Where's The Family-Friendly Science Fiction?
Sound of Trumpet
Wednesday, November 1st, 2006 at 11:52 am
Where's the Family-Friendly Sci-Fi?
By Doug Payton
Last TV season, I thought my kids would like to get into a show that
was rather science fiction in nature called "Surface". I'm a big
sci-fi fan (mostly TV, don't read it much) and my kids have shown an
interest in it (my sister introduced them to her Star Wars videos), and
it's rubbed off a bit onto the kiddos. "Surface" looked like an
interesting story, so we started watching it. (Unfortunately, it
didn't last past the first season.)
Well, actually, how it happened was that I started taping and watching
it myself, and after a couple of episodes thought it would be OK for
the kids...except for the occasional thing here and there. And that
annoyed me a bit. There would be occasional questions to one of the
main characters, Miles, from his father and his friend from the marina
about whether or not he was surfing the Internet for porn on the
occasions they walked into his room while he was doing some research.
That may be happening on home computers in a lot of homes in America,
but must it be brought up in a TV show going into homes where that
curiosity and potential addiction hasn't been started? Even in homes
where it may be starting, the references were light-hearted, in almost
a "no big deal" way, which would give the impression to a kid that
everyone's doing it so how bad can it be.
Later on, Miles is urged by his neighborhood friend to fondle a
bikini-clad girl who was giving him a kiss. In one scene, Dr. Laura
Daughtery, needing to swim out in cold ocean waters to a nearby boat,
stripped off all her clothes, leaving only underwear, oiled up (to
stave off the cold) and dove in. Sure this might have been a bit of
realism, but in a show about sea monsters and other genetically
manipulated animals, quite a number of other bits of accuracy were
certainly sacrificed for the sake of the story. Missing this one
wouldn't have made one bit of difference to the story.
Yeah, I'm going to sound like a prude. Whatever. My point is that
with just a few quick edits, I wouldn't have to man the VCR remote
and skip past these things, and my kids could enjoy some grownup,
intelligent sci-fi stories and not have to get indoctrinated into the
cultural "norms" that have brought on so many problems in society.
(Quite the multiple personality syndrome, eh? Society is
shocked-SHOCKED-at the number of teen pregnancies and the rising
number of porn addictions, and then turns a blind, or approving, eye to
neutral or approving references to the same things.) Sure there's
kid-oriented sci-fi, but most of it's pathetic. (Don't get me
started on "Phil of the Future", which is simply another
cookie-cutter high school sitcom with gadgets, where bad attitudes and
actions aren't changed and where sexual innuendo is almost as
prevalent. Thanks, Disney.)
I thought the new show "Heroes" would be a possibility, but with
one main character who's runs her own Internet porn cam site, a hero
who only has his powers when he's strung out on drugs, and some
pretty gory scenes, there's no way a simple use of the fast forward
button is going to make this one suitable. That's too bad, because
the story line looks to be very interesting.
Family-friendly sci-fi, or just about any genre, can be made without
this, and without distracting from a good story. It doesn't have to
be shown on Nick or the Cartoon Network to be family-friendly. As a
good example, I'll point to the revival of the long-running British
series "Doctor Who", running on the Sci-Fi channel. But for a
couple of insinuations about a possible sexual relationship between The
Doctor and Rose Tyler (which they denied), innuendo has been
refreshingly absent. There have been issues regarding the feelings each
has for the other, and especially when a previous travelling companion
of The Doctor made an appearance, but this has been treated as a
question of love, and treated very well. These relationships are
complex and they haven't been dumbed down. Yeah, there's a lot of
silly gadgets and rubber aliens, but it's fun without being
cartoonish with the characters. So this, as well as the major part of
"Surface", proves to me that it can be done, it just isn't being
done enough.
And no, it's not a case of giving the people what they want. One
example of this fallacy is that movies rated G and PG and that present
"strong moral content" consistently perform better at the box
office than their negative counterpart. (See here and here and here for
just some examples of this.) It's not that Hollywood is producing
what the people want, reflecting the people's values. It's that
they are reflecting Hollywood's values.
Another example of this was an interview I heard with Don S. Davis, a
versatile character actor, who was discussing the series "Stargate
SG-1", in which he played General Hammond. (Sorry, don't have a
link to the podcast where I heard this.) The series was initially on
Showtime before it moved to Sci-Fi, and while on Showtime it had a
single short nude scene in the 2-hour series premier. When asked about
this, Davis said that once the Showtime execs agreed that the writing
for the show was indeed good, they decided they didn't need to add
nude scenes anymore. This speaks volumes for the writing talent in
Hollywood when you realize how much gratuitous sex is used. It also
says that given excellent writing, a show can indeed be
family-friendly.
It can be. It just isn't. Instead, Hollywood is getting lazier and
lazier, thinking that a little titillation will make up for bad
writing, or is required for good writing. So where's all the
family-friendly sci-fi? Check your plumbing. Most of it is going down
the toilet. Bummer.
Brian M. Dean
> http://www.thepaytons.org/essays/considerettes/?p=1972
>
*snip*
What you are witnessing here is a symptom of the fall of the
American empire. Things such as adults having sex with teens
(and even with children) are going to become more and more
commonplace. Basically, how it is working is the same as
putting a frog on a frying pan. If you heat the frying pan too
fast the frog will jump out. But if you heat is slowly, the frog
won't notice. Currently, on TV an adult having sex with a
teen is sort of risque (whereas it would be considered terrible
during the 1980s) but it is slowly becoming acceptable. You
notice for example, how often you hear about a female teacher
having sex with her middle school age boy student. How often
did you hear about that 20 years ago? Eventually, this will
become acceptable.
Denis Loubet
"Sound of Trumpet" <soundof...@myway.com> wrote in message
news:1162610350....@m7g2000cwm.googlegroups.com...
> http://www.thepaytons.org/essays/considerettes/?p=1972
>
>
> Wednesday, November 1st, 2006 at 11:52 am
>
> Where's the Family-Friendly Sci-Fi?
Ah, Family Friendly, codeword for Fundamentalist Christian Friendly.
Wouldn't that require crystal meth and a gay prostute?
--
Denis Loubet
dlo...@io.com
http://www.io.com/~dloubet
http://www.ashenempires.com
Jon Schild
Whether it is going down the toilet or not is not the question. The
question is, can authors tell stories the way they wish, or should they
be subject to some outside influence determining what can and cannot be
in each story (only for the purest of motives, of course). Also, whether
a story can be written without references to thinks you disapprove of is
not the point. They certainly can be. They can also be carefully written
to avoid foreign-sounding names, or non-white people, or mention of
"incorrect" religious ideas, or anything else that various groups
dislike. I personally am opposed to all censorship, either by government
fiat or by private organization pressure.
If you have a decent sized library in your area, they will probably have
a reading list of "Christian fiction." There may be some SF in there,
but don't hold your breath. A large number of those who are concerned
about whether books uphold Christian values are opposed to all SF, on
the grounds that it conflicts with the bible regarding the future of
mankind. They also tend to oppose all fantasy, on the grounds that
fantasy stories teach witchcraft and devil worship.
Or, check out from that library the earlier Heinlein novels (before
_Stranger in a Strange Land_), Bradbury novels/stories, and/or the
Asimov novels published before _The Gods Themselves_. There are actually
many others, but those will give you a good start.
Good luck.
Mike Schilling
"Brian M. Dean" <mye...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:pan.2006.11.04...@yahoo.com...
Or longer ago, when I was a middle school boy student? Never (dammit)
jayembee
> If you have a decent sized library in your area, they will
> probably have a reading list of "Christian fiction." There
> may be some SF in there, but don't hold your breath. A large
> number of those who are concerned about whether books uphold
> Christian values are opposed to all SF, on the grounds that
> it conflicts with the bible regarding the future of mankind.
Actually, there's quite a bit of Christian SF out there, if you
know where to look for it. I have a fair amount of it in my
collection (a couple of my collecting idiosyncracies was SF from
small and obscure imprints, as well as SF published on the fringe;
I also have a fair good-sized collection of SF porn). A lot of
it was likely from vanity press publishers, but I found a fair
amount of it in Christian bookstores, so it was being marketed
to the Christian crowd.
> They also tend to oppose all fantasy, on the grounds that
> fantasy stories teach witchcraft and devil worship.
Actually, most Christians I know have no problem with SF or fantasy.
The ones that do (like one of my sisters in law) are generally of
the evangelical sects. And while I imagine that that's what you
are alluding to, the fact is that they are certainly not the only
people that would prefer to have a stronger sense of morality in
popular fiction.
-- jayembee
Olrik
Sound of Trumpet wrote:
> http://www.thepaytons.org/essays/considerettes/?p=1972
>
>
> Wednesday, November 1st, 2006 at 11:52 am
>
> Where's the Family-Friendly Sci-Fi?
Two words : The Jetsons.
