PDA

View Full Version : No sex please, we're Alabamans



Obviousman
2005-Feb-25, 04:09 AM
I read that in Alabama there is a ban on sex toys, and that it was ruled that the US Constitution does not include a right to sexual privacy.

And yet you can have guns, lots of them.

What are those people thinking?

Americans are my favourite people, but at times like this I really wonder what goes on there...

tmosher
2005-Feb-25, 04:12 AM
I read that in Alabama there is a ban on sex toys, and that it was ruled that the US Constitution does not include a right to sexual privacy.

And yet you can have guns, lots of them.

What are those people thinking?

Americans are my favourite people, but at times like this I really wonder what goes on there...

I wonder if I could become a millionaire smuggling naughty items into Alabama?

Obviousman
2005-Feb-25, 04:16 AM
It might lead to a whole new meaning to the word "bootlegger"....

Kristophe
2005-Feb-25, 05:13 AM
The government has no place in the bedroom. If people are so concerned with children learning about sex and sexuality, then there are far better ways of going about it. I, personally, would prefer if children got educated about this sort of thing from people in the know, rather than Hollywood.

Gillianren
2005-Feb-25, 05:16 AM
if I'm not mistaken, these laws got thrown out a few years ago when the gay couple sued over their state's (Texas?) sodomy law. the Supreme Court agreed that, no, the government has no business in your bedroom.

tmosher
2005-Feb-25, 05:24 AM
if I'm not mistaken, these laws got thrown out a few years ago when the gay couple sued over their state's (Texas?) sodomy law. the Supreme Court agreed that, no, the government has no business in your bedroom.

It was Texas - the Supreme Court struck down the law in November 2003.

W.F. Tomba
2005-Feb-25, 05:25 AM
if I'm not mistaken, these laws got thrown out a few years ago when the gay couple sued over their state's (Texas?) sodomy law. the Supreme Court agreed that, no, the government has no business in your bedroom.
Have they really been thrown out? The fact that the Court struck down the Texas sodomy law doesn't automatically invalidate any other laws. It merely sets a legal precedent for future rulings.

TriangleMan
2005-Feb-25, 12:36 PM
I read that in Alabama there is a ban on sex toys, and that it was ruled that the US Constitution does not include a right to sexual privacy.
Guess it doesn't then.


And yet you can have guns, lots of them.
Yep, AFAIK it's specifically in the Constitution

What are those people thinking?
At the time the Constitution was drafted I guess the Founding Fathers found it necessary to include the right to own guns. Given the times I could see why. I don't think adult toys were high on the priority list.

While I find the ban bizarre I guess the state government has a right to decide what products are allowed for sale there. I hope they broaden it out to go after quack medical products too.

the_shaggy_one
2005-Feb-25, 12:44 PM
I would carefully examine the applicable state and federal constitution, laws, etc, before assuming that the state has an ability to decide what was for sale. What if the state decided it was illegal to sell the Book of Mormon, or the Koran? It's the same idea. This is an extremely slippery slope. Government poewr-mongering like this scares me more than anything else.

Remember, the rights of an individual are more important than the comfort of the majority. Just because Mr. Decency doesn't like adult toys being sold in his state, doesn't mean it's ok for him and all his buddies to make them illegal. If one person in the entire state thinks it's ok to buy those toys and want to buy them, the state has no buisness telling him he can't buy them.

jrkeller
2005-Feb-25, 12:46 PM
The ruling only bans the sale in the state, so I guess mail order is OK. Their use in not banned. See here. (http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2005-02-22-toys_x.htm?csp=36)

TriangleMan
2005-Feb-25, 12:50 PM
Remember, the rights of an individual are more important than the comfort of the majority. Just because Mr. Decency doesn't like adult toys being sold in his state, doesn't mean it's ok for him and all his buddies to make them illegal. If one person in the entire state thinks it's ok to buy those toys and want to buy them, the state has no buisness telling him he can't buy them.
So why did the court make ruling it did (and I think it applies to the sale of the toys, not the purchase of them, so you could conceivably go to another state and get them)?

the_shaggy_one
2005-Feb-25, 01:06 PM
These people have forgotten what, exactly, freedom means. Every attempt I see to legislate morality gives me a headache.

An example: I eat meat. A lot of meat. People who feel that animals have feelings and should not be meals are possibly offended by this. Does this mean that the state I live in should forbid the sale of meat? Does this mean that the 99% of the country that enjoys meat should all stop eating meat, to possibly avoid offending the 1% that doesn't?

I, for one, do not see how we can send people over to Iraq to die fighting for the freedom of the iraqi people and then turn around and supress those very same freedoms in our own backyards. It's absolutely bizzare.

TriangleMan
2005-Feb-25, 01:13 PM
From jrkeller's link, a quote from one of the judges:

"On the other hand, if we today craft a new fundamental right by which to invalidate the law, we would be bound to give that right full force and effect in all future cases including, for example, those involving adult incest, prostitution, obscenity, and the like."
I'm now really interested in seeing the written opinions from the judges. Slippery slope arguments like this strike me as an odd thing from a judicial panel.

Maksutov
2005-Feb-25, 01:17 PM
The ruling only bans the sale in the state, so I guess mail order is OK. Their use in not banned. See here. (http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2005-02-22-toys_x.htm?csp=36)
That ignores the issue which is the right of the state to regulate a person's private life in areas which affect no one but the individual and other consenting adults.

Alabama is taking the same tack that allowed states to ban contraceptives for decades.

It's none of our/any government's business.

Maksutov
2005-Feb-25, 01:24 PM
[edit]I, for one, do not see how we can send people over to Iraq to die fighting for the freedom of the iraqi people and then turn around and supress those very same freedoms in our own backyards. It's absolutely bizarre.
Alabama can be quite bizarre. Check this out (http://www.retakingamerica.com/great_amer_ten_rally_page001.html).

kucharek
2005-Feb-25, 01:37 PM
Some days ago another bizarre story made its rounds through the press here. It was about Virginia where it seems a law was done that you've to pay a penalty when your trousers are so short the underwear gets visible or something like that.
Does it mean it's okay to wear no underwear at all with too short trousers? :P

Harald

PS: I just saw that the legislation was killed. Of course, this didn't made the rounds through the press here...

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/4256979.stm

Wally
2005-Feb-25, 01:50 PM
Americans are my favourite people, but at times like this I really wonder what goes on there...

Hey!! Alabama may be American, but not all Americans are Alabamians man!!! (not that there's anything wrong with being from that state, mind you. . . :lol: )



I wonder if I could become a millionaire smuggling naughty items into Alabama?


At least the police dogs aren't trained to ID the smell of latex. . . yet! :P

Swift
2005-Feb-25, 01:56 PM
The good news is that maybe such a law will decrease the amount of breeding that Alabamians do. It thus becomes a self correcting problem. :wink:

trob
2005-Feb-25, 02:13 PM
I would love to vote "no" but I don't know how to vote...please help, how does it work.

Trob

Edit: #-o #-o #-o #-o #-o #-o #-o #-o #-o #-o #-o #-o #-o #-o #-o #-o #-o #-o #-o #-o #-o #-o #-o #-o #-o #-o #-o #-o

I found out lol...and i thought there were limits to stupidity. And here is for good measure: #-o

Argos
2005-Feb-25, 02:16 PM
I would love to vote "no" but I don't know how to vote...please help, how does it work.

Trob

Check the "radio button" in the option you want and then click "submit".

trob
2005-Feb-25, 02:18 PM
Its because you have to be logged in....
:lol:

Thanks all the same

Trob

SciFi Chick
2005-Feb-25, 02:24 PM
These people have forgotten what, exactly, freedom means. Every attempt I see to legislate morality gives me a headache.



