Posted on 01/24/2006 2:50:39 PM PST by SmoothTalker
Actors having real sex in art-house movies. Erstwhile child star Lindsay Lohan appearing barely clad on the cover of her new album. Teenage girls strolling down Main Street USA attired in ''Porn Star" T-shirts. A bikini-wearing Jessica Simpson bumping and grinding in the music video for ''These Boots Are Made for Walkin.' " College-age women flashing for the ''Girls Gone Wild" video series with nonchalant exhibitionism.
Not too long ago, pornography was a furtive profession, its products created and consumed in the shadows. But it has steadily elbowed its way into the limelight, with an impact that can be measured not just by the Internet-fed ubiquity of pornography itself but by the way aspects of the porn sensibility now inform movies, music videos, fashion, magazines, and celebrity culture.
Braving the inevitable accusations of prudery -- which they reject -- critics such as Paul are sounding the alarm. They say the current hypersexualized climate distorts the attitudes of young people toward sex and relationships. In particular, they contend it has a damaging effect on the self-image of young women and girls, who are confronted with a culture that objectifies them while disguising it as female empowerment.
''Our culture once glamorized cigarette smoking to a large extent. It was promoted by the medical establishment, the film industry, TV," she says. ''But once the evidence of harm began to be disseminated by the government, and by schools and the private sector, the number of people who started smoking went down. My hope is that once people realize the negative effect that pornography has on individuals, their children, their wives, and society as a whole, there will be a mind-set shift."
(Excerpt) Read more at boston.com ...
"To effectively pull us out of the garbage dump of popular society, nothing short of a miracle--manifested in Constitutional Amendments and a very conservative, strict-constructionist SCOTUS can effectively right these wrongs."
If you think the gov't can fix this you are sadly mistaken. This is not an issue of not having enough laws on the books, this is an issue of the heart and soul of a society being in need of repair.
No, it is you who's mistaken. Reread my post.
Nowhere, and absolutely nowhere, did I say it was the government alone that could fix these problems.
Yes, I said that Constitutional Amendments and a strict-constructionist SCOTUS can effectively right these wrongs.
But to get to that point, the people have to be involved. Since this is a concept that is, amazingly enough, still taught in elementary-school classes, I felt it wasn't necessary to spell out that point in black and white.
For Constitutional Amendments and laws to get to SCOTUS, the people have to act. Laws are easier to slip past people in the cours of politicking at the statehouse. But remember that a Constitutional Amendment needs a two-thirds majority in each house, then ratification by three-fourths of the states. Thus there is no feasible way a Constitutional Amendment can go into force without the support of the people at some point in the process.
I say this because the people have to act through the government. The muck is beyond a point where society can clean it up by itself, ergo, society must enlist the aid of government, though it must be careful in approach--being careful what we wish for.
For these reasons, I stand by my word.
So are you not for capitalism also?
Sorry that when you were born you could not show your ankles. Times change deal with it. It isn't stopping so you might as well either turn it off, look away or just deal. I am sorry if you think this is awful, but it is just life. Unfornately we have way to many other issues to take care of before Jessica in a bikini. How about we get rid of abortion first and then worry about the way people dress. I would feel much better if the attention was getting rid of abortion. I can't believe that you don't agree with that. Are you against porn, but pro-choice? That just seems crazy to me!
Does Europe even make note of "sexual offenders" unless and/or until they are exceptionally offensive?
I mean, there certainly is an area of interest there as to the discrepancy but immediately I'd examine how the issue is even noted or not between the two continents. It just might be that there are more or parallel events among all human cultures, civilizations as to sexual offending but that one culture is making more note of the problem than others, and/or that others make note of it but do not regard it as a problem, while we and some others do.
I'd have to look over the reporting problem. I tend to believe that most behaviors such as sexual predation upon children, particulalry, is something that is aberrant behavior known to our SPECIES not to our COUNTRIES. It's not "country-related," so to speak, but is, rather, species related.
