in the back row?
I apologise. I was not clear. I wasn't suggesting that a happy 4th celebration was in any way pharisitical. I was referring to the often exposed attitude of self-righteousness that some Americans exhibit.
So, too, was I not clear in other words. I am proud to be an American. However, my pride is with the full knowledge that we as humans are flawed and as Americans we tend to put that aside too often. I believe statistics show that Americans consume the majority of the illicit drugs in the world as well as the most tobacco and liquor. Pornography, which has probably been around since cave painting, makes more money in America than Hollywood movies. We Americans are stressed beyond breaking and have the highest rates of coronary disease and cancer.
There are just some things it would be nice to not be number one at.
I watched a documentary once, I can't remember what it was called...but it followed the life of a woman who worked as an "actress" in the porn film industry. It was illuminating. She kept insisting on how happy she was, how she loved her job. And then she'd go get some other surgery because her breasts were too small, and then too big, and her hips were too big, and her lips were too small...she was obsessed with her looks. And then there'd be a shot of the director telling her and the man to begin the anal sex, and it would cut to her saying "Some days I'm just not in the mood for this..." and then it would cut back to her pretending to enjoy it.
Isn't that violation and abuse? Isn't that almost rape? If she says "No, thanks, not today, I'm really not in the mood for that type of thing" she loses her job and can't pay for her last plastic surgery. It's self-induced, she could get up and say "No" at any time...but she doesn't believe she can say "No".
It was difficult to watch. She was so pathetic, and had to work so hard to convince herself that this was what she wanted.
So, Mister Crossing the Line of Decency, I have no problem with you wanting to wank off. But I do have a problem with the women and men who feel trapped in an industry that abases and exploits them. Why don't you just use your imagination? Seems to me most men can get in the mood pretty darn easily.
I don't think anybody here in this discussion thinks sex is bad or shameful. Nor do I (can't speak for anyone else here) think the naked body is shameful. But I do think that the porn industry is perpetrating many, many lies, showing sex in a very unrealistic light. Not all women wear high heels to bed, and it takes more than ten seconds of oral stimulation to make most women orgasm, nor do we moan continuously when we provide men with oral stimulation...you get the idea. Porns are lies, and the more you watch them, the more a real, smelly, zits and all woman seems like a bit of a let-down.
Well, this has all been very enlightening, I'm sure. But I am wondering if the gentlemen from the desert would take their seats along with the good Mr. Weiner and allow someone else to speak?
I'd be particularly interested in a woman's perspective. If you remember, the subject of this post is actually pornography as a social justice issue.
Mr. Weiner demurred, suggesting pornography is just another form of business, and that, as long as children are not involved, participants make rational choices about how to gain income. I believe he expressed it thusly: "Need a buck? show your butt." I am guessing that he, personally, never needed a buck. And that, when he comes to a time in life when he must advise his children on how to live, this particular piece of advice may not be the first thing he thinks of, although imminently practical.
We have also heard that normal sex is a good thing and that Jesus is against adultery.
Mr. Sadorf actually noticed the subject of the blog was the strong exploiting the weak, and I thank you for that. Young Kirstie used the word Evil and suggested that fighting Evil might be a good thing, and I thank you too. The Chronicler suggested speaking to the City Council might also be a good idea.
No one rebutted or explored the holes in my argument, which are glaring. (I figure "You're wrong." is not a rebuttal)
Anyway I would like to hear some other points of view on pornography and prostitution as social justice issues. It would be great to hear from some more women too (oh, I already said that). But try to stay on topic this time! Hurrumph. Hurrumph.
A totally great post, Paula. Thank you! I guess our comments crossed in the blogosphere. I was summarizing and complaining while you were actually making a helpful point. Anyway - I wrote my comment before I read your comment.
"But I do think that the porn industry is perpetrating many, many lies, showing sex in a very unrealistic light."
yes, because it is made for men to wank off too. One does not watch porn for any other reason. It is not a sociology class, or a nature program, or a dating manual. It is visual stimuli for 'rehearsing heat on a raw edge nerve".
Men are visual. Some men need something to look at to get the job done. Some lonely souls can’t get that stimulus any other way. Let’s be realistic. The. Chonic(ler), busy with bible verses, offers no solution but to turn off one’s natural desire until a partner is chosen.
As for these "women and men who feel trapped in an industry that abases and exploits them." Yes, I agree. Feeling trapped and exploited is a bad thing. If it is not your right profession, get out! Sure, the money is addictive. But we as adults have autonomy and can choose.
The problem is shame, as I said before, shame about money and shame toward sex.
-Formerly, Mister Crossing the Line of Decency.
PS "I am guessing that he, personally, never needed a buck." Not so Mr. Pig. When I was 16, I was so poor I couldn't even afford vallet parking for my Benz.
Aren’t these "Social Justice" discussions just another way for people to say that money is the evil power that screws the world and that the Poor are the helpless, non-autonomous victims of the Rich?
My view of social justice: protect children at all cost, adults fend for yourself.
As for what I teach my children, I assure you, guilt and shame will not be among the things I teach.
I'm a guy that loves Jesus, I abide in Him and love his precepts. However, not every human does. In view of that, all the Scripture references blurted out in these comments may fall on deaf ears...no?
If you were to quote the Koran to me in order to modify my behavior, I probably won't take heed. Understand?
My favorite food is pork stomach (sorry Pig) done authentic Cantonese style. Makes some people puke but I love it. Scripture is for believers to cherish, not for pounding unbelievers into how we want them to act or change.
Just thought I'd throw that into the mix for a start.
I found a gatefold picture of a nude woman in a Hustler magazine my dad had. I was naive at the time of course. I think I was under 10. The woman had her legs behind her head...I remember the picture like yesterday, it still haunts me today and made a certain "impact" on me. Sex was never "normal" for me untill I was married 16 years ago.
If porn is so innocent, why was this first image the very foundation on how I would view/indulge in sex? I didn't see woman as fully equal with men, they were around for pleasure. I know all the Psych. geeks out there will tell me I made my own choices, granted. But that first image set the path. I far too aware of the female anatomy even today years later. I long for a supernatural brainwash!
More later, Lots to comment on.
I know I'm supposed to sit down, but I gotta say HURRAY FOR SPOKE!
that's all.
"The problem is shame, as I said before, shame about money and shame toward sex."
Money in itself is neutral, shameless. Sex in itself is neutral, shameless. But I truly believe with all my heart that the misuse of these things does have shame attached to it. When my participation in any action (shopping or sex or eating or driving or whatEVER) turns into something that gratifies me without any thought for the others involved, I believe I am acting shamefully. If you don't agree with this tenet, then we will have to respectfully agree to disagree, I guess. =)
Men are visual, couldn't agree more. (Why do you think we women spend so much time primping in the bathroom? LOL) That point only strengthens my position about the lies perpetrated by the porn industry. If I, in some parallel universe, wasn't married and began dating some man, I would hope that he didn't have a mind filled with images I couldn't live up to. Real women have cellulite. They take their make-up off before going to bed, they have bags under their eyes, they have moustaches that need waxing, they may have more pubic hair than you thought possible. They take coaxing to get into the mood sometimes. Sometimes they just AREN'T in the mood...what do you do when your future wife tells you she's not in the mood? The tricks a person learns in porn films won't work. It's for those same reasons that I don't read romance novels...I'd be setting myself up for disappointment everytime my mate didn't whisk me away to tropical climes, didn't bring me flowers and then take me forcefully behind the barn shed...I'd rather deal with reality than fill my head full of stuff that my partner can't live up to.
I believe a man (and a woman, obviously) can become addicted to porn and can't actually perform unless he's had porn present. I had a friend who's husband was so afflicted, and her life was awful; she felt like he didn't find her beautiful, like she was never good enough for him. How can a woman get in the mood when these are the messages she's being sent by her mate? Talk about a Catch-22!
So, I guess I'm only sharing these things because I can see a potential path ahead of you, old broken fence. I could be wrong, I'm no fortune teller, and I have no right to make you do anything...I am merely exercising my right to tell you my opinion, and hope you exercise your right to think about it. What you do with it is totally up to you. =)
"I'm a guy that loves Jesus."
Me too! Geez, I can only assume that "unbelievers" was aimed at me. (Since I'm the only one on the let-wankers-wank-themselves-it's-no-big-deal side of the debate).
Did I stumble into a room full of Catholics? There is so much guilt about the human body here I'm starting to wonder if I missed the confession booth by the door.
How could you know too much about female anatomy? I don't get it. And what the heck is "normal" sex? And really what does that have to do with believing Jesus is the Son of God?
We must see the big book very differently. I see it as a guide for personal meditation, a means to speak to God and for him to speak to us.