But all legislation legislates morality. Take, for example, the ban on murder. 8)

Doodler
2005-Feb-25, 02:25 PM
Alabama is in the heart of the Bible Belt, this kind of maneuver doesn't shock me remotely. If anything, these attempts to maneuver legislation into the bedroom generate more negative backlash than they're worth, you'd think they'd have learned the lesson of Texas. This kind of crap goes hand in hand with attempts to re-insert Creationism in schools and the Ten Commandments in courtrooms. It doesn't work, if anything, it just feeds into negative sourthern stereotyping and destroys their credibility.

trob
2005-Feb-25, 02:27 PM
Removed post

Maksutov
2005-Feb-25, 02:35 PM
Some days ago another bizarre story made its rounds through the press here. It was about Virginia where it seems a law was done that you've to pay a penalty when your trousers are so short the underwear gets visible or something like that.
Does it mean it's okay to wear no underwear at all with too short trousers? :P

Harald

PS: I just saw that the legislation was killed. Of course, this didn't made the rounds through the press here...

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/4256979.stm
Hey, hey, I wonder where my underwear went! Full moon tonight?

Puritanism in America, being so ingrained in the lore of the families with power/money and those who follow them, will probably never die.

There's a quote from H. L. Mencken about why so many of the portraits of the Puritans from the 1600s depict such dour people:


A Puritan is someone who is desperately afraid that, somewhere, someone might be having a good time.

Doodler
2005-Feb-25, 02:43 PM
These people have forgotten what, exactly, freedom means. Every attempt I see to legislate morality gives me a headache.



But all legislation legislates morality. Take, for example, the ban on murder. 8)

Chop logic, laws define boundaries within an act based on situational variables, and there are no absolutes. There are cases where I have the right to ventilate someone's brainpan with a high powered rifle and suffer no consequences.

There's fundamental right to life liberty and the pursuit of happiness, there's also some language in there that so long as someone is expressing themselves in a manner that does not DIRECTLY impinge upon your rights, you have no right to stop them. I believe its called the First Amendment. [Retracted]

SciFi Chick
2005-Feb-25, 02:57 PM
And with that statement, I am stepping out of this lovely thread which violates both the admonition not to speak of politics or religion. :)

trob
2005-Feb-25, 03:00 PM
Ups...I just had a look at the rules...I won't be saying more either...
:oops:
Trob

Doodler
2005-Feb-25, 03:10 PM
The statement will be withdrawn, though I must regret it because the group in question is openly maneuvering as such more as a political entity than a spiritual one.

Nergal
2005-Feb-25, 04:06 PM
Alabama is in the heart of the Bible Belt, this kind of maneuver doesn't shock me remotely. If anything, these attempts to maneuver legislation into the bedroom generate more negative backlash than they're worth, you'd think they'd have learned the lesson of Texas. This kind of crap goes hand in hand with attempts to re-insert Creationism in schools and the Ten Commandments in courtrooms. It doesn't work, if anything, it just feeds into negative sourthern stereotyping and destroys their credibility.

Yeah, that about sums it up.

I live in Alabama, and this ban on toys boggles my mind. I wonder if I was sick and missed the referrendum where we voted s as a threat to our way of life. I'll be the first to admit this state has issues, and frankly I'd rather see our elected officials address those issues...and toys are not an issue.

Makes you wonder if some good-ole-boy legislator got replaced by batteries... 8-[

...ok, that's enough semi-political rant.

Spacewriter
2005-Feb-25, 04:13 PM
I just always wonder why when certain types of folks find out that other folks are doing something (legally) that the first type disapproves of for whatever reasons, one of the big reasons they trot out is "think of the children!"

Why indeed, do they think of children, first, in context of something that adults do? Makes you wonder...

jt-3d
2005-Feb-25, 04:15 PM
I read that in Alabama there is a ban on sex toys, and that it was ruled that the US Constitution does not include a right to sexual privacy.

And yet you can have guns, lots of them.

What are those people thinking?

Americans are my favourite people, but at times like this I really wonder what goes on there...

Apples, oranges and then obsfucation. Way to go.

I should at least get points for trying to spell obsfucation. And why does this stuff fly in BABB but not in the mars or moon thread? blah

Doodler
2005-Feb-25, 04:35 PM
...one of the big reasons they trot out is "think of the children!"

Heehee, why do you think they put locks on bedroom doors?

Disinfo Agent
2005-Feb-25, 04:51 PM
I live in Alabama, and this ban on toys boggles my mind. I wonder if I was sick and missed the referrendum where we voted s as a threat to our way of life. I'll be the first to admit this state has issues, and frankly I'd rather see our elected officials address those issues...and toys are not an issue.

Makes you wonder if some good-ole-boy legislator got replaced by batteries... 8-[
It's hard to believe that your legislators would be doing something like this if they weren't convinced that they're going to have the support of at least a significant portion of the state's population...

What's your impression? Are the legislators responding to an aspiration with significant popular support, or are they just motivated by their own personal interpretation of morality? Or could this move be part of a bigger picture?...

frogesque
2005-Feb-25, 05:06 PM
I think it comes down to consenting adults behind closed doors. Nobody else's business.

How point of sale is regulated is a public matter though. If window displays are tasteful I don't see what the problem is. There again, we have Anne Summers in the UK who opperate one of the most sucessful party plan, mail order and retail outlets there are. For a supposedly staid nation we can be surprisingly grown up and treat these stories from the States with benign amusement.

Zachary
2005-Feb-25, 05:12 PM
This may sound a bit cras, but I'm just really glad this garbage doesn't go on in my country.

Hutch
2005-Feb-25, 06:20 PM
Well, I live in Alabama too (but a born and bred Yankee from Ohio) and it appears to me quite ironic--in the Huntsville area there are numerous strip clubs and adult bookstores (now of course sans books but with thousands of adult DVD's--or so I've heard :oops: 8) ) and if you can't find something there it's right across the border in Tennessee or Georgia.

Just something to please the voters who know what is right because the Bible told them so (well, their preachers did, but that's the same thing, isn't it?)

Anyway, I'll stop now or I may get started on Judge Roy Moore and incur the BA's wrath.

TriangleMan
2005-Feb-25, 06:52 PM
Can anyone help me find the Appeal Court opinion on this case? I went to the website of the Eleventh Circuit Court (http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov) but couldn't find it.

Nergal
2005-Feb-25, 06:54 PM
It's hard to believe that your legislators would be doing something like this if they weren't convinced that they're going to have the support of at least a significant portion of the state's population...

What's your impression? Are the legislators responding to an aspiration with significant popular support, or are they just motivated by their own personal interpretation of morality?
Short answer: both.

Long(er) answer: I don't think there was any great outcry to ban toys. I do think some morally high-and-tight legislator got his (or her) personal garments in a twist and got this bill rolling. It passed because everyone in the legislature saw this as a way to look good to the vast Bible-belt majority in this state.

I do know that some of the religious leaders in my neck of the woods (LA - Lower Alabama - Mobile) have already labled this a "blow for moral decency" and a "foundation of family values". Both of which strike me as more than a little over the top.

It offends me that in an era of budget deficiets so great we're talking about doing away with high school sports, canceling teacher pay raises, and using outdated text books...that they'd even bother to waste time on a bill banning toys

Like I said, I obviously missed the referrendum where it was decided that these toys were a threat to national security...

Spacewriter
2005-Feb-25, 07:07 PM
wow... a "blow" for moral decency, eh?

8-[

there's an interesting conflation of terms...

Lurker
2005-Feb-25, 07:59 PM
This is wonderful... guns --> ok...... sex toys --> no way

This is America, you can hate people and kill 'em...

but you caaaaaan't love 'em... :o


Hmmmmmm... did I miss something here?? :-k


Edited to add:

Don't worry... I'm gunna be rounded up as soon as we invade Iran anyway... 8)

PyroFreak
2005-Feb-25, 08:23 PM
Wait a minute....just because people can have guns doesn't mean that they hate others.