Olrik
<snipped for brevity>
BTR1701
"Sound of Trumpet" <soundof...@myway.com> wrote:
> In one scene, Dr. Laura
> Daughtery, needing to swim out in cold ocean waters to a nearby boat,
> stripped off all her clothes, leaving only underwear, oiled up (to
> stave off the cold) and dove in. Sure this might have been a bit of
> realism, but in a show about sea monsters and other genetically
> manipulated animals, quite a number of other bits of accuracy were
> certainly sacrificed for the sake of the story. Missing this one
> wouldn't have made one bit of difference to the story.
Will someone tell me what the hell is the difference between underwear
and a bikini? If the woman had been wearing the exact same thing, except
with the fabric colored bright green or pink, there'd be no objection.
I've seen this kind of comment before and it's just bizarre.
> Yeah, I'm going to sound like a prude. Whatever. My point is that
> with just a few quick edits, I wouldn't have to man the VCR remote
> and skip past these things, and my kids could enjoy some grownup,
> intelligent sci-fi stories and not have to get indoctrinated into the
> cultural "norms" that have brought on so many problems in society.
So it's basically NBC's job to do your work for you?
> It can be. It just isn't. Instead, Hollywood is getting lazier and
> lazier, thinking that a little titillation will make up for bad
> writing, or is required for good writing. So where's all the
> family-friendly sci-fi?
The problem is your idea of "family-friendly" is ridiculous. You think a
woman in what is essentially a bikini is somehow an evil influence on
your precious brood.
Kevrob
I wouldn't raise any kids I may have with exactly the moral views of
the blogger that the OP cut and pasted, - [Hey! Isn't "Thou Shalt Not
Steal" still one of the rules SoT is sworn to uphold?! "All essays are
copyright ©1995-2003 Doug Payton. All rights reserved. Permission must
be obtained for republishing, verbatim or summarized, other than for
uses described as Fair Use under U.S. law." see
http://www.thepaytons.org/essays/ ] - but he is free to hold them, and
to bitch to the networks if their product doesn't conform to them. I
think it would be wise for the producers to make a range of shows, from
squeaky clean to freaky-deaky, broadcasting the tamer ones before the
kiddies' bedtimes, and the more "advanced" ones later in the evening,
or on cable/sat channels that Mom or Dad can block or just not
subscribe to. Getting the authors and directors to agree to alternate
showings or DVD releases of shows and films with the rude bits excised
is OK by me, too, as long as it is voluntary, and as long as I have
access to the "grown-ups" version.
Kevin
David Johnston
<mye...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>On Fri, 03 Nov 2006 19:19:10 -0800, Sound of Trumpet wrote:
>
>> http://www.thepaytons.org/essays/considerettes/?p=1972
>>
>*snip*
>
>What you are witnessing here is a symptom of the fall of the
>American empire. Things such as adults having sex with teens
>(and even with children) are going to become more and more
>commonplace.
You do know that adults having sex with teens was perfectly
commonplace in the 18th and 19th centuries, right?
Martin
> http://www.thepaytons.org/essays/considerettes/?p=1972
>
>
> Wednesday, November 1st, 2006 at 11:52 am
>
> Where's the Family-Friendly Sci-Fi?
Best avoid "Torchwood"
raven1
<soundof...@myway.com> wrote:
>http://www.thepaytons.org/essays/considerettes/?p=1972
>
>
>Wednesday, November 1st, 2006 at 11:52 am
>
>Where's the Family-Friendly Sci-Fi?
>
>By Doug Payton
>
>
>Last TV season, I thought my kids would like to get into a show that
>was rather science fiction in nature called "Surface". I'm a big
>sci-fi fan
<bzzt!> My bullshit detector just redlined on that one. A fan of
science fiction saying that he's a big "sci-fi" fan is akin to a Jew
proclaiming how fond he is of "Kikes". Sort of takes the wind out of
the author's sails right away for me.
--
"O Sybilli, si ergo
Fortibus es in ero
O Nobili! Themis trux
Sivat sinem? Causen Dux"
AlanS
>Will someone tell me what the hell is the difference between underwear
>and a bikini? If the woman had been wearing the exact same thing, except
>with the fabric colored bright green or pink, there'd be no objection.
>
>I've seen this kind of comment before and it's just bizarre.
Am I to assume, since you don't know the difference, that you go
swimming in your underwear?
Douhe...@gmail.com
Look back at the good old days and you had plenty of child
molestations. Often by the clergy. The Canadian taxpayers know this
all too well - we are still settling lawsuits from natives who were
raped in religious boarding schools in the 50s and 60s.
In fact, I think a lot of things that used to be ignored are now open
for prosecution. Child abuse (not something decent people would talk
about before), spousal rape, drunk driving, teacher-to-student abuse.
Heck, here in Vancouver we just put a teacher on trial for having sex
with about a dozen of his 16-18 year old students about 20 years ago.
He is on trial, and very publicly so. But, fact is that there was no
law on the books back then to send him to jail. There is now, but it
can't be applied retroactively (which I defend btw). So, we'll just
have to do with public shaming.
Murder rates have also trended down over the years.
If it wasn't for the Internet + its unfortunate suitability for child
porn distribution, we would be making real progress. As it is, we are
doing better in some ways, worse in others.
I wouldn't call giving SoundOfStrumpet a global communication channel
an improvement though. Even though, I can't entirely disagree with
this particular post of his (just all the previous ones I've read).
Sex on TV isn't the problem IMHO, I don't mind watching racy shows.
Gratuitous sex on shows where it isn't necessary is a pain though -
assuming those are really _significant_ sex scenes.
Kevrob
> On 3 Nov 2006 19:19:10 -0800, "Sound of Trumpet"
> <soundof...@myway.com> wrote:
>
> >http://www.thepaytons.org/essays/considerettes/?p=1972
> >
> >
> >Wednesday, November 1st, 2006 at 11:52 am
> >
> >Where's the Family-Friendly Sci-Fi?
> >
> >By Doug Payton
> >
> >
> >Last TV season, I thought my kids would like to get into a show that
> >was rather science fiction in nature called "Surface". I'm a big
> >sci-fi fan
>
> <bzzt!> My bullshit detector just redlined on that one. A fan of
> science fiction saying that he's a big "sci-fi" fan is akin to a Jew
> proclaiming how fond he is of "Kikes". Sort of takes the wind out of
> the author's sails right away for me.
> --
>
>
You'd better reset your BD. Ever since STAR TREK: TOS and the first
STAR WARS film (aka "episode 4"), there have been plenty of "media
only" fans, whose only methods of accessing SFnal (Sci-Fial?) ideas are
via watching films and TV, and consuming the resultant spin-off
merchandising. There are even parallel convention circuit(s), fanzines
and other fanacs, though I've no reason to believe Mr. Payton is that
invested in his favorites.
The regulars on rec.arts.sf.written could point those reading from the
religious ngs to plenty of thoughtful stories and novels that deal with
religion from an SFnal POV. Some would be supportive of their faith,
others a challenge to it.
Kevin
JTEM
Sound of Trumpet wrote:
> Where's the Family-Friendly Sci-Fi?
Assuming by "Family-Friendly" you mean "Reich
wing approved"....
"The Lost Skeleton of Cadavra," the movie.
I couldn't tell you the URL -- it's been a while -- but
some time ago I was searching for some info on
it and came across a religious Reich website that
recommended it as "Family entertainment."
*nemo*
"Sound of Trumpet" <soundof...@myway.com> wrote:
> Where's the Family-Friendly Sci-Fi?
Try reading "The Moon is a Harsh Mistress" by Robert Heinlein. Now
THAT's "family friendly." {;-)
--
Nemo - EAC Commissioner for Bible Belt Underwater Operations.
Atheist #1331 (the Palindrome of doom!)
BAAWA Knight! - One of those warm Southern Knights, y'all!
Charter member, SMASH!!
http://home.earthlink.net/~jehdjh/Relpg.html
Draco Dormiens Nunquam Titillandus
Quotemeister since March 2002
Howard Brazee
<mye...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>What you are witnessing here is a symptom of the fall of the
>American empire. Things such as adults having sex with teens
>(and even with children) are going to become more and more
>commonplace. Basically, how it is working is the same as
>putting a frog on a frying pan. If you heat the frying pan too
>fast the frog will jump out. But if you heat is slowly, the frog
>won't notice. Currently, on TV an adult having sex with a
>teen is sort of risque (whereas it would be considered terrible
>during the 1980s) but it is slowly becoming acceptable. You
>notice for example, how often you hear about a female teacher
>having sex with her middle school age boy student. How often
>did you hear about that 20 years ago? Eventually, this will
>become acceptable.
But 40 years ago, TV heroes were promiscuous with long kisses with
different women each week.
BTR1701
AlanS <no...@nowhere.com> wrote:
Wow. Way to miss the point. Congratulations.
BTR1701
"Kevrob" <kev...@my-deja.com> wrote:
I never so much as hinted that he somehow should be forbidden from
complaining. But others have just as much right to point out how
ridiculous his complaints are.
Free speech means you can speak. It doesn't mean you can speak without
hearing any criticism of what you say.