I see the words as fluid. They come alive when they are read. I see it as a perfect, magic text that talks to situations specifically. Not laws, concrete, which can be extrapolated beyond the self and beyond one’s personal conversation with God. Isn’t this the foundation of Protestantism? Isn’t this why we kicked out the priests, and toppled the hierarchy? So that we could begin reading the Good Words for ourselves and talking to our God individually?
There are no words in my Bible until I open up the book and read.
Undoubtedly, there are situation where verses like ""If your right eye causes you to sin, gouge it out and throw it away. It is better for you to lose one part of your body than for your whole body to be thrown into hell." is needed and appropriate, but the exceptions are numerous. It’s insane to believe that this is a fundamental part of being a Christian. God creates a lustful mind then says don’t let it lust or I’m going to cast you into a fiery pit. A unmarried dude lusting after an unmarried chick is pretty dang natural.
Mankind is mankind and I don’t think God wants us to deny that. He does want us to act in unharmful and unhurtful ways. Lusting can be harmful and hurtful but it is not always.
Paula, you are kind. I do not believe porn has any place in a marriage. I'm talking young guys and lonely people here. I happen to be happily married. My wife is drop dead beautiful.
I've never been into porn. Ofcourse I've seen plenty of naked women, images of naked women, video of naked women, mainly not in a sexual context. (Revenge of the Nerd, "we've got bush!" one of my favorites growing-up!)
(There was a bar in Madison I use to go to that had TV's showing Gay porn the entire time and a place you could go to after a long Saturday night of drinking and have Sunday morning eggs and watch hairy 70's porn - they called it "Egg n Porn")
But, Anyone comparing the body of the person they love with some random porn star, is probably not really in love.
All the naked chicks in the world would not make me think any less of my hot as chili pepper wife.
But before I met her I use to date fat ugly chicks and man could I have used some good porn in those days!
Huh huh huh... huh huh... they said "holes"!!!
I have a question for Old Broken Fence. It encourages further diversion from the topic- sorry Olde Pigg- but since we've already gone careening off in wild directions, why not once more?
How do you see so much shame happening in the comments here? Your comment "There is so much guilt about the human body here" made me think that we must we working with different definitions about what shame is. I didn't get a sense that any of these people were ashamed about the human body.
Here's another question. Where do you think shame comes from? Some people here clearly have shameful associations and bad feelings from viewing porn. I am one of them. Where did those feelings come from? (I'm asking in your opinion- not to clarify anything in my own mind, since I have a very firm idea about where those feelings came from). I'm *guessing,* please correct me, that you would suggest that they came from other people strongly sharing their views that sex and the body are a shameful thing.
Now, as an aside to ALL commenters, there was a lot more to this comment that I just deleted. After I read the last few comments once through, I started charging away writing responses. But as I went back and re-read those comments, including Old Broken Fence/Mr. Weiner's, I realized that my responses were completely misguided from not having read carefully enough and made assumptions, that on closer look, proved to be NOT what those people were saying at all. The rest of my comment was completely off, making implied accusations, perhaps, about attitudes that on second look proved not to be in those comments at all. I think other people commenting on this particular blog have also been rather guilty of this too-fast-reading-too-fast-responding. Try re-reading the the stream of comments carefully and you will see what I mean. Or not.
By the way, just for doodles, Paula pretty much sums up what I think too. She hit the nail on the head.
So how many comments do you think we're going to get up to on this blog? I'm pretty impressed. Enough of this on my end for now, though. I have my own blog to attend to. And my next entry is not going to be about porn.
Hmmmmm, sensitivity ala mode. What I was saying was mustered up from personal experience. I'm not as clever,educated,intellectual as most bloggers out there...or here. Back in the day when I thought Jesus was a bad joke, you wouldn't have been able to use a Bible to "guide" me. I didn't accept it's truth. Today I do. All I'm saying, is that some people don't see Christ as King, why should we think for a moment that they would bow down to His precepts? The porn merchants/industry for example,don't care at all about love, modesty,safety for women,etc.
Why should they? They're in it for a buck!
I haven't commented on this topic though I've been following it. I have waited, all the while trying to refine what I might say. Meanwhile, others have expressed many of my thoughts very well.
I'll just say this: pornography is legal, but it is not moral, and it is pitiful that many are addicted to it.
I have talked with my teenage son about porn. I told him that he will encounter it frequently, but that I hope that he will focus on finding and building a loving relationship with a real woman (his wife) rather than being obsessed with looking at pornography and masturbating.
I encourage all moms to have these sorts of conversations with their sons. How will boys know how wrong it really is if their mothers don't help them understand?
Unfortunately, many get a go-ahead on porn from their dads -- dads even introduce them to it-- "Look at this, sonny, hee-hee."
I also had similar talks with my daughter as an older teenager, and I'm sorry to say I should have talked with her much earlier. I found out she had a big stack of romance novels that were actually soft porn. Her girlfriend had given them to her, and my daughter was just amazed and quite angry that I dared to question the good taste and judgment of her friend.
So talk to your young girls, too, about trashy romance novels, and make it clear that they are just another form of the pornography that you do not tolerate in your home.
And check those internet histories frequently and let the kids know you are monitoring where they go and what they see online!
You can't protect them outside your home, but you can give them moral guidelines and you can make the rules in your house.
Boy, Pig. I go on a little vacation and you let these kids get out of hand. Heated arguing and on the edge of name calling. Good thing the women wrote. They leveled this thing out. Me. I'm gonna stay out of it, but I agree with Mr. Leo. Go Spoke!!!
By the way Pig. I don't see those "holes" in your agrument that you insist are there.
And I do think you're right.
Foghorn
I'm trying to figure how "catholic" came into this discussion, besides the mention of shame and guilt. I know those are great stereotypical come-backs. I need to remind the old fence person that it was the followers of the great reformer, John Calvin, that came up with the notion that all (read, ALL) humans are born depraved and only those slated for the perly gates, those predestined for salvation, would make it. They are also the root of the recent Christian Reconstructionist movement which pushes for change to old testament law as law of the land. By those protestant standards, we'd all be slated for stoning just for this discussion.
Other than that, this is the best blogging I've seen in a long time. You are all pretty good at it. Keep it up. I'll be back after I take the cue and "ponder" the real subject some more.
Thanks,
Allen Wyatt
So, this guy, the broken fence person, is trying to justify himself and his non-chalante attitude towards porn, used to date "fat ugly chicks" and he could have "used some good porn in those days". I think I'm going to be sick.
This isn't some old broken fence. This guy is just proving what Leonard and The.Chronicler and Spoke are saying as well as what the women are saying too. Too many men are driven and motivated by looks and, yes, images of what women "should" be rather than who they truly are.
Women aren't "Chicks" no matter what the jargon of today or yesterday might say. They aren't dames or broads or skirts, as they used to say. They are women, period.
Sexual urges are private and maybe some people have to take care of them in a, well, personal manner. That doesn't justify a whole enterprise that exploits and abuses people and makes itself available to our children. Someone's sexual lonlieness doesn't come close to justifying the debasing and belittling of human beings, no matter how economically desperate they might be.
I want to copy here something I read from Leonard's earlier post, because it says it better than I can:
"What's wrong here is not people choosing to be naked and screwing on camera. Nor is it about other people watching. It's about slugs manipulating children and psychologically hurting people to make a buck. It's about people thinking that it's ok to let people make bad choices and not feeling in any way responsible for tolerating, no, ignoring the fact that people get hurt and killed for other people's pleasure."
I guess that says for right now what I have to. Keep this post open for a while, as I've told some other bloggers about it and you will definitely get some comments from them. This is a good forum. Keep it up. Good work Pondering Pig.
Thanks again,
Allen Wyatt
Allen hit on something that I had been thinking about commenting on even before I read his input. And *this is in no way inferring that anyone on this blog thinks this way.* It's the idea about how porn object-ifies women. Besides all the other reasons I don't like porn that have already been touched upon, this is a BIGGIE for me. I'm a woman. I'm extremely familiar with members of the male sex looking at me as an object to satisfy their lust and not a person. I hate it. I'm not an ultra-feminist type, but folks, in my opinion porn degrades women to the status of sex slaves. Maybe some women do get fulfillment from a gazillion guys lusting after their picture in a magazine, but I think that it's a sick, messed up fulfillment. Women DO appreciate being appreciated (as Paula referred to in mentioning the amount of time we spend in the mirror) for their looks, but at least I am one that does not enjoy having any male but my husband look at me like I'm buck naked. I know that men are much more visually oriented and they're not always going to be able to help thinking like that when they see a pretty girl. But porn is like adding fuel to the fire. I remember back in high school finding out that a guy who I thought appreciated my finer mental attributes really, as he put it "just wanted to screw me." (Olde Pigg never heard about that one, or you can bet that young man would have ended up on the wrong side of one of his tusks, figuratively speaking). That made me sick. I don't want to just be a sex object in a man's world. But that's what the status of women pretty much still is in a lot of places (check those brothels and trafficking statistics), and that's what I pretty much feel, on a gut level, that women are to the porn viewer. May or may not be true for all, but hey, that's what it feels like to me.
