Sex, Sin and Shame
Andrew Mulcahy
Christians, when subject to injustice, generally,
despite their chagrin, tend to feel they probably deserve
it. Taught from infancy to view their natural inclinations
as wrong, even evil, they wear the mantle of guilt just for
being who they are.
The natural, spontaneous reactions of the healthy
mammal in us are curbed- - not in order serve the civilized
community better - - but because such actions are considered
to be inherently evil. No wonder we view our own bodies -
-and particularly those portions thereof that are more
subject to the command of nature than to ourselves -- with
shame, and are easily offended by the sight of such when
others expose such parts.. No wonder the Heaven’s Gate lads
felt such a need to escape their bodies. No wonder so many
try to escape the real world that we all live in, seeking
escape from reality by fantasizing the existence of another,
ethereal world, one without smell.
Look at what a paradox this attempt to stifle the
sex urge has created! Now this once simple drive has become
a year long obsession, filling our newspapers, magazines and
television with stories about sexual harassment, rape and
adultery. Pretending outrage, the press gives us our sex
vicariously - - a sort of safe sex, a Platonic peek show.
Every editor knows that homosexuality, abortions and
promiscuity are subjects that arouse the readers to
excitement, even anger.
Meanwhile, the neo-feminists, chafing under
centuries of sex discrimination, are finding a way to use
this obsession with sex to turn the tables. They have
created a Barbie doll image of woman as a person who will be
shocked - - can even suffer trauma - - if sex is so much
as suggested in her presence. (Burn us at the stake ,
would you?) Flirtations become sexual harassment;
politicians and executive’s sex lives are put under a
microscope; a compliment becomes a crime. .
More hilariously, many men have been pumping up
their penises with special pumps, not to satisfy a need, but
to create a need to satisfy, and now men are lining up for
Viagra, another means of trying hard to do what was so hard
not to do before., as if it has become a duty to do what
they once could hardly hold back.
Instead of becoming physically aroused when an
attractive girl comes by, their libido has been so inhibited
that they are actually *trying* to become aroused! And some
shrinks help out by telling a guy who has trouble getting it
up to visualize some enticing Madonna, thus encouraging him
to essentially masturbate in his wife’s body. (Look, ma, no
hands!)
And don’t forget the millions spent on child
pornography and sadistic literature just so inhibited men
can get a rise out of the old devil! An attractive girl no
longer does it for them. In particular, take a look at
those we chose to inculcate high moral standards in our
wards. - - it should be clear by now, from what we have
learned about what has been going on in our schools,
particularly religious schools, that high mindedness and
virtuous mien don’t stop a thrust up a boy’s bum. ("Feel the
glory of the Lord, my son")
Meanwhile we feverishly try to keep pretending we
are not really mammals with natural drives - we wash
ourselves often to keep our natural smell from arousing
anyone, and even go to the extent of using deodorants to
make ourselves appear even more asexual. We keep those parts
of our body that most remind us of our animal nature well
covered. We are careful to never use an active verb to
describe copulation. We practice sex furtively; we prefer
the dark.
And despite all this, an alien from another planet,
examining our species, could easily come to the conclusion
that sex is absolutely the only thing that we are really
interested in.
Nature has made it pretty plain that we must obey
its edicts, like it or not, or pay the price, and boy, are
we ever paying the price!
Cheers,
Andy
Andrew Mulcahy
On Sat, 06 Jun 1998 23:17:26 -0600, Lars P Ormberg
<larso....@telusplanet.net> wrote:
>Or disgusting anyone. We smell.
Yukky us!
>>Andy Mulcahy wrote
>> We are careful to never use an active verb to
>> describe copulation. We practice sex furtively; we prefer
>> the dark.
>
>Who could look at the male body and remain excited?
Boy, someone sure did a job on you when you were
young. Lars, and I hope some day you can see that..
>> And despite all this, an alien from another planet,
>> examining our species, could easily come to the conclusion
>> that sex is absolutely the only thing that we are really
>> interested in.
>> Nature has made it pretty plain that we must obey
>> its edicts, like it or not,
>
>We need not always obey. Be wary of, yes. But not always obey. That
>is the first step into chaos.
You seem to have missed the whole message; don't
jump to conclusions so quickly - - try reading it again,
but much more carefully this time:
"Christians, when subject to injustice, generally,
despite their chagrin, tend to feel they probably deserve
it. Taught from infancy to view their natural inclinations
as wrong, even evil, they wear the mantle of guilt just for
being who they are.
"The natural, spontaneous reactions of the healthy
mammal in us are curbed- - not in order to serve the
civilized community better - - but because such actions are
considered to be inherently evil. No wonder we view our own
bodies - -and particularly those portions thereof that are
more subject to the command of nature than we'd like --
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
"Happiness is the warm glow you get from helping others."
Derek Maddox
Andy,
I don't mean to be picking on you here, but I've gotta take exception to
a few of your comments.
Andrew Mulcahy wrote:
> Christians, when subject to injustice, generally,
> despite their chagrin, tend to feel they probably deserve
> it. Taught from infancy to view their natural inclinations
> as wrong, even evil, they wear the mantle of guilt just for
> being who they are.
Christians don't really look forward to hardship and trials. But we do
put our trust in God that He will live up to His promise that "all
things will work together for the good of those who trust God." We
endure, looking for the peace that comes from trusting in God's wisdom
and trusting in His fatherly care.
> The natural, spontaneous reactions of the healthy
> mammal in us are curbed- - not in order serve the civilized
> community better - - but because such actions are considered
> to be inherently evil. No wonder we view our own bodies -
> -and particularly those portions thereof that are more
> subject to the command of nature than to ourselves -- with
> shame, and are easily offended by the sight of such when
> others expose such parts.. No wonder the Heaven’s Gate lads
Hang on there, Andy. You need to read Song of Solomon again. There's
nothing sinful or dirty about the sexual urges and desires that God
built into the human being. Quite the opposite, in fact. But only in
context. Outside of marriage (whether premarital or extramarital)
sexual intercourse is absolutely forbidden. Why? It's just like I tell
my teenage son to keep his pants zipped because of disease, unexpected
and unplanned pregnancies, and other complications from moving into a
too intimate relationship before the two parties are emotionally,
physically, and financially capable of maintaining that relationship.
God cares for us at least as much as I care for my own son. He doesn't
want us dipping our wicks all over town, running the risk of having it
fall off completely. He doesn't want us incurring the responsibility
for another human life (the child or the mother) before we are
completely prepared for it. He's just like any other father.
Keep sex within the marriage vows and God is all for it. Tells us to do
it, in fact. With His blessing.
> Look at what a paradox this attempt to stifle the
> sex urge has created! Now this once simple drive has become
> a year long obsession, filling our newspapers, magazines and
> television with stories about sexual harassment, rape and
> adultery. Pretending outrage, the press gives us our sex
> vicariously - - a sort of safe sex, a Platonic peek show.
> Every editor knows that homosexuality, abortions and
> promiscuity are subjects that arouse the readers to
> excitement, even anger.
Yes, pornography has developed as a vicarious replacement for the real
thing. Television and other media give a watered down version of the
same thing for the faint of heart. But the whole thing is an outgrowth
of men failing to give women the respect they deserve. According to the
stories of Genesis, woman is made from man's rib and man has ever since
been incomplete without a woman to stand by his side forever. This
essential element of man's existence deserves, and should be given, the
utmost respect. When we fail to respect women as we would our own
mothers, wives, or daughters, we end up with pornography. Girls dancing
in strip joints that should be going to their senior proms, and films
being made of activities that even the most hardened athiest would agree
are distasteful.
> Meanwhile we feverishly try to keep pretending we
> are not really mammals with natural drives - we wash
> ourselves often to keep our natural smell from arousing
> anyone, and even go to the extent of using deodorants to
> make ourselves appear even more asexual. We keep those parts
> of our body that most remind us of our animal nature well
> covered. We are careful to never use an active verb to
> describe copulation. We practice sex furtively; we prefer
> the dark.
Do you think that maybe we do these things simply out of consideration
of our fellow man? That we don't offer too many visual distractions and
temptations to do things we shouldn't?
> Nature has made it pretty plain that we must obey
> its edicts, like it or not, or pay the price, and boy, are
> we ever paying the price!
Right. We're paying the price all right. Rampant STDs. Thousands of
children being born without fathers every year. Thousands more being
terminated without even that slim chance at success.
There is a really great economic argument which I've used with my
daughter to encourage her to protect her valuable commodities. But
that's a topic for another message.
Derek
geop...@usit.net
Look at the end of the message for comments.
On Sun, 07 Jun 1998 20:49:17 -0400, Derek Maddox <dma...@ball.com>
wrote:
All true but is it a sympton of less religion or a result of the
ENORMOUS population we now have. See these things went on in the past
as well. AND christians were just as guilty as others for abandonment
and killing children...I think the bible says he killed every first
born in egypt....not very humane and certainly not justified by the
hebrew exodus which was actually an egyptian exodus that the hebrews
just plagerised. AND LASTLY NO INSTITUTION has disrespected women MORE
than religion. FACT NOT FICTION. So while some of your points ahve
validity I think that you can't say "without religion things will get
bad" because they have already been bad with religion firmly in
control. Maybe time to see the other side of the coin.
Derek Maddox
geop...@usit.net wrote:
> All true but is it a sympton of less religion or a result of the
> ENORMOUS population we now have. See these things went on in the past
> as well. AND christians were just as guilty as others for abandonment
> and killing children...I think the bible says he killed every first
> born in egypt....not very humane and certainly not justified by the
> hebrew exodus which was actually an egyptian exodus that the hebrews
Come on!!! You can't blame Christians for the First Born Plague -- that was
in Moses' time, a couple thousand years before there WERE any Christians.
And besides, God did that Himself rather than through human intermediaries.
> just plagerised. AND LASTLY NO INSTITUTION has disrespected women MORE
> than religion. FACT NOT FICTION. So while some of your points ahve
> validity I think that you can't say "without religion things will get
> bad" because they have already been bad with religion firmly in
> control. Maybe time to see the other side of the coin.
I will grant that many horrors have been committed in the name of religion.
Most of these were instigated by a powerful few who were acting out of
motivations other than religious fervor. But I think it's a pretty slim
argument to hold misguided efforts of a thousand years ago against modern
Christianity.
Let's face it, 200 years ago doctors bled people to death trying to cure them
of various ailments. Yet it doesn't keep most of us from going to see a
modern doctor today. (Of course, some of them have started keeping leeches
again. I stay away from those doctors.) There are many lawyers (yesterday
and today) who are unscrupulous and immoral. We may joke about the
worthlessness of lawyers, but deep down we recognize that the majority of
them are still worthy citizens.
Just as with medical science, religious study continues to reveal new, more
consistent interpretations of old scripture. As archeological and historical
studies shed light on the secular lifestyle surrounding the writers (both Old
and New Testaments) we gain new insight into the meaning of the words they
have written.
OK, so a few hundred years ago atrocities were committed in the name of
religion. I don't dispute it. What's that got to do with TODAY? Back then,
the only Christian church of note was the Roman Catholic. Today there are
hundreds of varieties that exist on basically friendly terms (if you don't
look too closely at Ireland). Personally, I attend a Lutheran Church,
Missouri Synod, congregation. They didn't exist until a few decades ago. As
a Christian, I am no more responsible for acts of antiquity than modern
Wiccans are responsible (or accountable) for the human sacrifices ancient
practitioners of that religion performed.
Derek
Darryl L. Pierce
In article <357C2F9C...@ball.com>, Derek Maddox <dma...@ball.com> wrote:
>Let's face it, 200 years ago doctors bled people to death trying to cure them
>of various ailments. Yet it doesn't keep most of us from going to see a
Doctors at least have been open minded enough to improve their methods and
update their ideas. They don't still think that a cold is caused by "bad
blood". Religions, on the other hand, just bury themselves deeper and deeper
under their interpretations of what Gawd was "trying to say by
[metaphor|example|literally]".
>Just as with medical science, religious study continues to reveal new, more
>consistent interpretations of old scripture. As archeological and historical
And, can you give us some examples of consistent interpretations? And, will
someone PLEASE explain to me why Gawd needs an interpreter in the first place?
Why doesn't he just talk plainly to the people?
>hundreds of varieties that exist on basically friendly terms (if you don't
>look too closely at Ireland). Personally, I attend a Lutheran Church,
As an Irishman, I'd suggest you learn what you're talking about. The problems
in NORTHERN Ireland (not the Republic of Ireland) are NOT based on religion.
It's the uninformed who make that assumption.
>a Christian, I am no more responsible for acts of antiquity than modern
>Wiccans are responsible (or accountable) for the human sacrifices ancient
>practitioners of that religion performed.
This is my point; the continuation of misinformation. Funny how all religions
(except for Christianity) had human sacrifices, and it took the *christians*
to reveal this. Unless you can prove the claim, stop perpetuating it.
+-------------------------------------+
| Darryl L. Pierce, Software Engineer |
| Resource Solutions, Int'l |
| (919) 547-7177 |
+-------------------------------------+
Sarah J.
Andrew Mulcahy posted the following to alt.atheism:
<snip stuff I generally agree with>
Basically, I definitely agree that the repression of sex on the one hand (and
the ridiculous overdose of often pretty unrealistic sexual images on the other)
has caused and is causing a terrible lot of problems. However:
<possible rant alert>
> Meanwhile, the neo-feminists, chafing under
> centuries of sex discrimination, are finding a way to use
> this obsession with sex to turn the tables.
Okay. Hit the brakes right here, Andrew, and think about what you wrote, because
this is simply hilarious.
> They have created a Barbie doll image of woman
Excuse me? *Feminists*, who try ridding women of their sex object image and
telling them that their bodies are okay as they are, have created the
Barbie-doll image?! It's *males*, mostly fashion designers, who apparently
cannot bear the thought of strong, independent, *mature* women, and as a result
are trying to put the image of a half-starved girlie with giant tits and skimpy
clothing on a pedestal as the "ideal" of female "beauty" and, most of all,
"desirability" and "sex-appeal".
> as a person who will be shocked - - can even suffer trauma - - if sex is so much
> as suggested in her presence.
FEMINISTS have first taught women that sex is not merely a matter of the male
fulfilling his needs, and have encouraged women to take a more active role. What
feminists are "shocked" at is sexual harassment -- and if you deny how
commonplace harassment and discrimination still are, you are ignorant at best.
Hell, *I* am certainly no looker whatsoever, but I've had to put up with enough
crap to make me physically sick -- and believe me, if that stuff was not MEANT
to intimidate and insult, then nothing could be.
> (Burn us at the stake , would you?)
Please don't start blaming the victim again. It's very easy to shrug these
matters off if you're male -- that is, NOT on the receiving end. If a woman
tells you that she is offended at or hurt by something a man says to her, you
had better believe her.
If I were to call a man a ball-brained idiot, obviously with the intent to
insult him, I could hardly claim it was meant as a compliment if he did get
angry.
> Flirtations become sexual harassment;
If the woman does not desire being "flirted" with, it IS sexual harassment.
> politicians and executive’s sex lives are put under a
> microscope;
If said persons use their position to harass women, that is a crime that
certainly does bear investigation.
NOTE: I am disgusted at the way personal matters are often dissected in the
media, but it's the media themselves who smell profitable "sensational" and
"exciting" stories, not feminists, who put people's sex lives "under a
microscope". I am also aware that there are women who invent stories of
harassment to further their own goals, but to roll your eyes when a woman claims
to have been harassed is nothing but the tenacious "blame the victim" strategy
that is so convenient for men (and also stinks of the even worse accusation of
"She provoked me! And anyway, she wanted it!").
> compliment becomes a crime. .
Again, if a woman makes it clear that she does not desire a man's attention, or
if the "compliment" is offensive to the woman, then it is very clearly within
her rights for her to tell the man to leave her alone. Why is that so hard to
understand? Would *you* enjoy being stared at, (often rudely) commented on,
whistled after, etc, by complete strangers that you are not in the least
interested in? Picture yourself being treated like that by gay men -- maybe
that'll help you get the point.
<snip some stuff about male problems>
Andrew, I can only hope that you are not trying to blame the "lack of arousal"
you claim men to feel on women -- if the males cannot deal with female
*partners* (who, if they agree to bed a guy, naturally want to be satisfied
themselves) instead of the non-demanding, simplistic object-image that is
continually dished out to them everywhere, tough luck. Maybe they should examine
their own image of "manhood", then.
Besides, with all the shit going on, I cannot honestly think men don't get
turned on by "pretty girls" anymore. To the contrary.
</rant alert>
Whew. So much for that. Sorry, Andrew, but stereotypes like you brought up
really tend to annoy me.
> Meanwhile we feverishly try to keep pretending we
> are not really mammals with natural drives - we wash
> ourselves often to keep our natural smell from arousing
> anyone,
Heh. I don't mind the scent of another woman's body, or my own, for that matter.
However, I *do* find the smell of profuse sweating to be rather offensive.
> and even go to the extent of using deodorants to
> make ourselves appear even more asexual.
On the one hand, yes. But on the other, many people shroud themselves in perfume
to make themselves smell more "sexy", or whatever. Anyone see the irony here?
> We keep those parts of our body that most remind us of our animal nature well
> covered.
Well, protection certainly plays a part in that. Nothing wrong whatsoever with
the sight of a woman's body, though (pornography, however, DOES turn me off).
> We are careful to never use an active verb to describe copulation.
I don't quite get your meaning here -- an "active" verb? Do you mean something
more "direct" than "making love to", "sleeping with", or just "having sex with"?
There's always "fucking", too. >:-)
Personally, though, I have gotten so used to seeing "fuck" used as a swear word
-- and using it myself ;-) -- that I'd have a hard time using it to describe
being intimate with a woman I love.
> We practice sex furtively; we prefer the dark.
I cannot really comment on that yet, but I for one definitely want to see the
woman I'm with.
> And despite all this, an alien from another planet,
> examining our species, could easily come to the conclusion
> that sex is absolutely the only thing that we are really
> interested in.
Oh yes, absolutely.
> Nature has made it pretty plain that we must obey
> its edicts, like it or not, or pay the price, and boy, are
> we ever paying the price!
As I said, our society is being pretty hypocritical and ambiguous here, which is
really sickening, IMO.
~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*
Sarah
Atheist #1102
"Don't let the people who live on fear and hate govern how you live."
- Melissa Etheridge
"The best thing I ever did was to come out."
- k.d.lang
(Replace "firedancer" with "Biologie.Uni-Bielefeld" to reply by mail.)
~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*
XXX
On Mon, 08 Jun 1998 22:10:06 GMT, Sarah.J...@firedancer.de (Sarah
J.) wrote:
<snip>
>Andrew
>
>> Meanwhile, the neo-feminists, chafing under
>> centuries of sex discrimination, are finding a way to use
>> this obsession with sex to turn the tables.
>Okay. Hit the brakes right here, Andrew, and think about what you wrote, because
>this is simply hilarious.
Not at all, other than the fact that he could have used the term
feminazi to describe that brand of feminism whose puritanical,
victorain beliefs he portrays and subjects to ridicule below.
>> They have created a Barbie doll image of woman
>Excuse me? *Feminists*, who try ridding women of their sex object image and
>telling them that their bodies are okay as they are, have created the
>Barbie-doll image?! It's *males*, mostly fashion designers, who apparently
>cannot bear the thought of strong, independent, *mature* women, and as a result
>are trying to put the image of a half-starved girlie with giant tits and skimpy
>clothing on a pedestal as the "ideal" of female "beauty" and, most of all,
>"desirability" and "sex-appeal".
Agreed, the barbie doll has been Matel's creation... though originally
created by a woman. They've created a "fragile as glass" image.
>> as a person who will be shocked - - can even suffer trauma - - if sex is so much
>> as suggested in her presence.
>
>FEMINISTS have first taught women that sex is not merely a matter of the male
>fulfilling his needs, and have encouraged women to take a more active role. What
>feminists are "shocked" at is sexual harassment -- and if you deny how
>commonplace harassment and discrimination still are, you are ignorant at best.
Of course its common, you've defined it so widely that it includes any
unwanted sexual advance or action of a sexual nature. Not a sensical
definition, but certainly a broad one - oops I screwed up again.
>Hell, *I* am certainly no looker whatsoever, but I've had to put up with enough
>crap to make me physically sick -- and believe me, if that stuff was not MEANT
>to intimidate and insult, then nothing could be.
You got hit on... how horrible. Maybe if you really emancipated
yourself and took on some responsibility for initiating the dating
process these untoward incidents would occur with less frequency.
>> (Burn us at the stake , would you?)
>
>Please don't start blaming the victim again. It's very easy to shrug these
>matters off if you're male -- that is, NOT on the receiving end. If a woman
>tells you that she is offended at or hurt by something a man says to her, you
>had better believe her.
And then tell her to get a back bone and grow up.
>If I were to call a man a ball-brained idiot, obviously with the intent to
>insult him, I could hardly claim it was meant as a compliment if he did get
>angry.
>> Flirtations become sexual harassment;
>
>If the woman does not desire being "flirted" with, it IS sexual harassment.
Because you and all your feminazi friends have so declared. Enough is
enough. Your crap has to stop...
>> politicians and executive’s sex lives are put under a
>> microscope;
>If said persons use their position to harass women, that is a crime that
>certainly does bear investigation.
Because you and your feminazi friends so declare, you are ready to
destroy careers because some male person may have made a pass. So much
for the tolerant society feminists started out trying to create.
>NOTE: I am disgusted at the way personal matters are often dissected in the
>media, but it's the media themselves who smell profitable "sensational" and
>"exciting" stories, not feminists, who put people's sex lives "under a
>microscope".
Then why do so many of these feminazis make a point of "taking their
stories" to the media?