Mark K. Bilbo
> Hey! Isn't "Thou Shalt Not
> Steal" still one of the rules SoT is sworn to uphold?! "All essays are
> copyright ©1995-2003 Doug Payton. All rights reserved. Permission must
> be obtained for republishing, verbatim or summarized, other than for
> uses described as Fair Use under U.S. law."
But it's *okay if a Christian steals!
--
Mark K. Bilbo
--------------------------------------------------
"...otherwise, we're looking at the potential
of this kind of world:.... a world in which
oil reserves are controlled by radicals in order
to extract blackmail from the West..." [George Bush]
Wait... oil reserves?
Mark K. Bilbo
> "Sound of Trumpet" <soundof...@myway.com> wrote in message
> news:1162610350....@m7g2000cwm.googlegroups.com...
>> http://www.thepaytons.org/essays/considerettes/?p=1972
>>
>>
>> Wednesday, November 1st, 2006 at 11:52 am
>>
>> Where's the Family-Friendly Sci-Fi?
>
> Ah, Family Friendly, codeword for Fundamentalist Christian Friendly.
>
> Wouldn't that require crystal meth and a gay prostute?
And, apparently, six, naked college age guys...
_ berge @hotmail.com.invalid Eric D. Berge
>having sex with her middle school age boy student. How often
>did you hear about that 20 years ago? Eventually, this will
>become acceptable.
Don't be an idiot. The only reason you are hearing about that more
often now is because the papers are willing to print the stories, and
the adults involved are less willing to cover up the abuse for fear of
scandal.
And those are _good_ things.
There were three teachers fired for having sex with students from my
High School, thirty years ago. It just didn't make the papers.
Kevrob
> In article <1162625346.4...@h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>,
> "Kevrob" <kev...@my-deja.com> wrote:
>
> > BTR1701 wrote:
> > > In article <1162610350....@m7g2000cwm.googlegroups.com>,
> > >
> > I wouldn't raise any kids I may have with exactly the moral views of
> > the blogger that the OP cut and pasted, - [Hey! Isn't "Thou Shalt Not
> > Steal" still one of the rules SoT is sworn to uphold?! "All essays are
> > copyright ©1995-2003 Doug Payton. All rights reserved. Permission must
> > be obtained for republishing, verbatim or summarized, other than for
> > uses described as Fair Use under U.S. law." see
> > http://www.thepaytons.org/essays/ ] - but he is free to hold them, and
> > to bitch to the networks if their product doesn't conform to them.
>
> I never so much as hinted that he somehow should be forbidden from
> complaining.
I never thought that you did. It is, however, very common for people
to conflate complaints about how the TV industry runs things with calls
for increased regulation, even to the point of censorship. Calls for
voluntary boycotts aren't "censorship", for example, but people
routinely claim that they are. It doesn't help things much that the
set of boycotters and the set of those calling for censorship tends to
intersect.
> But others have just as much right to point out how
> ridiculous his complaints are.
>
> Free speech means you can speak. It doesn't mean you can speak without
> hearing any criticism of what you say.
Righto!
Kevin
Lord Calvert
Not to mention being the norm through the Bible...
Rich Goranson
Amherst, NY, USA
aa#MCMXCIX, a-vet#1
EAC Department of Applied Rattan Usage
Douglas Berry
<soundof...@myway.com> said the following in alt.atheism and I was
immediately reminded of 1,000 Chinchillas singing Handel's "Messiah"
for some reason...
>Where's the Family-Friendly Sci-Fi?
Try throwing your kids some Heinlein juveniles. Of course, they'll
have to read, and then there's the ever-present danger that reading
Heinlein might make them think.
--
Douglas Berry Do the OBVIOUS thing to send e-mail
Atheist #2147, Atheist Vet #5
Jason Gastrich is praying for me on 8 January 2011
"The most beautiful thing we can experience is the mysterious. It is the
source of all true art and all science. He to whom this emotion is a
stranger, who can no longer pause to wonder and stand rapt in awe, is as
good as dead: his eyes are closed." - Albert Einstein
Jack Tingle
>Wednesday, November 1st, 2006 at 11:52 am
>
>
>
>
>Last TV season, I thought my kids would like to get into a show that
>was rather science fiction in nature called "Surface". I'm a big
>interest in it (my sister introduced them to her Star Wars videos), and
>it's rubbed off a bit onto the kiddos. "Surface" looked like an
>interesting story, so we started watching it. (Unfortunately, it
>didn't last past the first season.)
>It can be. It just isn't. Instead, Hollywood is getting lazier and
>lazier, thinking that a little titillation will make up for bad
>writing, or is required for good writing. So where's all the
>the toilet. Bummer.
A) This is off topic for r.a.sf.WRITTEN.
B) My family thought 'Surface' was shallow. (Sorry, I couldn't
resist.) I watched a few episodes and went back to reading.
Regards,
Jack Tingle
Steven L.
> "Sound of Trumpet" <soundof...@myway.com> wrote in message
> news:1162610350....@m7g2000cwm.googlegroups.com...
>> http://www.thepaytons.org/essays/considerettes/?p=1972
>>
>>
>> Wednesday, November 1st, 2006 at 11:52 am
>>
>> Where's the Family-Friendly Sci-Fi?
>
> Ah, Family Friendly, codeword for Fundamentalist Christian Friendly.
>
> Wouldn't that require crystal meth and a gay prostute?
What material do you allow your own kids to view on TV?
Oh, I forgot. Liberals don't believe in having kids. (Surveys have
shown how low their birth rate is.)
--
Steven D. Litvintchouk
Email: sdli...@earthlinkNOSPAM.net
Remove the NOSPAM before replying to me.
MarkA
In the early scenes of the movie "Laura Croft and
the Cradle of Life", Angelina Jolie is wearing a
white wet suit while exploring a sunken temple. In the theatrical
version, she clearly has 'nipple bumps' visible thru the suit. Later, I
watched it as an in-flight movie, and she had no nipple bumps. I doubt if
they would re-shoot the entire sequence twice, one 'R' version, and one
'PG-13' version. Do they remove the nipple bumps as a digital editing
thing in post-production? Or add them? How do they do that?
--
MarkA
(this space accidentally filled in)
Sean O'Hara
> On Fri, 03 Nov 2006 19:19:10 -0800, Sound of Trumpet wrote:
>
>
>>
>
> *snip*
>
> What you are witnessing here is a symptom of the fall of the
> American empire. Things such as adults having sex with teens
> (and even with children) are going to become more and more
> putting a frog on a frying pan. If you heat the frying pan too
> fast the frog will jump out. But if you heat is slowly, the frog
> won't notice. Currently, on TV an adult having sex with a
> teen is sort of risque (whereas it would be considered terrible
> during the 1980s) but it is slowly becoming acceptable. You
> having sex with her middle school age boy student. How often
> did you hear about that 20 years ago? Eventually, this will
> become acceptable.
>
People were deviated preverts twenty years ago. They were deviated
preverts two hundred years ago. They were deviated preverts two
thousand years ago.
Nothing ever changes.
Nothing.
Ever.
--
Sean O'Hara | http://diogenes-sinope.blogspot.com
Robot General: Funny, isn't it? The human was impervious to our most
powerful magnetic fields, yet in the end, he succumbed to a harmless
sharpened stick.
-Futurama
Captain Infinity
Yeah, uh...I think I'm going to need photographic proof of these
so-called "nipple bumps". Thanks.
**
Captain Infinity
Steven L.
> On Fri, 03 Nov 2006 19:19:10 -0800, Sound of Trumpet wrote:
>
>>
> *snip*
>
> What you are witnessing here is a symptom of the fall of the
> American empire. Things such as adults having sex with teens
> (and even with children) are going to become more and more
> commonplace.
Actually, one of the best peer-to-peer repositories of downloadable
XXXX-rated porn (including real amateur incest, sex with animals, etc.)
is EMule, which is Italian, and most of its servers are in Europe.
> Basically, how it is working is the same as
> putting a frog on a frying pan. If you heat the frying pan too
> fast the frog will jump out. But if you heat is slowly, the frog
> won't notice. Currently, on TV an adult having sex with a
> teen is sort of risque (whereas it would be considered terrible
> during the 1980s) but it is slowly becoming acceptable. You
> notice for example, how often you hear about a female teacher
> having sex with her middle school age boy student. How often
> did you hear about that 20 years ago?
Actually, the problems with pedophile priests having sex with altar boys
had been going on for decades.
And you only need to look at the writings of Sigmund Freud and his
contemporary Dr. Richard von Krafft-Ebing in the 19th century to
discover, as they discovered, that zillions of seemingly normal, decent,
hard-working "family men" and housewives had some really bizarre sexual
experiences when they were children. (Many of Freud's patients related
stories of sexual abuse. In the end, Freud decided those had to be
fantasies. But now it appears that adult sexual abuse of children
really was more widespread than he thought.)
And if you go back to the seventh century:
"Narrated 'Ursa: The Prophet [Mohammed] wrote the (marriage contract)
with 'Aisha while she was six years old, and consummated his marriage
with her while she was nine years old, and she remained with him for
nine years (i.e. till his death)."