I took your advise and re-read this string of posts. I included my observations below but first I want to ponder your other question ‘Where do the feelings of shame come from?’ Interesting.
I obviously don’t believe one should feel shame about watching porn in itself. If you are emotionally cheating on someone then shame is appropriate. If one is watching kiddie porn or forced sex then one should feel shame. It is shameful to condone abusing women for the sake of money. I agree to all of that.
But is all porn that? For those who wish to abolish the whole industry instead of cracking down on the "bad porn" only, I believe you are underestimating the importance of jerking your turkey (and freedom of speech).
Watching sex in itself, made by adults for adults, is not shameful. For those people who do feel shame, I guess it is a learned reaction taught by oppressive , often times power-hungry, authority figures (i.e.. Parents, church, government)
(How's that Mr. Pig for a reversal of your Power-Play - Social Justice, I spit in your general direction! Michel Foucault would be proud.)
It seems so absurd to me that what we DO to create life, (ie. get horny and lustful and have sex and the lustfulness and horniness is part of the equation) should be thought of as shameful to watch.
Is being horny and lustful in itself shameful??? That is what I am hearing from many who post here (not all). If one has no life partner as of yet, what does one do if one begins to feel horny and lustful? Is imagining your next door neighbor better than watching a random porn star? (remember, K. did not want to be oogled!) Or do we just not push the button, hold back, pray to god to keep our sinful horniness at bay.
In reality I think a random body to desire is probably more healthy than dreaming of the neighbor women. (And less creepy)
Mr. Pig’s original post:
"My intuition tells me that pornography breaks, batters and burns the humans posing in front of the camera, creating fountains of shame and feelings of worthlessness -- enough sorrow for a lifetime of repentance --and the pornography consumer is okay with that. It's the price those souls must pay for his pleasure. Their loss will be his gain." - Mr. Pig
A lifetime of REPENTANCE? Because one got naked and did the nasty on camera. Why? What are they repenting for, these victims – are they victims? or are they sinners needing to repent? Which is it? Can you have both?
And that dirty consumer whose pleasure is more important then the SOUL of the poser. Those dirty 18 year old boys and the lonely people who want to get off , how dare they not be ashamed of their desire to look at nude women. They should pluck out their eyes so they do not sin!
(A month ago my wife told me the story of a boy whose mother cheese-grated his testicles after finding him beating off. Needless to say he was scarred!)
"I am talking about the hearts of eight year olds, eighteen year olds and twenty-eight year olds." - Mr. Pig
Twenty Eight year olds? Now I must save 28 year olds? Don’t you think by the time you get to 28 you should be able to make up your own mind about getting naked for other’s pleasure. Sounds like paternalism, to me
"that creepy stuff with closeup shots of human organs entangled." Not a Georgia O'Keefe painting here of flowery vaginas, these are entangled creepy bodies!
The Chronicler’s Posts
"Death and Destruction are never satisfied, and neither are the eyes of man." (Proverbs 27:20)
Is this verse not a comment from the. Chronicler that he believes desire and lust (part of being human/ the human body) is akin to death and destruction.
I have a big problem with people floating out bible verses (can you tell?)!
Authoring the text of the Bible by selection is playing the roll of God.
I see it as dirty religious bullying.
here is a verse I like to float out every now and then.
". . . happy is he who repays you for what you have done to us- he who seizes your infants and dashes them against the rocks." Psalms 137
Do you like MY verse selection? Do you think this is Christianity? Re-paying people by smashing the heads of their infants. OF COURSE NOT! I AUTHORED THAT TEXT WITH SELECTION!
The bible is being misused when it is not a personal bible.
Then there was the post about eye-ball to eye-ball sex where chronicler pretends to be feeling sorry for anyone who doesn’t do it God's way. In combination with his selection of verses, one can see what he is saying. It is SIN to lust, sin to look. Sin to have a lusting body.
Shame on you for being horny and acting on it by yourself. As I said there is no solution offered here but to deny the body until one gets married.
Later The Chronicler gives "happiness" its quotes when he wonders if anyone could be really a happy person if they beat their meat with a hotdog in one hand.
Again he is denying the body its right to be horny, lonely, self-satisfied and happy.
Leonard was much more on track.
If abuse goes on in the porn industry then that should be stopped. But it is my belief that abuse occurs more readily because of the shame that surrounds the whole thing. Shameless people would demand a better working environment. They would have protection from others against abuse. Where does a person go who is a porn-star and who wants to report industry abuse?
Paula is nice. But She thinks like a women. She is having difficulty seeing that porn is not a threat to future relationships. Good relationships are based in love and porn has nothing to do with Love or the fantasy of having a relationship with the porn star. In that way it is different than a romance novel. Women think of relationships. Men think about nakedness and when the deed is done, don’t think at all.
What would you guys have done without my wise guidance? I bet you’re glad I stopped by.
As for the Catholic, It was a joke, a bad one I admit, but a joke.
It is not the cliché shame of the Catholics but more the adherence to the church hierarchy that gives me the willies. I agree that Protestants have lost their revolution when they forget that their brand of Christianity is the democratic one. We took the robes off the priests so that could wear nice suits like the rest of us. Not so that we could all wear robs.
"Women aren't "Chicks"". Allen Wyatt said.
Sorry but I'm not hung up like that. I've cast off that white male guilt. I think no less of women than I do of Men and I don't have to walk a PC line to prove it. Men need not be castratos to respect the other sex.
As for the women as objects cliché, Sorry K. even though you're pretty smart (for a girl he, he) I thinks I yawns. The world is made of two sexes, the strutting type and the drooling type.
There is not a night that I don't fall at the feet of my hot-ass wife and cry aloud "You are the hottest one for years of night. The Old Broken Fence's dazed eyes have enjoyed, Brilliance." I can't help it. She's my object, I owns her and she shines.
Crackhead tuna fish: I sees what that old broken fence means! Brothers. Sisters. Don't throw rocks, don't get your rocks off! It's all wrong (to waste good rocks)! You need to just luv each other.
Little Sammy: Po Ole Broken Fence, busy being stoned. They got him all wrong. Born as he was fat and blonde without a home. But now that he's been proven wrong . . .
Crackhead tuna fish: Wrong!? That can't be right, He's Wrong!? You sure? All wrong, as in wrong-wrong, not part-wrong, but fully, holy wrong?!
Little Sammy: Seems that's what THEY say. THEY say, "Shoo, go away! Go crawl back under your rock! You better, boy, begin to pray!"
Little Sammy: NOW THAT WE GOT IT, WHAT DO WE DO WITH IT!!?
Crackhead Tuna Fish: Calm down little Sammy, I's got an idea! As I looks upon the saffron sky, the chronicler's goat strikes me as . . . horny.
Hey Folks!
Something I keep hearing from a commentator here (I'm assuming all those pseudonyms are the same person)is that this is some sort of ideal world or society where if people are mad enough or hurt enough, well, gee, something will change. Or that Pornography is ok for young guys and people that date ugly fat people.
While I'll agree that free will and choice are wonderful things, worth fighting and dying for, some things are just plain wrong. I'm not even going down the theology road. The.Chronicler did that well enough.
In basic humanistic terms, the objectification of human beings is totally and unequivocably wrong. An athiest could tell you that. Jean Paul Sartre, maybe the most moral athiest of the last century believed that and taught that.
Then, to justify profits from this obviously and blatantly insulting business, even if it's legal, adds another moral wrong.
Morals aren't solely about religion, as some people mistakenly think. No, morals have to do with how we treat each other as human beings rather than some relationship with God(though that can come into the discussion as well).
Societies are obligated, through social contract, to make laws and decisions to protect the weak no matter how old or young they are. Whether people believe in a social contract or not is irrelevant, as it doesn't make it any less real. Being a part of a society, locally, nationally or globally, doesn't just bestow rights and freedoms, it secures and protects.
I read somewhere else on this blog where someone mentioned the difference between freedom to and freedom from. I believe that part needs some discussion in this forum as well. We might be free do be and do as we please, but we also have the right to be free from persecution and the right to be free from vile and offensive behavior.
Pornography is hardly hidden these days. It is obvious everywhere, especially here on the internet. The fact that we can discuss this freely is a gift, but the fact that we have to discuss it is more like a curse. I'm not saying we shouldn't. It's just the down side of the freedom issue that, unfortunately, must occur in a free society.
Some may say "You're free not to look at it." To which I reply, "Good. I won't You are free to keep it to your self and don't rub our noses in it."