> I am also aware that there are women who invent stories of
>harassment to further their own goals,
No guff...
>but to roll your eyes when a woman claims
>to have been harassed is nothing but the tenacious "blame the victim" strategy
>that is so convenient for men (and also stinks of the even worse accusation of
>"She provoked me! And anyway, she wanted it!").
>> compliment becomes a crime. .
>
>Again, if a woman makes it clear that she does not desire a man's attention, or
>if the "compliment" is offensive to the woman, then it is very clearly within
>her rights for her to tell the man to leave her alone.
And if she doesn't have the guts to do so, she merely has to run down
to the local law enforcement branch and lay a criminal harassment
charge, which in Canada has a lower standard for guilty than it takes
to get a restraining order.
>Why is that so hard to
>understand? Would *you* enjoy being stared at, (often rudely) commented on,
>whistled after, etc, by complete strangers that you are not in the least
>interested in? P
Yes. But then I'm not a prude.
>picture yourself being treated like that by gay men -- maybe
>that'll help you get the point.
Gay men have hit on me, and while I've always rebuffed them, since I'm
not gay, I have taken it in the spirit with which it was intended and
considered it flattering.
><snip some stuff about male problems>
>Andrew, I can only hope that you are not trying to blame the "lack of arousal"
>you claim men to feel on women -- if the males cannot deal with female
>*partners* (who, if they agree to bed a guy, naturally want to be satisfied
>themselves) instead of the non-demanding, simplistic object-image that is
>continually dished out to them everywhere, tough luck. Maybe they should examine
>their own image of "manhood", then.
>Besides, with all the shit going on, I cannot honestly think men don't get
>turned on by "pretty girls" anymore. To the contrary.
Your pap is a turn-off... and its sadly endeminc of the white
caucasian North American, to the point that many males, myself
included, have sought and found mates in other cultures - where the
neo-victorian poison that feminazi feminism has brought to ascendency
among white caucasiab women - has still not had a chance to inculcate
itself.
That said, if a female is wearing a short skirt, skimpy top, and
heels, as a heteromale, I'll notice.... as I take it you will as a
lesbian female.
></rant alert>
>
>Whew. So much for that. Sorry, Andrew, but stereotypes like you brought up
>really tend to annoy me.
They are no worse than yours and far less damaging.
>> Meanwhile we feverishly try to keep pretending we
>> are not really mammals with natural drives - we wash
>> ourselves often to keep our natural smell from arousing
>> anyone,
<debate on smells snipped in the interests of sense>
Greg C. Estren
On Tue, 9 Jun 1998, XXX wrote:
> >> Flirtations become sexual harassment;
> >
> >If the woman does not desire being "flirted" with, it IS sexual harassment.
> Because you and all your feminazi friends have so declared. Enough is
> enough. Your crap has to stop...
This statement above bothers me. I try to take a non-biased, logial,
open-minded approach to the entire subject of gender & related issues
(sometimes I even succeed. :) ), which means I'm usually conservative in
making any strong claim one way or the other...
But unwanted flirtation being considered sexual harassment, something
punishable by law, is this really fair? Many times I've been confronted
by people that start up conversations with me, when I'm really not in the
mood to talk. Their initiation of the conversation is unwanted by me, but
certainly these are no grounds for taking the person to court?
It's not obvious what the difference is with flirtation, it is only a
particular form of conversation. If a woman feels terribly uncomfortable
by such flirtation, I think the burden lies on her to make her feelings
clear. Only when she openly expresses her feelings and properly warns the
offending man, and he continues to bother her, can she have any reasonable
case for harassment. But the act of flirtation alone, even if unwanted,
how can this constitute harassment?
Hmm, maybe I'm just confused about the exact situation you meant by that.
-Greg
Ian Samuels
On Mon, 8 Jun 1998, Sarah J. wrote:
> Andrew Mulcahy posted the following to alt.atheism:
[snip]
> <possible rant alert>
Actually, definite rant alert, I'd say,
and Sarah deals with most of it quite handily.
There's only a couple of things in her response
that give me pause -- questions of emphasis
really...
> Excuse me? *Feminists*, who try ridding women of their sex object image and
> telling them that their bodies are okay as they are,
Of most feminists, quite true, but I would
also say it's a bit disingenous to elide the
extremists from this statement, particularly since
its these (or some version thereof) that Andrew
seems to be reacting against. Those like Andrea
Dworkin, who basically categorized all
heterosexual sex as rape and those women who
participated in it as slaves to a fascist
patriarchy, probably can't be accused of simply
"telling women that their bodies are okay as they
are;" there was a bit more to it.
> have created the
> Barbie-doll image?! It's *males*, mostly fashion designers, who apparently
> cannot bear the thought of strong, independent, *mature* women, and as a result
> are trying to put the image of a half-starved girlie with giant tits and skimpy
> clothing on a pedestal as the "ideal" of female "beauty" and, most of all,
> "desirability" and "sex-appeal".
The "beauty myth" argument has always
struck me as one of the least developed areas of
feminist theory. A couple of statements here point
to the reasons why.
For one thing, the "half-starved girlie
with giant tits and skimpy clothing" is not a
prevalent figure on fashion runways that I've
noticed -- only the "half-starved girlie" part of
that statement holds true in mainstream modelling,
and that is an image being propogated by a
fashion industry in which female designers and
agents are really quite well represented.
The "giant tits and skimpy clothing" bit
does turn up in media designed to appeal to the
more stereotypically adolescent male, but one of
the most notable things about this image of
beauty, which _can_ be said to be largely
male-constructed, is that it _cannot_ be said to
be mainstream -- seeing as it's confined to more
marginal media from soft porn on down (and yes,
Baywatch qualifies).
So the whole "Barbie doll girl" thing is,
in a way, a bit of a side issue.
Now, I suppose you can accuse the
mainstream female designers of furthering a
patriarchally convenient image of the female body
(as underdeveloped, more girlie and less
threatening), but since they could feasibly attack
any alternative image you chose to advance with
very similar arguments, this strikes me as
counterproductive. What might be more useful is to
recognize that both sexes play an active (if not
always balanced) role in determining gendered
images of beauty, and that attributing these
images solely to "males... who apparently cannot
bear the thought of a strong, independent,
*mature* woman" is a mistake on three counts:
a) It gives men way too much credit and is
demonstrably not factual;
b) It obscures dialogue about the real
interaction of sex, gender, power and beauty
images;
c) It plays directly into the hands of
those who would stereotype feminists as Andrew
Mulcahy attempted to do in his post.
[snip]
Just some food for thought. Very astute
post otherwise.
Cheers,
Ian
___________________________________________________
"Know your enemy, know yourself, and in a
thousand battles you will not be defeated." - Sun
Tzu, _The Art of War_
"SPOON!" - The Tick
Claus Lisberg
>Andy,
>I don't mean to be picking on you here, but I've gotta take exception to
>a few of your comments.
>
>Andrew Mulcahy wrote:
>
>> Christians, when subject to injustice, generally,
>> despite their chagrin, tend to feel they probably deserve
>> it. Taught from infancy to view their natural inclinations
>> as wrong, even evil, they wear the mantle of guilt just for
>> being who they are.
>
>Christians don't really look forward to hardship and trials. But we do
>put our trust in God that He will live up to His promise that "all
>things will work together for the good of those who trust God." We
>endure, looking for the peace that comes from trusting in God's wisdom
>and trusting in His fatherly care.
And if it comes, it is "god's will".
I prefer working actively against it, accepting that it might come but
not that it might stay. I also find it hard for you to praise for
saving you the very same fellow that put you in the trouble in the
first place.
It would be like me throwing you into a river and then throw you a
rope.
>> The natural, spontaneous reactions of the healthy
>> mammal in us are curbed- - not in order serve the civilized
>> community better - - but because such actions are considered
>> to be inherently evil. No wonder we view our own bodies -
>> -and particularly those portions thereof that are more
>> subject to the command of nature than to ourselves -- with
>> shame, and are easily offended by the sight of such when
>> others expose such parts.. No wonder the Heaven’s Gate lads
>
>Hang on there, Andy. You need to read Song of Solomon again. There's
>nothing sinful or dirty about the sexual urges and desires that God
>built into the human being. Quite the opposite, in fact. But only in
>context. Outside of marriage (whether premarital or extramarital)
>sexual intercourse is absolutely forbidden. Why? It's just like I tell
>my teenage son to keep his pants zipped because of disease, unexpected
>and unplanned pregnancies, and other complications from moving into a
>too intimate relationship before the two parties are emotionally,
>physically, and financially capable of maintaining that relationship.
There are thousands and thousands of pairs that do not fool around,
yet you conveniently forget them. One does not need marriage for other
than legal matters - responsible sex is possible without it.
>God cares for us at least as much as I care for my own son.
How do you know that? He might pretend to do so, but evidence points
against it.
> He doesn't
>want us dipping our wicks all over town, running the risk of having it
>fall off completely. He doesn't want us incurring the responsibility
>for another human life (the child or the mother) before we are
>completely prepared for it. He's just like any other father.
Extrapolating a little eh?
Then just like every father he'd realize that when his sons/daughter
is a mature woman, whether she has sex or not is none of his business.
And you're assuming that all people are irresponsible *until they get
married*.
>
>Keep sex within the marriage vows and God is all for it. Tells us to do
>it, in fact. With His blessing.
Doesn't address the point and just some bleating.
>
>> Look at what a paradox this attempt to stifle the
>> sex urge has created! Now this once simple drive has become
>> a year long obsession, filling our newspapers, magazines and
>> television with stories about sexual harassment, rape and
>> adultery. Pretending outrage, the press gives us our sex
>> vicariously - - a sort of safe sex, a Platonic peek show.
>> Every editor knows that homosexuality, abortions and
>> promiscuity are subjects that arouse the readers to
>> excitement, even anger.
>
>Yes, pornography has developed as a vicarious replacement for the real
>thing. Television and other media give a watered down version of the
>same thing for the faint of heart. But the whole thing is an outgrowth
>of men failing to give women the respect they deserve. According to the
>stories of Genesis, woman is made from man's rib and man has ever since
>been incomplete without a woman to stand by his side forever. This
>essential element of man's existence deserves, and should be given, the
>utmost respect. When we fail to respect women as we would our own
>mothers, wives, or daughters, we end up with pornography. Girls dancing
>in strip joints that should be going to their senior proms, and films
>being made of activities that even the most hardened athiest would agree
>are distasteful.
There are women who elect to go into that field of work for specific
reasons - some argue that it is easy money. Not all are forced by the
environment and not all people *not* in the field disrespect them.
And, given gods logic, I wouldn't be a whole man since I've had my
appendix (evolution in action) removed.
*evil grin* Distasteful? Yeah, the urine and animal stuff mayhap ;)
>
>> Meanwhile we feverishly try to keep pretending we
>> are not really mammals with natural drives - we wash
>> ourselves often to keep our natural smell from arousing
>> anyone, and even go to the extent of using deodorants to
>> make ourselves appear even more asexual. We keep those parts
>> of our body that most remind us of our animal nature well
>> covered. We are careful to never use an active verb to
>> describe copulation. We practice sex furtively; we prefer
>> the dark.
>
>Do you think that maybe we do these things simply out of consideration
>of our fellow man? That we don't offer too many visual distractions and
>temptations to do things we shouldn't?
Nope, we do it out of culturally and religiously based repression.
>
>> Nature has made it pretty plain that we must obey
>> its edicts, like it or not, or pay the price, and boy, are
>> we ever paying the price!
>
>Right. We're paying the price all right. Rampant STDs. Thousands of
>children being born without fathers every year. Thousands more being
>terminated without even that slim chance at success.
What has this to do with sex outside marriage? STD's happen to married
couples as well.
>There is a really great economic argument which I've used with my
>daughter to encourage her to protect her valuable commodities. But
>that's a topic for another message.
Her virginity ain't worth shit in my book. I prefer sexually active
and enlightened women, not insecure repressed ones.
>
>Derek
>
>
--
(Santa)Claus Lisberg,
Founder of PSWEH (Poor Students With Expensive Hobbies)
Nirfur prophet #1, a.a.o.m #12
"A casual stroll through an asylum will show that faith proves nothing." - F. Nietzsche
Derek Maddox
> And, can you give us some examples of consistent interpretations? And, will
> someone PLEASE explain to me why Gawd needs an interpreter in the first place?
> Why doesn't he just talk plainly to the people?
I can give you at least one. There is a passage in one of Paul's letters that
instructs women to remain silent in church, and to ask their husbands questions
about sermons when they get home. For centuries that single passage has been used
to keep women out of classrooms, pulpits, and other positions of authority in the
church. Yet modern research into the culture and society of the first few
centuries of the Common Era has shed new light on this passage.It turns out that,
services were informal and held in warehouses, barns, rooms over the tavern,
anywhere they could rent a room large enough. The speaker would stand or sit in
the center of the room, with the men of the community immediately around him. The
women and children would stand or sit at the edges of the group. Unfortunately,
they couldn't always hear what was being said in the center of the room and were
constantly murmuring among themselves explaining the parts that had been missed.
Paul finally got tired of talking over the noise and asked them just to be quiet
and catch whatever they missed when they got home. No intention of holding women
out of teaching or preaching positions.
Study of period history for all ancient writings, the Bible included, helps shed
light and understanding on confusing passages.
> As an Irishman, I'd suggest you learn what you're talking about. The problems
> in NORTHERN Ireland (not the Republic of Ireland) are NOT based on religion.
> It's the uninformed who make that assumption.
I'm sorry that I gave you reason to be offended. You may be sure that was not my
intention. I know that the divisions in Northern Ireland have deep political
roots, but there is also a significant religious element in the strife. I am
completely willing to believe, however, that without the political controversy that
the Protestant and Catholic religious communities would live harmoniously.
> >a Christian, I am no more responsible for acts of antiquity than modern
> >Wiccans are responsible (or accountable) for the human sacrifices ancient
> >practitioners of that religion performed.
>
> This is my point; the continuation of misinformation. Funny how all religions
> (except for Christianity) had human sacrifices, and it took the *christians*
> to reveal this. Unless you can prove the claim, stop perpetuating it.
I have no first hand knowledge or evidence of sacrifices of any kind, animal or
human. However, articles in generally reputable scientific journals (Scientific
American among them) have published papers speculating on the "bog bodies" found
preserved in the peat bogs of Scandinavia. Young men in their prime killed,
apparently quietly, with an elaborately braided noose. The supposition was that
this was a ritual execution or sacrifice. Then there are the numerous papers,
articles, and media reports of ancient sacrificial practices among the early South
American populations. There have even been reports (however controversial) of
ritual execution and cannibalism among the early Native American population of
Arizona and New Mexico.
I can't be sure that such sacrifices took place, but that wasn't really the point.
Even if they DID occur in the mists of the past, modern practitioners of religions
descended and evolved from that early form are not to be held accountable for
things we may find horrific today. Just as Lutherans, Baptists, Methodists,
Mormons, and others can't be held accountable for the atrocities of the
Inquisition.
Derek
Andrew Mulcahy
On Tue, 9 Jun 1998 00:25:09 -0600, Ian Samuels
<ilsa...@acs.ucalgary.ca> wrote:
>
> c) It plays directly into the hands of
>those who would stereotype feminists as Andrew
>Mulcahy attempted to do in his post.
picked up from a real feminist. As a secularist, I am fully
aware of how our religious culture has denigrated women as
unreliable, potentially disloyal, temptresses.
Feminists have a gargantuan battle ahead of them to
erase that image of woman and Fully support them.
Note that I was essentially trying to show how our
society has, through the artificial inhibition of this basic
drive, paid a much higher price than if we had faced our
natural inclinations in a more honest manner.
Cheers,
Andy
Life is but a momentary glimpse at the wonder of
this astonishing Universe and it is sad to see
so many dreaming it away on spiritual fantasies
Carl Funk
Derek Maddox wrote:
>
<snip>
> OK, so a few hundred years ago atrocities were committed in the name of
> religion. I don't dispute it. What's that got to do with TODAY? Back then,
> the only Christian church of note was the Roman Catholic. Today there are
> look too closely at Ireland). Personally, I attend a Lutheran Church,
> Wiccans are responsible (or accountable) for the human sacrifices ancient
> practitioners of that religion performed.
>
Derek,
You don't know very much about your church, do you? The LC-MS has
been
around a lot longer than "a few decades." The *name* was shortened to
"Lutheran Church - Missouri Synod" at the church's centennial, in 1947.
The church was founded in 1847, 151 years ago.
http://www.chi.lcms.org/lcms/synod150.htm
I wonder how many other things about your church you don't know?
An ex-Lutheran,
Carl
--
Carl Funk "nil illegitimi carborundum"
to bypass my SPAM-deflector, it helps if you realize I am
asthmatic. i.e. no SMOKING please!
Darklady
Derek Maddox wrote in message <357C2F9C...@ball.com>...
>OK, so a few hundred years ago atrocities were committed in the name of
>religion. I don't dispute it. What's that got to do with TODAY? Back
then,
>the only Christian church of note was the Roman Catholic. Today there are
>hundreds of varieties that exist on basically friendly terms (if you don't
>look too closely at Ireland). Personally, I attend a Lutheran Church,
>Missouri Synod, congregation. They didn't exist until a few decades ago.
As
>a Christian, I am no more responsible for acts of antiquity than modern
>Wiccans are responsible (or accountable) for the human sacrifices ancient
>practitioners of that religion performed.
You want something to feel guilty about? Here's something. My
boyfriend's father was a Missouri Synod minister. He brought about my
boyfriend's conception by browbeating and guilt tripping one of his college
students; a young virgin from an abusive and alcoholic family. He then
blamed her for ruining his life and future by becoming pregnant. He divorced
his current wife, married the student and knocked her up 8 more times (5
more live births) and refused to let her use birth control. He beat his
first child by her until he either broke bones or knocked the child out and
blamed him for all his problems. And all the while he preached hellfire and
brimstone from the pulpits of his congregations (he traveled about). No one
contradicted him or suggested he should change his ways, even when he beat
his son to the ground and unconscious in front of the congregation.
You can start with that.
-- Darklady
http://www.spiritone.com/~darklady
ICQ 10830459
Atheist Man
Carl Funk wrote in message <357F6B...@SMOKINGameritech.net>...
>Derek,
> You don't know very much about your church, do you? The LC-MS has
>been
>around a lot longer than "a few decades." The *name* was shortened to
>"Lutheran Church - Missouri Synod" at the church's centennial, in 1947.
>The church was founded in 1847, 151 years ago.
>http://www.chi.lcms.org/lcms/synod150.htm
> I wonder how many other things about your church you don't know?
>
> An ex-Lutheran,
> Carl
Hey, I'm ex-LCMS, too!
Hell, I went to an LCMS college, and I didn't know how old the Synod was.
Fascinating.
________________________
Atheist Man
Atheist #1190 BAAWA!!!
High Priest of the Church of Hawking
(Atheist Minister #5)
(ath...@atheist.com)
==================================
"God fucked everything up; Jesus never existed."
==================================
Derek Maddox
The situation you describe is certainly tragic. The behavior of the minister in
this example is not in keeping with the teaching of the Lutheran Church,
Missouri Synod. (Hellfire and brimstone are not typical sermon topics in
Missouri Synod churches.)
However, I'm not willing to paint the entire religious population of the United
States with this guy's paintbrush. Just as I'm not willing to blame all doctors
or lawyers for the unethical behavior of a few. Those few who violate the
ethical and moral codes of conduct for any organization should be ostracized by
that organization immediately, if not punished by the civil or criminal courts
for their behavior.
Derek
G L 'Bonz' Newman
>On Tue, 9 Jun 1998, XXX wrote:
>
>> >> Flirtations become sexual harassment;
>> >
>> >If the woman does not desire being "flirted" with, it IS sexual harassment.
>> Because you and all your feminazi friends have so declared. Enough is
>> enough. Your crap has to stop...
>
>This statement above bothers me. I try to take a non-biased, logial,
>open-minded approach to the entire subject of gender & related issues
>(sometimes I even succeed. :) ), which means I'm usually conservative in
>making any strong claim one way or the other...
>
>But unwanted flirtation being considered sexual harassment, something
>punishable by law, is this really fair? Many times I've been confronted
>by people that start up conversations with me, when I'm really not in the
>mood to talk. Their initiation of the conversation is unwanted by me, but
>certainly these are no grounds for taking the person to court?
If you are in the workplace and have some way to influence her
career, yes it is. What is allowable for you depends on who you are
at the time. You can act one way as a private citizen. Once you
identify yourself as a police officer, for instance, a different
standard applies.
I have the option of walking away from a private citizen. I do not
have the same option with a cop. What he does under the color of
authority is different from what he may do privately.
>
>It's not obvious what the difference is with flirtation, it is only a
>particular form of conversation. If a woman feels terribly uncomfortable
>by such flirtation, I think the burden lies on her to make her feelings
>clear.
Really? When she may risk discharge, or a lack of status on her job
is she does? Why should she have to deal with the problem in such a
way as her decision may affect her ability to pay the mortgage, or
feed her kids?
> Only when she openly expresses her feelings and properly warns the
>offending man, and he continues to bother her, can she have any reasonable
>case for harassment. But the act of flirtation alone, even if unwanted,
>how can this constitute harassment?
>
>Hmm, maybe I'm just confused about the exact situation you meant by that.
>
>-Greg
>
-- Bonz
PLEASE revove THE OBVIOUS from my address to reply by Email.
Ken & Laura Chaddock
G L 'Bonz' Newman wrote:
> >But unwanted flirtation being considered sexual harassment, something
> >punishable by law, is this really fair? Many times I've been confronted
> >by people that start up conversations with me, when I'm really not in the
> >mood to talk. Their initiation of the conversation is unwanted by me, but
> >certainly these are no grounds for taking the person to court?
