Posted on 06/08/2005 10:35:04 PM PDT by Crackingham
The annual President's Dinner, a Republican Party fundraising event featuring President Bush, could get an extra dash of spice this year with porn actress and former California gubernatorial candidate Mary Carey planning to attend. The porn industry and Republicans may seem like strange bedfellows, but Ms. Carey said she sees Tuesday night's dinner as a good opportunity to learn more about their policies and do some networking. She plans to run for lieutenant governor of California as an independent next year. Ms. Carey acknowledges that some people just think of her as a busty blonde who does porn films.
“I also have a brain and political aspirations,” said Ms. Carey, whose priorities include legalizing gay marriage.
Carl Forti, a spokesman for the National Republican Congressional Committee, which is co-hosting the dinner, had no qualms about Ms. Carey and her boss, adult film executive Mark Kulkis, attending.
“Their money was donated to the NRCC. The NRCC's job is to elect Republicans. We'll take that money and use it to elect more Republicans,” Mr. Forti said.
Ms. Carey was one of 135 candidates on the California ballot to replace Gray Davis in the 2003 recall election. Voters picked another actor — Arnold Schwarzenegger.
Mr. Kulkis, a self-described “Schwarzenegger Republican” who is fiscally conservative and socially liberal, was invited to the dinner by the NRCC and paid $5,000 for his and Ms. Carey's plates.
Ms. Carey and Mr. Kulkis said they want to prove stereotypes of porn workers wrong.
Porn is a distraction for people that are bored and just sitting around. Pretty much everyone checks it out on the internet but it is dangerous. Viruses and bacteria rule those sites. A computer can get HIV. Why not go to one of those dating sites and meet someone you like in person? If I can meet all-around nice ladies, so can anyone else. There's not any time left to stare at dirty pictures. Porn becomes boring and ridiculous.
That's one of the (many) problems with porn: it turns you away from real people. And eventually renders you incapable of deeply receiving, and being deeply received by, a real person.
After the Marijuana rulings, expect some libertarians (including the porn business) to start understanding the importance of State's Rights.
Giving the feds full power over decisions only works as long as your friends are in power. Afterwords, you can lose everything.
Degrading? Could be, but I don't care to watch anything that might be degrading. What kind of porn are you watching?
"What kind of porn are you watching?"
None.
All forms are degrading, including nude shots in Playboy.
I'm heartened to see you paint with such a broad brush. It must take you no time at all to paint your house.
"paint with such a broad brush."
All I have to do is think for a nanosecond about one of my daughters in such a situation.
Do you have daughters?
No, I have no children. But I have nine nieces, and I'm very close to them.
And you wouldn't feel the least bit...suboptimal, to see any of them in Playboy?
This is a non-argument. As one whose sexual tastes do not tend towards the incestuous, I would not put myself into a position where I'd be in a sexual situation with one of my nieces. So if I knew one of my nieces was posing in Playboy, why would I buy or look at that particular issue?
" RINOs and Porn = Socially Liberal GOP. "
You may consider me a rino but I absolutely draw the line at porn and illegal kithen made drug abuse. I loathe both. Only the deviant and depraved crave them.
Porn and druggies = those who aren't getting any sex and those who want to escape reality or both. Summed up, they're total losers.
"This is a non-argument."
No, it's the winning argument, which is why you try to evade it.
"So if I knew one of my nieces was posing in Playboy, why would I buy or look at that particular issue?"
I didn't presume in my hypothetical that you knew in advance. I was presuming that you just casually picked up an issue and were thumbing through it, and there it was.
Nor does my hypothetical attempt to imply any incestuous feelings on your part. But all of that is irrelevant. You could be stone blind, and the point would still stand.
Of course, we all know that men buy Playboy for the articles, and only look at the pictures in passing out of deep, artistic appreciation for the asthetic qualities of the female form.
That's why they call it "stroking material."
That aside, the message conveyed by the photos is a simple one: "Wouldn't you like to nail me? Come on, want me; fantasize. You married? Your wife got a body like this, after six kids? Escape into the fantasy of unrestricted sexual access to this body."
Wouldn't bother you at all for your nieces to become a part of that?
No, it's the winning argument, which is why you try to evade it.
No, it's a non-argument. You introduced this factor---that my nieces were the nude models in a Playboy magazine---into the argument in an attempt to transform the argument from a logical one into an emotional one. You wanted to elicit a response from me based on emotion, not reason. This had to have been your intention, for there is no other reason to qualify the women who pose in Playboy magazine: every one of those women is more than likely someone's niece. Moreover, every one of those women is someone's daughter, grand-daugher, etc.
Since society rightly dictates that having sexual feelings for members of one's own blood family is wrong, you now have a device by which you can leap to this conclusion: "since I wouldn't want to see my niece naked in Playboy magazine, Playboy magazine---and everything pornographic in general---must therefore be wrong." This conclusion is over-broad, and therefore incorrect. While I would not care to see one of my nieces in Playboy magazine, I do care to see women who aren't my nieces in Playboy magazine, as do the millions of people who subscribe to Playboy or buy it at the newsstand.