-- Hadith 7:62, the collected anecdotes
of the Prophet Mohammed
Steven L.
> Please spare us the doom and gloom about the fall of the Western world.
> Look back at the good old days and you had plenty of child
> molestations. Often by the clergy. The Canadian taxpayers know this
> all too well - we are still settling lawsuits from natives who were
> raped in religious boarding schools in the 50s and 60s.
>
> In fact, I think a lot of things that used to be ignored are now open
> for prosecution. Child abuse (not something decent people would talk
> about before), spousal rape, drunk driving, teacher-to-student abuse.
> Heck, here in Vancouver we just put a teacher on trial for having sex
> with about a dozen of his 16-18 year old students about 20 years ago.
> He is on trial, and very publicly so. But, fact is that there was no
> law on the books back then to send him to jail. There is now, but it
> can't be applied retroactively (which I defend btw). So, we'll just
> have to do with public shaming.
>
> Murder rates have also trended down over the years.
>
> If it wasn't for the Internet + its unfortunate suitability for child
> porn distribution, we would be making real progress.
Which refutes this "North America is Sodom and Gomorrah." The Internet
has made it possible to spread porn onto worldwide sites. Most of the
child porn sites are located OUTSIDE North America.
And via Google's new search features, you can tell that much of the
sexual material on the Internet is being accessed, not from North
America, but from: THE MIDDLE EAST!
(Yes, those repressed Muslims are *very* curious about sex--when they
know no one is watching)
Lucifer
*nemo* wrote:
> In article <1162610350....@m7g2000cwm.googlegroups.com>,
> "Sound of Trumpet" <soundof...@myway.com> wrote:
>
> > Where's the Family-Friendly Sci-Fi?
>
> Try reading "The Moon is a Harsh Mistress" by Robert Heinlein. Now
> THAT's "family friendly." {;-)
How about Against a Dark Background by Iain M Banks?
--
Lucifer the Unsubtle, EAC Librarian of Dark Tomes of Excessive Evil and
General Purpose Igor
The Anti-Theist
"Don't worry, I won't bite.......hard"
Matt Silberstein
<mye...@yahoo.com> in <pan.2006.11.04...@yahoo.com>
wrote:
>On Fri, 03 Nov 2006 19:19:10 -0800, Sound of Trumpet wrote:
>
>> http://www.thepaytons.org/essays/considerettes/?p=1972
>>
>*snip*
>
>What you are witnessing here is a symptom of the fall of the
>American empire. Things such as adults having sex with teens
>(and even with children) are going to become more and more
>commonplace. Basically, how it is working is the same as
>putting a frog on a frying pan. If you heat the frying pan too
>fast the frog will jump out. But if you heat is slowly, the frog
>won't notice. Currently, on TV an adult having sex with a
>teen is sort of risque (whereas it would be considered terrible
>during the 1980s) but it is slowly becoming acceptable. You
>notice for example, how often you hear about a female teacher
>having sex with her middle school age boy student. How often
>did you hear about that 20 years ago? Eventually, this will
>become acceptable.
We did not hear about these things in the past because of two major
changes in our culture. First, we have a much more present national
press. "Interesting" local stories are covered coast to coast (and
important national issues ignored). Second, the press (and local
officials) used to cover up these sorts of stories. People were not
charged, euphemisms uses, the press would ignore it, etc. The
prevalence of the stories tells you nothing of the prevalence of the
crimes.
--
Matt Silberstein
Do something today about the Darfur Genocide
http://www.beawitness.org
http://www.darfurgenocide.org
http://www.savedarfur.org
"Darfur: A Genocide We can Stop"
_ berge @hotmail.com.invalid Eric D. Berge
You have awfully low standards of proof - me, I'm holding out for
_tactile_ evidence.
pip...@yahoo.com
Mark K. Bilbo wrote:
.....But it's *okay if a Christian steals!
Especially if it is an election.
Stephen Horgan
Sean O'Hara wrote:
> In the Year of the Dog, the Great and Powerful Brian M. Dean declared:
> > On Fri, 03 Nov 2006 19:19:10 -0800, Sound of Trumpet wrote:
> >
> >
> >>http://www.thepaytons.org/essays/considerettes/?p=1972
> >>
> >
> > *snip*
> >
> > What you are witnessing here is a symptom of the fall of the
> > American empire. Things such as adults having sex with teens
> > (and even with children) are going to become more and more
> > commonplace. Basically, how it is working is the same as
> > putting a frog on a frying pan. If you heat the frying pan too
> > fast the frog will jump out. But if you heat is slowly, the frog
> > won't notice. Currently, on TV an adult having sex with a
> > teen is sort of risque (whereas it would be considered terrible
> > during the 1980s) but it is slowly becoming acceptable. You
> > notice for example, how often you hear about a female teacher
> > having sex with her middle school age boy student. How often
> > did you hear about that 20 years ago? Eventually, this will
> > become acceptable.
> >
>
>
> People were deviated preverts twenty years ago. They were deviated
> preverts two hundred years ago. They were deviated preverts two
> thousand years ago.
>
> Nothing ever changes.
>
> Nothing.
>
How is that bone necklace you were making?
> Ever.
>
Have you heard of this thing called fire?
Sea Wasp
Sorry, pet peeve. Like people calling me "Rick Spoor"
Eric D. Berge wrote:
Keep us abreast of your progress in this area.
--
Sea Wasp
/^\
;;;
Live Journal: http://www.livejournal.com/users/seawasp/
Steven L.
> The problem is your idea of "family-friendly" is ridiculous. You think a
> woman in what is essentially a bikini is somehow an evil influence on
> your precious brood.
If he wants to see what a sexually repressed society looks like, in
which all the women must dress modestly, he has only to look at Iran,
Saudi Arabia, or Pakistan.
We should be celebrating, not ashamed of, the fact that we're nothing
like them.
Kate
Holding what out?
wait, I don't want to know.
655321
"Brian M. Dean" <mye...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> essing here is a symptom of the fall of the
> American empire. Things such as adults having sex with teens
> (and even with children) are going to become more and more
> commonplace
You mean we're returning to Biblical times. Gotcha.
--
655321
"Heed the message served with every Republican banquet speech -- that the
private interest precedes the public interest, that money is good for rich
people, bad for poor people -- and who can say that the war in Iraq has proven
to be anything other than the transformation of a godforsaken desert into a
defense contractor's Garden of Eden?" -- Lewis Lapham
Captain Infinity
wrote:
>>Yeah, uh...I think I'm going to need photographic proof of these
>>so-called "nipple bumps". Thanks.
>
>You have awfully low standards of proof - me, I'm holding out for
>_tactile_ evidence.
OK! Good luck with that.
**
Captain Infinity
Larry Heath
"Brian M. Dean" <mye...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:pan.2006.11.04...@yahoo.com...
> On Fri, 03 Nov 2006 19:19:10 -0800, Sound of Trumpet wrote:
>
>>
> *snip*
>
> What you are witnessing here is a symptom of the fall of the
> American empire. Things such as adults having sex with teens
> (and even with children) are going to become more and more
It seems pretty common right now, given all the 100's of millions* the RCC
is paying out lately (last 50 years or so) on their pedophile priests alone.
I suppose the protestant clergy like them a bit older and of the opposite
sex, but I suppose there is a goodly number from this crowd as well.
Leave it to the Catholics to sling mud against the protestant.
"Heart speaks to heart" - John Henry Cardinal Newman
Scandalous Sexual Misconduct Committed by Protestant Clergy
Thursday, October 13, 2005
Source: . . . a collection of news reports of ministers sexually abusing
children
We would be naïve and dishonest were we to say this is a Roman Catholic
problem and has nothing to do with us because we have married and female
priests in our church. Sin and abusive behavior know no ecclesial or other
boundaries."
Rt. Rev. William Persell, Bishop of the Episcopal Diocese of Chicago, Good
Friday Sermon, 2002.
Examples among the 838 documented examples given:
http://socrates58.blogspot.com/2005/10/scandalous-sexual-misconduct-committed.html
* Known cost to dioceses and religious orders: $572,507,094 (does not
include the $85 million Boston settlement and other expenses after
research was concluded). (Hartford Courant, 2/27/04)
http://www.priestsofdarkness.com/stats.html
So I would have to say that it seems the religious clergy is leading the
way.
snip other
--
Later Larry
aa #2216
Plonked by Fred Stone, 17 May 2006
David Johnston
wrote:
>
>"Brian M. Dean" <mye...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>news:pan.2006.11.04...@yahoo.com...
>> On Fri, 03 Nov 2006 19:19:10 -0800, Sound of Trumpet wrote:
>>
>>> http://www.thepaytons.org/essays/considerettes/?p=1972
>>>
>> *snip*
>>
>> What you are witnessing here is a symptom of the fall of the
>> American empire. Things such as adults having sex with teens
>> (and even with children) are going to become more and more
>> commonplace.
>
>It seems pretty common right now, given all the 100's of millions* the RCC
>is paying out lately (last 50 years or so) on their pedophile priests alone.