Disinfo Agent
2005-Feb-25, 08:46 PM
And, to muddy the waters even more, there are those who like to use guns as toys in intimate moments too (from what I understand)... :wink:

Lurker
2005-Feb-25, 08:59 PM
And, to muddy the waters even more, there are those who like to use guns as toys in intimate moments too (from what I understand)... :wink:
Not goin' there man... just not goin' there... [-(

Disinfo Agent
2005-Feb-25, 09:11 PM
You're right. I'm chasing bunny tails again. :oops:

Lurker
2005-Feb-25, 09:16 PM
You're right. I'm chasing bunny tails again. :oops:
That's bunny trails :x

:P

Disinfo Agent
2005-Feb-25, 09:20 PM
Ack! No wonder I couldn't search the darned phrase in the board! :evil:
Do you know how many times people have written the word "bunny" on these forums? It's scary...

Lurker
2005-Feb-25, 09:22 PM
bunny tails..... #-o


This a family friendly forum!! Think of the children man!! [-(

:wink:

Swift
2005-Feb-25, 09:23 PM
You're right. I'm chasing bunny tails again. :oops:
That's bunny trails :x

:P
Well, if you're Huge Hefner, you might mean bunny tails. :lol:

Van Rijn
2005-Feb-25, 09:50 PM
Last I looked, there were quite a few restrictions on gun ownership and that has been steadily increasing. Of course, this varies substantially from state to state.

And let's be clear on this: Laws and attitudes can vary quite a bit from state to state. Alabama is like that country cousin that everyone likes to talk about but nobody really likes to visit (or at least, that's the attitude of most of the folks I know).

Maksutov
2005-Feb-25, 11:02 PM
This is wonderful... guns --> ok...... sex toys --> no way

This is America, you can hate people and kill 'em...

but you caaaaaan't love 'em... :o


Hmmmmmm... did I miss something here?? :-k


Edited to add:

Don't worry... I'm gunna be rounded up as soon as we invade Iran anyway... 8)
You didn't miss anything.

After the Jackson ward-disrobe during Superbowl 38, once the networks got back to their normal programming (cop shows), there were about seven acts of violence, including two killings, depicted that same evening.

The switchboards did not light up.

Simple message:

Sex: bad.

Violence: good.

Lurker
2005-Feb-25, 11:09 PM
After the Jackson ward-disrobe during Superbowl 38, once the networks got back to their normal programming (cop shows), there were about seven acts of violence, including two killings, depicted that same evening.

The switchboards did not light up.

Simple message:

Sex: bad.

Violence: good.
hmmmmmmm..... Sane folk... I still don't understand 'em.... :-k

:wink:

Maksutov
2005-Feb-25, 11:19 PM
I think it comes down to consenting adults behind closed doors. Nobody else's business.

How point of sale is regulated is a public matter though. If window displays are tasteful I don't see what the problem is. There again, we have Anne Summers in the UK who opperate one of the most sucessful party plan, mail order and retail outlets there are. For a supposedly staid nation we can be surprisingly grown up and treat these stories from the States with benign amusement.
Europe (and lot of the rest of the world) has always been much more mature in their handling of sex-related issues than the US. England would probably be as backward and immature toward the subject if they hadn't kicked the Puritans out.

Remember "Banned in Boston"?

Remember what Tallulah Bankhead said about Norman Mailer's inability to spell certain words?

Remember the phrase "Clean American Version"?

Here ya go*:

http://img215.exs.cx/img215/5431/cleanamericanversion5wc.th.jpg (http://img215.exs.cx/my.php?loc=img215&image=cleanamericanversion5wc.jp g)

I wonder what Frank Zappa, one of the most eloquent defenders of the First Amendment, would have had to say about this situation. You're missed by all the guys down at Joe's Garage, Frank!

*When Absolutely Free was issued in 1967, Zappa was prohibited from including the lyrics due to RIAA and government censorship. The get-around was for record buyers to request the lyrics by mail. Zappa's suggested donation was a "shoebox filled of money".

Disinfo Agent
2005-Feb-28, 03:00 PM
Europe (and lot of the rest of the world) has always been much more mature in their handling of sex-related issues than the US. England would probably be as backward and immature toward the subject if they hadn't kicked the Puritans out.
Hmm... I'm not sure I agree with you on the "a lot of the rest of the world" bit... or the "always" bit. :-?

Can you imagine the reaction if Jannet and Justin had had their "wardrobe malfunction" in a Muslim country?... Or in China?...

ktesibios
2005-Feb-28, 03:19 PM
I wonder if the legislature held investigative hearings, or went a-junketing (to the appropriate places) to gather information, before passing legislation to deal with this clear and present danger.

That could have been entertaining.

At least it would beat designating the Official State Arthropod, or the other stuff that legislatures do to relieve the boredom.

Ilya
2005-Feb-28, 03:25 PM
Europe (and lot of the rest of the world) has always been much more mature in their handling of sex-related issues than the US. England would probably be as backward and immature toward the subject if they hadn't kicked the Puritans out.
Hmm... I'm not sure I agree with you on the "a lot of the rest of the world" bit... or the "always" bit. :-?

Can you imagine the reaction if Jannet and Justin had had their "wardrobe malfunction" in a Muslim country?... Or in China?...

Or in the Soviet Union.

You are right, of course, but it is rather ironic that American laws regulating sexual behavior are comparable to those in Muslim and Communist countries (although the penalties are much lighter).

Also, aside from a few Muslim countries where alcohol is illegal, US* has the highest drinking age in the world, and is the only non-Muslim country ever that tried to ban alcohol completely.

*Yes, I know 21-year drinking age is state laws, and have one exception (Louisiana), but it was Congress which blackmailed the states into doing that.

farmerjumperdon
2005-Feb-28, 04:06 PM
To Obviousman, regarding What's going on in America?

Good question. I believe we are at a historical nexus of sorts with a collision of non-related phenomena causing a mini ice age of anti-intellectualism. Some of these phenomena include:

1 - Political correctness. Results in a lot of people saying what they think they should say, or what they think what people want to hear, instead of what they really beleive. Profusely practiced by holders of, or candidates for, public office.

2 - Rise of the Fundamental Right. Adjusting for the expected rise we should be seeing as a result of the increased availability of knowledge, it seems we are experiencing a drop in the real GNI (Gross National Intelligence). Fortunately, science marches on. Unfortunately, democracy and the power of the masses hold sway.

3 - The WWW. Another good news-bad news issue. Used to be that hoaxes and conspiracy's were usually pretty well localized and didn't last too long or get many sensible people too excited. Now every smidgen of a news item, regardless of source or stupidity level, gets disseminated instantaneously to the entire world. The wackos are way too connected to be countered by mere logic alone. Now we have to do as good a job at marketing the truth as the hucksters do at marketing their lies in order for anybody to pay attention.

4 - The Propogation of Ignorance. It is now more acceptable (if not downright popular) to be stupid than ever before. The meteoric rise in popularity of redneck country comedy is no accident. I once pointed out Jupiter to a kid who looked like he might enjoy knowing where to look for such a thing. His dad returned and scolded the kid when he proudly announced to his father that he could identify the planet. The dad didn't have this knowledge, and he was going to be damned if his kid was going to have it. You know you're an agnoramus when . . .

5 - Anti-Intellectualism in General. I won't even go into it here, just check out The Closing of the American Mind. A bit of a hefty read, which pretty much guarantees minimal sales in the Bible Belt. OK, that was cheap; but why is it that roughly 80% of Darwin Award recipients live south of the Mason-Dixon line? I swear to God, (oops, there I go again), when I read the 1st line of a baby-fell-down-the-well story, I know there is a 90% chance the news item originated in the Bible Belt. Has anybody in Mississippi made the connection that dictates open wells make a bad playground amenity?

mid
2005-Feb-28, 05:12 PM
From Rolling Stone (http://www.rollingstone.com/news/story/_/id/7047694/bobdylan?pageid=rs.NewsArchive&pageregion=mainRegi on&rnd=1109610455589&has-player=unknown), via /.