>
> If you are in the workplace and have some way to influence her
> career, yes it is. What is allowable for you depends on who you are
> at the time. You can act one way as a private citizen. Once you
> identify yourself as a police officer, for instance, a different
> standard applies.
Only true to a certain extent. A police officer isn't *always* a
police officer otherwise we've laid an inhumanly unrealistic burden
upon him/her (and had pretty soon start to pay them several million
dollars a year to compensate for such a complete loss of freddom and
privacy !)
People have to take responsibility for their own "comfort". If
someone starts a conversation with you and you really don't want to
talk to them, tell them, since that is probably the only way they
will KNOW that you don't want to talk to them. You have at least a
moral (and should have a legal) obligation to express your desire or
lack there of and should not be supprised that someone persists if
they are not (gently) discouraged.
*MOST* people are reasonable, *VERY* few people take offence to
being told that their contact is undesired at that moment, if told
so in a non-confrontational and "gentle" way. It is pretty easy to
let someone down "easily" rather than being totally obnoxious and
incourteous in rebuffing them. This is a "talent" we seem to be losing,
the "gentle" put down, the responsibility for which I tend to assign
to the "Andrea D'workin school of obnxious feminists who feel they
have to destroy egoes to say no.
> >It's not obvious what the difference is with flirtation, it is only a
> >particular form of conversation. If a woman feels terribly uncomfortable
> >by such flirtation, I think the burden lies on her to make her feelings
> >clear.
>
> Really? When she may risk discharge, or a lack of status on her job
> is she does? Why should she have to deal with the problem in such a
> way as her decision may affect her ability to pay the mortgage, or
> feed her kids?
That depends upon the way she handles the situation. While there
certainly ARE obnoxious men and women who try to use their positions
to gain "favours", sexual or otherwise, it has been my experience that
people who react badly to a rebuff tend to do so out of embarrasment
rather than anger (unless they have been "roughly" rebuffed).
> > Only when she openly expresses her feelings and properly warns the
> >offending man, and he continues to bother her, can she have any reasonable
> >case for harassment. But the act of flirtation alone, even if unwanted,
> >how can this constitute harassment?
I agree with this but would also like to encourage a graduated
approach
to such a situation. Consider a job action; you don't immediately fire
an
employee for a minor "offence" but rather give them, first constructive
critism, then a verbal warning, then written then disclipinary action
and,
if the situation/behaviour continues, finally fire them.
The same approach should be followed in this situation, first a
(relatively) "gentle" but firm rebuff, (ie: John/Sally, this is my work
place and I'm really not interested in persuing a personal relationship
with a co-worker) If this proves ineffective, follow with a more
forcefull
but still civil rebuff (ie: Look, John/Sally, I really ment what I said
about not being interested in persuing a relationship with a co-worker.
I don't want to have a problem at work but your behaviour is starting to
bother me and if you continue, I'll have take action) If they still
don't
finally get the message, take the appropriate action, whether that be
going
to higher work authority or loging a complaint with a human rights
agency
or what ever.
Again, *MOST* people are reasonable, the necessity for taking extreme
action will probably be quite uncommon.
...Ken
Carl Funk
Atheist Man wrote:
>
> Carl Funk wrote in message <357F6B...@SMOKINGameritech.net>...
>
> >Derek,
> > You don't know very much about your church, do you? The LC-MS has
> >been
> >around a lot longer than "a few decades." The *name* was shortened to
> >"Lutheran Church - Missouri Synod" at the church's centennial, in 1947.
> >The church was founded in 1847, 151 years ago.
> >http://www.chi.lcms.org/lcms/synod150.htm
> > I wonder how many other things about your church you don't know?
> >
> > An ex-Lutheran,
> > Carl
>
> Hey, I'm ex-LCMS, too!
>
> Hell, I went to an LCMS college, and I didn't know how old the Synod was.
> Fascinating.
>
> ________________________
> Atheist Man
I went to a Lutheran grade school (K-8), and was seriously
thinking about going to Concordia College, Ann Arbor, MI (LCMS).
Recently I went slumming through some Creationist websites,
and came across a listing of colleges that actually teach
creation science. To my horror, I noticed Concordia was on the
list! BTW, I ended up going to Univ. of Mich. (Dearborn campus),
where they teach *real* science.
Sarah.J...@biologie.uni-bielefeld.de
<reposted visa DN because my server is freaking again>
Derek Maddox posted the following to alt.atheism:
<snippers>
> Outside of marriage (whether premarital or extramarital)
> sexual intercourse is absolutely forbidden. [...]
Now *you* hold on right there. Marriage itself means nothing whatsoever. The
only important matter to consider is -- as you said -- whether two people
feel emotionally ready for sex and/or a lasting relationship. And marriage is
certainly not a requirement for that -- rather, if people do marry, it should
be the *result* of being ready to handle a long-term partnership.
Besides, no one can "forbid" anyone to have sex, and no one should dare to.
It is one thing, and a definitely neccessary one at that, to warn young
people that sex can have unpleasant consequences -- but prohibition will only
bring about increased curiosity on one hand and wrong expectations, even
misery, on the other. Respect for each other, not a few scribbles on a piece
of paper, should be what makes a relationship work.
> God cares for us at least as much as I care for my own son. [...]
Stop trying to apply your very subjective belief system to other people as if
it were commonly agreed on and/or proven truth. For all it's worth, your
religion is only "somebody else's wacky belief", regardless of how strongly
you may feel about it. (In fact, to outsiders it may very well appear "the
stronger, the wackier".)
<snip>
> [...] But the whole thing is an outgrowth
> of men failing to give women the respect they deserve.
It's a rare thing that I actually agree with an xtian, but on this point I do
agree, though probably not for the same reasons. My reasons for disliking
porn are the lack of respect for women and the twisted image of women and sex
that it creates -- not "morale" crap. "Morality" cannot be hurt, *people*
can.
> [...] Girls dancing
> in strip joints that should be going to their senior proms, and films
> being made of activities that even the most hardened athiest would agree
> are distasteful.
Calling names now, are we, Mr. holier-than-thou xtian? FYI, atheists are at
least as moral as any theist, and consumation of pornography has nothing to do
with someone's belief or lack thereof. I for one am an atheist lesbian, and I
hate porn.
<snip>
> Do you think that maybe we do these things simply out of consideration
> of our fellow man? That we don't offer too many visual distractions and
> temptations to do things we shouldn't?
Enjoying sex is a "forbidden temptation" only if you swallow xtianity or are
otherwise sexually inhibited.
~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*
Sarah
Atheist #1102
"Don't let the people who live on fear and hate govern how you live."
- Melissa Etheridge
"The best thing I ever did was to come out."
- k.d.lang
(Replace "firedancer" with "Biologie.Uni-Bielefeld" to reply by mail.)
~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*
-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----
http://www.dejanews.com/ Now offering spam-free web-based newsreading
Sarah.J...@biologie.uni-bielefeld.de
<reposted via DN because my server is freaking again>
Ian Samuels posted the following to alt.atheism:
<snip>
> Of most feminists, quite true, but I would
> also say it's a bit disingenous to elide the
> extremists from this statement, particularly since
> its these (or some version thereof) that Andrew
> seems to be reacting against.
Agreed, but to me, he did not seem to be talking explicitly about these
extremist nutcases, and I have found that the very word "feminist" is often
used in a derogatory and insulting way. If anything, we might agree that both
Andrew and I are "guilty" of some generalizing. :-)
> Those like Andrea
> Dworkin, who basically categorized all
> heterosexual sex as rape and those women who
> participated in it as slaves to a fascist
> patriarchy, probably can't be accused of simply
> "telling women that their bodies are okay as they
> are;" there was a bit more to it.
Heh. Don't think that the average feminist does NOT share your feelings about
this kind of women. They are to us what a ultra-religious creationist is to
the average, decent xtian. And rest assured that if one of these female
wackos told one of my straight friends that loving men is "fascist", I'd tell
that woman to go get fucked herself. It is my absolute conviction that
anything that happens between *consenting partners* is nobody's damn
business.
While we're already at quoting extremist nutcases, I have even less respect
for obviously hate-filled morons who use the term "feminazi" or claim
something along the vein of "Feminism causes women to leave their husbands,
kill their children, practice witchcraft and become lesbians" than I do for
ultra-feminists who think they have to save women from themselves and the
all-evil males. :-(
Both extremism and denial ultimately show nothing but a (deliberate?) failure
to honestly look at a problem and try to work it out.
<snippers>
> For one thing, the "half-starved girlie
> with giant tits and skimpy clothing" is not a
> prevalent figure on fashion runways that I've
> noticed -- only the "half-starved girlie" part of
> that statement holds true in mainstream modelling,
> and that is an image being propogated by a
> fashion industry in which female designers and
> agents are really quite well represented.
Gender has nothing to do with an "enlightened" mindset. There are plenty of
women who treat their "sisters" like shit´, and plenty of men who treat women
as equal partners. However, the most "successful" designers (Lagerfeld,
Klein, what have you) are almost exclusively male, and are also the ones who
create "fashion" that does not even deserve the term "clothing" anymore in
many cases.
> The "giant tits and skimpy clothing" bit
> does turn up in media designed to appeal to the
> more stereotypically adolescent male, but one of
> the most notable things about this image of
> beauty, which _can_ be said to be largely
> male-constructed, is that it _cannot_ be said to
> be mainstream -- seeing as it's confined to more
> marginal media from soft porn on down (and yes,
> Baywatch qualifies).
Not quite true. Consider this -- can you claim that "sex appeal" and "good
looks" are NOT a lot more important for women celebrities than for their male
counterparts? You have a good number of famous older male actors and
musicians, for example -- but where are the female equivalents for Sean
Connery or the Rolling Stones? If you know Star Trek, can you say that Jean
Luc Picard might just as well have been an older *female* captain? Do men get
bombarded constantly with hints on how to be more "sexy", "desirably", etc.?
Are naked or semi-naked males used to sell more "women stuff", like
scantily-clad women are used to promote sales of nearly everything? And so
on. The emphasis on physical attractiveness *above everything else* is not
present in society's images of males.
Also, look at clothing -- "typical" women's clothing (like skirts, dresses or
high heels) is often pretty impractical or even hindering. You'll find no
such thing in "male" clothing. That's what caused the desire of early
feminists to wear trousers -- convenience, practicality, freedom of movement.
Throughout history, you'll find a good deal of examples for "women's
clothing" and "beauty standards" that are, in fact, crippling the female
body. Corsets or binding the feet of Chinese women come to mind here.
> Now, I suppose you can accuse the
> mainstream female designers of furthering a
> patriarchally convenient image of the female body
> (as underdeveloped, more girlie and less
> threatening), but since they could feasibly attack
> any alternative image you chose to advance with
> very similar arguments, this strikes me as
> counterproductive.
The counter-arguments are usually that "overly strong" women "lose their
femininity and attractiveness", are "not womanly", etc. That's certainly not
the same.
> What might be more useful is to
> recognize that both sexes play an active (if not
> always balanced) role in determining gendered
> images of beauty, and that attributing these
> images solely to "males... who apparently cannot
> bear the thought of a strong, independent,
> *mature* woman" is a mistake on three counts:
As I said, there are lots of women who either go along with outdated
klischees or even attack any attempt of eliminating said klischees. Women
often *do* treat other worse than men treat women, there's no denying that.
So, indeed, it's not "solely" males, but "mostly" males who are responsible
for perpetuating old stereotypes.
<snip>
> Just some food for thought. Very astute
> post otherwise.
Thanks. :-)
~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*
Sarah
Atheist #1102
"Don't let the people who live on fear and hate govern how you live."
- Melissa Etheridge
"The best thing I ever did was to come out."
- k.d.lang
(Replace "firedancer" with "Biologie.Uni-Bielefeld" to reply by mail.)
~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*
-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----
Dave Haas
Have you ever wondered exactally why God is hung up on this sex
thing? Why should God give a crap about human sexual activity? It
doesn't make sense.
I think that maybe the guy or guys that thought up the sex rules had
serious problems in this area. Oh.. but if we could listen in on
their conversations.- Now John what do you think about sex before
marriage? Dammit if I can't get any I don't think anybody else
should either. What am I going to do with my wife? Do you know what
she has been up to?....
D. Haas
Darklady
Sarah.J...@Biologie.Uni-Bielefeld.de wrote in message
<6luqk1$78p$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>...
>> [...] But the whole thing is an outgrowth
>> of men failing to give women the respect they deserve.
>
>It's a rare thing that I actually agree with an xtian, but on this point I
do
>agree, though probably not for the same reasons. My reasons for disliking
>porn are the lack of respect for women and the twisted image of women and
sex
>that it creates -- not "morale" crap. "Morality" cannot be hurt, *people*
>can.
Hate to throw a monkey wrench into all this good moralizing from both
ends but, as someone who has intimate contacts in the sex industry
(including porn world) I think that this statement is WAY oversimplifying
the industry. While there are certainly those who do not respect women in
the business, it is becoming an increasingly excellent place for women to
work. More women are producing videos, writing scripts, directing, and
marketing, as well as acting. I think the idea that porn is full of
"twisted images of women and sex" is outdated. Yeah, there are a lot of
fake boobs (and even those in the industry are starting to protest that) and
there are some misogynistic videos out there but those are valid fantasies
as well. It's reality I'm far more worried about. And misogynistic
realities are brought into being by people who DON'T watch porn far more
often by those who do.
The most "twisted" image of sex that porn creates are the positions...
and that's because there's a damn camera poking itself in the way. <g>
>Enjoying sex is a "forbidden temptation" only if you swallow xtianity or
are
>otherwise sexually inhibited.
That's exactly what most of the folks I know who work in porn think.
-- Darklady
http://www.spiritone.com/~darklady
ICQ 10830459
Atheist #184
Davidson
Sarah.J...@Biologie.Uni-Bielefeld.de wrote:
>
> <reposted via DN because my server is freaking again>
>
> Ian Samuels posted the following to alt.atheism:
>
> <snip>
>
< snipping a very reasonable discussion of extremism on all sides.>
I wonder how old you guys are (you don't have to answer!) When I was
in Junior High School, over 30 years ago, all girls had to wear dresses
and all boys had to wear ties. I think they were preparing
us to be businesslike sheep. Think how much better kids today
have it! My daughter who is 16, gets her clothes from thrift shops
(by choice, not necessity - don't send the Salvation Army :). She would
have gotten kicked out of school if she went when I did.
>
> > For one thing, the "half-starved girlie
> > with giant tits and skimpy clothing" is not a
> > prevalent figure on fashion runways that I've
> > noticed -- only the "half-starved girlie" part of
> > that statement holds true in mainstream modelling,
> > and that is an image being propogated by a
> > fashion industry in which female designers and
> > agents are really quite well represented.
>
> Gender has nothing to do with an "enlightened" mindset. There are plenty of
> women who treat their "sisters" like shit´, and plenty of men who treat women
> as equal partners. However, the most "successful" designers (Lagerfeld,
> Klein, what have you) are almost exclusively male, and are also the ones who
> create "fashion" that does not even deserve the term "clothing" anymore in
> many cases.
>
My perception is that "fashion" has been marginalized. No one except
the really rich and anorexic expects to wear the stuff they see on
the runways. The stupid hemline wars seem to have been won by
common sense years ago. The super-model fetish seems to be more fame
than looks. Calvin Klein retreated from heroin chic to outdoor chic.
I'm not defending the fashion industry, (the whole thing seems as stupid
as religion to me) but their certainly don't seem to have the clout
they had 20 years ago. More a sideshow than something to listen to.
> > The "giant tits and skimpy clothing" bit
> > does turn up in media designed to appeal to the
> > more stereotypically adolescent male, but one of
> > the most notable things about this image of
> > beauty, which _can_ be said to be largely
> > male-constructed, is that it _cannot_ be said to
> > be mainstream -- seeing as it's confined to more
> > marginal media from soft porn on down (and yes,
> > Baywatch qualifies).
>
> Not quite true. Consider this -- can you claim that "sex appeal" and "good
> looks" are NOT a lot more important for women celebrities than for their male
> counterparts? You have a good number of famous older male actors and
> musicians, for example -- but where are the female equivalents for Sean
> Connery or the Rolling Stones? If you know Star Trek, can you say that Jean
> Luc Picard might just as well have been an older *female* captain? Do men get
> bombarded constantly with hints on how to be more "sexy", "desirably", etc.?
> Are naked or semi-naked males used to sell more "women stuff", like
> scantily-clad women are used to promote sales of nearly everything? And so
> on. The emphasis on physical attractiveness *above everything else* is not
> present in society's images of males.
> Well, ever watch Star Trek Voyager? (Older female Captain.) There are all sorts
of examples and counterexamples. Katherine Hepburn. Kathy Bates. (I know,
not a big star, but overweight males get stereotyped as clowns, while she
really acts.) In rock 30 years ago there were no self-directed female groups.
But, how about Ella Fitzgerald? Aretha Franklin?
I notice lots more semi-naked male ads then there were 20 years ago.
I don't know if this is due to gay buying power or female buying power,
but it is there. Nothing like GQ existed 30 years ago. Most fashion seems
to be fantasy, poorly done. I remember Playboys with fashion sections about
college clothes that were as far removed from what people really wore to
college as runway fashions are from what people really wore.
The whole thing seems unsane from both sides. Images of beauty are
fashion also (since they change) and men are guilty of being sheep
in buying into the latest craze. But is this really affecting their
personal life? (If men only date women who looked like models there
wouldn't be too many dates. If women dated only men who looked like
the latest craze (Leo? Yuck) ditto. (Sorry for my hetero bias, are
there similar fashion trends in your world?) I think women are much more
ready to do what is right for them than to follow a trend. (I was a bit
young to notice this directly, but my recollection is that in 1961 everyone
wanted to look like Jackie Kennedy. I don't recall any similar widespread
craziness today.)
Anyhow, I agree we all have a ways to go, but things do seem to be better.
I guess we all should be skeptical about following what
the Man says, be it the preacher man or the fashion man.
Scott #1045
Daryl
Sarah.J...@Biologie.Uni-Bielefeld.de wrote in article
> Not quite true. Consider this -- can you claim that "sex appeal" and
"good
> looks" are NOT a lot more important for women celebrities than for their
male
> counterparts? You have a good number of famous older male actors and
> musicians, for example -- but where are the female equivalents for Sean
> Connery or the Rolling Stones?
Tina Turner, Raquel Welch, Sophia Loren
If you know Star Trek, can you say that Jean
> Luc Picard might just as well have been an older *female* captain? Do men
get
> bombarded constantly with hints on how to be more "sexy", "desirably",
etc.?
No, but we are bombarded with the old "be a bigger Wallet" "your wallet is
your prick" which on a visceral level equates with desirability. Consider,
we as a species have not significantly changed since we were all rubbing
sticks together to make fire and banging rocks to make knives. Then what
was desireable was a woman who was healthy and robust, and especially one
who could survive the rigors of childbearing and propegate the species.
What was desirable in a man was one who could sleep in a snowbank, could
chuck a spear about a hundred yards and carry a mastodon home on his back.
Since then we have invented a number of tools to help us deal with the
problems of procreation food and shelter, buuuuut we are essentially the
same inside. This is 'part' of the reason we all seem to desire more, a
bigger part of this is the capitalisation of this by people who recognise
this trait in the species. Simply put, all humans want security for the
future, a woman trained to be insecure or one who plans to raise a lot of
kids will want a strong provider. Likewise a man who wants a safe home
will choose a well organised, strongwilled and honorable partner.
> Are naked or semi-naked males used to sell more "women stuff", like
> scantily-clad women are used to promote sales of nearly everything?
heh heh heh just what you want to see on a box of maxi thins, some beefcake
with a knowing gaze and a lfted eyebrow, clad only in his boxers, with a
hint of what might be razor burn on his face.
And so
> on. The emphasis on physical attractiveness *above everything else* is
not
> present in society's images of males.
no, the ability to provide above everything else, oh yeah and you've not
only be able to provide like a billionaire rockstar, you have to be HOT too
otherwise the one for whom you are providing will satisfy that part of
their needs on the nearest Fabio lookalike.
> Also, look at clothing -- "typical" women's clothing (like skirts,
dresses or
> high heels) is often pretty impractical or even hindering.
in the 20th century you mean, have you looked at 17th or 16th cent stuff
particularly the upper class clothing. Hindering clothing is a
psychological kick for the wearer, "I can wear this impractical shit and
still (fill in the blank with look good, make a buck, etc.) so you've
never seen a kilt either eh
You'll find no
> such thing in "male" clothing. That's what caused the desire of early
> feminists to wear trousers -- convenience, practicality, freedom of
movement.
I can agree to this, with the proviso that working class clothing tends to
be more practical than rich dude stuff.
> Throughout history, you'll find a good deal of examples for "women's
> clothing" and "beauty standards" that are, in fact, crippling the female
> body. Corsets or binding the feet of Chinese women come to mind here.
yes in those cultures which treated women as second class humans these
standards and crippling features occoured. However in those cultures where
women were not treated as second class humans but as equal persons with a
different role to play "shepherd and spinner" womens fashions were dictated
by cultural and climactic tastes and by female practicality.
>
> The counter-arguments are usually that "overly strong" women "lose their
> femininity and attractiveness", are "not womanly", etc. That's certainly
not
> the same.
>
Only if she, swears like a drunken sailor, "flirts" in a manner unbefitting
a higher primate, and is otherwise interpreting the worst features of so
called maleness in her own boorish way. If she is strong without stooping
to those attributes I would find her attractive, frankly I cannot
understand why women are attracted to men who act in this way.
> As I said, there are lots of women who either go along with outdated
> klischees or even attack any attempt of eliminating said klischees. Women
> often *do* treat other worse than men treat women, there's no denying
that.