Thus, wherever humans are, the same percentage of sexual deviations, predators will exist. Pornography is regarded as sexual deviation by many people, despite the otherwise "it's harmless" explanation that some apply to it. Differences in reporting account for the differences in noticable statistics, but the acts themselves are almost certainly occuring in the same percentages of THE HUMAN POPULATION, regardless of, generally, country of residence.
It's a human problem/area of concern, not a problem of country or continent.
Similar to any other aberrant behavioral one, unless and until it's established that people are made aberrant by special politics of some sort: Russian bolsheviks determining religious beliefs represented "insanity" and sending massive numbers of citizens to incarceration if and when they were deemed to hold Christian beliefs.
All human societies, however, revile and object to sexual contact with children and many to pornography so I strongly doubt that the U.S. as a civilization and country is the only group who does.
"Since this is a concept that is, amazingly enough, still taught in elementary-school classes, I felt it wasn't necessary to spell out that point in black and white."
Apparently they taught how to create Constitutional Amendments at your elementary school but they neglected to teach reading comprehension.
I said that the issue was with the hearts and minds of people in this country. But not in the sense that their hearts and minds need to warm to the idea of using gov't to enact laws to change behavior. The change in hearts and minds is needed so that people will stop being consumers of this stuff at every level; right now it's pervasive enough that you can't legislate against it.
There's evidence that it's already changing to an extent -- movie revenues are falling drastically, for example. And the more that people keep making the right choices the more society will change, and the more that advertising dollars will reflect that change. After all, it's all demand-driven anyway.
You said people need to get involved and change the gov't to add new Consitutional Amendments and a SCOTUS that will back it up. The solutions you propose are still based on the old Post-FDR, Baby-Boomer idea of just creating some new laws and that will fix the problem. You can blindly stand by your ideas all you want but it's still the same ol', same ol' liberal idea that gov't can (and should) fix everything by passing the right laws.
I agree with that.
I was just pondering the psychology, however, of some who find pleasure in decrepitude of various types and acts. Consider that they also find pleasure in taunting others, in relationship to those acts. And that, as a country, the U.S. holds appeal to a certain "disease" of mind and spirit that is drawn to areas they perceive they will/can taunt and in effect, terrorize.
You know, as this: "Question: why do you go to hunt in Minnesota?" "Answer: because that's where the ducks are."
People of all motivations are drawn to areas (and other people) where (and who) they think they can make use of, achieve through or with. Some of those people have motivations and intentions that are not at all acceptable to others but their method of "hunting" is still the same as others...they are attracted to "resources," so to speak and search them out.
The problem where the sick mind/spirit is concerned is that their concept of what is a resource is a vulnerable human being, someone who can be victimized.
I think that idea is expandable to entire countries, certainly it is to towns, cities, even states. Certain conditions attract a certain type. It just could be that the idea of being vile among all us conservative Americans sets a certain sick mind and spirit into a type of (sick, aberrant) sense of pleasure.
I believe, however, that Europe produces more pornography than the U.S. does. Which does indicate a preponderance of acceptance, USE, of pornography than in the U.S.
Your resonse to my reply #55, makes absolutely no sense.
We weren't discussing bikini's, showing off one's ankles or abortion. The topic was pornography.
First and foremost, that ad hominem attack was uncalled for. It's one thing to digress from what I'm saying. It's another to sublimely hint that I'm an illiterate moron. I'll forgive you this time, but don't do it again.
I don't disagree that this debate lies in the hearts and souls of every citizen. That's very true.
But that is only part of the equation. Society can be enraged all it wants, but with the prevailing attitudes, it doesn't want to change.
Laws are enacted by the people. Laws are also reflective of the morality of society, and are put in place to uphold society. But, they are also like wine--everything in moderation.
Plus, your solution of "quit buying it" won't work. It's like telling the Kim Jong-Ils of the world, "Quit building nukes." You merely tell people not to buy smut, more people will buy it. That's part of human nature.
But you get together with people and form a law that expressly prohibits certain kinds of smut, less people will buy it, lest they end up in prison for it.
The point I'm making is that our society has morally devolved beyond the point where a.)society can clean the problem by itself without the usage of government, and b.) the porn business is more than market-driven by people buying it--it quite literally thrives on being drenched everywhere one goes.