On February 16th, the Bush administration won House approval for a bill that would raise the maximum FCC fine to $500,000 per violation.

for the price of Janet Jackson's "wardrobe malfunction" during the Super Bowl, you could cause the wrongful death of an elderly patient in a nursing home and still have enough money left to create dangerous mishaps at two nuclear reactors. (Actually, you might be able to afford four "nuke malfunctions": The biggest fine levied by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission last year was only $60,000.)

Doodler
2005-Feb-28, 05:51 PM
To Obviousman, regarding What's going on in America?

Good question. I believe we are at a historical nexus of sorts with a collision of non-related phenomena causing a mini ice age of anti-intellectualism. Some of these phenomena include:

1 - Political correctness. Results in a lot of people saying what they think they should say, or what they think what people want to hear, instead of what they really beleive. Profusely practiced by holders of, or candidates for, public office.

2 - Rise of the Fundamental Right. Adjusting for the expected rise we should be seeing as a result of the increased availability of knowledge, it seems we are experiencing a drop in the real GNI (Gross National Intelligence). Fortunately, science marches on. Unfortunately, democracy and the power of the masses hold sway.

3 - The WWW. Another good news-bad news issue. Used to be that hoaxes and conspiracy's were usually pretty well localized and didn't last too long or get many sensible people too excited. Now every smidgen of a news item, regardless of source or stupidity level, gets disseminated instantaneously to the entire world. The wackos are way too connected to be countered by mere logic alone. Now we have to do as good a job at marketing the truth as the hucksters do at marketing their lies in order for anybody to pay attention.

4 - The Propogation of Ignorance. It is now more acceptable (if not downright popular) to be stupid than ever before. The meteoric rise in popularity of redneck country comedy is no accident. I once pointed out Jupiter to a kid who looked like he might enjoy knowing where to look for such a thing. His dad returned and scolded the kid when he proudly announced to his father that he could identify the planet. The dad didn't have this knowledge, and he was going to be damned if his kid was going to have it. You know you're an agnoramus when . . .

5 - Anti-Intellectualism in General. I won't even go into it here, just check out The Closing of the American Mind. A bit of a hefty read, which pretty much guarantees minimal sales in the Bible Belt. OK, that was cheap; but why is it that roughly 80% of Darwin Award recipients live south of the Mason-Dixon line? I swear to God, (oops, there I go again), when I read the 1st line of a baby-fell-down-the-well story, I know there is a 90% chance the news item originated in the Bible Belt. Has anybody in Mississippi made the connection that dictates open wells make a bad playground amenity?

Nicely put, some developments I've seen in the US lately have been positively Victorian. Fortunately, American culture is a wonderful pendulum that invariably swings in the opposite direction. They will have their time and it will pass.

For every freedom they try to suppress in the name of morality, an enterprising individual out there will find a way to circumvent them.

Specific to this thread's topic, I'm not worried a bit about the survival of the adult industry. A friend of mine and I have done some research in the Baltimore area and have determined that the successful adult clubs in the city and surrounds are still generating an excess of $20,000 dollars a weekend in spite of this trend (pretty astounding considering that Baltimore is a fairly blue collar city compared to DC, Los Angeles or New York). We're doing said research ahead of our own effort to open a club of this type in the next year or so, and as near as we've determined, no matter what the boys and girls in the government and the Bible Belt desire, the bottom line remains: If you strip them, they will come.

I see this industry growing and thriving and it gives me a slightly different perspective on the kind of nonsense perpetrated by neoconservatives and I see them for the paper tigers they truly are.

Lurker
2005-Feb-28, 05:53 PM
From Rolling Stone (http://www.rollingstone.com/news/story/_/id/7047694/bobdylan?pageid=rs.NewsArchive&pageregion=mainRegi on&rnd=1109610455589&has-player=unknown), via /.


for the price of Janet Jackson's "wardrobe malfunction" during the Super Bowl, you could cause the wrongful death of an elderly patient in a nursing home and still have enough money left to create dangerous mishaps at two nuclear reactors. (Actually, you might be able to afford four "nuke malfunctions": The biggest fine levied by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission last year was only $60,000.)

But you don't understand!! You have to think of the children watching tv!! :o

Can you say madness?? :wink:
(you can irradiate, but you caaaaaaan't let them see a female breast!!)

kucharek
2005-Feb-28, 06:08 PM
From Rolling Stone (http://www.rollingstone.com/news/story/_/id/7047694/bobdylan?pageid=rs.NewsArchive&pageregion=mainRegi on&rnd=1109610455589&has-player=unknown), via /.


for the price of Janet Jackson's "wardrobe malfunction" during the Super Bowl, you could cause the wrongful death of an elderly patient in a nursing home and still have enough money left to create dangerous mishaps at two nuclear reactors. (Actually, you might be able to afford four "nuke malfunctions": The biggest fine levied by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission last year was only $60,000.)

But you don't understand!! You have to think of the children watching tv!! :o

Can you say madness?? :wink:
(you can irradiate, but you caaaaaaan't let them see a female breast!!)

The female breast is a pretty important organ for kids, especially the smaller ones.

Harald

[added]Of course, "smaller" refers to the kids, not the breast. :wink:

Doodler
2005-Feb-28, 06:09 PM
From Rolling Stone (http://www.rollingstone.com/news/story/_/id/7047694/bobdylan?pageid=rs.NewsArchive&pageregion=mainRegi on&rnd=1109610455589&has-player=unknown), via /.


for the price of Janet Jackson's "wardrobe malfunction" during the Super Bowl, you could cause the wrongful death of an elderly patient in a nursing home and still have enough money left to create dangerous mishaps at two nuclear reactors. (Actually, you might be able to afford four "nuke malfunctions": The biggest fine levied by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission last year was only $60,000.)

But you don't understand!! You have to think of the children watching tv!! :o

Can you say madness?? :wink:
(you can irradiate, but you caaaaaaan't let them see a female breast!!)

The female breast is a pretty important organ for kids, especially the smaller ones.

Harald


Next on the docket in Alabama, a law requiring breastfeeding babies to be blindfolded... :lol:

kucharek
2005-Feb-28, 06:19 PM
Next on the docket in Alabama, a law requiring breastfeeding babies to be blindfolded... :lol:

I guess there are enough countries in the world, where open breast feeding may be considered an obscenity or something like that.

ngc3314
2005-Feb-28, 06:40 PM
Last I looked, there were quite a few restrictions on gun ownership and that has been steadily increasing. Of course, this varies substantially from state to state.

And let's be clear on this: Laws and attitudes can vary quite a bit from state to state. Alabama is like that country cousin that everyone likes to talk about but nobody really likes to visit (or at least, that's the attitude of most of the folks I know).

If I may chime in from a couple of hours' drive from the state capital, yes, Alabama is strange (some of you from elsewhere have no idea...). On the bright side, though, we do make Mercedes vehicles, ISS modules, and Delta boosters around here. And some of us do try to keep the torch of learning alight (despite occasionally disparaging remarks, once from a UA physicist. Sigh).

True, the state motto after any national ranking seems to be "Thank God there's Mississippi". (Hmm, I was born there - draw your own conclusions). But Arkansas and Louisiana sometimes take those positions in educational rankings.

I'm trying not to make any of the obvious jokes about sex toys and marital relationships involving underage individuals. so I'd better hit SUBMIT before something tacky appears.

Spacewriter
2005-Feb-28, 06:58 PM
From Rolling Stone (http://www.rollingstone.com/news/story/_/id/7047694/bobdylan?pageid=rs.NewsArchive&pageregion=mainRegi on&rnd=1109610455589&has-player=unknown), via /.


for the price of Janet Jackson's "wardrobe malfunction" during the Super Bowl, you could cause the wrongful death of an elderly patient in a nursing home and still have enough money left to create dangerous mishaps at two nuclear reactors. (Actually, you might be able to afford four "nuke malfunctions": The biggest fine levied by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission last year was only $60,000.)