I haven't touched on the Pondering Pig's subject en-toto yet. The wrongs done to humans in the name of free choice, whether it be porn or anything else, are many and inexcusable. Simplifying the issues to be just personal choices is irresponsible and without cogent thought for the rest of the people affected. This is when the notion of "Social Justice" becomes "Social Just Us".
Mike Morrisson
Pondering Moderator here: No name-calling on the blog, okay? Some of this is either perilously close, or over the line. Keep it civil, or you're out until the next post.
Mike Morrisson, sir, do you favor a ban on all porn?
(I'm just going to put my fingers in my ears and go "blah-blah-blah" if the chronicler responses. Will that make the Moderator, sir, happy, sir?)
Mr. Pig, looks like your pig-pen has turned into an Ancient Greek market, with all the philosophers sitting by the well exchanging ideas and opinions. I think this is great!
Mr. Wiener/Fence/Goat/guy...I laughed when you said I think like a woman! I don't mean I laughed in derision, but laughed for joy. Finally! I think like a woman!! There was a time in my early twenties when I wasn't quite sure which side of the fence I fell on. Ahem. XD
I don't have anything else to add to this discussion, other than to say that it takes guts to be the one nobody agrees with. Except I think that we probably do agree on a few points, but it's hard to discuss this stuff without misreading each other. As George Bernard Shaw said, "The single biggest problem in communication is the illusion that it has taken place."
I just thought of something I do want to add. (We're all adults here, right?)
Before I met my husband, I had a very active sexual life, including the viewing of porn occasionally (it wasn't something I made a habit of)...at the time I felt no shame about this. Even now, I don't feel shame, but I do get frustrated when I'm in the middle of a hot and heavy moment with my husband, and then unbidden thoughts of former lovers or images that I've seen come gyrating into my head. It takes all my mental focus to leave behind those images and get back into the very moment I'm experiencing at the time. This makes me very sad. I'm sure this has influenced my view on this discussion, because even though I DO think like a woman, I also think like a human being, and I can't help but believe that images of porn would come back in the same way, whether the person was male or female.
So, there you have it. No Bible verses, just some personal experience to move this out of the realm of the hypothetical.
Paula, XD?! Really? Cool beans! and shameless too! Before you know it we will have moved this discussion into the 21st century.
I'm still sitting down. No name calling here. Can I get up again, Mr. Pig? I don't have anything to say, I just have to, well, you know. I had 6 cups of tea and, well...
Hi Ponderer and all others,
I’ve been following this post, but haven’t commented so far because I’ve been trying to wrap my mind around what exactly it is that disturbs me in the blog entry. However, I first want the audience to know, lest some in the audience (ahem, Leonard) see the following as an attack on my father and get sidetracked, that it is absolutely not an attack- I think his heart is very much in the right place. Injustice and lies and harm have to be fought wherever they are found in life. And like many others here have said, when people are harmed by other people’s actions, greed, or lies, something needs to be done.
However, there are so many issues to be thought about that have been unmentioned in these blog comments, but which are important to think about before jumping to conclusions.
Let’s start however with his comment of “I would just love to talk with those Playmates today and see how they feel about that episode in their lives. Maybe I'm completely wrong. Maybe they look back on that time, when millions of guys used their photograph for secret purposes behind locked doors, as a high point of their cute little lives. I just doubt it.”
For a moment let’s set aside the “cute little lives” part- why don’t they just have lives? Why do they have to be “cute little lives?” Anyway, not knowing much about the lives of women who pose, as is probably the case for most of the readers here, I took Pig up on his thought and did a little research on the Post-Playboy lives of Playmates. What I didn’t find was “regret” in any of the biographies or interviews I read. I just saw the normal range of life activities. Yes, I only looked at info on a random 30 of the 600+ women who have been Playmates, (Wikipedia has bios on many of them) so it wasn’t a detailed study, but what I read didn’t support Pig’s contention.
To be fair, a couple of them got into drugs. But most of them didn’t, and went on to have fulfilling lives. For example, one became the mayor of her town, one became highly active for the rights of animals, another the environment, and many became housewives with children (without any higher rates of divorce than seen elsewhere).
See the bio of Karen McDougal, en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karen_McDougal , for example. Pre-Playboy, she studied tap, dance and ballet, was a high school state champion at clarinet playing, majored in Elementary Ed, taught preschool, and was/is an avid motorcycle rider. Now, post-Playboy, she has a goal of opening a learning center for children, but has it on hold while she pursues her acting and modeling career. She is an advocate of breast cancer awareness. She describes herself as “more mature now and less shy -- that happens when you pose nude -- but I've always put the feelings of others first. I'm just very nurturing and love to take care of people.” To me, she sounds like a woman pretty happy with herself, and yet she also says that “she would pose nude for Playboy again even when she is 40 years old.”
Pig, I use her as one example. But she really doesn’t sound like someone who is “broken and battered” and filled with “fountains of shame and feelings of worthlessness -- enough sorrow for a lifetime of repentance.” Your use of a psychiatrist who counsels prostitutes as a reference to why Playboy models must have a “broken” background is flawed. Almost by definition she talks with messed up people- not healthy ones. It would be like extrapolating that all teenagers have messed up backgrounds because someone who works with runaway teenagers says that all teenagers they’ve worked with have messed up backgrounds.
But enough of that. Not presented in any particular order, but here are things I’ve pondered. What about the following:
- There is a jihad against this country by some, one of the reasons for which is because, in their belief system, we have a degraded country where ordinary women like me have no shame and tempt men and make them have lustful thoughts by …not wearing a burka to cover up every last inch of skin. This is such an evil to them that they are willing to kill us heathens over it. By their standards, the only possible thing I could/should be is, as you stated about Playmates, “a fountain of shame and full of sorrow.” And yet I’m not. As I don’t buy into their beliefs, I don’t buy into their shame. Please weigh that when you think about models who pose naked. Maybe you are right and they do feel shame, but maybe you’re not, and they don’t.
- Regarding the topic of shame that has come up throughout the blog comments. Our western culture, and many other cultures of the world, has a long history of treating women as property with value only in as much as they can be “sold” for, where the father needs to protect his property in order to be able to get as much as he can for her. Think of the practice of bride-price. As property of her father, a young woman in days past, in many cultures, was expected to keep herself “pure” in order that her value not be diminished, and thereby bring dishonor to her family. Her promiscuity would say to the local village that her father must be weak and out of control, in that he couldn’t keep “control” of his property. If she was found to not be a virgin at the time of her marriage, the husband, depending on the culture, could refuse to have her as a wife and/or demand the bride-price back, bringing great embarrassment to the family. Her “shame”, if she had pre-marital sex, was in the great dishonor she would bring her family.
Many cultures today still go so far as to perform female genital cutting of their young daughters to try and ensure that the girls won’t have any sexual desires and thereby possibly bring dishonor to the family. In our own US culture we still see attitudes today of “boys will be boys” whereas pre-marriage women are still seen by some as either virgins or sluts. As of yet there is no phrase “girls will be girls” with the same meaning, nor is there a groundswell change in attitude stressing the need for boys to be responsible and control themselves. Could vestiges of these property attitudes have been passed down over the centuries and be the reason why some females have shame about sexual feelings, and be the reason why they are expected to feel shameful for doing things like pornography, rather than there being any actual shame in it, and why many men feel they need to “protect” women? Just a thought.
- “I am talking about human hearts. I am talking about the hearts of eight year olds, eighteen year olds and twenty-eight year olds. I am talking about the guys too, although I have less compassion for them because I am one.” This comes after the paragraph about humans being broken who are in front of the porn camera.
I’m sure that this is just poorly worded, but it sounds like P. Pig is not as concerned about what is happening to the heart of the eight year old boy in front of the camera, as he is about the heart of even a twenty eight year old woman who made a conscious decision to be in front of the camera. It must be that it is just poorly worded, because this sounds really dreadful and paternalistic. As if human females need extra care and will be hurt more than the human males in the same situation. I beg to differ. An eight year old of either sex in front of the porn camera is horrific and their lives are equally likely to be made hundreds of times more difficult for having experienced it. I would suggest that you don’t let the mother of your new grandson hear of this attitude of the souls of boys not being as important, or you will be in hot water for sure.
- Why in society do so many men feel the need to think of their daughters as “Daddy’s little girl” (even when they are grown women) who need to be “protected” from the bad boys and men in the world? Doesn’t say much for how they think of their daughters. To me it seems that that attitude teaches the daughters that they are helpless and weak and sure to be fooled by the first creepy sweet-talkin’ guy who comes around. Wouldn’t it instead be better to think of teaching daughters how to think and how to evaluate a situation, how to take falls and still get up with pride, to have self worth, and, therefore, to protect themselves?” Like what the fathers do for their sons? Notice that we don't have an expression "Daddy's little boy". It’s taken for granted that boys will learn how to be self sufficient and learn how to recover from life’s bumps and bruises and don’t need particular protection.