>I suppose the protestant clergy like them a bit older and of the opposite
>sex,
No, not really. Far more Roman Catholic Priests have have gotten into
trouble by abusing their position to get into the pants of troubled
young women. But since that isn't gay, people cared less.
Barry Margolin
"Lord Calvert" <Calver...@msn.com> wrote:
> David Johnston wrote:
> > On Sat, 04 Nov 2006 13:53:14 +0900, "Brian M. Dean"
> > <mye...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >
> > >On Fri, 03 Nov 2006 19:19:10 -0800, Sound of Trumpet wrote:
> > >
> > >> http://www.thepaytons.org/essays/considerettes/?p=1972
> > >>
> > >*snip*
> > >
> > >What you are witnessing here is a symptom of the fall of the
> > >American empire. Things such as adults having sex with teens
> > >(and even with children) are going to become more and more
> > >commonplace.
> >
> > You do know that adults having sex with teens was perfectly
> > commonplace in the 18th and 19th centuries, right?
They were generally married to each other.
>
> Not to mention being the norm through the Bible...
Along with slavery, stoning, arranged marriages, taking wives as spoils
of war, polygamy, etc. I.e. just because it used to be common doesn't
make it appropriate now.
--
Barry Margolin, bar...@alum.mit.edu
Arlington, MA
*** PLEASE don't copy me on replies, I'll read them in the group ***
jayembee
> Will someone tell me what the hell is the difference between
> underwear and a bikini?
Underwear covers more skin area. That's what makes it even *more*
bizarre. You'd actually see more flesh if a woman was wearing a
bikini as opposed to underwear.
-- jayembee
Brian Westley
Gotta go with gustatory.
---
Merlyn LeRoy
Howard Brazee
<bar...@alum.mit.edu> wrote:
>> Not to mention being the norm through the Bible...
>
>Along with slavery, stoning, arranged marriages, taking wives as spoils
>of war, polygamy, etc. I.e. just because it used to be common doesn't
>make it appropriate now.
No, but Righteous people believe that their current mores are the
standard for all of the Past and Future.
Howard Brazee
<sdli...@earthlinkNOSPAM.net> wrote:
>Actually, the problems with pedophile priests having sex with altar boys
>had been going on for decades.
The problem may be recent - but the actions have been for as long as
there have been alter boys.
Howard Brazee
<jayembe...@snurcher.com> wrote:
>> Will someone tell me what the hell is the difference between
>> underwear and a bikini?
>
>Underwear covers more skin area. That's what makes it even *more*
>bizarre. You'd actually see more flesh if a woman was wearing a
>bikini as opposed to underwear.
There's nothing wrong about flesh. But underwear goes under clothes
- we are uncomfortable when things aren't in the proper place. This
isn't about good or evil - we are Righteous about things being in the
right place - breaking the big end of the egg, so to speak.
When kids show their underwear, we know that is wrong - we didn't do
so when we were young. But things have been going downhill rapidly
every generation forever - peaking at *my* generation's values at the
top of the mountain.
Gene Wirchenko
>On 3 Nov 2006 19:19:10 -0800, "Sound of Trumpet"
><soundof...@myway.com> wrote:
[snip]
>>Last TV season, I thought my kids would like to get into a show that
>>was rather science fiction in nature called "Surface". I'm a big
>>sci-fi fan
>
><bzzt!> My bullshit detector just redlined on that one. A fan of
>science fiction saying that he's a big "sci-fi" fan is akin to a Jew
>proclaiming how fond he is of "Kikes". Sort of takes the wind out of
>the author's sails right away for me.
I like sci-fi myself. I understand that some people have
considerations on whether one should say "sci-fi" or "sf". I prefer
"sci-fi" since it more euphonious. I still like sci-fi, regardless of
what baggage you choose to attach to the term.
Sincerely,
Gene Wirchenko
Computerese Irregular Verb Conjugation:
I have preferences.
You have biases.
He/She has prejudices.
Bill Snyder
wrote:
No, he said "altAr." AltEr boys presumably help produce castrati for
the choir.
--
Bill Snyder [This space unintentionally left blank.]
sharkey
>
> *nemo* wrote:
> > In article <1162610350....@m7g2000cwm.googlegroups.com>,
> > "Sound of Trumpet" <soundof...@myway.com> wrote:
> >
> > > Where's the Family-Friendly Sci-Fi?
> >
> > Try reading "The Moon is a Harsh Mistress" by Robert Heinlein. Now
> > THAT's "family friendly." {;-)
>
> How about Against a Dark Background by Iain M Banks?
/Use Of Weapons/ is full of old fashioned family values too ...
-----sharks
Al Klein
<sdli...@earthlinkNOSPAM.net> wrote:
>Denis Loubet wrote:
>> "Sound of Trumpet" <soundof...@myway.com> wrote in message
>> news:1162610350....@m7g2000cwm.googlegroups.com...
>>> http://www.thepaytons.org/essays/considerettes/?p=1972
>>>
>>>
>>> Wednesday, November 1st, 2006 at 11:52 am
>>>
>>> Where's the Family-Friendly Sci-Fi?
>>
>> Ah, Family Friendly, codeword for Fundamentalist Christian Friendly.
>>
>> Wouldn't that require crystal meth and a gay prostute?
>
>What material do you allow your own kids to view on TV?
Certainly not some anti-gay-marriage preacher who's later found to
have been having gay sex for money.
Keep your kids away from religious TV channels - they'd probably be
watching someone who cheats on his wife, is gay or cheats on his
income tax bigtime. (Listen to what he claims to hate worst - that's
most likely what he's doing himself.)
--
rukbat at optonline dot net
If you are open to the point of gullibility and have not an
ounce of skeptical sense in you, then you cannot distinguish
the useful ideas from the worthless ones
- Carl Sagan, 1987.
(random sig, produced by SigChanger)
This signature was made by SigChanger.
You can find SigChanger at: http://www.phranc.nl/
Kevrob
> raven1 <quotht...@nevermore.com> wrote:
>
>
> I like sci-fi myself. I understand that some people have
> considerations on whether one should say "sci-fi" or "sf". I prefer
> "sci-fi" since it more euphonious. I still like sci-fi, regardless of
> what baggage you choose to attach to the term.
>
>
Well, if pronounced "skiffy"...... :)
Kevin
(still a fan of "stf" - scientifiction!)
655321
Howard Brazee <how...@brazee.net> wrote:
Which makes them idiots "for all of the Past and Future."
_ berge @hotmail.com.invalid Eric D. Berge
<seawasp...@sgeobviousinc.com> wrote:
>
> Sorry, pet peeve. Like people calling me "Rick Spoor"
>
>Eric D. Berge wrote:
>> On Sat, 04 Nov 2006 16:47:42 GMT, Captain Infinity
>> <Infi...@captaininfinity.us> wrote:
>
>>>Yeah, uh...I think I'm going to need photographic proof of these
>>>so-called "nipple bumps". Thanks.
>>
>>
>> You have awfully low standards of proof - me, I'm holding out for
>> _tactile_ evidence.
>
> Keep us abreast of your progress in this area.
Oh, that's right - milk the topic for all it's worth.
Sea Wasp
> On Sat, 04 Nov 2006 18:18:23 GMT, Sea Wasp
> <seawasp...@sgeobviousinc.com> wrote:
>
>
>> Sorry, pet peeve. Like people calling me "Rick Spoor"
>>
>>Eric D. Berge wrote:
>
>
>>>On Sat, 04 Nov 2006 16:47:42 GMT, Captain Infinity
>>><Infi...@captaininfinity.us> wrote:
>>
>>>>Yeah, uh...I think I'm going to need photographic proof of these
>>>>so-called "nipple bumps". Thanks.
>>>
>>>
>>>You have awfully low standards of proof - me, I'm holding out for
>>>_tactile_ evidence.
>>
>> Keep us abreast of your progress in this area.
>
>
> Oh, that's right - milk the topic for all it's worth.
I'm sure it will go bust soon.
_ berge @hotmail.com.invalid Eric D. Berge
<seawasp...@sgeobviousinc.com> wrote:
>Eric D. Berge wrote:
>> On Sat, 04 Nov 2006 18:18:23 GMT, Sea Wasp
>> <seawasp...@sgeobviousinc.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>> Sorry, pet peeve. Like people calling me "Rick Spoor"
>>>
>>>Eric D. Berge wrote:
>>
>>
>>>>On Sat, 04 Nov 2006 16:47:42 GMT, Captain Infinity
>>>><Infi...@captaininfinity.us> wrote:
>>>
>>>>>Yeah, uh...I think I'm going to need photographic proof of these
>>>>>so-called "nipple bumps". Thanks.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>You have awfully low standards of proof - me, I'm holding out for
>>>>_tactile_ evidence.
>>>
>>> Keep us abreast of your progress in this area.
>>
>>
>> Oh, that's right - milk the topic for all it's worth.
>
> I'm sure it will go bust soon.
Wouldn't want to nip it in the bud too soon.