> So, indeed, it's not "solely" males, but "mostly" males who are
responsible
> for perpetuating old stereotypes.
as men often treat each other more harshly than women would treat us, I
think it is mostly older males and the sheep in their folds who blindly
perpetuate the old stereotypes. Keep firmly in mind that for some 80,000
odd years the roles of men and women were divided into, babymaking,
primary culturation, making sure there IS fire and that it does not burn
down the house, and gathering of plants and some hunting, for women.
Gathering, more gathering, killing food, teaching young to do same, for men
oh yeah and getting more stuff. Both would defend their stuff, seek
shelter, and provide amusements and other neccesaries for the intellect.
If you are able to keep this reality in your mind, the seemingly
inexplicable shit of the modern day becomes clearer.
> > Just some food for thought. Very astute
> > post otherwise.
>
I think so too, and gave more food for thought.
Better the Hammer than the Nail
D
Chris
Sarah.J...@Biologie.Uni-Bielefeld.de wrote:
>
> <reposted visa DN because my server is freaking again>
>
> Derek Maddox posted the following to alt.atheism:
>
> <snippers>
>
> > Outside of marriage (whether premarital or extramarital)
> > sexual intercourse is absolutely forbidden. [...]
>
> Now *you* hold on right there. Marriage itself means nothing whatsoever. The
> only important matter to consider is -- as you said -- whether two people
> feel emotionally ready for sex and/or a lasting relationship. And marriage is
> certainly not a requirement for that -- rather, if people do marry, it should
> be the *result* of being ready to handle a long-term partnership.
our traditional institutions needs to be respected and maintained by our
society. You would have me believe respect nothing if it doesn't fit
your lifestyle, how convenient.
> Besides, no one can "forbid" anyone to have sex, and no one should dare to.
Yes you can, it's called parenting and teaching values and morals. Any
animal can perform the act of sex. What seperates us is a moral code and
respect for ourselves and the institution of marriage.
> It is one thing, and a definitely neccessary one at that, to warn young
> people that sex can have unpleasant consequences -- but prohibition will only
> bring about increased curiosity on one hand and wrong expectations, even
> misery, on the other. Respect for each other, not a few scribbles on a piece
> of paper, should be what makes a relationship work.
>
> > God cares for us at least as much as I care for my own son. [...]
>
> Stop trying to apply your very subjective belief system to other people as if
> it were commonly agreed on and/or proven truth.
Practice what you preach
For all it's worth, your
> religion is only "somebody else's wacky belief", regardless of how strongly
> you may feel about it. (In fact, to outsiders it may very well appear "the
> stronger, the wackier".)
The feeling is mutual, I find your atheism much the same as you define
xianity
> <snip>
>
> > [...] But the whole thing is an outgrowth
> > of men failing to give women the respect they deserve.
>
> It's a rare thing that I actually agree with an xtian, but on this point I do
> agree, though probably not for the same reasons. My reasons for disliking
> porn are the lack of respect for women and the twisted image of women and sex
> that it creates -- not "morale" crap. "Morality" cannot be hurt, *people*
> can.
What makes our morals as a society impervious to degradation from the
uncontrolled access to porn? Moral "crap" is the cause for the personal
damage you cite. The less moral a society is the more likely immoral
events are to occur. Pretty simple logic.
> > [...] Girls dancing
> > in strip joints that should be going to their senior proms, and films
> > being made of activities that even the most hardened athiest would agree
> > are distasteful.
>
> Calling names now, are we, Mr. holier-than-thou xtian? FYI, atheists are at
> least as moral as any theist, and consumation of pornography has nothing to do
> with someone's belief or lack thereof. I for one am an atheist lesbian, and I
> hate porn.
Yea right, The xian people that i know wouldn't aquire,watch,create,
participate,or in any fashion be party to pornographic material. The
poster did generalise, but your claim is less credulous and just as
generalised.
> > Do you think that maybe we do these things simply out of consideration
> > of our fellow man? That we don't offer too many visual distractions and
> > temptations to do things we shouldn't?
>
> Enjoying sex is a "forbidden temptation" only if you swallow xtianity or are
> otherwise sexually inhibited.
>
Yes,outside of wedlock sex is inappropriate. Enjoying sex is not
forbidden as your childish notion of xianity conjurs up. If you
categorize gay sex as inhibited then i agree. Otherwise you are out in
"left" field.
Chris Hill
Chris
Darklady wrote:
<take out the trash>
>
> >Enjoying sex is a "forbidden temptation" only if you swallow xtianity or
> are
> >otherwise sexually inhibited.
>
> That's exactly what most of the folks I know who work in porn think.
>
> -- Darklady
>
As usual DL has a personal story to share which validates all. You must
be living a very full life. What a surprise the snow white clean porn
industry shares an atheist opinion regarding sexually immoral conduct.
Facts about the porn industry? you make it sound like a fourtune 500
industry with 401k's and medical coverage. EXPLOITATION lets say it
together now EXPLOITATION. That single word sums up the porn world. They
seduce at risk youths with money and drugs and unlimited sexual contact.
Great bunch of people your friend's friends. Cut the crap DL
Chris Hill
Darryl L. Pierce
In article <358543...@pacifier.com>, ch...@pacifier.com wrote:
;Facts about the porn industry? you make it sound like a fourtune 500
;industry with 401k's and medical coverage. EXPLOITATION lets say it
;together now EXPLOITATION. That single word sums up the porn world. They
So, it's not a valid profession unless they offer these things? Then I guess
that the kids working at your xtian summer camps are exploited too. Or, do
they get all the bennies as well?
;seduce at risk youths with money and drugs and unlimited sexual contact.
;Great bunch of people your friend's friends. Cut the crap DL
I don't think Amber Lynn, or Crystal Canyons, are kids being seduced with
money and drugs. I know that's what you want to think, and it justifies your
repressed views on casual sex, but it's just not the way it is. Please quote
some sources for this information. I'm not saying it's *never* happened, but I
want to hear your sources of verifiable information on this assertion.
NOTE: I'm not advocating casual sex at all. My wife and I lived together for 2
years and had a son before we were married. Our marriage was just a legal step
and had *nothing* to do with our commitment to each other.
+-------------------------------------+----------------------------------+
| Darryl L. Pierce, Atheist #1142 | "Those not shocked by quantum |
| Resource Solutions, Int'l @ IBM/RTP | theory have not understood it." |
| (919) 254-4583 (919) 547-7177 | Neils Bohr |
+-------------------------------------+----------------------------------+
| This message reflects *MY* opinion and not that of my employer. |
+-------------------------------------+----------------------------------+
maff91
On Mon, 15 Jun 1998 08:37:53 -0700, Chris <ch...@pacifier.com> wrote:
>Sarah.J...@Biologie.Uni-Bielefeld.de wrote:
>>
>> <reposted visa DN because my server is freaking again>
>>
>> Derek Maddox posted the following to alt.atheism:
>>
>> <snippers>
>>
>> > Outside of marriage (whether premarital or extramarital)
>> > sexual intercourse is absolutely forbidden. [...]
>>
>> Now *you* hold on right there. Marriage itself means nothing whatsoever. The
>> only important matter to consider is -- as you said -- whether two people
>> feel emotionally ready for sex and/or a lasting relationship. And marriage is
>> certainly not a requirement for that -- rather, if people do marry, it should
>> be the *result* of being ready to handle a long-term partnership.
>
>A partnership doesn't imply a sexual relationship. Marriage,like many of
>our traditional institutions needs to be respected and maintained by our
>society. You would have me believe respect nothing if it doesn't fit
>your lifestyle, how convenient.
So, Who defines society? How are you going to enforce your morality?
At the point of a gun?
>
>> Besides, no one can "forbid" anyone to have sex, and no one should dare to.
>
>Yes you can, it's called parenting and teaching values and morals. Any
>animal can perform the act of sex. What seperates us is a moral code and
>respect for ourselves and the institution of marriage.
You mean you want a police state where they can break into people's
bedrooms to enforce morality as defined you.
>
>> It is one thing, and a definitely neccessary one at that, to warn young
>> people that sex can have unpleasant consequences -- but prohibition will only
>> bring about increased curiosity on one hand and wrong expectations, even
>> misery, on the other. Respect for each other, not a few scribbles on a piece
>> of paper, should be what makes a relationship work.
>>
>> > God cares for us at least as much as I care for my own son. [...]
>>
>> Stop trying to apply your very subjective belief system to other people as if
>> it were commonly agreed on and/or proven truth.
>
>Practice what you preach
What you want is a society as it was in the Dark Ages!
>
>For all it's worth, your
>> religion is only "somebody else's wacky belief", regardless of how strongly
>> you may feel about it. (In fact, to outsiders it may very well appear "the
>> stronger, the wackier".)
>
>The feeling is mutual, I find your atheism much the same as you define
>xianity
>
>> <snip>
>>
>> > [...] But the whole thing is an outgrowth
>> > of men failing to give women the respect they deserve.
>>
>> It's a rare thing that I actually agree with an xtian, but on this point I do
>> agree, though probably not for the same reasons. My reasons for disliking
>> porn are the lack of respect for women and the twisted image of women and sex
>> that it creates -- not "morale" crap. "Morality" cannot be hurt, *people*
>> can.
>
>What makes our morals as a society impervious to degradation from the
>uncontrolled access to porn? Moral "crap" is the cause for the personal
>damage you cite. The less moral a society is the more likely immoral
>events are to occur. Pretty simple logic.
Heard about the 1st amendment?
>
>
>> > [...] Girls dancing
>> > in strip joints that should be going to their senior proms, and films
>> > being made of activities that even the most hardened athiest would agree
>> > are distasteful.
>>
>> Calling names now, are we, Mr. holier-than-thou xtian? FYI, atheists are at
>> least as moral as any theist, and consumation of pornography has nothing to do
>> with someone's belief or lack thereof. I for one am an atheist lesbian, and I
>> hate porn.
>
>Yea right, The xian people that i know wouldn't aquire,watch,create,
>participate,or in any fashion be party to pornographic material. The
>poster did generalise, but your claim is less credulous and just as
>generalised.
This is really going to surprise the Porn merchants. They're under the
impression that majority of the porn buyers are Christians. How're
they making so much money? I'm sure that that they're selling it
wholesale to tourists from Mars!
>
>
>
>> > Do you think that maybe we do these things simply out of consideration
>> > of our fellow man? That we don't offer too many visual distractions and
>> > temptations to do things we shouldn't?
>>
>> Enjoying sex is a "forbidden temptation" only if you swallow xtianity or are
>> otherwise sexually inhibited.
>>
>
>Yes,outside of wedlock sex is inappropriate. Enjoying sex is not
>forbidden as your childish notion of xianity conjurs up. If you
>categorize gay sex as inhibited then i agree. Otherwise you are out in
>"left" field.
So, Let me put it to you again! How are you going to enforce morality
as defined you?
>
>
>
>Chris Hill
*****************************************************
Unforgettable Thomas Paine:
"Society in every state is a blessing, but
government, even in its best state, is but a
necessary evil, in its worst state
an intolerable one."
"A bad cause will ever be supported by bad means
and bad men."
"Moderation in temper is always a virtue; but
moderation in principle is always a vice."
"War involves in its progress such a train of
unforeseen and unsupposed circumstances that
no human wisdom can calculate its end. It has
but one thing certain and that is to increase
taxes."
"My country is the world"
*****************************************************
Darklady
Chris wrote in message <3586EA...@pacifier.com>...
>Darklady wrote:
>>
>> Chris wrote in message <35868D...@pacifier.com>...
>> >I talk about teaching values and ethics to our children and you are
>> >ranting about personal freedoms? You are messed up my man.
>>
>> News flash, Chris. One can have values and ethics AND personal
>> freedoms. Maybe not in the fucked up little nightmare you call reality,
but
>> in the real world.
>>
>Oh Iam impressed your myopic opinion of xians perverting your writings.
>I never made mention of personal freedoms but now that you mention it,
>without some global moral guidelines you could consider murder one of
>your personal freedoms simply because it pleases you.
You are so utterly pathetic, Chris.
1) My opinion was not directed toward "xtians." It was directed toward
*you.*
2) You most certainly *did* mention personal freedoms, as noted in the
quoted area above... again.
3) There is a difference between having moral guidelines (even
"global") ones and the nonsense you've been spewing. You appear to conclude
that unless one is a Christian then murder has some kind of strong
attraction which can not be resisted. Perhaps for you, but not for me or,
frankly, most people. Those who do feel that murder is something that will
make them happy are custom designed for the straight jacket of religion.
Sadly, it doesn't appear to keep you guys from killing people. Maybe it's
because your god has been such a poor role model?
>Oh and my "little nightmare" is a beautiful wife, 2 kids one graduated
>this year the other next year from HS, a nice home,a great job,I share
>my joy for life by helping in the community and at church. We should get
>together sometime and compare nightmares. I do have some.
I'm very happy for you (seriously). But don't assume that just because
I don't have a church or a god that I don't also have a loving family,
friends, job, place to live, and joy in helping the community.
Darklady
Chris wrote in message <3586E3...@pacifier.com>...
>Darklady wrote:
>> Actually, what seperates us is our ability to enjoyment of orgasm
for
>> its physical and emotional pleasures, our ability to have sex for the
mere
>> pleasure and social aspect of it (ok, the Bonobos do it for pleasure and
>> social bonding, too).
>> Oh, and we really part company because we're capable of wasting our
>> time with destructive nonsense like guilt and shame.
>
>Are you sharing some of your personal hangups here. You are such a
>hypocrite DL. I talk about instilling virtues in our kids and you call
>it guilt and shame. You are living a lie regarding what you think you
>know about xians.
Of all the things that I may be, a hypocrite is not one of them. I am
one of the most pathologically honest people I know and it gets me into some
tight spots. Even if I *were* a hypocrite, my comment about your post in no
way supports your claim of my hypocrisy. Disagreeing is not the same as
being a hypocrite.
Values are one thing... but so often "Christian values" are instilled
not by appealing to reason and common sense but with the threat of hell, of
separation from god, by calling upon sin and sinful natures... and by
outright lies. I also support instilling values in our children (one cannot
instill a virtue... that comes from the person themselves) but not with
these methods.
Yes, I like many people who were raised in repressive and manipulative
religious families deal with guilt and shame. Not over the things you might
think, however. I do not feel guilty about my lifestyle or my atheism. I
feel inappropriate guilt for things like being unable to make my mentally
retarded sister well or for not being able to get her appropriate treatment
or education. I'm in no position do be able to do any of those things since
my mother rules my sister's life... yet I feel that I *should* be able to do
something more. I feel guilty when I don't give a homeless person a hand
out. I feel guilty when I have money in my pocket and don't share more of
it with my friends. I feel guilty that I don't let my homeless and
schizophrenic friend live in my house for free. I feel guilty that I don't
make more money. I feel guilty because I don't have health insurance. I
feel guilty that I can't solve the worlds problems. And where did I learn
these "virtues?" From my darling religious upbringing which told me
repeatedly that nothing I did would ever be good enough for god, my parents,
or me. That I would never be good enough.
I realize that these feelings of guilt are inappropriate and
unnecessary, yet the voices are there. They are there for many people who
will always be scarred on some level by religion.
And I am most definitely NOT "living a lie" about what I don't simply
think I know, but do know, about Christians. I know that they are people.
Some of them are good people and some of them are not. I don't agree with
their philosophy but that doesn't make them bad people. You assume that
because I dislike organized Christianity and disagree with the methodology
of many of its followers that I therefore dislike individuals. That idea
may give you comfort but it's wrong.
Ian Samuels
Sorry it took me so long to reply -- I've been
offline the last few days.
On Sat, 13 Jun 1998 Sarah.J...@Biologie.Uni-Bielefeld.de wrote:
> <reposted via DN because my server is freaking again>
>
> Ian Samuels posted the following to alt.atheism:
>
[snip]
> > Those like Andrea
> > Dworkin, who basically categorized all
> > heterosexual sex as rape and those women who
> > participated in it as slaves to a fascist
> > patriarchy, probably can't be accused of simply
> > "telling women that their bodies are okay as they
> > are;" there was a bit more to it.
>
> Heh. Don't think that the average feminist does NOT share your feelings about
> this kind of women.
Yep, I know.
[snip]
> > For one thing, the "half-starved girlie
> > with giant tits and skimpy clothing" is not a
> > prevalent figure on fashion runways that I've
> > noticed -- only the "half-starved girlie" part of
> > that statement holds true in mainstream modelling,
> > and that is an image being propogated by a
> > fashion industry in which female designers and
> > agents are really quite well represented.
>
> Gender has nothing to do with an "enlightened" mindset. There are plenty of
> women who treat their "sisters" like shit´, and plenty of men who treat women
> as equal partners.
True. I was just pointing out that women
play a bigger role in constructing mainstream
images of beauty than you give them credit for.
What those aesthetics are actually doing is a
whole different matter.
I will go out on a limb and say that no
specific image can inherently be oppressive or
repressed. If a woman has to adopt an aesthetic
standard because her body is one of only a few
economic resources available to her in society,
or because she will be shunned or worse if she
fails to do so, or some combination of the two,
then it doesn't really matter what the specific
image is. If, OTOH, a woman feels comfortable with
a Barbie-doll physique for reasons of her own,
then it seems seriouslyy wrongheaded to categorize
such an image as inherently being
oppressed/repressed.
However, the most "successful" designers (Lagerfeld,
> Klein, what have you) are almost exclusively male, and are also the ones who
> create "fashion" that does not even deserve the term "clothing" anymore in
> many cases.
Well, Donna Karenina and Liz Claiborne
come immediately to mind -- and I'm not even that
conversant with specific designeers. But it's not
like I've done a survey or anything; I suspect
we're both arguing mainly from impressions. As for
fashion that isn't really clothing, designers of
both genders of course do this -- but nudity isn't
necessarily a sign of submission or oppression.
> > The "giant tits and skimpy clothing" bit
> > does turn up in media designed to appeal to the
> > more stereotypically adolescent male, but one of
> > the most notable things about this image of
> > beauty, which _can_ be said to be largely
> > male-constructed, is that it _cannot_ be said to
> > be mainstream -- seeing as it's confined to more
> > marginal media from soft porn on down (and yes,
> > Baywatch qualifies).
>
> Not quite true. Consider this -- can you claim that "sex appeal" and "good
> looks" are NOT a lot more important for women celebrities than for their male
> counterparts?
Sex appeal is tangential to the issue of
physical aesthetic, since it's a much broader and
more vaguely defined phenomenon. Older male
celebrities like Sean Connery and the Rolling
Stones (who have counterparts, to an extent, in
women like Tina Turner and Sophia Loren) are
certainly trading on the sex appeal of associating
age with experience and money.
As for "good looks," these have been
considerably more important for women at some
(most) points in history and are marginally more
important now. Marginally because the male body is
increasing in importance as a marketing tool to
the point where it is drawing level with the
female body. However, I don't think the argument
that women are primarily seen as physical objects
is currently supportable, at least not in our
culture. If anything, contemporary women are more
often expected to be a total package --
supermodel, career woman and super-mom rolled into
one; and mainstream images of men seem to be on a
similar path.
[snip]
> Are naked or semi-naked males used to sell more "women stuff", like
> scantily-clad women are used to promote sales of nearly everything?
As I note above, naked and semi-clad males
are definitely on the upswing toward parity, but
interestingly enough they're more often used to
sell "men stuff" (jeans, aftershave, deodorant,
cheesy muscle magazines) than "women stuff". I
have to admit I'm not sure what this means yet.
And so
> on. The emphasis on physical attractiveness *above everything else* is not
> present in society's images of males.
See above.
> Also, look at clothing -- "typical" women's clothing (like skirts, dresses or
> high heels) is often pretty impractical or even hindering. You'll find no
> such thing in "male" clothing.
I agree for the most part, but again it's
context that matters -- impractical clothing *can*
also function as a status symbol or political
statement (althoughto what degree it *has* is open
to debate). And male clothing can't necessarily be
accused of greater practicality -- I submit
Speedos and jockey briefs as exhibits A and B. ;-)
[snip]
> > mainstream female designers of furthering a
> > patriarchally convenient image of the female body
> > (as underdeveloped, more girlie and less
> > threatening), but since they could feasibly attack
> > any alternative image you chose to advance with
> > very similar arguments, this strikes me as
> > counterproductive.
>
> The counter-arguments are usually that "overly strong" women "lose their
> femininity and attractiveness", are "not womanly", etc. That's certainly not
> the same.
AFAIK, the arguments usually advanced in
favour of constructing any particular image of
women is that it's yet another step toward
feminine emancipation and a blow against the Man,
and that those who argue otherwise are staid
dinosaurs who don't really want women to be free.
(I'm not counting the religious right's arguments
about beauty -- I'm talking about the designers,
agents, models, consumers etc. who are directly
involved in the process.) In the last
half-century, literally every conceivable image of
feminine beauty has been advanced as a standard
with this in mind -- but too often (IMVHO) with
the implicit position that alternative images are
somehow less "free."
> > What might be more useful is to
> > recognize that both sexes play an active (if not
> > always balanced) role in determining gendered
> > images of beauty, and that attributing these
> > images solely to "males... who apparently cannot
> > bear the thought of a strong, independent,
> > *mature* woman" is a mistake on three counts:
>
> As I said, there are lots of women who either go along with outdated
> klischees or even attack any attempt of eliminating said klischees.
As you've no doubt gathered by now, my
point is that asserting that this or that physical
image is or is not an "outdated cliche" is really
problematic in itself.
[snip]
Darklady
Chris wrote in message <3586E2...@pacifier.com>...
>I will at this point ask you to prove your self experienced all knowing
>position. Please provide the data cross sectioning the
>demographics:age,personal history (ie runaways),marital status,
>prostitution status, and income.