Because of this, letting society try to clean itself up will be futile. It's well-intentioned, but it will never work.
In an ideal world, yes, we could sit back and let our culture clean it up. And if that were the case, I'd agree with you. But we're obviously not in an ideal world and by not doing anything, it will get worse as time moves forward.
Further, I don't advocate micromanagement of society by the government as you quite pointedly suggest. I do however advocate that if society finds it necessary to enact a law to aid itself in cleaning up this filth, it should do so, but only insofar as what is absolutely necessary. Government is a tool, and an extremely dangerous one at that. It ain't pretty, but as I'll explain in a minute, some it has to be used.
But, as I've told you, society must be careful what it wishes for, meaning that if it passes too many laws restricting obscenity, more average Joes will be compelled to break the law, effectively putting us below square one. This is exactly why Prohibition failed.
The solutions you propose are still based on the old Post-FDR, Baby-Boomer idea of just creating some new laws and that will fix the problem. You can blindly stand by your ideas all you want but it's still the same ol', same ol' liberal idea that gov't can (and should) fix everything by passing the right laws.
Now you're putting words into my mouth, and you still aren't understanding what I'm saying. I have never said it's the government's responsibility to handle the issue--you and I both know this.
What I've been saying all along here is that even a free society sometimes needs to use government as a tool. And because government is a dangerous tool, society has to be careful in how they use it, and they need to use it as minimally as possible to get the job done right.
Actually, I am. The market has wonderful benefits if it is directed to fulfilling goals. But I would like to see a return to the approach to the market the western world had for hundreds of years. Let the market function to fulfill most needs. But limit what the market can sell and how it can sell it where experience indicates it can drive thru the dark side of human nature to a degrading and ultimately self-defeating end.
In ModelBreaker's world, people would go to jail for selling magazines showing bare breasts and for selling cocaine. Public expressions of homosexuality would be strongly discouraged--probably illegal--although I think there is no point making homosexuality itself illegal. If they want to have a private, secret, decadent culture, that is between them and the Lord. But the mainstreaming of their culture reduces the entire culture to their level.
We also need to bring back hypocrisy and shame. Public shame for behavior that legitimizes decadent behavior. And hypocrisy because, the public appearance of virtue is a good thing, even if the person showing it is not perfect. What that says to kids is that virtue is important and that the hypocrite is ashamed of the secret sin.
I never thought I would reach the point where I would advocate these prescriptions. But it should be clear by now to anyone who looks objectively at the situation that our unfortunate flirtation with anything goes social libertarianism since about 1960 has been a complete failure.
We could remedy things by getting rid of the market (which by its nature is amoral and exploits any edge to sell product, including, if permitted, the dark side of human nature) or by driving decadent behavior back underground to shameful stuff that bad people do. The former results in socialism and totalitarianism. The later requires restriction on some public behavior, which I am instinctively loath to do. But the two cannot exist together. Either we have to jettison the market or we have to jettison anything goes social libertarianism. If I had to choose between two unattractive options--and I believe we do--I would choose to retain the market.
You've lost it pal.
Apparently, they are to the author.
Time to buy a clue. Hint, when you start advocating hypocrisy as though it were a virtue, your train has jumped the tracks. Yeah, exactly what this or any culture needs is better liars. Oh yeah, that makes a helluva lot of sense.
"Blame the consumers. Big media is a business. If consumers weren't buying the filth and supporting its purveyors, the filth wouldn't be as widespread."
You're wrong.
Here's the longer version: With the relentless sexual saturation of nearly everything in our culture...the various media forces, over time, create a populace which is not only increasingly tolerant of escalating levels of pornography, it's even habituated to wanting more and more.
Less pedantic: If they shove the crap down your throat at every opportunity, it's gets more difficult to just "shut it off."
Do you really think your average American has the fortitude and willpower and commitment that the average person on this forum has? I don't.
You really should think this thru rather than responding with glib sound bites. At least consider the possibility that human nature is flawed. We have a couple of ways to deal with that. First, we can have our vices in private and maintain a publically virtuous exterior (the old fashioned approach, call it hypocrisy) or we can celebrate our vice in public (the modern, gay-parade approach, what I called social libertarianism earlier in the thread).