But you don't understand!! You have to think of the children watching tv!! :o

Can you say madness?? :wink:
(you can irradiate, but you caaaaaaan't let them see a female breast!!)

I don't know how to put this delicately, but I'll try -- breasts and "other" parts are some of the first things we see in our lives!!!

Majin Vegeta
2005-Feb-28, 10:27 PM
Pardon my ignorence but earlier in the Converse they were talking about The Texas Sodomy Ruling, and in responce to that I say this, Iknow alot about Sex and stuff but what is Sodomy?

I voted no because the government has no right taking away our bedroom rights! :wink:

Nicolas
2005-Feb-28, 10:34 PM
Majin Vegeta:
Article on sodomy and sodomy laws (http://slate.msn.com/id/2075271/)

While I can agree with some elements of some of the laws prescribed (animals...), other elements from some laws would force a LOT of people into illegality I guess... 8-[

Gillianren
2005-Feb-28, 11:41 PM
what's left out of that explanation is that, according to St. Augustine, sodomy is anything except man on top sex for procreation.

what I found interesting about the Janet Jackson "wardrobe malfunction," aside from its use to further censorship, was that I've seen people wearing much less at, for example, awards shows. she wasn't, as far as I was concerned, terribly exposed.

Lurker
2005-Feb-28, 11:53 PM
What can ya say Gillian.... the sane folk are a very strange lot!!! [-(

:wink:

Nicolas
2005-Mar-01, 12:03 AM
what's left out of that explanation is that, according to St. Augustine, sodomy is anything except man on top sex for procreation.

what I found interesting about the Janet Jackson "wardrobe malfunction," aside from its use to further censorship, was that I've seen people wearing much less at, for example, awards shows. she wasn't, as far as I was concerned, terribly exposed.

Concerning that first remark: St.Augustine would have been a rich man had he become a lawyer :lol:

Second remark: At award shows, or about any hiphop clip, or (but with locally reduced resolution) at "celebrities uncensored" or or or or...But those programs are only watched by adults and broadcasted late at night, so there's no problem there, right? I wasn't waiting for Janet's "act", but I wasn't shocked by it neither. I share the opinion of some others here that it doesn't make sense to show violence et al on every hour, but go to extremes because Janet showed some skin which did not feature any bullet holes. I don't say that you shouldn't work on small problems while large problems still exist(I'm not talking about size, people!)
But a clear and logic standpoint wouldn't hurt.

Dana_Mix
2005-Mar-01, 06:23 AM
The opinion of Sherri Williams v. Attorney General of Alabama is right here (http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200216135.pdf)

TriangleMan
2005-Mar-01, 12:07 PM
Thanks Dana_Mix!

The opinion is actually a pretty entertaining read. It looks like the majority opinion does use a slippery slope arguement, noting that once they acknowledge the right to use devices the right cannot be retracted and will lead to further rights challenges on other sexual practices. A law, on the other hand, can be changed so Alabama can change or repeal the law later if they wish.

Primarily the case was about whether sexual privacy is protected under the Constitution (14th amendment?). The court said no.

The dissenting judge did note the Texas case as one of the main reasons for his(her?) vote against the law. Pretty strong language too:

This case is not, as the majority’s demeaning and dismissive analysis suggests, about sex or about sexual devices. It is about the tradition of American citizens from the inception of our democracy to value the constitutionally protected right to be left alone in the privacy of their bedrooms and personal relationships.

Disinfo Agent
2005-Mar-01, 01:18 PM
Second remark: At award shows, or about any hiphop clip, or (but with locally reduced resolution) at "celebrities uncensored" or or or or...But those programs are only watched by adults and broadcasted late at night, so there's no problem there, right?
I've never seen a bare nipple in one of those! But, then, I always miss the best stuff on TV. :x


I share the opinion of some others here that it doesn't make sense to show violence et al on every hour, but go to extremes because Janet showed some skin which did not feature any bullet holes.
It probably makes sense, from their point of view.

Nicolas
2005-Mar-01, 02:39 PM
Second remark: At award shows, or about any hiphop clip, or (but with locally reduced resolution) at "celebrities uncensored" or or or or...But those programs are only watched by adults and broadcasted late at night, so there's no problem there, right?
I've never seen a bare nipple in one of those! But, then, I always miss the best stuff on TV. :x


I share the opinion of some others here that it doesn't make sense to show violence et al on every hour, but go to extremes because Janet showed some skin which did not feature any bullet holes.
It probably makes sense, from their point of view.

Not often bare indeed, but more explicit than what Janet did, very often (lyrics, gesture, camera work...).

And I hope for them it makes sense from their point of view, otherwise I don't know what they are doing! :)

Disinfo Agent
2005-Mar-01, 02:42 PM
Not often bare indeed, but more explicit than what Janet did, very often (lyrics, gesture, camera work...).
More suggestive, perhaps, but not more explicit...

Nicolas
2005-Mar-01, 05:02 PM
Even though some (not all) of the clips I have in mind do not expose, I still think they are more explicit than what Janet did. Let's say they are more on topic than Janet's flash..

Gillianren
2005-Mar-01, 06:03 PM
her nipple wasn't bare, kids. she was wearing--I love technical terms--a "nipple shield." basically a large-ish sun. and the Oscars start at 5:30, our time. most awards shows do, so they don't last past midnight back east.

now, I'll admit that doing something on national TV and doing something in the privacy of your own bedroom are different. but the paranoia about it and the sex toys law are symptoms of the same puritanical outlook.

as George Carlin says, I don't know who said it, but I'd rather my child see someone making love (well, w/in reason; she's seven, and I'm not real thrilled about full frontal nudity, but say soap opera sex) than someone getting killed. there was an episode of ER that got censored after the Janet Jackson thing because it showed an old woman's bare breast--they were working on her, and it wasn't at all sensual. now, I don't want my kid watching ER, though in no small part because she should be in bed by then. but I also don't want her growing up being ashamed of her body.

Nicolas
2005-Mar-01, 06:31 PM
If she was "shielded", then some music clips certainly are more explicit...

Disinfo Agent
2005-Mar-01, 08:42 PM
Well, I could see all of Jannet's breast except for her nipple (I had even forgotten about the shield), if only for a very brief moment. I've never seen quite as much in a music clip.

I think what you're telling me, Nicholas, is that some music clips are very openly erotic. I agree, but I wouldn't describe that as explicit. "Explicit" to me means full frontal nudity, or people having sex.

Lurker
2005-Mar-01, 09:14 PM
I think what you're telling me, Nicholas, is that some music clips are very openly erotic. I agree, but I wouldn't describe that as explicit. "Explicit" to me means full frontal nudity, or people having sex.
I don't even see how full frontal nudity is that explicit. I agree that people having sex is explicit, but I don't understand how the beauty of the human body is as explicit as two people having sex.

Nicolas
2005-Mar-01, 09:17 PM
Well, I could see all of Jannet's breast except for her nipple (I had even forgotten about the shield), if only for a very brief moment. I've never seen quite as much in a music clip.

I think what you're telling me, Nicholas, is that some music clips are very openly erotic. I agree, but I wouldn't describe that as explicit. "Explicit" to me means full frontal nudity, or people having sex.

I wouldn't call those clips "erotic", as erotic has a completely other definition than the themes of those clips to me. Explicit has gradations of course. I am referring to clips showing nudity outside a context of love ( = erotic) or truly funcional reasons, and doing so with very little or no censoring.

Disinfo Agent, I sent you a PM with a list of some clips and their description (I won't post that here for FAQ reasons).

These clips are broadcasted here on kids hours, often in the uncensored version.

The reaction to Janet is of course a different matter if those clips aren't broadcasted overthere, but here Janet's exposure is on the same level or under many of those clips. The violence remark remains of course.