Since I'm sleepless this morning, have given this some thought and
concluded that you deserve *some* sort of answer, I'll provide you with as
much information as I'm able from my experiences and my observations of the
industry.
The average female porn performer is white, from 18 - 25, a high school
graduate. A rather surprising number are college educated and some
impressively so. Jasmin St. Claire speaks a number of languages and plans
on opening a boutique and teaching French when she leaves the industry.
Asia Carrera is a member of Mensa.
All performers are exhibitionists (that's the primary reason they're
doing porn... they like to be seen). As Bill Margold (a performer from the
70's who has helped form a support and advice group called PAW, for
performers going through tough times) once told me, many of the girls who
enter porn realize that they're young and pretty and that there will come a
time when such is not the case. They want to be looked at and be "stars" now
and porn provides them a way to do this, to be rebellious, and to make good
money. Sadly, many performers are overwhelmed by the money they make and do
not invest it wisely. Most performers are either single or have a steady
boyfriend. Often the two will try to enter the industry together. It has not
been uncommon for performers to only want to work with their
boyfriends/husbands and some successful combinations have resulted from
that, although it usually limits the work available since fans like to see
new combinations of performers since they are more spontaneous. Some very
successful performers have been (or are) married while they work. Missy and
Mickey G come immediately to mind.
Income depends on a number of factors (just like all freelance work):
company worked for, name appeal, number of scenes, type of scenes. Condom
porn generally pays less, anal pays more. Videos are usually shot in just a
few days due to the wonders of video tape vs. film and a female performer
can make a few hundred dollars to a few thousand depending on the above
factors.
I am not aware of any performers who have been prostitutes, although
there are rumors now and then that some performers work for escort services
and may provide sexual favors. Nothing has been proven, although those sort
of accusations will become increasingly investigated I suspect as concern
over AIDS increases. Runaway status is something nearly impossible to
determine with any group. I'm frankly not sure what it matters since by the
age of 18 (the youngest one can appear in porn) one can legally go anywhere
one wants. I'm a writer and I once ran away... does this somehow discredit
the writing field?
When I was in Jim South's (major talent agency) office a year ago I was
startled by the huge stacks of letters with snapshots attached to them.
There were three desks in the office and each had a stack about 5" tall.
Porn does not need to dredge the back alleys looking for talent. It comes
begging at the door.
I believe that, whether one approves of porn or not, it has a legal
right to exist and should be treated like any other business and its
employees should have the same rights and responsibilities as any other
employees. Labor issues are just that and should be dealt with as labor
issues. Moral issues can be argued until the cows come home... not only
concerning porn but also concerning munitions factories, military testing
procedures, medical testing policies, tax status for churches, and many
other controversial issues.
Chris
Darklady wrote:
<snip to the end>
> I believe that, whether one approves of porn or not, it has a legal
> right to exist and should be treated like any other business and its
> employees should have the same rights and responsibilities as any other
> employees. Labor issues are just that and should be dealt with as labor
> issues. Moral issues can be argued until the cows come home... not only
> concerning porn but also concerning munitions factories, military testing
> procedures, medical testing policies, tax status for churches, and many
> other controversial issues.
>
> -- Darklady
I never disagreed with the right under the 1st amendment. The
uncontrolled web access is where I draw the line. That is like
uncontrolled access to alchohol,guns, or drugs. We do part company on
the "corporate morality" if you will, of the porn industry. Your
"statistics" never existed you and i both knew that. Only legitimate
businesses keep accurate records traceable through the dept.of labor.
I visited your web page. I was surprised to see you live across the
river from me. Is the airport keeping you awake?
Chris Hill
Chris
This is the spring from which your preconcieved notions of xians and
xianity come from. I can't relate to the "xian environment" which you
describe.
JM
In article <89808984...@ridge.spiritone.com>, "Darklady"
<dark...@spiritone.com> wrote:
Such empty souls. If you'd go back to thinking of every woman and man as
your brother, father, mother and sister,you wouldn't have porn. Porn, is a
means of depersonifying people, pure and simple.
> http://www.spiritone.com/~darklady
> ICQ 10830459
> Atheist #184
--
............................................
Stop racism.
............................................
Pioneer
In article <J-1706980...@inakka22.dcsi.net>, J...@Jdot.net (JM) wrote:
> In article <89808984...@ridge.spiritone.com>, "Darklady"
> <dark...@spiritone.com> wrote:
>
>
> Such empty souls. If you'd go back to thinking of every woman and man as
> your brother, father, mother and sister,you wouldn't have porn.
Why?
Porn, is a
> means of depersonifying people, pure and simple.
1. How so?
2. What do you consider "porn?"
--
Austin Cline: Publicity Coordinator, Campus Freethought Alliance
Regional Director, Council for Secular Humanism
Home: http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Academy/2850/
Secular Humanism in OH & PA: http://www.geocities.com/~shiwpa/
Council for Secular Humanism: http://www.secularhumanism.org/
Agnosticism/Atheism on the Web.: http://atheism.miningco.com
--- "A wise man proportions his belief to the evidence." David Hume
--- "Thinking men cannot be ruled." Ayn Rand
Andrew Lias
In article <6m7nv9$h...@ds2.acs.ucalgary.ca>,
Ian Samuels <ilsa...@acs.ucalgary.ca> wrote:
>
>On Sat, 13 Jun 1998 Sarah.J...@Biologie.Uni-Bielefeld.de wrote:
>> Are naked or semi-naked males used to sell more "women stuff", like
>> scantily-clad women are used to promote sales of nearly everything?
>
> As I note above, naked and semi-clad males
>are definitely on the upswing toward parity, but
>interestingly enough they're more often used to
>sell "men stuff" (jeans, aftershave, deodorant,
>cheesy muscle magazines) than "women stuff". I
>have to admit I'm not sure what this means yet.
I hate to step into the middle of this conversational mine field but, if I
may offer a thought on this, I think that this indicates that Madison
Avenue has finally realized that it is possible to play against male
insecurities about their physical qualifications. There is a common
stereotype that men don't care how they look. While I think that it is
true that men are not quite as self-conscious about this sort of thing, I
would, never the less, suggest that the stereotype (as with most
stereotypes) is exaggerated. By and large, men *do* care about their
physical appearance and it is entirely possible to exploit those concerns.
As for the lack of attractive men selling products to women, I would say
that this caters to the notion that women turned on by the male physique
in quite the same way that men are turned on by the female physique. As
above, I would agree that women don't tend to put quite as much a premium
on that, but that it's untrue that there is no interest nor any market
that could exploit in an effective manner. Indeed, I've seen a *few*
commercials that have experimented in those waters. More often than not,
however, Madison Avenue attempts to sell romance to women, and sex to men.
Whether these mirror biological differences or are simply marketing
traditions is another question.
I will say that I think that it's a bit misguided to point to advertising
as an example of any genders exploitation of any other gender. The whole
point and purpose of marketing is to exploit EVERYONE, and they will do so
is as ruthless and as effective a manner as they can conspire to create,
including playing to any convenient stereotype or social foible. If there
is any us vs. them in this particular picture, it's consumers vs.
corporations.
IMO, the relationship between the sexes is strained and complicated enough
without dragging advertising and fashion into the picture.
--
To reply, just replace "@shell." with "@hotmail.com" | Siste viator
*-----------*------------------*-----------------------*------------*
Christian Fundamentalism: The doctrine that there is an absolutely
powerful, infinitely knowledgeable, universe spanning entity that is
deeply and personally concerned about my sex life.
*-----------*------------------*-----------------------*------------*
http://www.wco.com/~anrwlias
Darryl L. Pierce
;your brother, father, mother and sister,you wouldn't have porn. Porn, is a
;means of depersonifying people, pure and simple.
How does sex depersonalize (which is the word you want here) the participants?
I guess every time my wife and I "do it" we depersonalize each other. Maybe I
should think of her as my mother or my sister, then? That's rather sick. I'd
rather look at her lustily as I take her. She likes it that way... =)))
Victor Danilchenko
>
> Such empty souls. If you'd go back to thinking of every woman and man as
> your brother, father, mother and sister,you wouldn't have porn. Porn, is a
> means of depersonifying people, pure and simple.
Yeah, just like music. Let's destroy the recording industry and go back
to having the street-fidlers!
Or maybe books? Let's destroy the publishing industry and only rely on
live storytellers!
You are a moron, JM.
--
| Victor A. Danilchenko CSCF support |
| dani...@cs.umass.edu A313, 5-4231 |
+--------------------------------------------+
| Quando omni flunkus, moritati. |
JM
In article <Pioneer-1706...@dap02-150118.cora.sgi.net>,
Pio...@infidels.org (Pioneer) wrote:
> In article <J-1706980...@inakka22.dcsi.net>, J...@Jdot.net (JM) wrote:
>
> > In article <89808984...@ridge.spiritone.com>, "Darklady"
> > <dark...@spiritone.com> wrote:
> >
> >
> > Such empty souls. If you'd go back to thinking of every woman and man as
> > your brother, father, mother and sister,you wouldn't have porn.
>
> Why?
>
> Porn, is a
> > means of depersonifying people, pure and simple.
>
> 1. How so?
> 2. What do you consider "porn?"
I suggest that you get net nanny. You probably need it.
>
> --
> Austin Cline: Publicity Coordinator, Campus Freethought Alliance
> Regional Director, Council for Secular Humanism
>
> Home: http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Academy/2850/
> Secular Humanism in OH & PA: http://www.geocities.com/~shiwpa/
> Council for Secular Humanism: http://www.secularhumanism.org/
> Agnosticism/Atheism on the Web.: http://atheism.miningco.com
>
> --- "A wise man proportions his belief to the evidence." David Hume
> --- "Thinking men cannot be ruled." Ayn Rand
--
............................................
Stop racism.
............................................
JM
In article <6m8v60$ka1b...@raleigh.ibm.com>, pda...@us.ibm.com (Darryl
L. Pierce) wrote:
> In article <J-1706980...@inakka22.dcsi.net>, J...@Jdot.net (JM) wrote:
> ;Such empty souls. If you'd go back to thinking of every woman and man as
> ;your brother, father, mother and sister,you wouldn't have porn. Porn, is a
> ;means of depersonifying people, pure and simple.
>
> How does sex depersonalize (which is the word you want here) the
participants?
> I guess every time my wife and I "do it" we depersonalize each other. Maybe I
> should think of her as my mother or my sister, then? That's rather sick. I'd
> rather look at her lustily as I take her. She likes it that way... =)))
Do you see your problem?
>
> +-------------------------------------+----------------------------------+
> | Darryl L. Pierce, Atheist #1142 | "Those not shocked by quantum |
> | Resource Solutions, Int'l @ IBM/RTP | theory have not understood it." |
> | (919) 254-4583 (919) 547-7177 | Neils Bohr |
> +-------------------------------------+----------------------------------+
> | This message reflects *MY* opinion and not that of my employer. |
> +-------------------------------------+----------------------------------+
--
............................................
Stop racism.
............................................
Darryl L. Pierce
In article <J-1706981...@cyrax21.arcology.net>, J...@Jdot.net (JM) wrote:
;Do you see your problem?
Nope. The one with the problem is you, for trying to involve yourself in the
sex lives of other people.
Darryl L. Pierce
;> 2. What do you consider "porn?"
;
;I suggest that you get net nanny. You probably need it.
Interesting, you didn't answer his question. Why is that?
Pioneer
In article <J-1706981...@cyrax21.arcology.net>, J...@Jdot.net (JM) wrote:
> In article <Pioneer-1706...@dap02-150118.cora.sgi.net>,
> Pio...@infidels.org (Pioneer) wrote:
>
> > In article <J-1706980...@inakka22.dcsi.net>, J...@Jdot.net (JM) wrote:
> >
> > > In article <89808984...@ridge.spiritone.com>, "Darklady"
> > > <dark...@spiritone.com> wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > Such empty souls. If you'd go back to thinking of every woman and man as
> > > your brother, father, mother and sister,you wouldn't have porn.
> >
> > Why?
> >
> > Porn, is a
> > > means of depersonifying people, pure and simple.
> >
> > 1. How so?
> > 2. What do you consider "porn?"
>
> I suggest that you get net nanny. You probably need it.
I suggest you learn how answer simply questions. I can only conclude:
1. You have no idea why there wouldn't be porn if people thought of others
as "brothers" - you just said it because it sounded good.l
2. You don't know how or why pron "is a means of depersonifying people" -
you just saw it somewhere and are repeating.
3. You know that "porn" can't really be defined, but don't want to admit
that that would make this whole conversation irrelevant.
JM
In article <35880629...@cs.umass.edu>, Victor Danilchenko
<dani...@cs.umass.edu> wrote:
> JM wrote:
> >
> > In article <89808984...@ridge.spiritone.com>, "Darklady"
> > <dark...@spiritone.com> wrote:
> >
> > Such empty souls. If you'd go back to thinking of every woman and man as
> > your brother, father, mother and sister,you wouldn't have porn. Porn, is a
> > means of depersonifying people, pure and simple.
>
> Yeah, just like music. Let's destroy the recording industry and
go back
> to having the street-fidlers!
> Or maybe books? Let's destroy the publishing industry and only rely on
> live storytellers!
>
> You are a moron, JM.
But I don't listen to that stuff so how can you say that?
> --
> | Victor A. Danilchenko CSCF support |
> | dani...@cs.umass.edu A313, 5-4231 |
> +--------------------------------------------+
> | Quando omni flunkus, moritati. |
--
............................................
Stop racism.
............................................
Pioneer
In article <6m9282$ka1b...@raleigh.ibm.com>, pda...@us.ibm.com (Darryl
L. Pierce) wrote:
> In article <J-1706981...@cyrax21.arcology.net>, J...@Jdot.net (JM) wrote:
> ;> 1. How so?
> ;> 2. What do you consider "porn?"
> ;
> ;I suggest that you get net nanny. You probably need it.
>
> Interesting, you didn't answer his question. Why is that?
Because he knows that it really cannot be answered - and that would render
his "arguments" rather meaningless.
But since he isn't honest enough to admit that, we won't see any such answers.
JM
In article <6m91ft$ka1b...@raleigh.ibm.com>, pda...@us.ibm.com (Darryl
L. Pierce) wrote:
> In article <J-1706981...@cyrax21.arcology.net>, J...@Jdot.net (JM) wrote:
> ;Do you see your problem?
>
> Nope. The one with the problem is you, for trying to involve yourself in the
> sex lives of other people.
Really? Am I the one whos buying all those videos and groveling on the
net? I want to be as far from the sex lives of other people as I can. Its
you who wants to get involved with other people's sex lives.
>
> +-------------------------------------+----------------------------------+
> | Darryl L. Pierce, Atheist #1142 | "Those not shocked by quantum |
> | Resource Solutions, Int'l @ IBM/RTP | theory have not understood it." |
> | (919) 254-4583 (919) 547-7177 | Neils Bohr |
> +-------------------------------------+----------------------------------+
> | This message reflects *MY* opinion and not that of my employer. |
> +-------------------------------------+----------------------------------+
--
............................................
Stop racism.
............................................
Sarah J.
Chris posted the following to alt.atheism:
> Sarah.J...@Biologie.Uni-Bielefeld.de wrote:
> A partnership doesn't imply a sexual relationship.
True. So what?
> Marriage,like many of our traditional institutions needs to be respected and
> maintained by our society.
That's your opinion. But a few scribbles on a piece of paper don't make a
relationship work, and they don't really change anything except the legal status
of the people involved.
> You would have me believe respect nothing if it doesn't fit
> your lifestyle, how convenient.
Excuse me? I don't say marriage should be abolished or some such crap. What I
say is that marriage is 1. not all that it's cracked up to be, and 2. I wouldn't
marry even if I were allowed to because I view it as pointless. I do respect ANY
relationship between equals, married or not, queer, bi or straight. An attitude
that, I might add, is often NOT shared by xtians, so don't talk to me about
respect unless you are open-minded enough to value something that does not fit
YOUR lifestyle but doesn't harm anyone.
>> Besides, no one can "forbid" anyone to have sex, and no one should dare to.
>
> Yes you can, it's called parenting and teaching values and morals.
Does "parenting" include beating children for kissing, guilt-tripping them and
withholding information about sexuality, especially contraception? Prohibition
never really works -- if they want to, they'll do it anyway AND are at a much
higher risk to suffer negative side-effects because they don't know about the
dangers. What a parent can and SHOULD do is teach the child responsibility and
respect for their partner, but the child should also know that sex is the most
natural thing on this world. You cannot force someone to abstain from sex.
> Any animal can perform the act of sex.
Oh please, not THAT strawman again. Animals (most of them, anyway) only have sex
to procreate, and many of them are monogamous.
> What seperates us is a moral code and respect for ourselves and the institution
> of marriage.
Yeah, sure. How many strawmen do you intend to build here?
>> Stop trying to apply your very subjective belief system to other people as if
>> it were commonly agreed on and/or proven truth.
>
> Practice what you preach
Playing turnabout doesn't work here. Especially not when two of the four
newsgroups this is posted to are about atheism. WE don't use force or prohibit
anything.
> What makes our morals as a society impervious to degradation from the
> uncontrolled access to porn?
You attention span seems to be pretty short, so I'll say it again: I hate
pornography. However, if forced to choose between porn and a society that treats
anything that its narrow-minded bigotry doesn't even TRY to understand as a
"disease" to be cured by whatever means necessary, although this oh-so-"sinful"
"deviation" does no one harm, I'd choose porn any day.
> Moral "crap" is the cause for the personal damage you cite.
No, bigotry, intolerance and narrow-minded hatemongery are. I speak from
experience here, although I have no doubt you will never believe anything I
might say, or possibly even claim I "deserve" anything that happens to me.
>> Calling names now, are we, Mr. holier-than-thou xtian? FYI, atheists are at
>> least as moral as any theist, and consumation of pornography has nothing to do
>> with someone's belief or lack thereof. I for one am an atheist lesbian, and I
>> hate porn.
>
> Yea right, The xian people that i know wouldn't aquire,watch,create,
> participate,or in any fashion be party to pornographic material.
Then you apparently need to get out more.
> The poster did generalise, but your claim is less credulous and just as
> generalised.
Less credulous? Because I say that you don't need religion to be moral? Because
I voiced anger about a holier-than-thou insult? And because I say that believers
can be as immoral as atheists or followers of another religion -- and indeed
even more immoral?
>> Enjoying sex is a "forbidden temptation" only if you swallow xtianity or are
>> otherwise sexually inhibited.
>>
>
> Yes,outside of wedlock sex is inappropriate.
That's what you say. Then don't have sex before marriage. What everyone else
does is none of your business.
> Enjoying sex is not forbidden as your childish notion of xianity conjurs up. If
> you categorize gay sex as inhibited then i agree.
Namecalling again, I see, and putting words that I'd never use into my mouth. Is
that all you can do -- insult those who don't fit into your narrow little world?
Pull some bigoted statement out of the blue when you don't have anything
reasonable to say? I cannot talk about gay men, but lesbians in general are
anything but "inhibited".
> Otherwise you are out in "left" field.
Since the "right" is anything but, I am proud to be "left". And lest you start
bitching about that as well, let me remind you that you know nothing about my
political standing, so anything you could say would likely be nothing more than
rightist lies.
~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*
Sarah #1102
Very Evil Atheist Conspirator and Knight of the BAAWA
"Don't let the people who live on fear and hate govern how you live."
- Melissa Etheridge
"The best thing I ever did was to come out."
- k.d.lang
Due to a rather volatile newsserver that keeps missing messages, many posts will likely take some time to show up.
(Replace "firedancer" with "biologie.uni-bielefeld" to reply by mail.)
~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*
Darryl L. Pierce
;his "arguments" rather meaningless.
Quite. I saw your previous response to him. Very well stated.
;But since he isn't honest enough to admit that, we won't see any such answers.
Have you noticed that about most of the theists that post to this newsgroup.
They're never up front or honest about things and, when questioned, never
offer proof for their claims. Makes you wonder who's breaking that commandment
about lying...
Pioneer
In article <6m93u1$me14...@raleigh.ibm.com>, pda...@us.ibm.com (Darryl
L. Pierce) wrote:
> Have you noticed that about most of the theists that post to this newsgroup.
Yes.
There have been a few who have been very polite and reasonable - but they
have been a minority.
> They're never up front or honest about things and, when questioned, never
> offer proof for their claims. Makes you wonder who's breaking that
commandment
> about lying...
"Lying for the Lord."
Paul advocated it, so it's no surprise to find it here!
JM
> In article <J-1706981...@cyrax21.arcology.net>, J...@Jdot.net (JM) wrote:
>
> > In article <Pioneer-1706...@dap02-150118.cora.sgi.net>,
> > Pio...@infidels.org (Pioneer) wrote:
> >
> > > In article <J-1706980...@inakka22.dcsi.net>, J...@Jdot.net (JM) wrote:
> > >
> > > > In article <89808984...@ridge.spiritone.com>, "Darklady"
> > > > <dark...@spiritone.com> wrote:
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Such empty souls. If you'd go back to thinking of every woman and man as
> > > > your brother, father, mother and sister,you wouldn't have porn.
> > >
> > > Why?
> > >
> > > Porn, is a
> > > > means of depersonifying people, pure and simple.
> > >
> > > 1. How so?
> > > 2. What do you consider "porn?"
> >
> > I suggest that you get net nanny. You probably need it.
>
> I suggest you learn how answer simply questions. I can only conclude:
>
> 1. You have no idea why there wouldn't be porn if people thought of others
> as "brothers" - you just said it because it sounded good.l
>
> 2. You don't know how or why pron "is a means of depersonifying people" -
> you just saw it somewhere and are repeating.
>
> 3. You know that "porn" can't really be defined, but don't want to admit
> that that would make this whole conversation irrelevant.