- Spoke mentions that seeing a Hustler picture of a woman with her legs over her head when he was young made him see women as objects of pleasure for many years. If, however, as a thought experiment, as a child he had stumbled across a magazine with a centerfold of an erect man, would he have gone through life with less confidence thinking that men were supposed to be objects of pleasure to women?
Don’t mistake me here with my ruminations. I am absolutely against exploitation of humans of any age or gender. Anyone who tricks, lies to, or forces someone into doing something that they otherwise would not have done, particularly with the intention of making some kind of gain off it - prestige, money, lust fulfillment, whatever- needs to be caught and punished by law. But we, as a society, also need to take a long hard look at our cherished beliefs and not jump to conclusions about a need to “save” people from themselves, when they may or may not need "saving".
That's my sister there, folks. Yep, she's got a head on her shoulders. I always admire your rational thinking and clarifications. Of course, there's enough differing opinions around here that all might not agree that rational thinking and clarification has taken place. But I think she's put some darn good thoughts out here for our pondering edification. I particularly resounded with the jihad comment, that was excellent food for thought. I also appreciated her background research on the playmates. Someone should have thought of that. I haven't necessarily decided whether I agree with all her ruminations, but I will be thinking, I'll be thinking.
Man, I'd love to sit around the table with the pig family...I'll bet there'd be GREAT discussions!!
Good job, Hannah. You nailed me on several important points. Like writing before I ponder - always a terrible idea for me. And, of course - the lack of evidence. You are, I think, the first person to notice that key weakness, which I was aware of before I wrote the piece but, due to our wandering life, just didn't have time to research. Good job.
Yes! Hannah to my rescue! I knew someone more intelligent than I (and with inside pull) would eventually come to my rescue! Very good points!
I would also like to add that along with the paternalism towards women that is being expressed, a demonizing of the horny boys is also taking place. The P. Pig and others here are suffering from “male-guilt with overcompensation.”
Take the couch, sir.
It’s a common ailment in this post-post-post feminist, civil rights, world. It is almost exclusively found in white men.
It goes something like this: In the past my grandfathers were not so good to women. They bullied them sexually. They were wham-bam, thank you ma’am kind of guys. They got beat-up, rightfully so, by the feminists. Now the grandsons of these "man-beasts" feel they need to become castratos. They don't want to be thought of as rapists, do they? But they are not a castratos, or rapists, they are just horny dudes.
It is also called the Eddie-Vedder-effect.
Being reasonably-overly-sexually charged is what dudes are about. Don’t bust down their bedroom doors, parents, and throw way their best porno mags. They have a right to . . . well you know. And it doesn’t make them bad (or "bayad" like a southerner would say it, with two syllables.)
Hannah, I get side-tracked just getting up in the morning. As for having to defend Mr. Pig, he doesn't need me. That would be like Perry Como teaching John Lee Hooker how to sing the blues.
Chronicler, you make some good points but some I must dispute.
You state:“But Playboy is really not at the "hard core" of this issue, and it's being used, unwittingly perhaps, as a slippery slope argument to justify other behaviors. If we're not careful we may just excuse away, shrug off and rationalize in another area: 'Well maybe that chick likes being sodomized by a roomful of men, and who are we to save her?'"
Chronicler, I certainly hope that you meant that research such as mine on Playmates COULD be used by someone as a slippery slope argument to justify other behaviors, NOT that it IS being used, as you state. Pondering Pig wanted to know what Playmates thought, I answered him based on bios and interviews where the interviewer asked similar questions. As you recognize, I was not researching very hardcore porn depicting violence against women. That is quite likely an entirely different issue in terms of the way the women involved feel about themselves. However, without research, that is just my assumption. And there is a saying about assumptions.
You are right to warn against a nonchalant attitude when you see something happening in real life that looks like something illegal is taking place. By all means, intervene if safe, or if not, call the police right away!
Likewise, if you are referring to porn gang rape images (I can't tell from your comment whether you were referring to real life or porn), let me just say that if there were to be a film or magazine article that glorified lynching of black men there would be a huge outcry about it being a hate crime; the same should absolutely hold true for images glorifying violence against women.
If the courts decide that, due to First Amendment reasons, such violent images have to be allowed to be produced (this IS currently a Pennsylvania court case), at a bare minimum the industry needs to be TIGHTLY regulated. Perhaps we could demand that substantial changes be instigated in the industry. For example, CGI (Computer Graphics Imaging) be required to create all intercourse/penetration images. In this day and age with our advanced CGI there is no reason for any human to be subjected to the very real threat of sexually transmitted diseases and possible internal and organ injury for a paycheck. Period. Make porn producers get OSHA work practices inspections and licenses, and seals of approval from watchdog groups for every movie made and magazine pic taken, and have it put in large letters on the magazine cover that “No human was in any way injured in the making of these images. These are staged images only. Computer graphics are responsible for all penetration images.” I can hear the porn producers screeching now.
“As the father of two daughters, I can wholeheartedly say that the Pig's attitude toward 'daddy's little girls' is totally valid. That is an assumption that such an attitude implies he thinks she is weak or something to control.”
“The Pig’s attitude toward “daddy’s little girls is totally valid“?? I’m sorry, either you misread or I didn’t make myself clear. With “daddy’s little girl” I was referring to a certain class of fathers, not my own father, that put their daughters into ivory towers; who want their daughter to come running to them every time they feel they’ve been hurt in any way, and then will go threaten the poor person who looked cross-eyed at her; a father who will spoil his daughter and not expect any responsibility of her because “she’s his little girl and she’s perfect.” Such an attitude toward their daughter prevents her from learning how to healthily handle adversity. A child, girl or boy, needs to learn how to stand on their own two feet and be able to stand up for themself. They need to learn how to be able to recognize a bad situation and stay out of it, or get out of it if they are in it. My father is NOT a “daddy's little girl” type of father. Thankfully. Does he love his daughters wholeheartedly? Absolutely. But he has also always believed in the full potential of his daughters. Maybe “daddy’s little girl” has a different meaning to you than to me. I was not referring to the natural love a parent has for their child, and the normal desire of a parent not wanting their child to be hurt.
“I also have a son. Sons and daughters are different. If you are not a father and don't have sons and daughters, then you cannot fully understand a man's heart toward his children, and I would be careful not to make assumptions.”
Maybe it's not meant this way, but I see this is as a patronizing and dismissive statement. OF COURSE in many ways sons and daughters are different. I don’t have to be a parent to know that. That doesn't mean the girl should be babied while the boy is taught how to get up after a fall.
"Girls are far, far more likely to end up as sex slaves and the exploited ones in this business. This is a fact. So in that regard, girls are more vulnerable."
Yes, girls are more likely to be sex slaves than boys. However, see previous statements. The girl who is raised knowing she has self-worth and the ability to say “no”, I believe, is not more likely to be a sex slave than a boy. Unless she was forced into it, and that’s an entirely different issue which I’m sure you will be hearing about much more from P. Pig.
"Quite frankly, even the soft-porn Playboy bunny is exploited. Say what you will about her, but men giggle and call her names like bimbo, and perceive her to be stupid and cheap."
To use your phrasing, quite frankly, some men call BLOND women bimbos and perceive them to be stupid and cheap. So should a woman dye her naturally blond hair brunette just because some men think hair color influences brains? Of course not. Such a lack of respect is not her problem, it’s a problem with his upbringing.
Likewise, boys giggle when they see the hint of a breast through a girls shirt. In gym class they will snicker about “need some fries with that shake” if a classmate’s breasts jiggle in the long jump. Again, she is not, and should not, be held responsible for their poor manners. The boys in this situation need the guidance of an adult to teach them about respect. The problem of some men having a lack of respect for women is hardly limited to Playmates.
-----
To Mr. Pseudonyms- Because I think you want to make sure that we have heard you, I will state it. You have, um, reminded us, that “dudes” are horny and need to release sexual tension. You are afraid that we think worse of “dudes” because of it. No one, I think, with possibly the exception of the.chronicler, is saying that. You say porn is the way to release, Chronicler vehemently disagrees but hasn’t presented a pre-marital alternative. Stalemate.
I appreciate your compliment regarding my intelligence, but I do take issue with you somehow taking my ruminations as being a way to accuse P. Pig of having "male-guilt" and being a "castrato" for being concerned with the welfare of women and girls. It was uncalled for. Some years ago he and Patrushka learned of the prolific worldwide enterprise of the kidnapping and enslaving of young girls to turn them into prostitutes, and it sickened them. It is not a guilt about their forefathers, it is a horror of a current day atrocity. They have spent much time seriously pondering what they, personally, can do about it ever since. Certain hardcore types of pornography, and possibly some of the softer, unfortunately, lends itself to the fueling of that trafficking fire, which is the bigger picture here.