I don't have kids and won't in the near future, unless SomeOne has a surprise for me friday :). But if I had, I wouldn't approve of them seeing explicit sexual or violence footage at young age. But I certainly would prefer some limited nudity above violence creeping in all broadcasts. Just because the former shows your body is part of your life, while the latter gives violence a subtle context of being normal and approved. With violence, I mean realistic violence (murder, obvious hurt), not cat&mouse cartoon violence, under which I put "A-team" as well :).


Anyway, my opinion in a nutshell:
-If you're stringent on nudity, be stringent on all nudity, and I don't think reacting in a hysteric way is a good thing.
-If you're getting nudity off the screen during kids hours, get violence off as well, as in my opinion it has a worse influence.
-Concerning the original thread topic, the government should not interfer in personal details that don't interfere with basic people/animal rights.
-I am aware that these subjects aren't clearly lined out, and that it isn't as easy as saying "this and that is not allowed at these hours". The broadcast directors should take their responsibility on what is broadcasted.


PS, it's Nicolas :D

Nicolas
2005-Mar-01, 09:26 PM
I think what you're telling me, Nicholas, is that some music clips are very openly erotic. I agree, but I wouldn't describe that as explicit. "Explicit" to me means full frontal nudity, or people having sex.
I don't even see how full frontal nudity is that explicit. I agree that people having sex is explicit, but I don't understand how the beauty of the human body is as explicit as two people having sex.

As I said in my earlier post, "explicit" has gradations and multiple definitinons. Edit: I said part of that in the PM, I meant "explicit" as in "not sublte at all".

If people making love would be pictured in its context and be functional in the story, and if it was pictured in a serene way I wouldn't call it explicit, and my children would be allowed to see it. I agree that nude does not necessarily imply explicit. I would have no problems with my children seeing naked art (if they wouldn't be watching only naked art :)).

So again, according to me, the channel directors should take their responsibility and decide which footage is suitable on which hours, or possibly clearly label things, so parents can decide for themselves. (to reduce a general feeling of censoring maybe?).

Doodler
2005-Mar-01, 09:52 PM
So again, according to me, the channel directors should take their responsibility and decide which footage is suitable on which hours, or possibly clearly label things, so parents can decide for themselves. (to reduce a general feeling of censoring maybe?).

Amen, bring back a little personal accountability and thicker skin for those minor shocks.

I hate to use the word, because it feels silly, but an impressive number of my countrymen and women are REALLY starting to become "sissy-fied".

Almost enough to make you feel ashamed of living here.

Nicolas
2005-Mar-01, 11:25 PM
I think being raised with correct values gives you a sense of value from young age. I used to laugh when looking at the A-team, and I did realise the difference with real violence (whether it be in reality or films). I also watched "America's stuntmasters" and Looney tunes, and correctly linked the A team with those two programs instead of more realistic war/violence movies. I knew I wasn't laughing at violence, but at rather comical and highly unrealistic action scenes. I also remember seeing a movie in which some murderer tried to kill a man (with a baseballbat or something like that). The murder wasn't brought explicitly in scene (it was a dark alley). The point was that the murderer just could manage to completely hit all life out of theat man. He got smashed up really hard, but still lived. So he got hit again. After some silence, he'd move again. This went on like 5 times (the last times already in the background as the story continued). I was laughing at a murder scene, because I recognized the intended humour. More importanlty, I also recognize the seriousness of crime series murder scenes.

the same accounts for nudity: the values taught to you while being raised learn the difference between naughty jokes, depictions of the beauty of the body, erotic, and explicit material.

The result of being raised with the "correct values" and keeping me (more or less) away from explicit (violence/nudity) material upto an age on which I could judge myself, is that I have (what I consider) a healthy vision on violence and sexuality. Also I can (and could at young age) cope with seeing more explicit material. It certainly didn't make me someone who avoids all things even remotely smelling like violence or nudity, someone who can't cope with explicit material, or someone who sees explicit material as standard.

Just to name an example: I played "Castle Wolfenstien 3D" at age 11, which is a computer shooter game placed in Nazi Germany. My parents found the game controversial, but let me play it because I could put it in its correct context (and, on reflection, I really could).

So my experience is that getting a serious sense of the value of things in your youth, combined with some control on what we get to see at what age (but certainly not fanatic) gives you what you need to cope (watch/stop watching, approve/disapprove of the situation depicted and the relevance of the situation in the broadcast) with all material being broadcasted.

Being kept away from everything in a fanatic way would have made me someone who doesn't know what exists in this world, so I wouldn't be able to cope with the inevitable encounters with it.
Being exposed to everything without any explanation would probably have seriously disturbed my feeling of values.

Lurker
2005-Mar-01, 11:55 PM
The other question I have, is what is to terrible about the human body that we have to protect the children from it. When I was a child lots of us kids went swimming naked when we went to a nearby lake. It was the norm, adults did not but kids did... Being naked was not sexual to me at that age, it was being naked.

If some child wants to know why Janet Jackson's breast was exposed on Nationwide Television, tell them her costume ripped... accidents happen.

Nicolas
2005-Mar-02, 12:00 AM
The other question I have, is what is to terrible about the human body that we have to protect the children from it. When I was a child lots of us kids went swimming naked when we went to a nearby lake. It was the norm, adults did not but kids did... Being naked was not sexual to me at that age, it was being naked.

If some child wants to know why Janet Jackson's breast was exposed on Nationwide Television, tell them her costume ripped... accidents happen.

IMO there is nothing wrong with functional naked bodies (art, swimming, as functional part of a love story) and they shouldn't be kept away from children.

kucharek
2005-Mar-02, 06:17 AM
I never understand why many people put "nudity" and "sex" into the same drawer. Totally different things.
I've no problem with nudity or even sex in movies when it is really necessary for the natural flow or the understanding of the story, though I've to admit that I would have to think hard to come up with some examples. Anytime else, nudity and sex in movies is as much a nuisance and a sign of a bad story as endless car chases or shoot outs. Too often, nudity and sex are just used because "sex sells". That's an annoyance.

Disinfo Agent
2005-Mar-02, 11:01 AM
The result of being raised with the "correct values" and keeping me (more or less) away from explicit (violence/nudity) material upto an age on which I could judge myself, is that I have (what I consider) a healthy vision on violence and sexuality.
I think the main issue here, though, is whether it's up to the state to decide which values are the correct ones, how much material should be kept away from you, and until what age.

Nicolas
2005-Mar-02, 11:56 AM
The result of being raised with the "correct values" and keeping me (more or less) away from explicit (violence/nudity) material upto an age on which I could judge myself, is that I have (what I consider) a healthy vision on violence and sexuality.
I think the main issue here, though, is whether it's up to the state to decide which values are the correct ones, how much material should be kept away from you, and until what age.

Indeed, and in that reasoning I think a clear quotation system should be used, so parents can decide which programs they allow their children to view. Some sheduling by the channels would be useful of course, just for pratical (target audience) reasons. Most people do agree on the extreme examples that they generally are suited only for children or adults, so sheduling could be aimed to that.

TriangleMan
2005-Mar-02, 11:58 AM
I've no problem with nudity or even sex in movies when it is really necessary for the natural flow or the understanding of the story, though I've to admit that I would have to think hard to come up with some examples.
Basic Instinct? 10? But even then my examples are not from recent films. I find that most nudity/sex in movies is gratuitous (but depending on the actress I'm not complaining :-" )

Disinfo Agent
2005-Mar-02, 12:09 PM
Most people do agree on the extreme examples that they generally are suited only for children or adults, so sheduling could be aimed to that.
I'm not so sure that they do. For instance, I would not object to a child seeing naked people, even if those people were adults. On the other hand, I keep seeing lots of "action" films with violent scenes fom which I would tend to shield young children being broadcast in the afternoon or even at primetime.

I am more disapproving of violence and cruelty than of nudity or even healthy sex. Clearly, though, many people think otherwise.