The questions you are asking prove to me that you either hit your head
this morning, or you love your porn so much that you spent a lot of time
trying to come up with some arguments to defend it. In the end you ditched
commonsense because your appetites took over.
> --
> Austin Cline: Publicity Coordinator, Campus Freethought Alliance
> Regional Director, Council for Secular Humanism
>
> Home: http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Academy/2850/
> Secular Humanism in OH & PA: http://www.geocities.com/~shiwpa/
> Council for Secular Humanism: http://www.secularhumanism.org/
> Agnosticism/Atheism on the Web.: http://atheism.miningco.com
>
> --- "A wise man proportions his belief to the evidence." David Hume
> --- "Thinking men cannot be ruled." Ayn Rand
--
............................................
Stop racism.
............................................
Beth Wise
On 16-Jun-98 19:48:07, JM said in alt.atheism:
> Such empty souls. If you'd go back to thinking of every woman and man as
> your brother, father, mother and sister,you wouldn't have porn.
Nope. Just incest.
> --
> ............................................
> Stop racism.
> ............................................
Stop theism.
--
Beth Wise, alt.atheist #859 | "Your scientists were so
aka Ink on #Amiga, Undernet | preoccupied with whether or not
inky(at)csrlink(dot)net | they could that they didn't stop
http://inky.home.ml.org/ | to think if they should."
Amiga 4000/040/25MHz/18MB | - "Ian Malcolm," Jurassic Park
JM
In article <769.472T11...@spamless.net>, "Beth Wise"
<in...@spamless.net> wrote:
> On 16-Jun-98 19:48:07, JM said in alt.atheism:
> > In article <89808984...@ridge.spiritone.com>, "Darklady"
> > <dark...@spiritone.com> wrote:
>
>
> > Such empty souls. If you'd go back to thinking of every woman and man as
> > your brother, father, mother and sister,you wouldn't have porn.
>
> Nope. Just incest.
Nope. You would respect women if you're a male and rapes would be stopped.
Pioneer
In article <J-1706981...@cyrax18.arcology.net>, J...@Jdot.net (JM) wrote:
> Pio...@infidels.org (Pioneer) wrote:
>
> > In article <J-1706981...@cyrax21.arcology.net>, J...@Jdot.net (JM) wrote:
> > > Pio...@infidels.org (Pioneer) wrote:
> > >
> > >>In article <J-1706980...@inakka22.dcsi.net>, J...@Jdot.net (JM) wrote:
> > > > Porn, is a
> > > > > means of depersonifying people, pure and simple.
> > > >
> > > > 1. How so?
> > > > 2. What do you consider "porn?"
> > >
> > > I suggest that you get net nanny. You probably need it.
> >
> > I suggest you learn how answer simply questions. I can only conclude:
> >
> > 1. You have no idea why there wouldn't be porn if people thought of others
> > as "brothers" - you just said it because it sounded good.l
> >
> > 2. You don't know how or why porn "is a means of depersonifying people" -
> > you just saw it somewhere and are repeating.
> >
> > 3. You know that "porn" can't really be defined, but don't want to admit
> > that that would make this whole conversation irrelevant.
>
> The questions you are asking prove to me that you either hit your head
> this morning, or you love your porn so much that you spent a lot of time
> trying to come up with some arguments to defend it. In the end you ditched
> commonsense because your appetites took over.
Once again, desperate ad hominems instead of answering simple questions.
You can't explain why people considering others "brothers" will eliminate
"porn." You cannot explain how and why "porn" depersonifies people.
And worse yet, you clearly don't know what "porn" is. The definition of
"porn" is absolutely central to this discussion - and your refusal to
define your terms speaks volumes. Never mind the fact that your refusals
to explain basic claims renders your arguments impotent - the fact that
you don't know what "porn" is means that you cannot honestly claim that my
questions indicate that I love "porn." After all, you cannot explain what
it is that I must "love."
Why don't you just admit that you have no rational argument and be done with it?
Oh - wait. That would require some modicum of honesty. But since you have
demonstrated a total lack of honesty here by deliberately lying, we cannot
expect you to have enough honesty to admit that you might be mistaken.
Thank you for representing christians in this manner. It makes my task of
convincing people that there is something wrong with christianity that
much easier.
Chris
Sarah J. wrote:
>
> Chris posted the following to alt.atheism:
>
> > Sarah.J...@Biologie.Uni-Bielefeld.de wrote:
>
> > A partnership doesn't imply a sexual relationship.
>
> True. So what?
This was relevant to another comment made.
> > Marriage,like many of our traditional institutions needs to be respected and
> > maintained by our society.
>
> That's your opinion. But a few scribbles on a piece of paper don't make a
> relationship work
I would never, nor did i imply it would.
and they don't really change anything except the legal status
> of the people involved.
Your opinion, I think it demonstrates commitment and resolve.
> > You would have me believe respect nothing if it doesn't fit
> > your lifestyle, how convenient.
>
> Excuse me? I don't say marriage should be abolished or some such crap. What I
> say is that marriage is 1. not all that it's cracked up to be
Your opinion, we have thrived in spite of our kids *just kidding*
> and 2. I wouldn't
> marry even if I were allowed to because I view it as pointless. I do respect ANY
> relationship between equals, married or not, queer, bi or straight.
Personally I give respect based on individual interactions. Not an
external relationships
An attitude
> that, I might add, is often NOT shared by xtians, so don't talk to me about
> respect unless you are open-minded enough to value something that does not fit
> YOUR lifestyle but doesn't harm anyone.
>
> >> Besides, no one can "forbid" anyone to have sex, and no one should dare to.
> >
> > Yes you can, it's called parenting and teaching values and morals.
>
> Does "parenting" include beating children for kissing, guilt-tripping them and
> withholding information about sexuality, especially contraception?
Wow you are the second atheist that has stereotyped an xian household as
disfunctional. Is this a trend?
Prohibition
> never really works -- if they want to, they'll do it anyway AND are at a much
> higher risk to suffer negative side-effects because they don't know about the
> dangers. What a parent can and SHOULD do is teach the child responsibility and
> respect for their partner, but the child should also know that sex is the most
> natural thing on this world. You cannot force someone to abstain from sex.
>
> > Any animal can perform the act of sex.
>
> Oh please, not THAT strawman again.
What strawwoman. I am stating a fact animals procreate through
innercourse.
Animals (most of them, anyway) only have sex
> to procreate, and many of them are monogamous.
>
> > What seperates us is a moral code and respect for ourselves and the institution
> > of marriage.
>
> Yeah, sure. How many strawmen do you intend to build here?
>
> >> Stop trying to apply your very subjective belief system to other people as if
> >> it were commonly agreed on and/or proven truth.
> >
> > Practice what you preach
>
> Playing turnabout doesn't work here. Especially not when two of the four
> newsgroups this is posted to are about atheism. WE don't use force or prohibit
> anything.
>
> > What makes our morals as a society impervious to degradation from the
> > uncontrolled access to porn?
>
> You attention span seems to be pretty short, so I'll say it again: I hate
> pornography. However, if forced to choose between porn and a society that treats
> anything that its narrow-minded bigotry doesn't even TRY to understand as a
> "disease" to be cured by whatever means necessary, although this oh-so-"sinful"
> "deviation" does no one harm, I'd choose porn any day.
>
> > Moral "crap" is the cause for the personal damage you cite.
>
> No, bigotry, intolerance and narrow-minded hatemongery are. I speak from
> experience here, although I have no doubt you will never believe anything I
> might say, or possibly even claim I "deserve" anything that happens to me.
Get off your over sized soap box. Not only have you mixed my posts with
others you are the bigot you indirectly are calling me. Your attitude
toward xianity is very bigoted. So whats up with that?
Slow down and catch your breath, I was conveying my attitude toward sex
was not the narrow picture painted by the poster. I was saying i am
uninhibbited sexually but i draw the line at homosexuality which i
believe is my choice is it not?
> > Otherwise you are out in "left" field.
>
> Since the "right" is anything but, I am proud to be "left". And lest you start
> bitching about that as well, let me remind you that you know nothing about my
> political standing, so anything you could say would likely be nothing more than
> rightist lies.
Funny how you display such strong biases and call others bigots Sarah.
Don't you think?
Darryl L. Pierce
;
;Paul advocated it, so it's no surprise to find it here!
Really, give me a reference for this. I'd love to use it in a conversation. =)
Pioneer
In article <J-1706981...@darwin33.dcsi.net>, J...@Jdot.net (JM) wrote:
> In article <769.472T11...@spamless.net>, "Beth Wise"
> <in...@spamless.net> wrote:
> > > Such empty souls. If you'd go back to thinking of every woman and man as
> > > your brother, father, mother and sister,you wouldn't have porn.
> >
> > Nope. Just incest.
>
> Nope. You would respect women if you're a male and rapes would be stopped.
What is the connection between "porn" and respect for women or rape?
Perhaps it would help if you defined "porn" firs?
Pioneer
In article <6m987a$me14...@raleigh.ibm.com>, pda...@us.ibm.com (Darryl
L. Pierce) wrote:
> In article <Pioneer-1706...@dap02-150118.cora.sgi.net>,
Pio...@infidels.org (Pioneer) wrote:
> ;"Lying for the Lord."
> ;
> ;Paul advocated it, so it's no surprise to find it here!
>
> Really, give me a reference for this. I'd love to use it in a conversation. =)
1Cor. 9:20-23 To the Jews I became as a Jew, in order to win Jews. To
those under the law I became as one under the law (though I myself am not
under the law) so that I might win those under the law. To those outside
the law I became as one outside the law (though I am not free from Godąs
law but am under Christąs law) so that I might win those outside the law.
To the weak I became weak, so that I might win the weak. I have become all
things to all people, that I might by all means save some. I do it all for
the sake of the gospel, so that I may share in its blessings.
He thinks it fine to act like something he is not in order to win
converts. He becomes "as one under the law" while acknowledging that he is
not under the law - he makes people think he is one thing when he is not
that thing. Acting like something you are not is deceitful and basically a
lie - especially since, in order to pull off such an act, you will almost
always have to lie about yourself or your beliefs.
A more direct descendant of this is "evangelistic dating." An evangelist
will "take interest" in someone whom they think needs saving and start
dating, all in the effort to win them for Christ. After the person
converts and becomes a member of the church, the relationship ends and the
evangelist moves on. They see nothing wrong with this.
But it is lying all the way.
Darryl L. Pierce
;this morning, or you love your porn so much that you spent a lot of time
;trying to come up with some arguments to defend it. In the end you ditched
;commonsense because your appetites took over.
Nope, he was right. You have no idea what pornography is, why we need to be
protected from it, or how to do that. You seem to have heard it said, and are
parroting that sentiment without any concept of what it means or implies.
JM
> In article <J-1706981...@cyrax18.arcology.net>, J...@Jdot.net (JM) wrote:
>
> > Pio...@infidels.org (Pioneer) wrote:
> >
> > > In article <J-1706981...@cyrax21.arcology.net>, J...@Jdot.net
(JM) wrote:
>
> > > > Pio...@infidels.org (Pioneer) wrote:
> > > >
> > > >>In article <J-1706980...@inakka22.dcsi.net>, J...@Jdot.net (JM)
wrote:
>
> > > > > Porn, is a
> > > > > > means of depersonifying people, pure and simple.
> > > > >
> > > > > 1. How so?
> > > > > 2. What do you consider "porn?"
> > > >
> > > > I suggest that you get net nanny. You probably need it.
> > >
> > > I suggest you learn how answer simply questions. I can only conclude:
> > >
> > > 1. You have no idea why there wouldn't be porn if people thought of others
> > > as "brothers" - you just said it because it sounded good.l
> > >
> > > 2. You don't know how or why porn "is a means of depersonifying people" -
> > > you just saw it somewhere and are repeating.
> > >
> > > 3. You know that "porn" can't really be defined, but don't want to admit
> > > that that would make this whole conversation irrelevant.
> >
> > The questions you are asking prove to me that you either hit your head
> > this morning, or you love your porn so much that you spent a lot of time
> > trying to come up with some arguments to defend it. In the end you ditched
> > commonsense because your appetites took over.
>
> Once again, desperate ad hominems instead of answering simple questions.
Frankly there is nothing desperate about this. And as far as "ad hominem"
goes, this is a simple case where someone asks some really dumb questions
so we need to question the thought patterns that led to such questions.
> You can't explain why people considering others "brothers" will eliminate
> "porn." You cannot explain how and why "porn" depersonifies people.
Why should we ask why considering others to be brothers will eliminate
porn? Unless you're missing a chip or are mentally deprived such an answer
will be provide. I hate talking down to people, really.
>
> And worse yet, you clearly don't know what "porn" is.
We don't need to get into the legalese definition as to what porn is and
as to why you need it. Lawyers are employed to confuse the issue but we
all know what porn is.
The definition of
> "porn" is absolutely central to this discussion
No, not really. Here you attempt to obfuscate the issue and that is that
you love porn so you're really stretching for some arguments.
- and your refusal to
> define your terms speaks volumes.
Volumes could be said about people who practice obfuscation for a living
and who don't know up from down.
Never mind the fact that your refusals
> to explain basic claims renders your arguments impotent
My refusal is indicative of the fact that I simply do not speak down on
the obvious and those that practice obfuscation when it suits their needs.
- the fact that
> you don't know what "porn" is means that you cannot honestly claim that my
> questions indicate that I love "porn." After all, you cannot explain what
> it is that I must "love."
Funny how I can give $5.00 bucks to a kid and tell him to get some porn
and he'll get it. And I give you $5.00 bucks and you say "what is porn." I
bet I can change your perspective real fast after I said, hey, get me some
porn, here's $50!
"Why thanks. I'll get it right now. I know what it is."
>
>
> Why don't you just admit that you have no rational argument and be done
with it?
And who is exhibiting his lack of rationality? Either you can get some
porn or you can't. Don't be dumb.
>
> Oh - wait. That would require some modicum of honesty.
And you are the one to speak of the lack of honesty? Now who's being dishonest?
But since you have
> demonstrated a total lack of honesty here by deliberately lying,
You mean like pretending you don't know what porn is?
we cannot
> expect you to have enough honesty to admit that you might be mistaken.
>
>
> Thank you for representing christians in this manner. It makes my task of
> convincing people that there is something wrong with christianity that
> much easier.
We know who's smart enough to know what is porn and who's dumb enough to
pretend he doesn't know.
>
> --
> Austin Cline: Publicity Coordinator, Campus Freethought Alliance
> Regional Director, Council for Secular Humanism
>
> Home: http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Academy/2850/
> Secular Humanism in OH & PA: http://www.geocities.com/~shiwpa/
> Council for Secular Humanism: http://www.secularhumanism.org/
> Agnosticism/Atheism on the Web.: http://atheism.miningco.com
>
> --- "A wise man proportions his belief to the evidence." David Hume
> --- "Thinking men cannot be ruled." Ayn Rand
--
............................................
Stop racism.
............................................
Darryl L. Pierce
Thanks for the quote. I'm building myself a database of scripture references
for use in discussions/debates. =)
Sarah J.
Davidson posted the following to alt.atheism:
> Sarah.J...@Biologie.Uni-Bielefeld.de wrote:
> I wonder how old you guys are (you don't have to answer!)
Yours truly here is 20 years, 4 months and 6 days "old". >:-)
<snip>
> My perception is that "fashion" has been marginalized. No one except
> the really rich and anorexic expects to wear the stuff they see on
> the runways.
Yes -- thank goodness, most people seem to be too sensible to wear that
ridiculous flimsy stuff. Still, "fashion" gets an amount of media coverage that
is completely out of proportion to its actual importance. Talk about the
"glamor" of the "rich and famous". Bleh.
<snippers>
>> Not quite true. Consider this -- can you claim that "sex appeal" and "good
>> looks" are NOT a lot more important for women celebrities than for their male
>> counterparts? You have a good number of famous older male actors and
>> musicians, for example -- but where are the female equivalents for Sean
>> Connery or the Rolling Stones? If you know Star Trek, can you say that Jean
>> Luc Picard might just as well have been an older *female* captain? Do men get
>> bombarded constantly with hints on how to be more "sexy", "desirably", etc.?
>> Are naked or semi-naked males used to sell more "women stuff", like
>> scantily-clad women are used to promote sales of nearly everything? And so
>> on. The emphasis on physical attractiveness *above everything else* is not
>> present in society's images of males.
>
> Well, ever watch Star Trek Voyager?
I'm quite a Trekker, but unfortunately, I miss most episodes of both DS9 and
Voyager due to being at University on many afternoons. :-(
> (Older female Captain.)
Uhm, excuse me? Kathryn Janeway is, I suppose, in her fourties -- that's an
"older" woman? Especially when compared to Picard?
> There are all sorts
> of examples and counterexamples. Katherine Hepburn. Kathy Bates. (I know,
> not a big star, but overweight males get stereotyped as clowns, while she
> really acts.) In rock 30 years ago there were no self-directed female groups.
> But, how about Ella Fitzgerald? Aretha Franklin?
I agree, it's probably getting better (NOT counting those damn boy OR girl
groups!), but still, females, especially older females, are a lot rarer than
their male counterparts, and still often submit to the need to be "sexy" in
order to be successful.
> I notice lots more semi-naked male ads then there were 20 years ago.
Again, I cannot comment on that, both due to my youth and due to the fact that
the last thing I'd look at is a semi-naked male. ;-)
> I don't know if this is due to gay buying power or female buying power,
> but it is there. Nothing like GQ existed 30 years ago. Most fashion seems
> to be fantasy, poorly done. I remember Playboys with fashion sections about
> college clothes that were as far removed from what people really wore to
> college as runway fashions are from what people really wore.
I take it the Playboy took it on itself to "sex" its interpretation of "college
clothes" up by quite a notch.
<snip>
> The whole thing seems unsane from both sides. Images of beauty are
> fashion also (since they change) and men are guilty of being sheep
> in buying into the latest craze. But is this really affecting their
> personal life? (If men only date women who looked like models there
> wouldn't be too many dates.
Maybe not, but it creates a ridiculous image that "everyone" is (or at least
*should*) be sexy, rich, etc. With the effect that girls start dieting in
elementary school, among other things. :-(
> If women dated only men who looked like the latest craze (Leo? Yuck) ditto.
Arrgh! Don't even THINK the accursed L-word in my presence!
<whips out a BIG sign: "Kill Leo!">
:-P
> (Sorry for my hetero bias, are there similar fashion trends in your world?)
I can only speak for myself, but neither of my two crushes is "mainstream"
(Sigourney Weaver and, most of all, Melissa Etheridge). I don't think lesbians
have "fashion trends", although many of us (especially the younger ones, myself
included) apparently prefer the short-haired, jeans-and-shirt look for
themselves, if only for practical reasons and maybe because they hate "girlie"
clothes and looks. In a partner, though, I'd prefer long hair. ;-)
> I think women are much more ready to do what is right for them than to follow
> a trend.
I sure hope so, but due to peer pressure, media images and often general
stupidity, we still have quite a way to go.
> Anyhow, I agree we all have a ways to go, but things do seem to be better.
> I guess we all should be skeptical about following what
> the Man says, be it the preacher man or the fashion man.
Couldn't agree more. :-)
Pioneer
In article <J-1706981...@darwin33.dcsi.net>, J...@Jdot.net (JM) wrote:
> In article <Pioneer-1706...@dap02-150118.cora.sgi.net>,
> Pio...@infidels.org (Pioneer) wrote:
Here are the original questions, which some idiot refuses to answer:
> > > > > > Porn, is a
> > > > > > > means of depersonifying people, pure and simple.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > 1. How so?
> > > > > > 2. What do you consider "porn?"
<snip>
> > Once again, desperate ad hominems instead of answering simple questions.
>
> Frankly there is nothing desperate about this.
Doing everything you can to avoid answering a couple of basic questions is
despearte indeed - not to mention so transparent that it's become
pathetic.
What is "porn?"
And as far as "ad hominem"
> goes, this is a simple case where someone asks some really dumb questions
> so we need to question the thought patterns that led to such questions.
Asking you to define your terms is not "dumb." Asking you to support your
claims is not "dumb." They are the basics of rational discourse.
How and why does "porn" depersonify people?
> > You can't explain why people considering others "brothers" will eliminate
> > "porn." You cannot explain how and why "porn" depersonifies people.
>
> Why should we ask why considering others to be brothers will eliminate
> porn?
You claimed it, so I'd like you to provide some reason to think it true.
How and why does "porn" depersonify people?
Unless you're missing a chip or are mentally deprived such an answer
> will be provide. I hate talking down to people, really.
But you do it so often.
What is "porn?"
> > And worse yet, you clearly don't know what "porn" is.
>
> We don't need to get into the legalese definition as to what porn is and
> as to why you need it. Lawyers are employed to confuse the issue but we
> all know what porn is.
Do we?
Then you should be able to explain what it is in just a few seconds.
Instead, you spend gobs and gobs of time claiming that you don't have to
and that people are "dumb" for asking it.
Thus, leading to the conclusion that you just don't know, but don't want
to admit it.
How and why does "porn" depersonify people?
> The definition of
> > "porn" is absolutely central to this discussion
>
> No, not really.
Of course it is - you cannot say that something depersonifies people
without being able to tell me what that something is.
What is "porn?"
Here you attempt to obfuscate the issue and that is that
> you love porn so you're really stretching for some arguments.
When have I said that I love "porn?" I don't know what you mean by the
term. Fact is, the only person "obfuscating" is the one who is going off
on tangents with wild claims instead of sticking to the issues. That's
you.
How and why does "porn" depersonify people?
> - and your refusal to
> > define your terms speaks volumes.
>
> Volumes could be said about people who practice obfuscation for a living
> and who don't know up from down.