Pardon moi. I agree with much of what you say Miss/ Madam Hannah. I did not take your ruminations to mean any such thing! I was personally writing a lowdown dirty scathing review of your father's language.(Not of your father!) These are MY views! Not yours. (Though the thought of a character titled "Hannah's Words" is somewhat appealing, but I'm sure he/she/it would be misunderstood.)
I've seen so much of it, this denying of boy-ness, this PC-castrato-culture. It is being taught in our schools. I am sure no one here wants women/children/boys sold for sex slaves! That is not what is on the table here. Of course the Chronicler's views are dripping with religious guilt. He seems to wish this same fate and guilt for everyone. It is this “Extreme Christianity” that is the moral equivalent to the Taliban.
I did not read this extremeness into your father’s pondering. I read ex-hippie crunch-crunch. (Remember, this is coming form a Dylan-head who co-sleeps with his two babies and has owned a pair of Birkenstocks in the past) My point was that not only does this paternalism toward females undermine their abilities to make decisions for themselves and be inde-pen-dent (Your point) but also affects the boys as well.
True kind-hearted paternalism that your father expresses puts the views of the boys last and can be used by others to demonize boys in general. (See The chronicle’s vulnerability of boy’s eyes and hands!!!! Holy Cow!)
We are beyond the reparation stage in male-female sexual relations!
Eitherways
(I got the devil in my eyes. Tap ,Tap
I got the devil in my hands. Tap. Tap
Instead of jerking it at night. Tap Tap
I ‘should be dreamin’ of the Promised Land. (I do the splits and thrush both arms out and say “ta-da”.)
Side note here to Mr. Pseudonyms and others. I've noticed that there is a tendency to use what I suspect are song lyrics or quotes in your comments. Could you please credit the musicians/author when you do? As we don't all share the same life experiences and have the same knowledge base, I'm never sure if they are lyrics, quotes from something else, or your own thoughts. Thanks.
Enough you two. Just because P. Pig is not around to moderate while he's off house hunting doesn't give the two of you the right to start a schoolyard poke-fest. He wants a thoughtful blog, not one where people have their defenses up and are yelling at each other. Mr. Many Pseudonyms, I'm sure you knew you were dropping a baited line, and Chronicler, you rose to the bait. Quit it.
That's right. You boys are pushing the envelope on this one. It's time to cool off a wee bit. Hannah was polite calling it a poke-fest. We used to call it something else, but it's pretty much the same thing in the end. Nobody wins.
Ok. Where the heck do you go? Pig is looking for a new sty and we all (well, some) on the war wagon.
Mr. Pig hit the digital nut with the topic and the porcine world responded with comments and correspondence tres extrordinaire.
We're out here making comment on stuff that no one ever talks about but, suddenly, we all have the answers for. Morality and sanity and reality are, all of a sudden, the only topic of discussion to be found. Damn. We went off in nine directions and thenvthere was just Chronicler and Pseudo-commentator.
No disrespect to either. You guys just got really lost, big-time, in the digital dust. No one can possibly or peaceably respond any more. Silencio, por favor.
To the.chronicler, I apologize. You are my friend and I let the insanity roll without comment. Sometimes things just have to stop.
The Pseudonym-meister sent up the Jack movie link. That was cool and, in my mind, a great peace offering. It should have been enough. Then you went back to the wanker thing and we all got lost. Where are the Dylan posts? You can keep the cool here.
I don't pretend to answer for anyone but me, but I think Foghorn was most correct in his last addition. Sometimes maturity is the bottom line.
Nobody wins.
Sometimes, with maturity, we learn to look at the big picture and chill it out just a bit. And a little bit of sense of humor never hurts :-)
I have no doubt that everyone on this discussion wishes wholeheartedly to stop injustice, but I'm sorry to see that this isn't a room of Anwar Sadats (my apologies to fundamentalist Bible thumpers if brown people from a Muslim country do not qualify as peace brokers/revered philanthropists in your version of Christianity, but just stick with us for a second) I'm sure that many of you realize that Crackhead Tuna Fish may very well be the most powerful and successful individual here at preventing and exploiting violence toward women. Daily, he takes advantage of his profession to see to it that the slime gets nailed, quite literally. Fortunately, he doesn't ask for any thanks in return.
Has anyone ever given thought to allowing the best practical problem solvers in the world, the entrepreneurs of corporate America, a shot at this? I understand that most males, with their lusting eyes and rogue hands, are inherently evil, especially rich ones, but Bill Gates and Warren Buffet offer a little bit of money every so often http://money.cnn.com/2006/06/25/magazines/fortune/charity1.fortune/ to the common good and may not be entirely aware of the underground child brothel scene. After all, you'll never know until you ask, and these guys seem like people who love a challenge, especially if you present it to them the right way.
Old Broken Fence is sad.
He lay in his bed and was RE’ALLY sad,
at odds wif de world & its god.
He tries so hard to thinks its not true. "They planned it all" he says. They called
and THIS guy told THAT guy "Act like ya bald."
"and you wear your trowers rolled!"
"and you smoke a pipe."
"and you get that scowl just right! It will be funny! A put-on!"
Humfp, Old Broken Fence don’t really thinks this is RE’ALLY true, that the collective blunted affects of the World is a rouse.
"I think it's just that the old folks are just old and have forgot how to smile."
HE JUST NEEDS TO FACE IT AND GET ON! They are humorless. (and wrong.)
Sammy: Face it and get on?
Crackhead tuna fish: Face it and get on?
Chronicler’s Goat: Face it and get on?
Smoking crab: Face it and get on?
Jack Kerowaker: Face it and get on?
Old Broken Fence: can’t move. Sad. Really sad!
Mr. Wiener: Yes! WE MUST FACE IT AND GET ON!
(they all join hands center stage and sing their fare-thee-well song)
Let's all just face it! (and get on)
The song ends/curtains fall/ A pause/ applause
Crackhead tuna fish (sticking his head from between the curtains smoking his crackpipe): I thinks it’s hard to breathe down here!! (He get's pulled back rapidly by a large hairy arm.)
THE END
_____________________________
Last night my three year old looked at the computer screen and began to laugh "That hotdog's Captain Wanker is falling out of his pants!!"
There is hope for the next generation!
to rita and weiner
no thankyou to your hopeless and porn minds
I'm stepping in for a brief moment from my soujourn in St. Paul. Mr/Ms. Anonyomous of the previous comment, please allow me a moment. I think you could have stated your feelings in a bit more of a polite manner. In fact, I do feel that your comment fell rather into the "name calling" category that our dear host rather expressly forbid. Perhaps your emotions are running high from your evident feelings of hearty disagreement, not uncommon to conversations such as these. However, sir or madame, I felt that your words were quite purposefully hurtful in nature and that an apology is called for. Hearty disagreements are one thing, hurtful words are another.
Oh, it's quite fine that they disagree, I have no problem with that. I don't agree with Mr. Weiner's feelings on the morality of porn myself. My oppinions are completely opposite to his.
However,"porn-filled and hopeless minds" is a blanket judgement and a rather mean one at that (to my ears).
I'd like to encourage people to say "this is how I feel and why" instead of saying "you are such and such."
That would be a general encouragement to all, not just Anonymous.
Don't worry, Kristie, Our feelings are not hurt easily. Especially when the slander doesn't stick. "Hopeless"??? Do I/We sound hopeless??
And "porn minds"? I don't even know what that means. Porn-filled minds? I guess.
It should have been "sexy, hopeful, porn-filled minds."
(I also find it HILARIOUS that my wife, Rita, is being included in this!! It's like we are the Bonnie and Clyde of porn mindedness. Even though I have written over and over again that I'm not that big on porn but thinks it not so morally wrong and should not be lumped in with kid sex slavery.)
By the way, Rita has been the only one here that gave any intelligent answer on how to fight the kiddie sex slave industry. “Think Globally and act Locally” is a nice hippie slogan but come on! You need bucks. Since Bill Gates and Warren Buffet are now in the mood to give away truckloads of cash, why not ask for some? Start something up! Get the problem fixed!
If you need some help, I’m sure Rita would call on some of her friends out in Stanford to help out. She knows some folks that have some cash/ connections/ law degrees that may need some good tax-deductible charities. But you got to get something good together. Something that has a chance at success. Being against corporate America, Spoke, is probably a bad idea (I read your profile “Waiting for Corporate AmeriKKKa to fall”) Money is the way to getting problems solved.
Rita is currently looking into taking on the whole “circumcision without anesthesia” problem in our hospitals. I don’t know of anyone who is more a child advocate than her!