Nicolas
2005-Mar-02, 12:33 PM
Most people do agree on the extreme examples that they generally are suited only for children or adults, so sheduling could be aimed to that.
I'm not so sure that they do. For instance, I would not object to a child seeing naked people, even if those people were adults. On the other hand, I keep seeing lots of "action" films with violent scenes fom which I would tend to shield young children being broadcast in the afternoon or even at primetime.

I am more disapproving of violence and cruelty than of nudity or even healthy sex. Clearly, though, many people think otherwise.

That weren't the extreme examples. I mean clear porn movies or extreme action movies (I can't think of examples right now). I do think most people agree that they are only suited for adults. On the other hand, I think most people agree that "Teletubbies" is only suited for children and shouldn't be aired at midnight.

Disinfo Agent
2005-Mar-02, 12:40 PM
I'll give you two examples of what I mean: Pulp Fiction and Se7en.

In my view, these are films with some extremely cruel scenes that should only be broadcast long after bedtime. And yet I've seen them be broadcast at dinner time (mid-afternoon, in one case, IIRC).

But show a breast, and all hell breaks loose... :roll:

Nicolas
2005-Mar-02, 12:44 PM
I'll give you two examples of what I mean: Pulp Fiction and Se7en.

In my view, these are films with some extremely cruel scenes that should only be broadcast long after bedtime. And yet I've seen them be broadcast at dinner time (mid-afternoon, in one case, IIRC).

But show a breast, and all hell breaks loose... :roll:

Thanks for the examples. I agree that the opinions on those movies are biased indeed. I was thinking of still much more extreme movies (they often are less known, mostly cult movies).

I just wanted to say: if channels decide to air really extreme childish/adult material, they can shedule it accordingly. Otherwise, they can just clearly quotate it and let the parents decide.

Doodler
2005-Mar-02, 02:48 PM
Otherwise, they can just clearly quotate it and let the parents decide.

Heh, waitaminute, you're going to try laying personal accountability in the hands of an American television viewer? Scandalous. You know full well that the lowbrow unwashed masses can't make such responsible decisions for themselves (note: anyone with a decent sarcasm detector should be getting solid reading about now), they're solidly in the hands of the eeeeeeeeevil broadcasting networks that must spoonfeed them visual stimulus to keep the cerebellum from shutting down. Besides, even if that idea were to play out in reality, there comes the channel surfers who must pass by this pseudo-pornographic (sarcasm detector's needle is now officially buried) material while changing channel from one religious program to another. God forbid they suffer the minor shock...

They must be protected, only the Congress can save us! :roll:

Jim
2005-Mar-02, 03:04 PM
I never understand why many people put "nudity" and "sex" into the same drawer. Totally different things.

In the US, there is still a strong Puritanical/Victorian mindset. Sex is wrong outside of marriage and a necessary nuisance inside it. Nudity leads to sex... everytime... it's our animal nature which only that Ol' Time Religion can control.

Interestingly, it's the very tabu of nudity that makes it so intriguing. Catching a glimpse or a hint has therefore always been provocative.

I remember seeing a Las Vegas revue once... lots of half- and mostly-naked beautiful women on stage. After about 30 minutes, they lost their allure and I started looking at the bruises on their bodies. (They had quite a few, probably from falling down with those oversized headdresses.)


I've no problem with nudity or even sex in movies when it is really necessary for the natural flow or the understanding of the story...

Me, if a movie is rated R for language or violence, I want a little gratuitous nudity, too. :o

What is disturbing to me about the Janet Thing is that so many people got so worked up over her exposing (briefly) one breast. Yet there was no public outcry about the song Timberlake was singing at the time, how he was going to have his way with her - have sex with her - before the night was through... basically a song about date rape.

The breast exposure was actually in context. Since the FCC recently ruled that the language and violence in Saving Private Ryan was okay to show on ABC because it was in context, Janet and CBS should not have been fined.

Gillianren
2005-Mar-02, 11:40 PM
oh. come now! everyone knows violence is more acceptable than nudity.

dramatic eye roll, I know. but the more I think about it, the more the word "Victorian" applies. after all, wasn't the Boer War, and the Crimea, too, under Victoria? let's go off and merrily shoot people, but let's put fabric over all the tables, lest they show their "limbs." (no good Victorian would use the word "legs"; it's much too shocking.)

basically, I think the sex toy thing is legislating morality, which I think the Supreme Court is moving away from. anyway, I'd think fundamentalists would be much happier about people using toys than having premarital sex.

Lurker
2005-Mar-03, 12:51 AM
anyway, I'd think fundamentalists would be much happier about people using toys than having premarital sex.
Nooooo, don't you see?? This is the slippery slope!! [-(

If you open the door just a crack, the next thing you know its

cats and dog living together!! Mass Hysteria!!" 8-[


:wink:

publiusr
2005-Mar-03, 08:09 PM
My state is run by idiots.

Nicolas
2005-Mar-03, 08:41 PM
My state is run by idiots.

I suggest you take more care when choosing your phrasing, as this may be considered bad language, and it is combined with a strong political statement. Please carefully read the FAQ, so you don't get yourself into trouble without intending it.

PS I forgot to tell you in other posts, so here it is a little late:
Welcome to the board!

Spacewriter
2005-Mar-03, 08:57 PM
Otherwise, they can just clearly quotate it and let the parents decide.

Heh, waitaminute, you're going to try laying personal accountability in the hands of an American television viewer? Scandalous. You know full well that the lowbrow unwashed masses can't make such responsible decisions for themselves (note: anyone with a decent sarcasm detector should be getting solid reading about now), they're solidly in the hands of the eeeeeeeeevil broadcasting networks that must spoonfeed them visual stimulus to keep the cerebellum from shutting down. Besides, even if that idea were to play out in reality, there comes the channel surfers who must pass by this pseudo-pornographic (sarcasm detector's needle is now officially buried) material while changing channel from one religious program to another. God forbid they suffer the minor shock...

They must be protected, only the Congress can save us! :roll:

Right on!

I have to admit, we DO get some mixed messages from our government.

I wonder why we can't be trusted to make decisions about what to watch for ourselves, yet we have a president running around bloviating about how we SHOULD be trusted with our social security money. We can't be trusted with our sex lives, but we can be trusted with our Social Security money?

There's irony in everything, I suppose.

Spacewriter
2005-Mar-03, 09:02 PM
My state is run by idiots.

I suggest you take more care when choosing your phrasing, as this may be considered bad language, and it is combined with a strong political statement. Please carefully read the FAQ, so you don't get yourself into trouble without intending it.

PS I forgot to tell you in other posts, so here it is a little late:
Welcome to the board!

Nicolas, it could be a statement of fact.

But, I agree we should not get too political in here.

Let's get back to the topic at hand.

There ARE interesting ironies to note in this whole nudity/sex thing.

For instance, I've often wondered why it is when somebody wants to get across the idea of something sexy in an iconic way, they'll put up a graphic of a woman's leg in a high heel. One could make the assumption that women are associated with sex more often than men.... which is, of course, silly on its face.

Then again, I doubt we'd see a man's leg in a high heel and think "sex" so maybe my theory's all wet...

;)

Nicolas
2005-Mar-03, 09:12 PM
Spacewriter:

I was talking about the fact that you don't need to go far to interpretate that statement as saying "(I don't know their names) the persons leading the political party on head of this state are idiots". I know the BA (and other people) normally has problems with calling anybody an idiot, and I assume he'd certainly have problems with calling political leaders idiots on this board. That's why I referred to the FAQ, to show he needs to be careful when phrasing his thoughts. I don't want someone to get a warning or even banned just because he was unaware of the principles of the BA, therefore I suggested carefully reading the FAQ. He still can decide what he does after that.

Doodler
2005-Mar-03, 09:27 PM
There ARE interesting ironies to note in this whole nudity/sex thing.