Kevrob
> In article <ocvpk25s959tioouk...@4ax.com>,
> Howard Brazee <how...@brazee.net> wrote:
>
> > On Sat, 04 Nov 2006 15:13:06 -0500, Barry Margolin
> > <bar...@alum.mit.edu> wrote:
> >
> > >> Not to mention being the norm through the Bible...
> > >
> > >Along with slavery, stoning, arranged marriages, taking wives as spoils
> > >of war, polygamy, etc. I.e. just because it used to be common doesn't
> > >make it appropriate now.
> >
> > No, but Righteous people believe that their current mores are the
> > standard for all of the Past and Future.
>
> Which makes them idiots "for all of the Past and Future."
>
> --
What's weird about that is that Christians see themselves as being
under a "New Dispensation" and not wedded to obeying every jot and
tittle of the Mosaic Law. Still, certain restrictions not expressly
commanded in the New Testament by the Nazarene were established in
Christian tradition. The various sects even fight about which ones to
follow, how many there are, and which of the customs of the Hebrews,
such as keeping a Saturday Sabbath, ought to be emulated. All answers
come with rationalizations suitably informed by scripture, natural law
philosophy and/or tradition.
Kevin
Lucifer
Don't know it as well as Against A Dark Background, but I actually
mentioned it because of what it has to say about fundies...(I come from
alt.atheism on here, but I do appreciate some SF writing too...)
--
Lucifer the Unsubtle, EAC Librarian of Dark Tomes of Excessive Evil and
General Purpose Igor
The Anti-Theist
"Don't worry, I won't bite.......hard"
>
> -----sharks
Sea Wasp
Oh, don't drag out aureole puns.
_ berge @hotmail.com.invalid Eric D. Berge
<seawasp...@sgeobviousinc.com> wrote:
>Eric D. Berge wrote:
>> On Sat, 04 Nov 2006 22:11:38 GMT, Sea Wasp
>> <seawasp...@sgeobviousinc.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Eric D. Berge wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Sat, 04 Nov 2006 18:18:23 GMT, Sea Wasp
>>>><seawasp...@sgeobviousinc.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> Sorry, pet peeve. Like people calling me "Rick Spoor"
>>>>>
>>>>>Eric D. Berge wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>On Sat, 04 Nov 2006 16:47:42 GMT, Captain Infinity
>>>>>><Infi...@captaininfinity.us> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>>Yeah, uh...I think I'm going to need photographic proof of these
>>>>>>>so-called "nipple bumps". Thanks.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>You have awfully low standards of proof - me, I'm holding out for
>>>>>>_tactile_ evidence.
>>>>>
>>>>> Keep us abreast of your progress in this area.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Oh, that's right - milk the topic for all it's worth.
>>>
>>> I'm sure it will go bust soon.
>>
>>
>> Wouldn't want to nip it in the bud too soon.
>
> Oh, don't drag out aureole puns.
Why, too titillating?
Sea Wasp
I suppose we should just get this off our chests, and then we can be
bosom buddies.
telenovels
Eric D. Berge wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>>>Yeah, uh...I think I'm going to need photographic proof of these
> >>>>>>>so-called "nipple bumps". Thanks.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>You have awfully low standards of proof - me, I'm holding out for
> >>>>>>_tactile_ evidence.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Keep us abreast of your progress in this area.
> >>>>
> >>>>Oh, that's right - milk the topic for all it's worth.
> >>>
> >>> I'm sure it will go bust soon.
> >>
> >> Wouldn't want to nip it in the bud too soon.
> >
> >Oh, don't drag out aureole puns.
>
> Why, too titillating?
Yes. Keep up this talk, and I'm gonna "rise" to the occasion. It's
amazing what some hard nipples can do.
Bill Snyder
<seawasp...@sgeobviousinc.com> wrote:
Don't you two jugheads remember that we *did* tits already this year?
What a pair of boobs.
Sea Wasp
We did? I need some firm support for your contention. In the
meantime, I won't stop; my cup runneth over with puns.
BTR1701
jayembee <jayembe...@snurcher.com> wrote:
Yes! So there is someone else out there who sees how ridiculous that is.
Ken from Chicago
thread.
-- Ken from Chicago
P.S. "Blinded by the light / Racked up like a deuce / Another roller in the
night."
BTR1701
Howard Brazee <how...@brazee.net> wrote:
> On Sat, 04 Nov 2006 20:16:23 GMT, jayembee
> <jayembe...@snurcher.com> wrote:
>
> >> Will someone tell me what the hell is the difference between
> >> underwear and a bikini?
> >
> >Underwear covers more skin area. That's what makes it even *more*
> >bizarre. You'd actually see more flesh if a woman was wearing a
> >bikini as opposed to underwear.
>
> There's nothing wrong about flesh. But underwear goes under clothes
> - we are uncomfortable when things aren't in the proper place.
But that's irrational. When something "bothers" me like that, I examine
it logically and ask why. If there's a rational reason, then I accept
the feeling as valid. If, like here, there is no rational reason, I
dismiss my feelings as silly and ignore them.
That's what rational people do.
Jack Tingle
<Choking on above statement!>
Dear lord in heaven*! I'd love to watch a fine, upstanding right-wing
Xian finish 'Use of Weapons'. I'm one of those nasty, liberal, moral
relativists and it bothered me!
Boggledly,
Jack Tingle
*No, I don't really lend much credence to him, but it's a good
epithet. If religion ever dies out, we'll lose so many good cuss
words.
Sea Wasp
> It's truly sad the number of bad puns that are being racked up in this
> thread.
You call them bad because you can't see their assets.
Howard Brazee
wrote:
>> There's nothing wrong about flesh. But underwear goes under clothes
>> - we are uncomfortable when things aren't in the proper place.
>
>But that's irrational. When something "bothers" me like that, I examine
>it logically and ask why. If there's a rational reason, then I accept
>the feeling as valid. If, like here, there is no rational reason, I
>dismiss my feelings as silly and ignore them.
>
>That's what rational people do.
Nobody's 100% rational.
Your argument reminds me of Mr. Spock's very irrational expectation
that people wouldn't act like people. Observe how people act. Don't
expect them to all of a sudden be rational by your definition.
Al Klein
<sdli...@earthlinkNOSPAM.net> wrote:
>If he wants to see what a sexually repressed society looks like, in
>which all the women must dress modestly, he has only to look at Iran,
>Saudi Arabia, or Pakistan.
>We should be celebrating, not ashamed of, the fact that we're nothing
>like them.
The reason we aren't celebrating is that we *ARE* like them. We're
rapidly becoming a repressed, and repressive, theocratic society.
--
rukbat at optonline dot net
"The doctrine that the earth is neither the center of the universe nor immovable, but
moves even with a daily rotation, is absurd, and both philosophically and theologically
false, and at the least an error of faith."
- Catholic Church's decision against Galileo Galilei
Al Klein
>such as keeping a Saturday Sabbath
That's one of the more ludicrous ones, since Sabbath, in Hebrew, was
the name of a particular day - the one we call Saturday. It came to
mean "day of rest" later, but the commandment isn't to keep holy the
day of rest (whichever day you want to assign to that status) it's to
keep holy Saturday. (There's no article ["the"] in ancient Hebrew.)
--
rukbat at optonline dot net
"Christians, it is needless to say, utterly detest each other. They slander each
other constantly with the vilest forms of abuse and cannot come to any sort of
agreement in their teachings. Each sect brands its own, fills the head of its own
with deceitful nonsense, and makes perfect little pigs of those it wins over to its
side."
- Celsus On the True Doctrine, translated by R. Joseph Hoffman, Oxford University Press, 1987
BTR1701
Howard Brazee <how...@brazee.net> wrote:
I don't deny that people act this way. Hell, it's why I made the comment
in the first place. Obviously people *do* act this way. The point is
there's no *rational* reason for them to. If they're acting this way,
it's all based on feelings and emotions, not reality: it's a fact that a
woman's underwear generally *does* cover more of her body than a bikini
and so anyone who objects to it as sexually inappropriate merely because
this fabric is labeled "underwear" and that fabric is labeled "swimsuit"
is being irrational.
Bill Snyder
I dunno about that. It seems to me we have pretty good evidence of
the protag's tendency to regard people close to him as just part of
the furniture.
JXStern
<soundof...@myway.com> wrote:
>http://www.thepaytons.org/essays/considerettes/?p=1972
>
>Where's the Family-Friendly Sci-Fi?
Sheesh, the classic complaint about sf is that it was sterile,
asexual, "nerdy". And now, we want to go back to that? Fooey.
How about the Power Rangers, for that matter, all the network Saturday
morning fare. I'm not really up on what's current now, but it appears
there's good ol' DC comic book stuff in new wave drawing styles. Now,
that's juvenile, not "family", perhaps.
Stargate is pretty much family-friendly, as your article suggests.
"Heroes" is going forward with more violence than might be fully
family-friendly.
CSI is very nearly sf, but has more gore than might be fully
family-friendly.
I dunno, where's the family friendly anything? Dancing with the
Stars?
J.