Do you guys know that my dear wife and I are devout Christians! You guys are not acting very Christian-like! Not that it surprises me. I suspected that was the case. Those who use the bible as a weapon against others, instead of for personal mediation, are often that way. I’ll say it again GOD IS TALKING TO YOU! HE HAS NOT GIVEN YOU THE AUTHORITY TO USE HIS WORDS! HE DOSEN”T NEED YOU TO TALK TO ME! HE DOES FINE HIMSELF!
Oh yea, Get a sense of humor, Anonymous, you yellow-bellied coward! I challenge you to a duel for disrespecting M’lady! (Now see that was suppose to be light-hearted and funny. I figure you’d need the cue card to laugh!)
wasn't I suppose to be gone?
Oh pig, I love the way you make me think! Here's the direction my thoughts have tangled lately...because of our western sensibilities about sexuality we react strongly to issues of prostitution and pornography...
I would agree with most of your views on the caustic, damaging effects these horrible businesses have on tender souls.
But what about those poor souls who "sell their body" to deep pit mines or mindless factories or other work environments that seem dehumanizing (and often dangerous) for the profit of corporate stakeholders? Is that LESS bad because they keep their clothes on? When someone must to horrible work of any kind and feels disrespected by it, don't we all lose?
When will we ever honor ALL spirits and recognize we live in a world of abundance in which we can each have sufficient for our needs without exploting our brothers and sisters?
Yeah. Throw money at the problem. That always works, right?
Maybe in the case of fighting a disease, say polio, the solution was a good one. But when the problems are problems of the heart, what good does the money answer do?
I'm not being naive. Money is necessary. But if money were truly the answer, we'd already have less problems instead of more. Actually, in some of the situations we've approached here, money itself is part of the problem.
I don't completely agree with Spoke's notions about the imminent fall of corporate Amerikka and I know Chronicler disagrees more vehemently than I. But realizing who makes the money at the expense of the weak is something that I think we all can agree on. If expliotation of the weak is done within the confines of corporate America, than that portion is to blame and should be held responsible. I don't think any of us is naive enough to believe that the whole of Western Capitalism is somehow to blame for problems created by porn.
"Think globally, act locally" may be seen by some out there as some quaint Hippie slogan, but so what? How does that impression of some words change what those words really mean? Would it be better if it was put like this; "Ponder the underlying universal paradigm and then act in a more neighborhood-centric manner." Doesn't change the sentiment a bit, but sounds a whole lot more esoteric, mes non?
I agree with Ted. Pig come home.
Did I say throw money at anything?
I thought I challenged one of the Heartfelts to come up with a big idea on how to end child-sex- slavery. (or at least do significant damage to the industry.) Get a proposal together. A good idea could get funding.
But I guess you don’t have the confidence to come up with the plan?
Leonard acting locally is fine. When you are done busting your local sex slavery ring maybe you could move on to the next local sex slavery ring. (I just thought it would be more efficient to go after it all at once. I can’t imagine there is a sex slave ring in every little town of America. At least I didn’t hear it mentioned in any John Cougar Melloncamp song.)
Why think small? What would have happened if Abraham Lincoln thought small or Martin Luther King or Osama Bin Laden? Where would we be today?
And why is this a problem of the heart? Do you think there is global support for child sex slavery?! Do you really think that part of the solution is changing the hearts of pedophiles? Let’s just arrest them. (If it’s OK with you, that is.)
“Many of the truths are plain and undebatable.” The Chronicler
yea, In a Chinese Whispers sort of way, or that game we played in grade school called “Telephone” where a secret was whispered around the room and everyone giggled on how it had changed by the time It got back to the first kid.
The problem with your idea of the bible is that you see it as a physical text only. A text that has underwent numerous translations and copies/ parts lost/parts found / books rejected. You believe you can read the text and say it really means something. Your bible is meaningless without divine intervention. The meaning comes as one is reading.
Ya know, he walks with me and he talks with me.
And guess what, God, he’s a slick fellow and he lets you read what you need and interpret it, with his divine wisdom, the way you need in the time you need it.
Your style of bible reading is akin to touching the Shroud of Turin, waiting for a miracle. (I thrust one finger in the air. . . a little hippie/GD reference.)
Errorless translations/perfect scribes?! No equivocation! (As silly theologians sit around large tables and debate Hebrew and Greek!)
I can tell you like your religion of Law. (As the radical Muslim likes his strict interpretation of the Sharia – It gives him a feeling of power!) All you are doing is more forcefully stating your interpretation and calling it TRUE. Bogus.
Notice, I give no universal interpretation. I have my personal one, but it is mine.
You obviously reject the idea of a personal Jesus. (Maybe less obvious to you, but that is what essentially you are doing.) You should give up prayer, too. Why pray when you have the LAW in your hand? (Or maybe you can be the only one that prays and you can tell us what God told you!)
For some of us reading the Bible IS prayer, a conversation of relevance, which instructs and inspires our daily lives. It is not reading history or proclamations!
You have put the actual TEXT of the bible before God himself! Why have God when you have perfect insight into the meaning of this text.
The bible becomes an actual idol to worship. Touch the feet of a statue and be cured!
My advise: Stop reading the words only. Start talking to God. He really is a nice guy, merciful, not hung up on details, not worried that humans are humans, even a good friend. He really doesn’t care if you believe Moses got on an ark and there was a flood, he just wants you to keep you ears open for his call and follow.
There is one thing I forgot to mention about God . . .He also has a sense of humor!
Do I sound angry? Really? Geez. I must be growing tired.
Obviously my message has been lost on you, but hopefully some of the others here will be spurred to a kinder and more open form of Christianity. I truly do not believe that denouncing man for being man is in God’s greater plan. Nor do I think it is right to misuse the words of God to gain power.
As for the 7th Commandment it is the least of the reasons of why I am true to my beautiful wife. I don’t need a law for that. In fact Christianity to me has nothing to do with laws. But as I said, God will give an individual what they need and maybe you do need that level of instruction.
Hey you two wranglers, very glad to read that you are keeping it much more civil! Phew!
My husband came across some interesting blogging that is relevant to this conversation between the two of you. It's David Plotz' "Blogging the Bible" posted by Slate Magazine. Particularly his commentary on Leviticus 15, 18, 19 & 20. http://www.slate.com/id/2145574/ See what you think.
Hey Chronicler, I appreciate your zeal for the things of God. You have a lively spirit that keeps on chugging away … and you won't be steamrollered by opposition. Good for you.
Luther and Chronicler:
Funny how on the last few posts, as Hannah has so astutely pointed out, things have returned to some civility. I have to say that Mr. Weiner's assessment of scripture was very good, as was Chronicler's steadfastness and sincere comments about unity.
As far as the change of heart thing, you are correct, Mr. W. Changing the heart of the pedophile borders on the miraculous (though not necessarily completely out of the picture). What I was referring to is the change of heart of the rest of us, the apathetic, overly-tolerant, ignorant. I am speaking of us that know about things and let them happen, especially when there are things going on under our very noses. There's where the act locally comes in. See, I don't think it's solely about sex slaves as much as it's about the attitudes that even we share that allow things like that to happen.
I don't know about anyone else, but I'm fairly certain that I'm not called to be the next Lincoln or M.L. King, though maybe even that's possible. What I know I'm called to do is the best I can where I walk and affect change in the areas that are within my control.
One last comment on law. Paul refers to the law as "ministrations of death" and his letter to the Galatians is one long blast against the law. How does all that fit into this discussion? I guess what I see is that, as Christ came to fulfill the law, so too did he do it when he uttered those almost last words, "It is finished".
I don’t know if I can state my views on porn any more clearly than I already have. Maybe it is my verbal deficiency or maybe you are just so astonished that a fellow Christian can think so differently than you.
Either way here goes:
Porn has no place in marriage as it could be hurtful to the other. Porn should not include children (or innocent animals.) Porn should not include forced sex. Adult porn made for adults by adults is OK. I actually would encourage single men to use appropriate porn as a means of sexual release rather than lusting after one’s neighbor, stalking women, or living a sexually permissive life. I believe God does not fault men for wanting to look at naked women, and does not fault them for taking the matter of their own bodies into their own hand (right or left hand, depending on your handedness.)
I believe the destruction of the porn industry would do more harm than good and would actually increase the amount of inappropriate predatory actions in this country. If one is not given an easy way of getting their natural release, one will need to find a means of getting that release. It is unrealistic to require all men to read THE GOOD BOOK when they get horny, nor is it appropriate to use a cheese grater on their testicles.
Back to the porn inside a marriage deal. I am divided in my head if it is safe to use porn in a marriage together. I believe it is somewhat of a risk to a relationship unless both have a very good understanding of the nature of male/female sexuality and the relationship is very stable.
As for the women posing or acting in porn, I believe that as adults they should be allowed make their own decisions on their participation. I do not believe that showing your body is degrading at all, no matter what position your legs are in. As humans we all have bodies, we all have sexuality and showing both is really no big deal.