Asking you to support your claims is fundamental to rational discussion,
not obfuscating.
Obfuscating involves avoiding the main issues. Your claims are, IMHO, the
issues at question here. I keep asking about them, you keep insulting me
for doing so. So, who's obfuscating?
What is "porn?"
> Never mind the fact that your refusals
> > to explain basic claims renders your arguments impotent
>
> My refusal is indicative of the fact that I simply do not speak down on
> the obvious and those that practice obfuscation when it suits their needs.
If it's so obvious, why not explain it? Why spend all the extra time
saying that you won't?
How and why does "porn" depersonify people?
> - the fact that
> > you don't know what "porn" is means that you cannot honestly claim that my
> > questions indicate that I love "porn." After all, you cannot explain what
> > it is that I must "love."
>
> Funny how I can give $5.00 bucks to a kid and tell him to get some porn
> and he'll get it. And I give you $5.00 bucks and you say "what is porn." I
> bet I can change your perspective real fast after I said, hey, get me some
> porn, here's $50!
>
> "Why thanks. I'll get it right now. I know what it is."
Nope.
What's "porn?"
> > Why don't you just admit that you have no rational argument and be done
> with it?
>
> And who is exhibiting his lack of rationality? Either you can get some
> porn or you can't. Don't be dumb.
I suppose it might be possible to get "porn." But what is it?
> > Oh - wait. That would require some modicum of honesty.
>
> And you are the one to speak of the lack of honesty? Now who's being
dishonest?
You, still, for lying about me.
How and why does "porn" depersonify people?
> But since you have
> > demonstrated a total lack of honesty here by deliberately lying,
>
> You mean like pretending you don't know what porn is?
I don't pretend. I really don't know what it is.
I know how *some* people have defined it. And I know that other people
have defined it differently. I don't define it, myself, since it isn't
relevant to my life.
But it's obvious relevant to your life, so why not tell us what it is?
What is "porn?"
> > Thank you for representing christians in this manner. It makes my task of
> > convincing people that there is something wrong with christianity that
> > much easier.
>
> We know who's smart enough to know what is porn and who's dumb enough to
> pretend he doesn't know.
Once again, lying about me.
Do you enjoy it? Does your god enjoy it?
How and why does "porn" depersonify people?
JM
In article <Pioneer-1706...@209.166.150.118>,
Pio...@infidels.org (Pioneer) wrote:
> In article <J-1706981...@darwin33.dcsi.net>, J...@Jdot.net (JM) wrote:
>
> > In article <769.472T11...@spamless.net>, "Beth Wise"
> > <in...@spamless.net> wrote:
>
> > > > Such empty souls. If you'd go back to thinking of every woman and man as
> > > > your brother, father, mother and sister,you wouldn't have porn.
> > >
> > > Nope. Just incest.
> >
> > Nope. You would respect women if you're a male and rapes would be stopped.
>
> What is the connection between "porn" and respect for women or rape?
>
> Perhaps it would help if you defined "porn" firs?
Perhaps you explain to me why sites labeled XXX know what porn is and you
don't. Explain to me why bookstores know what porn is and you don't. Ever
seen the magazine section of bookstores and the disclaimer about 21 year
olds? Ever seen a mop bucket fall in your head and dirty water run down
your neck?
>
> --
> Austin Cline: Publicity Coordinator, Campus Freethought Alliance
> Regional Director, Council for Secular Humanism
>
> Home: http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Academy/2850/
> Secular Humanism in OH & PA: http://www.geocities.com/~shiwpa/
> Council for Secular Humanism: http://www.secularhumanism.org/
> Agnosticism/Atheism on the Web.: http://atheism.miningco.com
>
> --- "A wise man proportions his belief to the evidence." David Hume
> --- "Thinking men cannot be ruled." Ayn Rand
--
............................................
Stop racism.
............................................
JM
> In article <J-1706981...@darwin33.dcsi.net>, J...@Jdot.net (JM) wrote:
>
> > In article <Pioneer-1706...@dap02-150118.cora.sgi.net>,
> > Pio...@infidels.org (Pioneer) wrote:
>
> Here are the original questions, which some idiot refuses to answer:
>
> > > > > > > Porn, is a
> > > > > > > > means of depersonifying people, pure and simple.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > 1. How so?
> > > > > > > 2. What do you consider "porn?"
>
> <snip>
>
> > > Once again, desperate ad hominems instead of answering simple questions.
> >
> > Frankly there is nothing desperate about this.
>
> Doing everything you can to avoid answering a couple of basic questions is
> despearte indeed - not to mention so transparent that it's become
> pathetic.
>
> What is "porn?"
Ever been to a book store. Ever seen the "under 21" disclaimer? I know you
have. Why this big pretense. Are you the great pretender?
>
> And as far as "ad hominem"
> > goes, this is a simple case where someone asks some really dumb questions
> > so we need to question the thought patterns that led to such questions.
>
> Asking you to define your terms is not "dumb." Asking you to support your
> claims is not "dumb." They are the basics of rational discourse.
>
> How and why does "porn" depersonify people?
Do you need poop thrown on you to understand?
>
> > > You can't explain why people considering others "brothers" will eliminate
> > > "porn." You cannot explain how and why "porn" depersonifies people.
> >
> > Why should we ask why considering others to be brothers will eliminate
> > porn?
>
> You claimed it, so I'd like you to provide some reason to think it true.
>
> How and why does "porn" depersonify people?
>
> Unless you're missing a chip or are mentally deprived such an answer
> > will be provide. I hate talking down to people, really.
>
> But you do it so often.
>
> What is "porn?"
Ever been to a book store and seen the "under 21" disclaimer? I know you
have. Why are you pretending?
>
> > > And worse yet, you clearly don't know what "porn" is.
> >
> > We don't need to get into the legalese definition as to what porn is and
> > as to why you need it. Lawyers are employed to confuse the issue but we
> > all know what porn is.
>
> Do we?
Are you from Mars? Are you a monk from the Island of Laputa?
>
> Then you should be able to explain what it is in just a few seconds.
> Instead, you spend gobs and gobs of time claiming that you don't have to
> and that people are "dumb" for asking it.
>
> Thus, leading to the conclusion that you just don't know, but don't want
> to admit it.
>
> How and why does "porn" depersonify people?
Have you ever been kicked in the shin 'cause you pretended not to
understand something?
>
> > The definition of
> > > "porn" is absolutely central to this discussion
> >
> > No, not really.
>
> Of course it is - you cannot say that something depersonifies people
> without being able to tell me what that something is.
>
> What is "porn?"
Have you ever been bopped with a tomatoe because you sat there at the
Bookstore saying "where's the porn?" while the disclaimer sat there right
in your face?
> Austin Cline: Publicity Coordinator, Campus Freethought Alliance
> Regional Director, Council for Secular Humanism
>
> Home: http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Academy/2850/
> Secular Humanism in OH & PA: http://www.geocities.com/~shiwpa/
> Council for Secular Humanism: http://www.secularhumanism.org/
> Agnosticism/Atheism on the Web.: http://atheism.miningco.com
>
> --- "A wise man proportions his belief to the evidence." David Hume
> --- "Thinking men cannot be ruled." Ayn Rand
--
............................................
Stop racism.
............................................
Pioneer
In article <J-1706981...@darwin32.dcsi.net>, J...@Jdot.net (JM) wrote:
> In article <Pioneer-1706...@209.166.150.118>,
> Pio...@infidels.org (Pioneer) wrote:
> > Perhaps it would help if you defined "porn" firs?
>
> Perhaps you explain to me why sites labeled XXX know what porn is and you
> don't.
Maybe they are *incorrect*?
Or do you think everything on a XXX site is true?
Maybe you include things other than what we find at XXX sites? Or is
"porn" *only* the things at XXX sites.
Explain to me why bookstores know what porn is and you don't. Ever
> seen the magazine section of bookstores and the disclaimer about 21 year
> olds? Ever seen a mop bucket fall in your head and dirty water run down
> your neck?
Ever consider being rational, polite, and honest?
Evidently not.
--
Annalisa Conserti
On Wed, 17 Jun 1998, JM wrote:
> In article <6m8v60$ka1b...@raleigh.ibm.com>, pda...@us.ibm.com (Darryl
> L. Pierce) wrote:
>
> > In article <J-1706980...@inakka22.dcsi.net>, J...@Jdot.net (JM) wrote:
> > ;Such empty souls. If you'd go back to thinking of every woman and man as
> > ;your brother, father, mother and sister,you wouldn't have porn. Porn, is a
> > ;means of depersonifying people, pure and simple.
> >
> > How does sex depersonalize (which is the word you want here) the
> participants?
> > I guess every time my wife and I "do it" we depersonalize each other. Maybe I
> > should think of her as my mother or my sister, then? That's rather sick. I'd
> > rather look at her lustily as I take her. She likes it that way... =)))
>
> Do you see your problem?
>
That's supposed to be a problem? He's happy and she's happy. What else
matters?
===================
When I carefully consider the curious habits of dogs
I am compelled to conclude
That man is the superior animal.
When I consider the curious habits of men
I confess, my friend, I am puzzled.
MEDITATIO, Ezra Pound
-------------------
Annalisa Conserti
aco...@uic.edu
JM
> In article <J-1706981...@darwin32.dcsi.net>, J...@Jdot.net (JM) wrote:
>
> > In article <Pioneer-1706...@209.166.150.118>,
> > Pio...@infidels.org (Pioneer) wrote:
>
> > > Perhaps it would help if you defined "porn" firs?
> >
> > Perhaps you explain to me why sites labeled XXX know what porn is and you
> > don't.
>
> Maybe they are *incorrect*?
You're trying to be funny?
Give it up.
Try to be honest, OK?
> --
> Austin Cline: Publicity Coordinator, Campus Freethought Alliance
> Regional Director, Council for Secular Humanism
>
> Home: http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Academy/2850/
> Secular Humanism in OH & PA: http://www.geocities.com/~shiwpa/
> Council for Secular Humanism: http://www.secularhumanism.org/
> Agnosticism/Atheism on the Web.: http://atheism.miningco.com
>
> --- "A wise man proportions his belief to the evidence." David Hume
> --- "Thinking men cannot be ruled." Ayn Rand
--
............................................
Stop racism.
............................................
Pioneer
In article <J-1706981...@darwin32.dcsi.net>, J...@Jdot.net (JM) wrote:
> In article <Pioneer-1706...@dap02-150118.cora.sgi.net>,
> Pio...@infidels.org (Pioneer) wrote:
> > What is "porn?"
>
> Ever been to a book store. Ever seen the "under 21" disclaimer? I know you
> have. Why this big pretense. Are you the great pretender?
No pretending. Why do you take a simple question and use it to lie about me?
Is everything with that disclaimer "porn?"
Are only things with that disclaimer "porn?"
Is that disclaimer always accurate about what is "porn?" Never misapplied?
<snip>
> > Asking you to define your terms is not "dumb." Asking you to support your
> > claims is not "dumb." They are the basics of rational discourse.
> >
> > How and why does "porn" depersonify people?
>
> Do you need poop thrown on you to understand?
Again, desperate ad hominems and even threats.
How and why does "porn" depersonify people?
> > > Why should we ask why considering others to be brothers will eliminate
> > > porn?
> >
> > You claimed it, so I'd like you to provide some reason to think it true.
> >
> > How and why does "porn" depersonify people?
> >
> > Unless you're missing a chip or are mentally deprived such an answer
> > > will be provide. I hate talking down to people, really.
> >
> > But you do it so often.
Silence. Agreement, then?
> > What is "porn?"
>
> Ever been to a book store and seen the "under 21" disclaimer? I know you
> have. Why are you pretending?
No pretending. Why do you take a simple question and use it to lie about me?
Is everything with that disclaimer "porn?"
Are only things with that disclaimer "porn?"
Is that disclaimer always accurate about what is "porn?" Never misapplied?
> > > > And worse yet, you clearly don't know what "porn" is.
> > >
> > > We don't need to get into the legalese definition as to what porn is and
> > > as to why you need it. Lawyers are employed to confuse the issue but we
> > > all know what porn is.
> >
> > Do we?
>
> Are you from Mars? Are you a monk from the Island of Laputa?
Nope.
Please answer the question.
> > Then you should be able to explain what it is in just a few seconds.
> > Instead, you spend gobs and gobs of time claiming that you don't have to
> > and that people are "dumb" for asking it.
> >
> > Thus, leading to the conclusion that you just don't know, but don't want
> > to admit it.
> >
> > How and why does "porn" depersonify people?
>
> Have you ever been kicked in the shin 'cause you pretended not to
> understand something?
Nope.
How and why does "porn" depersonify people?
> > > The definition of
> > > > "porn" is absolutely central to this discussion
> > >
> > > No, not really.
> >
> > Of course it is - you cannot say that something depersonifies people
> > without being able to tell me what that something is.
> >
> > What is "porn?"
>
> Have you ever been bopped with a tomatoe because you sat there at the
> Bookstore saying "where's the porn?" while the disclaimer sat there right
> in your face?
Nope.
What is "porn?"
Pioneer
In article <J-1706981...@cyrax23.arcology.net>, J...@Jdot.net (JM) wrote:
> In article <Pioneer-1706...@dap02-150118.cora.sgi.net>,
> Pio...@infidels.org (Pioneer) wrote:
>
> > In article <J-1706981...@darwin32.dcsi.net>, J...@Jdot.net (JM) wrote:
> >
> > > In article <Pioneer-1706...@209.166.150.118>,
> > > Pio...@infidels.org (Pioneer) wrote:
> >
> > > > Perhaps it would help if you defined "porn" firs?
> > >
> > > Perhaps you explain to me why sites labeled XXX know what porn is and you
> > > don't.
> >
> > Maybe they are *incorrect*?
>
> You're trying to be funny?
Nope.
Are you trying to be dishonest by cutting my other questions?
yes.
> Give it up.
What is "porn?"
> Try to be honest, OK?
I have been honest. You, however, have lied about me.
Now, why won't you answer the questions?
JM
> In article <J-1706981...@darwin32.dcsi.net>, J...@Jdot.net (JM) wrote:
>
> > In article <Pioneer-1706...@dap02-150118.cora.sgi.net>,
> > Pio...@infidels.org (Pioneer) wrote:
>
> > > What is "porn?"
> >
> > Ever been to a book store. Ever seen the "under 21" disclaimer? I know you
> > have. Why this big pretense. Are you the great pretender?
>
> No pretending. Why do you take a simple question and use it to lie about me?
>
> Is everything with that disclaimer "porn?"
> Are only things with that disclaimer "porn?"
> Is that disclaimer always accurate about what is "porn?" Never misapplied?
Would you like to go to your local book store and have the manager point
out something in that section that isn't porn? Or do I have to pay you to
do it.
Scared?
I thought so.
____________________________________
"What is porn?" Austin Cline
____________________________________
>
> What is "porn?"
>
> --
> Austin Cline: Publicity Coordinator, Campus Freethought Alliance
> Regional Director, Council for Secular Humanism
>
> Home: http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Academy/2850/
> Secular Humanism in OH & PA: http://www.geocities.com/~shiwpa/
> Council for Secular Humanism: http://www.secularhumanism.org/
> Agnosticism/Atheism on the Web.: http://atheism.miningco.com
>
> --- "A wise man proportions his belief to the evidence." David Hume
> --- "Thinking men cannot be ruled." Ayn Rand
--
............................................
Stop racism.
............................................
Pioneer
In article <J-1706981...@inakka26.dcsi.net>, J...@Jdot.net (JM) wrote:
> In article <Pioneer-1706...@dap02-150118.cora.sgi.net>,
> Pio...@infidels.org (Pioneer) wrote:
>
> > In article <J-1706981...@darwin32.dcsi.net>, J...@Jdot.net (JM) wrote:
> >
> > > In article <Pioneer-1706...@dap02-150118.cora.sgi.net>,
> > > Pio...@infidels.org (Pioneer) wrote:
> >
> > > > What is "porn?"
> > >
> > > Ever been to a book store. Ever seen the "under 21" disclaimer? I know you
> > > have. Why this big pretense. Are you the great pretender?
> >
> > No pretending. Why do you take a simple question and use it to lie about me?
No answer.
I guess the truth bothers you.
> > Is everything with that disclaimer "porn?"
> > Are only things with that disclaimer "porn?"
> > Is that disclaimer always accurate about what is "porn?" Never misapplied?
>
>
> Would you like to go to your local book store and have the manager point
> out something in that section that isn't porn? Or do I have to pay you to
> do it.
Why didn't you answer the questions? What bothers you about them? Why do
you want other people to answer them for you?
Do you really think that *everything* with the disclaimer is "porn?"
Do you really think that *only* things with that disclaimer are "porn?"
Do you really think that those disclaimers are never inaccruate?
> Scared?
Nope.
Now, please answer the questions.
> I thought so.
No, the problem is that you don't think at all.
If what "porn" is is so obvious, then why has even a Supreme Court justice
admitted that he cannot define it?
Annalisa Conserti
On Wed, 17 Jun 1998, JM wrote:
> Funny how I can give $5.00 bucks to a kid and tell him to get some porn
> and he'll get it. And I give you $5.00 bucks and you say "what is porn." I
> bet I can change your perspective real fast after I said, hey, get me some
> porn, here's $50!
>
> "Why thanks. I'll get it right now. I know what it is."
>
I though we were sposed to think of it as our brothers and sisters and not
get little kiddies to buy one for us ;)
BTW <getting serious>: I've recently been carded for cigarettes because I
didn't look 18. Do you for one minute believe you could send a 5 yr old to
get some porn?
If you mean over the net, you mean you're too fucking lazy to search for
it yourself? ;) Or are you, uhm, busy using your hands, uhm, in some
other, uhm, manner?
Russell Stewart
> Such empty souls. If you'd go back to thinking of every woman and man as
> your brother, father, mother and sister,you wouldn't have porn.
Sure you would. It would just all be in the "Taboo" series.
Russell Stewart
Undergraduate
UNM Physics Department
E-Mail: diamond (at) unm (dot) edu
WWW: http://www.swcp.com/~diamond
My opinions are mine alone and in no way reflect the opinions
of the voices in my head.
Steve Mading
Andrew Mulcahy (m...@islandnet.com) wrote:
: Look at what a paradox this attempt to stifle the
: sex urge has created! Now this once simple drive has become
: a year long obsession, filling our newspapers, magazines and
Uh, you only thought about sex for one year and then you
were done thinking about it? I wish I had that kind of
self-control.
--
Steve Mading: mad...@execpc.com http://www.execpc.com/~madings
Nicolas P. Demers
Sarah J. wrote:
>
> > Yea right, The xian people that i know wouldn't aquire,watch,create,
> > participate,or in any fashion be party to pornographic material.
>
> Then you apparently need to get out more.
Yeah, really. Reminds me of my first roommate after I moved to
Vancouver. Ultra-rightwing Catholic prolife nut, who more than once left
his porno mags lying in full view on his bed. <shrug>
--
Nicolas P. Demers n...@cs.sfu.ca
http://www.cs.sfu.ca/~npd/personal/index.html
Would you like my mask?
Would you like my mirror?
k522...@mindspring.com
In article <J-1706981...@darwin32.dcsi.net>, J...@Jdot.net (JM) entered
another dimension, from which he wrote:
>
> Do you need poop thrown on you to understand?
>
> Are you from Mars? Are you a monk from the Island of Laputa?
>
> Have you ever been kicked in the shin 'cause you pretended not to
> understand something?
>
> Have you ever been bopped with a tomatoe because you sat there at the
> Bookstore saying "where's the porn?" while the disclaimer sat there right
> in your face?
>
> Ever seen a mop bucket fall in your head and dirty water run down
> your neck?
But tell me, JM, have you every been kicked, in the head, with an iron
boot . . . no, forget that, that's stupid. That never happens to anyone.
(paraphrased from Airplane!)
JS & RT
JM wrote:
>
> In article <89808984...@ridge.spiritone.com>, "Darklady"
> <dark...@spiritone.com> wrote:
>
> means of depersonifying people, pure and simple.
If you'd "go back" to thinking of every woman and man as your father,
brother, mother and sister, you'd never have sex again.
Of course for Nameless that wouldn't be much of a change.
-- joseph
^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~
A.A. List #142 Evolve NOW Page ~ http://www.accessone.com/~jsrt/
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion,
or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom
of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to
assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
Davidson
Let's face it folks, porn is just one more thing Nameless knows
nothing about.
So, I'll make it easy.
Is Playboy porn? The old Playboy with no full frontal nudity?
Is Last Tango in Paris? Are paintings in the Louvre? How about
Ulysses?
Scott #1045
"When correctly viewed,
everything is lewd" - Tom Lehrer, Smut (I love it!)
JM wrote:
>
> In article <Pioneer-1706...@dap02-150118.cora.sgi.net>,
> Pio...@infidels.org (Pioneer) wrote:
>
> > In article <J-1706981...@darwin32.dcsi.net>, J...@Jdot.net (JM) wrote:
> >
> > > In article <Pioneer-1706...@dap02-150118.cora.sgi.net>,
> > > Pio...@infidels.org (Pioneer) wrote:
> >
> > > > What is "porn?"
> > >
> > > Ever been to a book store. Ever seen the "under 21" disclaimer? I know you
> > > have. Why this big pretense. Are you the great pretender?
> >
> > No pretending. Why do you take a simple question and use it to lie about me?
> >
> > Is everything with that disclaimer "porn?"
> > Are only things with that disclaimer "porn?"
> > Is that disclaimer always accurate about what is "porn?" Never misapplied?
>
> Would you like to go to your local book store and have the manager point
> out something in that section that isn't porn? Or do I have to pay you to
> do it.
>
> Scared?
>
> I thought so.