Doc Smartass
news:B7CdndEFbclNq9DY...@comcast.com:
> It's truly sad the number of bad puns that are being racked up in this
> thread.
They're suffering from melon-oma.
--
Doc Smartass
"Bullshit repeated to the limit of infinity asymptotically approaches
the odour of roses." -- Relf's Law
Doc Smartass
@sgeobviousinc.com:
> Ken from Chicago wrote:
>> It's truly sad the number of bad puns that are being racked up in this
>> thread.
>
> You call them bad because you can't see their assets.
Seems rather low-cut to me.
Peter Meilinger
> P.S. "Blinded by the light / Racked up like a deuce / Another roller in the
> night."
No, no, no. It's "Blinded by the light/ Held up like a loufah / By
the foreman of the night."
Or possibly "Blinded by the light/ Ripped up like a douche(*)/ You're
gonna throw away the night."
* - A douche being defined as a French word for a small bath towel.
So it's basically a song about bathing, we're just not sure of the
exact
lyrics.
Man I miss The Vacant Lot.
Pete
Clell Harmon
> Denis Loubet wrote:
>> "Sound of Trumpet" <soundof...@myway.com> wrote in message
>> news:1162610350....@m7g2000cwm.googlegroups.com...
>>> http://www.thepaytons.org/essays/considerettes/?p=1972
>>>
>>>
>>> Wednesday, November 1st, 2006 at 11:52 am
>>>
>>> Where's the Family-Friendly Sci-Fi?
>>
>>
>> Wouldn't that require crystal meth and a gay prostute?
>
> What material do you allow your own kids to view on TV?
>
> Oh, I forgot. Liberals don't believe in having kids. (Surveys have
> shown how low their birth rate is.)
>
>
Right! And Conservative rape their own children, but feel REAL bad
about it.
Clell Harmon
> On Fri, 03 Nov 2006 19:19:10 -0800, Sound of Trumpet wrote:
>
>
> In the early scenes of the movie "Laura Croft and
> the Cradle of Life", Angelina Jolie is wearing a
> white wet suit while exploring a sunken temple. In the theatrical
> version, she clearly has 'nipple bumps' visible thru the suit. Later, I
> watched it as an in-flight movie, and she had no nipple bumps. I doubt if
> they would re-shoot the entire sequence twice, one 'R' version, and one
> 'PG-13' version. Do they remove the nipple bumps as a digital editing
> thing in post-production? Or add them? How do they do that?
>
Have you ever worn a wet suit? In order for Jolie's nips to push
through, her breasts would have to have the consistency of concrete.
Wayne Throop
::: underwear and a bikini?
:: Underwear covers more skin area. That's what makes it even *more*
:: bizarre. You'd actually see more flesh if a woman was wearing a
:: bikini as opposed to underwear.
Bikinis most often have thicker material that's less transparent when wet.
Covers less area, but somewhat more effectively.
: Yes! So there is someone else out there who sees how ridiculous that is.
Hrm? Doesn't seem ridiculous, given that you want both
a) exposure to sun for healthy vitamin D production
(or whatever purpose), and
b) to still conceal the genitalia and/or mammary apparatus
Whereas the purpose of underwear is to provide a buffer between typically
harsher, thicker materials of outerwear and the skin. In which case, it
makes perfect sense that it covers more skin; that's what it's there to
shield from chafing.
Now, if you want to argue the rationality of hiding genitals and such,
that's another issue. But given the differing goals (protect skin from
contact with harsh cloth for underwear (and/or provide support) for one,
vs protect genitals from direct sight for the other) their design seems
perfectly reasonable. Or imperfectly reasonable, but still somewhat
reasonable.
Of course... the thong, no so much.
Wayne Throop thr...@sheol.org http://sheol.org/throopw
Clell Harmon
> http://www.thepaytons.org/essays/considerettes/?p=1972
>
>
> Wednesday, November 1st, 2006 at 11:52 am
>
> Where's the Family-Friendly Sci-Fi?
>
>
>
> Last TV season, I thought my kids would like to get into a show that
> was rather science fiction in nature called "Surface". I'm a big
> sci-fi fan (mostly TV, don't read it much) and my kids have shown an
> interest in it (my sister introduced them to her Star Wars videos), and
> it's rubbed off a bit onto the kiddos. "Surface" looked like an
> interesting story, so we started watching it. (Unfortunately, it
> didn't last past the first season.)
>
> Well, actually, how it happened was that I started taping and watching
> it myself, and after a couple of episodes thought it would be OK for
> the kids...except for the occasional thing here and there. And that
> annoyed me a bit. There would be occasional questions to one of the
> main characters, Miles, from his father and his friend from the marina
> about whether or not he was surfing the Internet for porn on the
> occasions they walked into his room while he was doing some research.
> That may be happening on home computers in a lot of homes in America,
> but must it be brought up in a TV show going into homes where that
> curiosity and potential addiction hasn't been started? Even in homes
Where curiosity hasn't been started? Wow. I don't think that many
networks market to those in vegatative states, those are about the only
people who's curiosity have started recently.
> where it may be starting, the references were light-hearted, in almost
> a "no big deal" way, which would give the impression to a kid that
> everyone's doing it so how bad can it be.
Naked bodies are bad? Why? Sex is bad? Why? and if so, how is it
you have kids?
Did you know that your great grand parents probably shared a room (and
possibly the bed) with your great great grand parents when they were
involved in making siblings (or just plain getting a little)?
>
> Later on, Miles is urged by his neighborhood friend to fondle a
> bikini-clad girl who was giving him a kiss. In one scene, Dr. Laura
His friend and 5 billion years of evolution.
> Daughtery, needing to swim out in cold ocean waters to a nearby boat,
> stripped off all her clothes, leaving only underwear, oiled up (to
> stave off the cold) and dove in. Sure this might have been a bit of
> realism, but in a show about sea monsters and other genetically
> manipulated animals, quite a number of other bits of accuracy were
> certainly sacrificed for the sake of the story. Missing this one
> wouldn't have made one bit of difference to the story.
It was included purely to find out who the whining clueless prudes are...
>
>
> Yeah, I'm going to sound like a prude. Whatever. My point is that
> with just a few quick edits, I wouldn't have to man the VCR remote
> and skip past these things, and my kids could enjoy some grownup,
> intelligent sci-fi stories and not have to get indoctrinated into the
How could they when obviously there isn't a grownup in the room with
them? Just some paniced feeb manning the fast forward button.
> cultural "norms" that have brought on so many problems in society.
> (Quite the multiple personality syndrome, eh? Society is
> shocked-SHOCKED-at the number of teen pregnancies and the rising
> number of porn addictions, and then turns a blind, or approving, eye to
> neutral or approving references to the same things.) Sure there's
Pop quiz time: When were a greater proportion of the teen aged female
population preggers, the 2000s -or- the more godly times of the 1800s.
> kid-oriented sci-fi, but most of it's pathetic. (Don't get me
> started on "Phil of the Future", which is simply another
> cookie-cutter high school sitcom with gadgets, where bad attitudes and
> actions aren't changed and where sexual innuendo is almost as
> prevalent. Thanks, Disney.)
You COULD of course, demonstrate to your children how an adult deals
with a show the adult deems to be bad, and not watch it without
whining... You aren't likely too, but you COULD.
>
> I thought the new show "Heroes" would be a possibility, but with
> one main character who's runs her own Internet porn cam site, a hero
> who only has his powers when he's strung out on drugs, and some
> pretty gory scenes, there's no way a simple use of the fast forward
> button is going to make this one suitable. That's too bad, because
> the story line looks to be very interesting.
Yeah, run away from adult situations....
>
> Family-friendly sci-fi, or just about any genre, can be made without
> this, and without distracting from a good story. It doesn't have to
> be shown on Nick or the Cartoon Network to be family-friendly. As a
> good example, I'll point to the revival of the long-running British
> series "Doctor Who", running on the Sci-Fi channel. But for a
> couple of insinuations about a possible sexual relationship between The
> Doctor and Rose Tyler (which they denied), innuendo has been
> refreshingly absent. There have been issues regarding the feelings each
> has for the other, and especially when a previous travelling companion
> of The Doctor made an appearance, but this has been treated as a
> question of love, and treated very well. These relationships are
> complex and they haven't been dumbed down. Yeah, there's a lot of
> silly gadgets and rubber aliens, but it's fun without being
> cartoonish with the characters. So this, as well as the major part of
> "Surface", proves to me that it can be done, it just isn't being
> done enough.
>
> And no, it's not a case of giving the people what they want. One
> example of this fallacy is that movies rated G and PG and that present
> "strong moral content" consistently perform better at the box
> office than their negative counterpart. (See here and here and here for
> just some examples of this.) It's not that Hollywood is producing
> what the people want, reflecting the people's values. It's that
> they are reflecting Hollywood's values.