Having adult sex on camera is no different morally than having sex in private as long as you are making that decision for yourself.
For others to make money off of producing and distributing appropriate porn is also no big deal. They play a needed role in the whole human sexual experience. They invest money to make money. I do the same. They should follow all laws while making their money and if they don’t they should be shut down.
Lastly, the secret yet universal nature of human sexuality makes it something that can be poked fun at. Human genitalia though no innately funny is made funny by the taboo-ness surrounding it. I’ve heard more dirty jokes from 80 year old women than from any other population (Most church goers, and mostly jokes about hanging flopping penis’ of pastors or priests, but I’ve also heard the occasional blow-job nun joke.)
There you have it, MY VIEWS ON PORN.
As for Leonard's post. I think if you want to put a dent in the kiddy sex slave industry, you could. All big things are started by one person. It is not really a controversial topic and if you keep the solution non-controversial I'm sure someone would fund it. I don't think it's an attitude problem towards kiddy sex. I know no one in support of it. I think it is a matter of knowing what to do.
It would take alot of time I'm sure, but it is not like solving world hunger. I can't imagine that there really is that many slave rings.
One needs a good idea.
Hey you two pugilists, Will one of you please deliver a knock-out blow so we can go on with the blog? I would pull the plug on you both except I'm kind of curious to see how many hundreds of comments two guys can gernerate. And Hannah has convinced me that freedom of the press has some value. But so far, as far as this comment stream, I can't see what it is.
Debate is instructive when everybody in the debate is willing to change their mind if someone else presents a better perspective. That will never happen with you two (I think) so I suggest we bag the Bible interpretation battle for a while and go back to Leo's proposal for "how can we constructively think globally and act on our thinking.
I know good old verbal swordplay is more fun - but try it. It might be useful.
I, for one, would like to hear more about Rita's connections with Stanford if Mr. Weiner can keep it general enuff to report on a general readership blog.
Posted from the Bluestone Cafe, Grant's Pass Oregon.
Ah geesh Chronicler, I've tried to stay out of this discussion for a variety of reasons - the main one being that I sincerely believe people should respect the views of others even when they disagree with them - but when you say "People are afraid to take sides. Or they'll pose compromises to try to make everybody happy" I feel compelled to write. It seems to me that too often when we find someone with a view completely different from our own it is easy to get in an unending argument, and for me that becomes tiresome - really I don't think you and Luther Vandross/Mr. Weiner, etc. will ever come to a compromise because you are both enjoying the argument too much. So I have kept my silence - not because I am afraid to take sides or might pose a compromise to try and make everybody happy (even though you did say I was rather Democratic once =). My personal opinion on porn is that it is pathetic. It doesn't have a place in my life, and it's not a subject I spend time thinking about. That doesn't mean that other people don't have the right to view it (adults, not kids of course); I think any sane person (not a murderer or molester, or anyone of that nature) can make the decision for himself (free will, in my humble opinion, is what it really comes down to). However, I believe porn which displays children is horrific and should not be tolerated - ever. Pretty simple, but there you have it, just my opinions, but at least they're here for the record...now I'm gonna go read more about those Earps.....
"My personal opinion on porn is that it is pathetic"
See, I really have a problem with this idea, Peggi. I talk about sexuality with all types of people. Several examples:
- A 45 year old man who was in a severe car accident at the age of 20, who was left with significant handicap and brain damage.
- A 300 lbs women with hirsutism.
- A man with genital deformity secondary to an accident as a child.
- Many men and women with genital herpes afraid to have physical contact with anyone, in fear of spreading the disease.
- People who look like Henry Kissinger. (Just kidding about this one)
- Many, many, many men with varying degrees of ED.
All very nice people, most without life partners, many who have never had a partner in their lives and never will, some who need more to get off than they use to.
Some of these people use porn to express their sexuality. All would like a partner, not only for sex but also for sex, if they could get one.
You’d be surprised to find out how many elderly couples use porn material in their sex-lives to help get things going.
I don’t see any of this as pathetic.
As for The Pig’s inquiry over my wife . . . I was just asking if anyone had any good ideas on how to tackle this child-sex-slave deal. Rita is very much a child advocate and is usually in the mood to help.
She counts among her friends/acquaintances more multi-millionaires/CEOs than most people. And since my feeling was that money was needed to make a difference maybe a good plan could get funded.
But no ideas have surfaced. Right now she is just getting started on the “circumcision without lidocaine” deal spurred on by a discussion she had with our mutual belly-dancing friend about the practices in your town (in RI). It seems many have ignored the recommendations of everyone (AFP, ACOG, AAP) and continue to strap the little lads to the cutting board and snip away without numbing first. (nationwide not just in RI).
But I think since being told she had a “hopeless and porn mind”, she stopped following along. I think her reaction was: Big smirk, “SHEEET, hopeless? They can kiss my big black ass!” another smirk, turning to me “You should become Luther Vandross!” I don’t know why Luther Vandross, but sometimes you just do what the little lady says.
Alright! Now we're getting somewhere. Where that is is a complete mystery to me but at least it's not where we've already been. I sense some real exchange happening here, something more on par with discussion.
Now back to the Pig's original thesis. How do we proceed and do some good? We've obviously got more opinions than have been seen on any blog for a long time. As dissimilar as our ventings have been, I sense we're all pretty rational and sensitive people and possibly share more similarity in thought than we realize.
Personally, I still think the local approach may do the best good. You know, working on a human level rather than a huge bureaucratic one. The likes of Mother Theresa did the best good by living and dying with the people she served. I'm not suggesting that we are all called to live and die in Calcutta, but some are and they need our support and prayers.
I'm not going to go into a scripture survey. Suffice to say that when Mother Theresa was asked near the end of her life how she could spend so much of her life living with the sick and dying in the slums of India, her response was simply that she tried to see the face of Jesus in everyone she encountered.
Now that's a big order and, in all honesty bigger than I can fulfill. Maybe that's the place to start? Doing a little something to change how we look at people and even each other and look at what they need, really need, rather than simply want to fix a huge problem?
It ain't much, but it's all I've got at this particular remove.
Here's my childish part (I know I've been childish at least one other time today)... Maybe we'll hit 100 comments by Tuesday.
Maybe Rita suggested Luther Vandross as he is legendary and you, Mr. Pseudonym, have become legendary too. Do you possibly look like Luther? Well, the pre-2005 Luther perhaps?
Just trying to add a little levity here. Enough day. Goodnight.
Totally fine if you have a problem with my view of porn, LV; it's my GENERAL view and I'm okay with it. Perhaps it may have helped you understand my position more if I had said "In general I see porn as pathetic" - BUT, for medical reasons & in the situations LV has pointed out, of course, the viewing of porn would not be pathetic, but rather ACCEPTABLE and UNDERSTANDABLE...Really if someone (again, I am speaking of adults and not under-age kids) wants to view porn I honestly don't care. It's none of my business... It's their right ... However, nobody here is going to be able to cover ALL the bases ALL the time - each situation is different, and AS I SAID BEFORE free will, in my opinion, is what it comes down to.
I have little to say here. Leo has e-mailed me trying to prod me to comment as I have privately. Nope. Nothing to say about porn. What I do have a qustion about is the circumcision without anesthetic thing is why?
If it's a gentile child, its not necessary. The clean thing is a myth these days. Why cut a perfectly good foreskin? I had mine for over 40 years and it was as good and as durable as when I and it was a wee one. Maybe for the Jewish child, ok. If it's a Jewish man, like me, the whole idea if I remember my Torah correctly, was to make a symbolic sacrifice to God. If it don't hurt where's the sacrifice?
Other than that, no comments here. Sorry Pig. Sorry Leo. I dont take sides on this one besides the obvious. Unless someone is injured or the law is broken my libertarian side just says live and let live. My religion is separate and personal. I don't make it public though I do share it with friends.
How about a post on Israel and the chosen people rap? Man, I could go on that one for a while especially these days?
The question is not whether to snip or not to snip, but rather if it is ethical to perform surgery without adequate pain control? The little guys scream holy hell if it is done without lidocaine. It is not an anti-circumcision campaign but a pro-pain medication one.
One of the biggest problems is a lack of patient education on how painful a procedure it is without numbing meds. I doubt if given the honest facts about the safety of lidocaine, many parents would choose to have their boys go without it.
I find it interesting to see really strong pro-swaddle views in our hospitals but ambivalence towards this issue. (Anyone who has spent some time in newborn nurseries has seen the Nazi-Swaddlers.)
Circ with anesthesia rates in 1998 by doc type: Peds (71%), followed by FPs (56%), then OBs (25%).
As I understand it, many home Jewish circumcisions are also done without numbing.
Post a Comment
<< Home