Of course, we all know that men buy Playboy for the articles, and only look at the pictures in passing out of deep, artistic appreciation for the asthetic qualities of the female form.
Your attempt at sarcasm falls short. Playboy magazine has a long track record of publishing material from America's best contemporary authors, including Hemingway and Mailer, for example. It's perfectly reasonable to pick up an issue of Playboy magazine to read outstanding contemporary fiction.
That aside, the message conveyed by the photos is a simple one: "Wouldn't you like to nail me? Come on, want me; fantasize. You married? Your wife got a body like this, after six kids? Escape into the fantasy of unrestricted sexual access to this body."
Wouldn't bother you at all for your nieces to become a part of that?
More attempts to camouflage emotionalism as a rational argument, my friend. It might work on other Freepers, but not on yours truly. I see right through you.
“into the argument in an attempt to transform the argument from a logical one into an emotional one.”
1. Attempting to divorce emotion from matters of sexuality is foolish at best. Particularly when degradation is at issue, since degradation is felt as an emotion.
2. I was hoping, by making it personal to you, to open your eyes to the fact that porn models are also people, somebody’s daughter or son or niece.
“You wanted to elicit a response from me based on emotion, not reason.”
No, I wanted you to use a proper balance of emotion and reason in your thinking.
“every one of those women is more than likely someone's niece. Moreover, every one of those women is someone's daughter, grand-daugher, etc.”
Funny how you can acknowledge that and still miss the point.
“Since society rightly dictates that having sexual feelings for members of one's own blood family is wrong, you now have a device by which you can leap to this conclusion: "since I wouldn't want to see my niece naked in Playboy magazine, Playboy magazine---and everything pornographic in general---must therefore be wrong.”
No, no, no. Your desire to justify indulging in porn is keeping you from thinking rationally. This whole incest thing is just a straw man you’re using to run away from the real issue.
The real issue is basic human decency. How can one say that it’s all right for someone else’s niece to degrade herself when one wouldn’t want one’s own nieces to engage in the same behavior? Can you say, “I’d be upset, saddened, and embarrassed to know that women who are important to me had cheapened themselves and made themselves the object of masturbatory fantasies by appearing naked in a magazine,” and at the same time enjoy nude pictures of women who are important to someone else? One can only call that hypocrisy.
“Your attempt at sarcasm falls short.”
Actually, it was funny as hell. I’m killing me over here.
“America's best contemporary authors, including Hemingway and Mailer, for example.”
Oh, dear Lord. Hemmingway and Mailer? No wonder you’re having trouble thinking this issue through.
“More attempts to camouflage emotionalism as a rational argument”
No, it’s an attempt to get you to take the first step toward thinking this issue through. What is the moral basis for a position that it’s fine for women of other families to do what would be degrading for women of your family to do? How is it logically consistent to enjoy seeing women you don’t know degrade themselves, when it would distress you if women who are important to you did the same thing?
Is it that you just don’t care? Is it that only the women of your family matter, and so you don’t mind if other women are degraded?
“I see right through you.”
So far, all you’re seeing is your own straw men.
The media is just looking for any reason to ignore what Bush said at the fundraiser.
You started our discussion by declaring that all forms of pornography were degrading, which, in essence, is a declaration of your emotional feelings about the subject, and an appeal to emotion. I don't believe all forms of pornography are degrading. Since my emotional response is as valid as yours, how are we supposed to find any venue for argument or discussion?
2. I was hoping, by making it personal to you, to open your eyes to the fact that porn models are also people, somebody’s daughter or son or niece.
No, really?
No, no, no. Your desire to justify indulging in porn is keeping you from thinking rationally. This whole incest thing is just a straw man you’re using to run away from the real issue.
The very terms you use in your argument---"indulging"---are loaded, and you accuse me of trying to manipulate our discussion unfairly?
The real issue is basic human decency.
The real issue, in my opinion, isn't one of human decency. It's a political issue encompassing free speech, the freedom to consume a legal product, and the freedom to pursue happiness by the way of a perfectly legal occupation.
Actually, it was funny as hell. I’m killing me over here.
I'm heartened to learn you're a legend in your own mind.
Oh, dear Lord. Hemmingway and Mailer? No wonder you’re having trouble thinking this issue through.
One "m" in Hemingway. You dispute the literary prowess of Hemingway and Mailer, and/or dismiss their accomplishments?
No, it’s an attempt to get you to take the first step toward thinking this issue through.
Thanks, but I don't need to be led to the Promised Land by the likes of you.
What is the moral basis for a position that it’s fine for women of other families to do what would be degrading for women of your family to do? How is it logically consistent to enjoy seeing women you don’t know degrade themselves, when it would distress you if women who are important to you did the same thing?