If you think what I call the social libertarian approach (celebrate our vices in public) that has dominated our society since the 60's has been beneficial, then your soundbite above is consistent with your beliefs and we don't need to have further discussion. I don't.
OTOH, if you think the spawn of the 60's has been overall bad, you should consider that, when dealing with flawed humans, the only alternative to public parading of vice is hypocrisy. In fact, hypocrisy is the admission by the sinner that his private behavior is not good. That is a better apporach, in my opinion, than the sinner who insists his sin is not such and that others must vicariously participate in that sin.
As said many centuries ago "Hypocrisy is the homage vice pays to virtue."
It would, of course, be better if we were all perfect. Alas, that's not happening soon.
So you might consider, if you can get past the sound bites, why is hypocrisy the only sin that the left gets all worked up about? The answer, I think, is clear. They want to redefine us as meat that should indulge in our worst desires and celebrate that. Hypocrisy stands in the way of realizing that goal because the hypocrite admits, by his behavior, that his behavior is not acceptable.
"First and foremost, that ad hominem attack was uncalled for."
You drew first blood with this insulting and sarcastic reply to me:
"Since this is a concept that is, amazingly enough, still taught in elementary-school classes, I felt it wasn't necessary to spell out that point in black and white."
So don't get your shorts in a knot when someone responds to you in kind. (BTW, my response was not an ad hominem attack; you might want to check the definition). You are the one who brought the level of discussion down to this point.
"I'll forgive you this time, but don't do it again."
I was not seeking your forgiveness, so you have none to offer. I don't know who you think you are but you need to step down off your high horse.
"I have never said it's the government's responsibility to handle the issue--you and I both know this."
You said it was the people's responsibility to enact laws to criminalize it. No matter how you describe it, you are talking about involving gov't to implement your solution.
"But, as I've told you, society must be careful what it wishes for, meaning that if it passes too many laws restricting obscenity, more average Joes will be compelled to break the law, effectively putting us below square one. This is exactly why Prohibition failed."
Well, we do agree on that point.
Excuse me, but how was it insulting and sarcastic?
Nowhere, and absolutely nowhere did I imply you were of below-average intelligence. Reread post 122--I just simply stated that since such a concept was taught at a very young age, I consider it to be a universally-known concept that shouldn't have to be stated outright on this thread. Therefore IMO, there was no need to post that statement, and I left it out of my original post.
When you replied in post 121 that: "To effectively pull us out of the garbage dump of popular society, nothing short of a miracle--manifested in Constitutional Amendments and a very conservative, strict-constructionist SCOTUS can effectively right these wrongs." it became clear to me that you misread my post. I politely said in Post 122 to reread my post, and that I believe you misunderstood.
If you consider someone telling you that you misread and took something wrongly out of context to be insulting and sarcastic, then I don't know what to say.
Therefore, your accusation of my drawing first blood doesn't hold weight.
So don't get your shorts in a knot when someone responds to you in kind. (BTW, my response was not an ad hominem attack; you might want to check the definition).
No. If you would have simply reread my original posting, you would have found that I've pretty much addressed your concerns. When you subtly implied that I was illiterate, that's where the cut occurred.
(BTW, my response was not an ad hominem attack; you might want to check the definition)
I did, and the basic definition of an ad hominem is where one attacks their opponent as a person as opposed to the information they present. Most ad hominems are explicit, but this is not a key criterion.
Specifically, your subtle implication of illiteracy and being a moron was an ad hominem abusive argument.
I'm also being a nice guy by letting you off the hook for that ad hominem.
I don't know who you think you are but you need to step down off your high horse.
In all truth, I don't know (and for that matter, nor do I want to know) what qualifies you to judge my comprehension and literacy skills, as well as my level of intelligence. I find that your on-the-spot "assessment" was very insulting.
Thus did you draw the first insult.
You are the one who brought the level of discussion down to this point.
Baloney! At the risk of sounding like a broken record, it was you who started the insults, not me. I'm the one trying to keep this civil, but I see it's beginning to fail.