>
> Another example of this was an interview I heard with Don S. Davis, a
> versatile character actor, who was discussing the series "Stargate
> SG-1", in which he played General Hammond. (Sorry, don't have a
> link to the podcast where I heard this.) The series was initially on
> Showtime before it moved to Sci-Fi, and while on Showtime it had a
> single short nude scene in the 2-hour series premier. When asked about
> this, Davis said that once the Showtime execs agreed that the writing
> for the show was indeed good, they decided they didn't need to add
> nude scenes anymore. This speaks volumes for the writing talent in
> Hollywood when you realize how much gratuitous sex is used. It also
> says that given excellent writing, a show can indeed be
> family-friendly.
Yeah, because people NEVER get nude, because nudity is BAD, and nekkid
bodys are just icky.
How is it you managed to have kids again?
>
> It can be. It just isn't. Instead, Hollywood is getting lazier and
> lazier, thinking that a little titillation will make up for bad
> writing, or is required for good writing. So where's all the
> family-friendly sci-fi? Check your plumbing. Most of it is going down
> the toilet. Bummer.
You know what book is full of gratuitous sex and violence? The Bible,
so burn it I say, 'cause you can't fast forward through a book.
Feeb
>
Clell Harmon
> Brian M. Dean wrote:
>> On Fri, 03 Nov 2006 19:19:10 -0800, Sound of Trumpet wrote:
>>
>>> http://www.thepaytons.org/essays/considerettes/?p=1972
>>>
>>
>> What you are witnessing here is a symptom of the fall of the
>> American empire. Things such as adults having sex with teens
>> (and even with children) are going to become more and more
>> commonplace.
>
> Actually, one of the best peer-to-peer repositories of downloadable
> XXXX-rated porn (including real amateur incest, sex with animals, etc.)
> is EMule, which is Italian, and most of its servers are in Europe.
Is there professional incest?
>
>
>> Basically, how it is working is the same as
>> putting a frog on a frying pan. If you heat the frying pan too
>> fast the frog will jump out. But if you heat is slowly, the frog
>> won't notice. Currently, on TV an adult having sex with a
>> teen is sort of risque (whereas it would be considered terrible
>> during the 1980s) but it is slowly becoming acceptable. You notice
>> for example, how often you hear about a female teacher
>> having sex with her middle school age boy student. How often
>> did you hear about that 20 years ago?
>
> Actually, the problems with pedophile priests having sex with altar boys
> had been going on for decades.
>
> And you only need to look at the writings of Sigmund Freud and his
> contemporary Dr. Richard von Krafft-Ebing in the 19th century to
> discover, as they discovered, that zillions of seemingly normal, decent,
> hard-working "family men" and housewives had some really bizarre sexual
> experiences when they were children. (Many of Freud's patients related
> stories of sexual abuse. In the end, Freud decided those had to be
> fantasies. But now it appears that adult sexual abuse of children
> really was more widespread than he thought.)
>
>
> And if you go back to the seventh century:
>
> "Narrated 'Ursa: The Prophet [Mohammed] wrote the (marriage contract)
> with 'Aisha while she was six years old, and consummated his marriage
> with her while she was nine years old, and she remained with him for
> nine years (i.e. till his death)."
> -- Hadith 7:62, the collected anecdotes
> of the Prophet Mohammed
>
>
Clell Harmon
Touching people to whom you aren't married? I think not!
Mike Painter
That was at best a 1/8 th suit but I think it was just one of the lycra jump
suits worn in some places.
They probably removed them and they did it the same way they do most special
effects. It's a digital world out there.
I wonder if the stunt people of the world realize they are going to be out
of work in a little world.
In my computer classes before Heinlein's Mike came on scene we discussed
totally artifical actors.
I'm convinced that it will happen when they can add chaos to all the objects
and digital trees look like trees.
Mike Schilling
"Bill Snyder" <bsn...@airmail.net> wrote in message
news:8m9qk21704akfct27...@4ax.com...
And what crappy puns; you both get a double-D-minus.
William December Starr
"Steven L." <sdli...@earthlinkNOSPAM.net> said:
> Actually, one of the best peer-to-peer repositories of
> downloadable XXXX-rated porn (including real amateur incest, sex
> with animals, etc.) is EMule, which is Italian, and most of its
> servers are in Europe.
What I want to know is, in alleged "real" incest porn how do they
prove to the audience that the people having sex are really related
to each other? Include excerpts from ten or fifteen years worth of
home movies showing them growing up together?
--
William December Starr <wds...@panix.com>
Brian Henderson
wrote:
>Sound of Trumpet wrote:
>> Where's the Family-Friendly Sci-Fi?
>Best avoid "Torchwood"
What, the sex-crazed alien energy being isn't family friendly?
William December Starr
"Steven L." <sdli...@earthlinkNOSPAM.net> said:
> What material do you allow your own kids to view on TV?
>
> Oh, I forgot. Liberals don't believe in having kids. (Surveys
> have shown how low their birth rate is.)
Or, "liberals" -- yes, we're monolithic -- don't believe in having
*as many* kids.
William December Starr
Douglas Berry <pengu...@mindOBVIOUSspring.com> said:
>> Where's the Family-Friendly Sci-Fi?
>
> Try throwing your kids some Heinlein juveniles. Of course,
> they'll have to read, and then there's the ever-present danger
> that reading Heinlein might make them think.
And that they might graduate to Heinlein non-juveniles. ("Look,
this character has a Biblical name: Lazarus!")
Mike Schilling
news:hf1qk2d9r6f23o6g4...@4ax.com...
> On Sat, 04 Nov 2006 16:33:15 GMT, "Steven L."
> <sdli...@earthlinkNOSPAM.net> wrote:
>
>>Denis Loubet wrote:
>>> "Sound of Trumpet" <soundof...@myway.com> wrote in message
>>> news:1162610350....@m7g2000cwm.googlegroups.com...
>>>> http://www.thepaytons.org/essays/considerettes/?p=1972
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Wednesday, November 1st, 2006 at 11:52 am
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Wouldn't that require crystal meth and a gay prostute?
>>
>
> have been having gay sex for money.
At least he didn't marry the guy.
William December Starr
MarkA <to...@nowhere.com> said:
> In the early scenes of the movie "Laura Croft and the Cradle of
> Life", Angelina Jolie is wearing a white wet suit while exploring
> a sunken temple. In the theatrical version, she clearly has
> 'nipple bumps' visible thru the suit. Later, I watched it as an
> in-flight movie, and she had no nipple bumps. I doubt if they
> would re-shoot the entire sequence twice, one 'R' version, and one
> 'PG-13' version. Do they remove the nipple bumps as a digital
> editing thing in post-production? Or add them? How do they do
> that?
Anecdote:
I saw Cynthia Stevenson (<http://imdb.com/name/nm0828906>) on some
talk show in which she said that she'd been on an airplane and saw
that "The Player" was the in-flight movie. She felt a bit
uncomfortable because she was flying with some family members and
the movie had a scene in which she was shown topless in a hot tub,
but when that scene arrived in the airline's version of the film she
saw that someone had used special effects[1] to "raise" the water
level so that her naughty bits were covered by it.
1: I don't remember when I saw this interview; it might have been
long enough ago that the trickery was done with old-fashioned
techniques rather than CGI.
Mike Schilling
> On Sat, 04 Nov 2006 20:54:49 GMT, Howard Brazee <how...@brazee.net>
> wrote:
>
>>On Sat, 04 Nov 2006 16:50:14 GMT, "Steven L."
>><sdli...@earthlinkNOSPAM.net> wrote:
>>
>>>Actually, the problems with pedophile priests having sex with altar boys
>>>had been going on for decades.
>>
>>there have been alter boys.
>
> No, he said "altAr." AltEr boys presumably help produce castrati for
> the choir.
obSF: Kingsley Amis's _The Alteration_
Mike Schilling
"Lucifer" <wyrd...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1162662448....@m7g2000cwm.googlegroups.com...
>> THAT's "family friendly." {;-)
>
> How about Against a Dark Background by Iain M Banks?
Or Steven Brust's _Jherrg_, which is all about a Family.
David Johnston
Starr) wrote:
>In article <ax33h.2211$L6....@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net>,
>"Steven L." <sdli...@earthlinkNOSPAM.net> said:
>
>> Actually, one of the best peer-to-peer repositories of
>> downloadable XXXX-rated porn (including real amateur incest, sex
>> with animals, etc.) is EMule, which is Italian, and most of its
>> servers are in Europe.
>
>What I want to know is, in alleged "real" incest porn how do they
>prove to the audience that the people having sex are really related
>to each other?
The audience is not especially demanding.
Mike Schilling
"William December Starr" <wds...@panix.com> wrote in message
news:eik0sk$h2m$1...@panix2.panix.com...
>
> I saw Cynthia Stevenson (<http://imdb.com/name/nm0828906>) on some
> talk show in which she said that she'd been on an airplane and saw
> that "The Player" was the in-flight movie. She felt a bit
> uncomfortable because she was flying with some family members and
> the movie had a scene in which she was shown topless in a hot tub,
> but when that scene arrived in the airline's version of the film she
> saw that someone had used special effects[1] to "raise" the water
> level so that her naughty bits were covered by it.
Greta Scacchi was in that movie, and it showed a different woman topless?
Some people should not be allowed to direct films.