What's the moral basis for eating food when others have none? What's the moral basis for buying a new home when others don't even have shelter? What's the moral basis for putting on one's heat in the winter when there are homeless people out in the streets, freezing to death? What's the moral basis for profiting from the labor of others? What's the moral basis for buying goods from China, where they employ slave laborers?
If one employed your argument rigorously, in all aspects of life, one could not get out of bed in the morning.
Is it that you just don’t care? Is it that only the women of your family matter, and so you don’t mind if other women are degraded?
If others, of their own free will, choose to engage in the production of a legal product, and I choose to consume it, a rational person should have no problem with that arrangement. Period.
So far, all you’re seeing is your own straw men.
Are you sure you know what a straw man is?
“Since my emotional response is as valid as yours”
Actually, it’s not. Try to figure out why.
“how are we supposed to find any venue for argument or discussion?”
That would have to start with you actually grasping the arguments I’ve made, even if only to argue against them.
“The very terms you use in your argument---"indulging"---are loaded, and you accuse me of trying to manipulate our discussion unfairly?”
There’s a case in point. I didn’t accuse you of “trying to manipulate our discussion unfairly.” I accused you of using a straw man to protect yourself from facing the issue.
“The real issue, in my opinion, isn't one of human decency.”
Then your opinion is mistaken.
“It's a political issue encompassing free speech”
Nonsense. Nudity and public fornication are not speech.
“the freedom to consume a legal product, and the freedom to pursue happiness by the way of a perfectly legal occupation.”
To say that those things are legal is an example of what you called “a non-argument.” Look at the things it was legal for Saddam to do under his own regime.
“You dispute the literary prowess of Hemingway and Mailer, and/or dismiss their accomplishments?”
I dispute Hemingway’s literary prowess (although I was briefly impressed by it when young) and I assert that Mailer has only damaged mankind’s cognosphere.
“Thanks, but I don't need to be led to the Promised Land by the likes of you.”
Yes, you do.
“What's the moral basis for eating food when others have none…profiting from the labor of others?”
All of those are false analogies, demonstrating that you do very much need to be led to rational thinking by someone. Taking enjoyment from another person’s degradation would be more analogous to taking other people’s food, kicking them out of their houses, stealing their fuel oil, and refusing them the wages that they’ve earned.
“What's the moral basis for buying goods from China, where they employ slave laborers?”
My children are very upset with me over my habit of looking for “made in China” labels and refusing to buy goods that bear them. It’s getting harder and harder, though.
“If others, of their own free will, choose to engage in the production of a legal product, and I choose to consume it, a rational person should have no problem with that arrangement. Period.”
Vacuous. Utterly, heartlessly, mindlessly, soullessly vacuous.
People sometimes choose to do bad things, and their “free choice” is not a license for you to exploit their wrongful choices. Legality is sometimes associated with rightfulness, but certainly not always, so that test is also worthless.
In providing a market for porn, you are encouraging other human beings to harm themselves grievously, just like a pimp trying to turn out a runaway teenager. You are also harming civilization, the people who now exist in it now, and the future generations who will have to inhabit the cesspool we’re leaving them.
“Are you sure you know what a straw man is?”
Yup. Your whole “incest” thing is a good example.
Yup. Your whole “incest” thing is a good example.
My whole incest thing? You're the one who brought that line of argument to the table, my friend. Not me: I merely pointed out how specious it was as a line of reasoning.
However, your post betrays your true intention here: you're preaching, not reasoning. So in terms of this particular discussion, we're two ships passing each other in the night. I think we've covered all the ground there is to cover here---unless you want to trade barbs or flame away at each other. Frankly, you're not worth my time.
"My whole incest thing? You're the one who brought that line of argument to the table"
Nope. That was a straw man you threw up between yourself and the argument I actually posted. Nothing I said implied anything about incest, except when I was pointing out that your introduction of the matter was a straw man.
"you're preaching, not reasoning."
Definitions:
Preaching: making reasoned arguments that incorporate moral concepts.
Reasoning: doing whatever is necessary to arrive at the desired conclusion, which requires excluding moral concepts.
Most of us define those terms differently.
"I think we've covered all the ground there is to cover here"
Actually, you haven't even taken your first baby step toward thinking this issue through. You wasted time on your "incest" straw man, but haven't even acknowledged the major arguments presented against you.
"Frankly, you're not worth my time."
No good deed goes unpunished, I guess. Oh, well, more people are persuaded by experience than by argument, so there's always the chance that you will find yourself 20 years from now trying to explain my position to someone who, like you now, cannot bear to face the reality of the situation.
Again, you were the one who attempted to use my nieces as a rhetorical device in this dicussion---"would you care to see your nieces in Playboy magazine?." No, I would not. I would not care to see my nieces in Playboy magazine. I would not care to see any of my relatives in a sexual situation, quite frankly.
Explain to me how I threw up a straw man by responding in this manner.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.