You said it was the people's responsibility to enact laws to criminalize it. No matter how you describe it, you are talking about involving gov't to implement your solution.
You still aren't getting what I said--the people cannot be afraid to use government if necessary. I also said that this problem is well beyond what society can handle without government interference, thus something that actually has teeth is needed--this is best accomplished by laws. However, you also should note that I added the disclaimer that society must be careful in what it wishes for--overdoing it causes more harm than good.
I'd also recommend reading post 134--that's basically what I'm getting at in my assessment of the smut problem and why it can't just be left to society to resolve.
Finally, until you can present your criticisms constructively and without resorting to mudslinging, I should not and will not reply further.
Thank you and have a Good day.
Wow. You are amazing.
Take some responsibility for your comments. You insult me by clear implication that I didn't even know what elementary school kids know ("Since this is a concept that is, amazingly enough, still taught in elementary-school classes", as you said). Then you say that you didn't insult me or start this? I've seen some hard cases before but you take the cake. My response was merely a play on what you had previously said, but of course I didn't whine about being insulted, either.
"I'm also being a nice guy by letting you off the hook for that ad hominem."
Don't be such a drama queen with the professional victimhood stance. You aren't letting me off the hook for anything since you started it. But you can call the Waaaaaambulance if you feel the need.
I'm really wondering if you are just messing with me, surely no one would actually choose to act like you are acting. So now that you've had your fun we can call it a day.
I've seen some bizarre posts, but this one has to be the weirdest one I've seen yet. Never have I talked or posted to an individual who, when confronted when they're wrong, or when their idea doesn't hold, resort to personal mudslinging.
I deal with Liberals every single day for hours upon hours--in my job and as a full-time college student.
You're a conservative, and I know you, of all posters here, are better than this.
I've been taking responsibility for my commments, and might I note that there's been consistency and civility in what I've been saying all along? And that other posters and other threads in the past have brought up essentially what I've said? Absolutely.
Now I'll grant you I'm not always clear about what I say--sometimes, my posts are indeed the raw ideas in my head. If you needed clarification, I would have been happy to break it down or explain things further. All you had to do was ask.
Next, I can and do get ticked off (and rightly so) when people accuse me of being an incompetent Liberal or attack me when they have no grounds to do so--it's one of my biggest pet peeves. You do not know me other than what I've posted on this thread, thus it's very unfair to make rash judgments about me--the posting equivalent of a low-blow punch.
I don't insult unless I'm provoked, and even then I hesitate to do so, and especially if I can't do it in a diplomatic manner.
I did not insult you in any way, if what I said offends you, then I'm really sorry, but with all due respect, that is purely beyond my control.
I don't deny you have the right to disagree. And I think I've made that point abundantly clear. And if you were solely criticizing my ideas, instead of personal cheap shots, I wouldn't have had a problem with it. It's when you subtly hinted at my intelligence (or lack thereof) in your second reply--that's when it crossed the line and became unacceptable, and continues with you labeling me a Liberal and a drama queen. This has to stop right now.
Nay, I think constructive critiquing of other posters' ideas is a good thing, as it makes all of our ideas and arguments stronger. I would have welcomed your critiques if you had kept it civil, focused, and had paid close attention to what I was saying.
But when you, or anyone else for that matter, attack me as a person, that crosses the line.
Also, I don't whine about being insulted--I've been insulted by other people each day for the last sixteen or seventeen years. It's grown to be a fact of life as far as I'm concerned, and I've learned to deal with it accordingly.
If you attack my ideas, I don't care--as I've said, that's good. But I draw the line when the abuse gets personal and resorts to name-calling--and I'm quite sure I'm not the only one here who holds this policy.
As a little reminder, if you read the bottom of every posting screen, it will say no personal attacks. And this is what your last post was--entirely a personal attack. It is here that I'm going to ask you to cease and desist until you can offer criticism to my ideas and not me as a poster.
If not, then all I can say is: can we at least agree to disagree?
Thank You.
Well, I'll agree with that much. We don't have much futher to discuss. We don't have enough common ground here to ever come to even a heated agreement.
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.