>
> ____________________________________
> "What is porn?" Austin Cline
> ____________________________________
>
> >
> > What is "porn?"
> > Austin Cline: Publicity Coordinator, Campus Freethought Alliance
Davidson
Sarah J. wrote:
(Snipping the parts where we are in perfect agreement, which
is most of the post.)
>
> Davidson posted the following to alt.atheism:
>
> > Sarah.J...@Biologie.Uni-Bielefeld.de wrote:
>
> > I wonder how old you guys are (you don't have to answer!)
>
> Yours truly here is 20 years, 4 months and 6 days "old". >:-)
>
> <snip>
>
> > My perception is that "fashion" has been marginalized. No one except
> > the really rich and anorexic expects to wear the stuff they see on
> > the runways.
>
> Yes -- thank goodness, most people seem to be too sensible to wear that
> ridiculous flimsy stuff. Still, "fashion" gets an amount of media coverage that
> is completely out of proportion to its actual importance. Talk about the
> "glamor" of the "rich and famous". Bleh.
> Dress companies buy ads. (Look in the NY Times. No one here gets
the fashion mags, but I can just imagine.) It is purely an editorial
for advertising deal. The real problem is that people buy those
crappy mags.
> <snippers>
>
> If you know Star Trek, can you say that Jean
> >> Luc Picard might just as well have been an older *female* captain? <snips>
> >
> > Well, ever watch Star Trek Voyager?
>
> I'm quite a Trekker, but unfortunately, I miss most episodes of both DS9 and
> Voyager due to being at University on many afternoons. :-(
>
> > (Older female Captain.)
>
> Uhm, excuse me? Kathryn Janeway is, I suppose, in her fourties -- that's an
> "older" woman? Especially when compared to Picard?
> I think she is older than that. Kate Mullgrew (?) played Columbo's wife
in a series quite a while ago. I'm 46 and she looks older than me - or
is made up that way. I would say that her age and Picard's are kind of similar.
I saw every episode of TOS the first time it was on, and don't much like the
new shows, though.
>
> > I notice lots more semi-naked male ads then there were 20 years ago.
>
> Again, I cannot comment on that, both due to my youth and due to the fact that
> the last thing I'd look at is a semi-naked male. ;-)
> Me either, but I can't help noticing them. And certain female members of
my family liked George of the Jungle a lot!
> > I don't know if this is due to gay buying power or female buying power,
> > but it is there. Nothing like GQ existed 30 years ago. Most fashion seems
> > to be fantasy, poorly done. I remember Playboys with fashion sections about
> > college clothes that were as far removed from what people really wore to
> > college as runway fashions are from what people really wore.
>
> I take it the Playboy took it on itself to "sex" its interpretation of "college
> clothes" up by quite a notch.
>
Not really. It was all men's clothes, and they were all jackets and fancy
sweaters and preppy stuff. I think the point was to convince people that
you were supposed to spend hundreds of bucks on this stuff, not tens.
I was just down the road from Harvard when I was in college, and no one
got suckered into those clothes even there (not that I noticed.)
> <snip>
>
>!
>
> <whips out a BIG sign: "Kill Leo!">
>
> :-P
I'm with you. My 11 year old daughter saw that stupid movie 3 times.
At least I got to laugh at her.
JM
In article <6ma5o5$n...@bgtnsc02.worldnet.att.net>, Davidson
<davi...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
> Let's face it folks, porn is just one more thing Nameless knows
> nothing about.
>
> So, I'll make it easy.
>
> Is Playboy porn? The old Playboy with no full frontal nudity?
> Is Last Tango in Paris? Are paintings in the Louvre? How about
> Ulysses?
Sorry, that won't work. How about everything that you see in a book store
magazine rack that says "no one under 21 may view the materials herein."
That we know for certain. Now go in peace.
>
> Scott #1045
>
> "When correctly viewed,
> everything is lewd" - Tom Lehrer, Smut (I love it!)
>
> JM wrote:
> >
> > In article <Pioneer-1706...@dap02-150118.cora.sgi.net>,
> > Pio...@infidels.org (Pioneer) wrote:
> >
> > > In article <J-1706981...@darwin32.dcsi.net>, J...@Jdot.net (JM) wrote:
> > >
> > > > In article <Pioneer-1706...@dap02-150118.cora.sgi.net>,
> > > > Pio...@infidels.org (Pioneer) wrote:
> > >
> > > > > What is "porn?"
> > > >
> > > > Ever been to a book store. Ever seen the "under 21" disclaimer? I
know you
> > > > have. Why this big pretense. Are you the great pretender?
> > >
> > > No pretending. Why do you take a simple question and use it to lie
about me?
> > >
> > > Is everything with that disclaimer "porn?"
> > > Are only things with that disclaimer "porn?"
> > > Is that disclaimer always accurate about what is "porn?" Never misapplied?
> >
> > Would you like to go to your local book store and have the manager point
> > out something in that section that isn't porn? Or do I have to pay you to
> > do it.
> >
> > Scared?
> >
> > I thought so.
> >
> > ____________________________________
> > "What is porn?" Austin Cline
> > ____________________________________
> >
> > >
> > > What is "porn?"
>
> > > Austin Cline: Publicity Coordinator, Campus Freethought Alliance
> > > Regional Director, Council for Secular Humanism
> > >
--
____________________________________
"What is porn?" Austin Cline
____________________________________............................................
Stop racism.
............................................
JM
In article <6ma4gl$hlp$3...@bertrand.ccs.carleton.ca>, John Rowat
<jro...@engsoc.carleton.ca> wrote:
> <snip everything but what I need for the point... which is very short,
> and put here, so don't bother reading the whole thing if you don't really
> want to>
>
> JM is trolling, or is a complete idiot, or both. Thus, *PLONK*
A new name going plonk as if he's been around forever. I wonder, is this
another Garrison Netzel in disguise.
> In talk.atheism JM <J...@Jdot.net> wrote:
>
> > Frankly there is nothing desperate about this. And as far as "ad hominem"
> > goes, this is a simple case where someone asks some really dumb questions
> > so we need to question the thought patterns that led to such questions.
>
> > Why should we ask why considering others to be brothers will eliminate
> > porn? Unless you're missing a chip or are mentally deprived such an answer
> > will be provide. I hate talking down to people, really.
>
> > We don't need to get into the legalese definition as to what porn is and
> > as to why you need it. Lawyers are employed to confuse the issue but we
> > all know what porn is.
>
> > No, not really. Here you attempt to obfuscate the issue and that is that
> > you love porn so you're really stretching for some arguments.
>
> > Volumes could be said about people who practice obfuscation for a living
> > and who don't know up from down.
>
> > My refusal is indicative of the fact that I simply do not speak down on
> > the obvious and those that practice obfuscation when it suits their needs.
>
> > Funny how I can give $5.00 bucks to a kid and tell him to get some porn
> > and he'll get it. And I give you $5.00 bucks and you say "what is porn." I
> > bet I can change your perspective real fast after I said, hey, get me some
> > porn, here's $50!
>
> > "Why thanks. I'll get it right now. I know what it is."
>
> > And who is exhibiting his lack of rationality? Either you can get some
> > porn or you can't. Don't be dumb.
>
> > And you are the one to speak of the lack of honesty? Now who's being
dishonest?
>
> > We know who's smart enough to know what is porn and who's dumb enough to
> > pretend he doesn't know.
--
Davidson
Not to step into this little love fest :) but let me speak
as someone who believes in marriage (for me) and has been married 20 years.
If you're serious about marriage, I think you had better be
sure you're compatible - in terms of religion, money (perhaps the most important thing),
desire for children, and sex. If one person likes sex, and the other
doesn't there is bound to be trouble, or at least resentment.
I'm advising ny daughters to make sure they know what they are getting into before they
get married. That's not being promiscuous, just rational. Anyway, we had a small
(godless :)) wedding, but I'm sure glad that wasn't our first time.
BTW Chris - since you think marriage is so great (and I agree - for me) I'm sure
that you support gay marriages, right?
Scott #1045
Rev Chuck
JM wrote:
>
> In article <6ma5o5$n...@bgtnsc02.worldnet.att.net>, Davidson
> <davi...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>
> > Let's face it folks, porn is just one more thing Nameless knows
> > nothing about.
> >
> > So, I'll make it easy.
> >
> > Is Playboy porn? The old Playboy with no full frontal nudity?
> > Is Last Tango in Paris? Are paintings in the Louvre? How about
> > Ulysses?
>
> Sorry, that won't work. How about everything that you see in a book store
> magazine rack that says "no one under 21 may view the materials herein."
>
> That we know for certain. Now go in peace.
Wasn't it decided that the definition of "porn" is up to community
standards? That "Over 21 Only" rack, in what part of the country is
it located?
Nudity standards vary with country. In many parts of Europe, people
have no problems with what may be depicted. Full frontal nudity is
just matter of fact, and no one goes hysterical over it. Makes the
U.S. look culturally retarded.
Japan is weird, off the scale. Full frontal nudity is verbotten, X-rated
films have censorship bars over the actors' and actresses' privates. And
yet, rear nudity is acceptable even in kid's comics; one popular general
circulation "manga" feature is called "Professor Toilet", and deals
graphically and weekly with all matters scatological.
--
Rev Chuck,
Alt.Atheism Mark of the IPU #203,
Ordained Reverend, ULC, 17 March, 1997.
Remove -REMOVE_THIS- from address to respond.
JM
In article <358777B5.173F@-REMOVE_THIS-erols.com>, Rev Chuck
<cdub@-REMOVE_THIS-erols.com> wrote:
> JM wrote:
> >
> > In article <6ma5o5$n...@bgtnsc02.worldnet.att.net>, Davidson
> > <davi...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
> >
> > > Let's face it folks, porn is just one more thing Nameless knows
> > > nothing about.
> > >
> > > So, I'll make it easy.
> > >
> > > Is Playboy porn? The old Playboy with no full frontal nudity?
> > > Is Last Tango in Paris? Are paintings in the Louvre? How about
> > > Ulysses?
> >
> > Sorry, that won't work. How about everything that you see in a book store
> > magazine rack that says "no one under 21 may view the materials herein."
> >
> > That we know for certain. Now go in peace.
> > --
>
> Wasn't it decided that the definition of "porn" is up to community
> standards? That "Over 21 Only" rack, in what part of the country is
> it located?
>
> Nudity standards vary with country. In many parts of Europe, people
> have no problems with what may be depicted. Full frontal nudity is
> just matter of fact, and no one goes hysterical over it. Makes the
> U.S. look culturally retarded.
Not really. Since it's you that likes it it is you that has a problem.
Much like how you think spouting obscenities makes you sound like an
adult.
>
> Japan is weird, off the scale. Full frontal nudity is verbotten, X-rated
> films have censorship bars over the actors' and actresses' privates. And
> yet, rear nudity is acceptable even in kid's comics; one popular general
> circulation "manga" feature is called "Professor Toilet", and deals
> graphically and weekly with all matters scatological.
>
> --
> Rev Chuck,
> Alt.Atheism Mark of the IPU #203,
> Ordained Reverend, ULC, 17 March, 1997.
> Remove -REMOVE_THIS- from address to respond.
--
Chris Hamilton
J...@Jdot.net (JM) wrote:
>>> Such empty souls. If you'd go back to thinking of every woman and man as
>>> your brother, father, mother and sister,you wouldn't have porn.
Beth Wise said:
>> Nope. Just incest.
JM said:
>Nope. You would respect women if you're a male and rapes would be stopped.
Listen up, fuckwit! I've had my share of sex. I've never raped anyone, never
even thought of raping anyone. I respect women quite a bit. If I or anyone
else wants to look at a porn video, or not look at a porn video, its none of
your business.
Koresh, take a $100 out and get laid or something. You need it, man.
Chris
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Chris Hamilton -- aa# 1186
Tone...@erols.com
http://www.serve.com/cowpb/chamilton.html
Therion Ware
On Wed, 17 Jun 1998 08:48:07 +0800, "JM" spake unto the multitude,
saying in <J-1706980...@inakka22.dcsi.net>
>In article <89808984...@ridge.spiritone.com>, "Darklady"
><dark...@spiritone.com> wrote:
>
>
>Such empty souls. If you'd go back to thinking of every woman and man as
>your brother, father, mother and sister,you wouldn't have porn.
Clearly you are unfamiliar with the tastes of some.
>Porn, is a means of depersonifying people, pure and simple.
Well actually, any human activity that makes a person the subject of
the appetite of another person, dehumanizes, according to Kant,
anyway. Your closeness to him in this area, frankly amazes me, while
bearing in mind that for Kant, any form of sexual love was not
disimilar to gang rape.
Personally I think the dehumanization argument is overrated. While I
might value a porn actor/actress purely for their effectiveness in
turning me on, I really don't see how this differs from valuing a
mainstream actor on the basis of how well they entertain me.
-----
Hell Is A City Much Like Dis, and it's Pandemonium; for "why this is Hell, nor am I out of it".
------ ------
Visit The City of Dis at: <http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Delphi/6671/index.html>
Evil Atheist Conspiracy : <http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Delphi/6671/eac/eac-oath.html>
Alt.Athesim Twit List : <http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Delphi/6671/aatwit/aatwit.html>
------
remove .eac from address to send email. Site updated: 22 May 1998 - 09:00 GMT.
E.A.C. Member #81 - AA: #422 (ag).
Therion Ware
On Wed, 17 Jun 1998 12:42:58 +0800, "JM" spake unto the multitude,
saying in <J-1706981...@darwin33.dcsi.net>
[snip]
>We don't need to get into the legalese definition as to what porn is and
>as to why you need it. Lawyers are employed to confuse the issue but we
>all know what porn is.
Do we? Is there a difference between "porn" and "erotica", for
example?
[snip]
John Angus
JM (J...@Jdot.net) writes:
> Such empty souls. If you'd go back to thinking of every woman and man as
> your brother, father, mother and sister,you wouldn't have porn.
Well, but you wouldn't have sex either.
Or people.
>Porn, is a means of depersonifying people, pure and simple.
Noooo, porn is a means of getting off.
JA
--
It's a thousand pages, give or take a few. I'll be writing more in a week
or two. I can make it longer if you like my style, but I need a job and I
want to be a paperback writer. - William Shakespeare
John Angus
JM (J...@Jdot.net) writes:
>
> Would you like to go to your local book store and have the manager point
> out something in that section that isn't porn?
Might he or she not point out some erotica?
Or do you acknowledge such a beast?
John Angus
JM (J...@Jdot.net) writes:
> net? I want to be as far from the sex lives of other people as I can.
You appear to be saying you only have sex with yourself?
Have you tried watching porn to aid in your masturbation?
loup...@webtv.net
> Pio...@infidels.org (Pioneer) wrote:
>
> > In article <J-1706981...@darwin33.dcsi.net>, J...@Jdot.net (JM) wrote:
> >
> > > In article <769.472T11...@spamless.net>, "Beth Wise"
> > > <in...@spamless.net> wrote:
> >
> > > > > Such empty souls. If you'd go back to thinking of every woman and man as
> > > > > your brother, father, mother and sister,you wouldn't have porn.
> > > >
> > >
> > > Nope. You would respect women if you're a male and rapes would be stopped.
JM, my social psychology textbook cited a study in which the rates of sexual
assaults in countries, mostly West European, where pornography was just
legalized, and compared it to the rates of rape in the US, where porn was
just becoming common (this study was done over a long period).
In the European, there was no significant rise in the number of rapes. In the
US, there was, but it rose in proportion to the number of other violent
crimes commited.
In other words, there was no evidence in this study to suggest that porn
caused people to rape more often.
One more thing... you say that people should "go back to" thinking of
everyone as family. Tell me, when people thought like that, were there no
rapes?
--Jessica Wolfman
-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----
http://www.dejanews.com/ Now offering spam-free web-based newsreading
Therion Ware
On Wed, 17 Jun 1998 08:48:07 +0800, "JM" spake unto the multitude,
saying in <J-1706980...@inakka22.dcsi.net>
>In article <89808984...@ridge.spiritone.com>, "Darklady"
><dark...@spiritone.com> wrote:
>
>
>Such empty souls. If you'd go back to thinking of every woman and man as
>your brother, father, mother and sister,you wouldn't have porn.
Clearly you are unfamiliar with the tastes of some.
>Porn, is a means of depersonifying people, pure and simple.
Well actually, any human activity that makes a person the subject of
the appetite of another person, dehumanizes, according to Kant,
anyway. Your closeness to him in this area, frankly amazes me, while
bearing in mind that for Kant, any form of sexual love was not
disimilar to gang rape. This is why he died a virgin, I imagine.
John Rowat
<snip everything but what I need for the point... which is very short,
and put here, so don't bother reading the whole thing if you don't really
want to>
JM is trolling, or is a complete idiot, or both. Thus, *PLONK*
-John
In talk.atheism JM <J...@Jdot.net> wrote:
> Frankly there is nothing desperate about this. And as far as "ad hominem"
> goes, this is a simple case where someone asks some really dumb questions
> so we need to question the thought patterns that led to such questions.
> Why should we ask why considering others to be brothers will eliminate
> porn? Unless you're missing a chip or are mentally deprived such an answer
> will be provide. I hate talking down to people, really.
> We don't need to get into the legalese definition as to what porn is and
> as to why you need it. Lawyers are employed to confuse the issue but we
> all know what porn is.
> No, not really. Here you attempt to obfuscate the issue and that is that
Therion Ware
On Wed, 17 Jun 1998 21:15:55 +0800, "JM" spake unto the multitude,
saying in <J-1706982...@inakka22.dcsi.net>
>In article <6ma5o5$n...@bgtnsc02.worldnet.att.net>, Davidson
><davi...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>
>> Let's face it folks, porn is just one more thing Nameless knows
>> nothing about.
>>
>> So, I'll make it easy.
>>
>> Is Playboy porn? The old Playboy with no full frontal nudity?
>> Is Last Tango in Paris? Are paintings in the Louvre? How about
>> Ulysses?
>
>Sorry, that won't work. How about everything that you see in a book store
>magazine rack that says "no one under 21 may view the materials herein."
>
>That we know for certain. Now go in peace.
So the "Story of O" is not porn, because it's available on the shelves
of any high-street bookstore in the UK and anyone, regardless of age,
can buy it?
Voting is porn because you're not allowed in the booth until you're
18?
Therion Ware
On Wed, 17 Jun 1998 01:00:53 -0700, "Rev Chuck" spake unto the
multitude, saying in <358777B5.173F@-REMOVE_THIS-erols.com>
[snip]
>Japan is weird, off the scale. Full frontal nudity is verbotten, X-rated
>films have censorship bars over the actors' and actresses' privates. And
>yet, rear nudity is acceptable even in kid's comics; one popular general
>circulation "manga" feature is called "Professor Toilet", and deals
>graphically and weekly with all matters scatological.
and of course Japansese S&M videos are some of the most enthusiastic
in the world. (They tell me).
vey...@geocities.com
In article <J-1706980...@inakka22.dcsi.net>,
J...@Jdot.net (JM) wrote:
>
> In article <89808984...@ridge.spiritone.com>, "Darklady"
> <dark...@spiritone.com> wrote:
>
> Such empty souls. If you'd go back to thinking of every woman and man as
> means of depersonifying people, pure and simple.
John, did you not read in Darklady's article that the actors were
willing? No one is forcing them to do anything. No one but you.
You are trying to force your christian values on them. Is that
not the real depersonification?
John, you talk of other's empty souls but not of your own. I sense
that you are lonely, angry, and feel betrayed. I sense an empty soul
crying out for anyone. But you are afraid, and lash out instead of
opening up. What you think is strength is really weakness. Can you
talk to me, or will you continue to run?
Veyanne
+----------------+------------------+-------------+--------------+
| By the pricking of my thumbs, something wicked this way comes. |
+-----------------------------------+----------------------------+
| Visit me at: http://www.geocities.com/Paris/Cafe/8945 |
+----------------+------------------+-------------+--------------+
| Hear me rant about the Baptists as the "Daughter of Satan" |
| http://www.goodnet.com/~buxte/ask_satan/rants.htm |
+----------------+------------------+-------------+--------------+
Darryl L. Pierce
In article <J-1706981...@darwin33.dcsi.net>, J...@Jdot.net (JM) wrote:
;Frankly there is nothing desperate about this. And as far as "ad hominem"
;goes, this is a simple case where someone asks some really dumb questions
;so we need to question the thought patterns that led to such questions.
And, yet, you still don't answer the question...
;Why should we ask why considering others to be brothers will eliminate
;porn? Unless you're missing a chip or are mentally deprived such an answer
;will be provide. I hate talking down to people, really.
"If you don't know, I won't tell you" is another way of saying "I don't know,
I just heard it and am repeating it". Explain to us, briefly, then.
;We don't need to get into the legalese definition as to what porn is and
;as to why you need it. Lawyers are employed to confuse the issue but we
;all know what porn is.
But, we're not talking about legalese. We're talking about what porn is. What
do you think we should eliminate in order to prevent the depersonalization of
people, what you call "porn"? The legality of your response is immaterial and
won't be considered.
;No, not really. Here you attempt to obfuscate the issue and that is that
;you love porn so you're really stretching for some arguments.
I don't love porn (by that I mean erotic fiction, pictures or movies). But,
defining porn is most definitely central to this discussion, since it was
*you* who said that porn is the problem here. What is porn, then, so we know
what to dispose of?
+-------------------------------------+----------------------------------+
| Darryl L. Pierce, Atheist #1142 | "Those not shocked by quantum |
| Resource Solutions, Int'l @ IBM/RTP | theory have not understood it." |
| (919) 254-4583 (919) 547-7177 | Neils Bohr |
+-------------------------------------+----------------------------------+
| This message reflects *MY* opinion and not that of my employer. |
+-------------------------------------+----------------------------------+