For instance, I've often wondered why it is when somebody wants to get across the idea of something sexy in an iconic way, they'll put up a graphic of a woman's leg in a high heel. One could make the assumption that women are associated with sex more often than men.... which is, of course, silly on its face.

Then again, I doubt we'd see a man's leg in a high heel and think "sex" so maybe my theory's all wet...

;)


Well, as near as I can figure, the whole female leg in six inch pump = sex thing is kinda stemming from the idea that we're still pretty much male dominated at the core (PLEASE do not throw anything at me, ladies, I'm just stating an opinion here! 8-[ ) in terms of sexually oriented entertainment material, which, again, to my rather experienced eyes in this category, kinda feeds the whole thing.

Lets look at places where nudity is most often used in entertainment. How many movies feature frontally nude women versus frontally nude men? Offhand, I can think of two definitely and two heresay (never saw the movies myself) that have male frontal nudity. Any Given Sunday (a few scenes in the lockerroom), American Werewolf in London (running through London after waking up in the zoo), The Color of Night (Bruce Willis), The Piano (Sam Neil). I'm not sure on the last two. As far as movies that feature frontal female nudity? All I gotta say before I start is, how much text can one post handle?

Iconically, female nudity represents better than 99% of the sexual content in adult entertainment these days, hence when it come down to marketing, the girls definitely take symbolic precidence here. Why do you think in the adult entertainment industry, women make something on the order of 10 to 50 times as much per movie as men? Guess who's bodies sell the bulk of tapes, even among female audiences (and I don't mean lesbians, this is seriously real data. I am a regular at a few strip clubs in the Baltimore area, the most successful of which have a very surprisingly large regular female clientele, these are ladies out with the significant others and groups of girls out looking for guys)?

Bottom line, male interest drives the industry, hence female nudity is central to it.

Spacewriter
2005-Mar-03, 09:56 PM
Good points Doodler, but I was thinking more of media in general, not just the pr0n industry. Yeah, I know sex sells -- I am reminded of more than one telescope ad which used to feature a female model next to the big scope -- and what the Freudians would make of THAT is a good subject for speculation!

Nicolas
2005-Mar-03, 10:03 PM
Good points Doodler, but I was thinking more of media in general, not just the pr0n industry. Yeah, I know sex sells -- I am reminded of more than one telescope ad which used to feature a female model next to the big scope -- and what the Freudians would make of THAT is a good subject for speculation!

We used to have the same speculations about the female preference for elephant teddys :oops: .

Anyway, scopes are presented here with a male model in "survival outfit" in most cases (becasue they are presented along things like binocs etc), or just with a star background...

Doodler
2005-Mar-03, 10:03 PM
Good points Doodler, but I was thinking more of media in general, not just the pr0n industry. Yeah, I know sex sells -- I am reminded of more than one telescope ad which used to feature a female model next to the big scope -- and what the Freudians would make of THAT is a good subject for speculation!

Oh, I meant more than just the adult industry, that's why I tapped mainstream movies as an example first. :)

As far as the chica with the 'scope, I'd personally feel like I was the subject of crudely manipulative marketing preying on my otherwise healthy interest in women, though I'm sure those feelings will pass when my new telescope arrives. :lol:

Gillianren
2005-Mar-03, 10:13 PM
there is male full frontal nudity in The Crying Game, but that's all I'll say on the subject of that movie, because some of you may have missed it and its resultant hype.

you're absolutely right in that the entertainment industry is primarily run by and for men. just to throw out an example, I was watching the Oscars pre-show the other night. the men get asked about the role they're up for. the women get asked who designed their dress. women don't, as an almost universal rule, win for Best Director or Best Picture (which goes to the producers). most years, there isn't a woman nominated in any major category except Best Actress and Best Supporting Actress, and those are by definition only women.

I think as long as the majority of the executives are men, this will continue. the irony is that the majority of humans (by a very slim margin, but the majority nonetheless) are women.

the majority of lawmakers are men, too, and the majority of sex toys are designed for women. what does that say?

Spacewriter
2005-Mar-03, 10:26 PM
there is male full frontal nudity in The Crying Game, but that's all I'll say on the subject of that movie, because some of you may have missed it and its resultant hype.

you're absolutely right in that the entertainment industry is primarily run by and for men. just to throw out an example, I was watching the Oscars pre-show the other night. the men get asked about the role they're up for. the women get asked who designed their dress. women don't, as an almost universal rule, win for Best Director or Best Picture (which goes to the producers). most years, there isn't a woman nominated in any major category except Best Actress and Best Supporting Actress, and those are by definition only women.

I think as long as the majority of the executives are men, this will continue. the irony is that the majority of humans (by a very slim margin, but the majority nonetheless) are women.

the majority of lawmakers are men, too, and the majority of sex toys are designed for women. what does that say?

That the lawmakers oughta be at home makin' their wimmenfolk happy? ;)

Doodler
2005-Mar-03, 10:28 PM
^5

Disinfo Agent
2005-Mar-03, 10:29 PM
the majority of lawmakers are men, too, and the majority of sex toys are designed for women.
Perhaps, but I wonder by what margin. According to this article (http://money.cnn.com/2005/02/22/news/funny/sex_toys.reut/), the law specifically prohibits the distribution of "any device designed or marketed as useful primarily for the stimulation of human genital organs". This must cover a lot... :-?

Evan
2005-Mar-03, 10:56 PM
Hmmm. I guess that is a ban on those fancy "french" condoms...

Argos
2005-Mar-04, 12:41 PM
Except for a brief SFC appearance, women have not ventured on this thread. Curious...

Spacewriter
2005-Mar-04, 03:14 PM
<waves hand>

I'm here...

Argos
2005-Mar-04, 06:21 PM
Sorry. :)

Lurker
2005-Mar-04, 08:52 PM
I haven't gotten myself into trouble today yet, so I'll say this. I think that we have a double standard in our culture. There is a lot of nudity or near nudity to be found on the net. A lot of this nudity is female and pretty much tolerated.

As an experiment, I set up some photos and some avatars that were nudes of myself. The reaction that I got from these was extremely negative. I was told that this was awful, disgusting, and immoral. So... as a control I setup a female persona and choose a nice nude female avatar along with some photos (I was not the model for these :P ). The nudity of my female persona was roundly aplauded and I received very few negative responses.

Just thought it was an interesting experiment. :wink:

frogesque
2005-Mar-04, 08:58 PM
Lurker: Maybe you just have an ugly body :lol:

Actually the thing I want to know - who are the other 3 people who don't know what a sex toy is? 8)

TriangleMan
2005-Mar-04, 09:10 PM
Actually the thing I want to know - who are the other 3 people who don't know what a sex toy is? 8)
Perhaps the other young posters on the board, don't forget there are some as young as 13.

Lurker
2005-Mar-04, 09:45 PM
Lurker: Maybe you just have an ugly body :lol:

Actually the thing I want to know - who are the other 3 people who don't know what a sex toy is? 8)
That hurts!! :cry:


Yeah I thought of that, but:

{all men} ^ {men willing to have their naked picture on the internet}

where '^' -- is defined as the set intersection operation

was pretty small. :P

I'm not a scientist!! I'm an engineer. I do what's possible!! :wink:

Ilya
2005-Mar-04, 10:48 PM
{all men} ^ {men willing to have their naked picture on the internet}

where '^' -- is defined as the set intersection operation

was pretty small.

Keep in mind that the second set is a subset of the first -- their intersection IS the second set...

Anyway, I had spoken in the past on this topic to a number of women (straight or bisexual) and NONE of them find male genitalia attaractive in and of themselves. All these women like the sight (also feel, etc.) of male genitals in context -- i.e. attached to a man they already find attractive for other reasons, -- but not on just a random man and even less so on a picture of a random man. At best they find the said sight silly, at worst repulsive. And they ALL find repulsive a picture of genitals alone -- i.e. completely out of context.

Gillianren
2005-Mar-05, 01:05 AM
I'll second that. our particular euphemism in my group of friends is "dangly bits."

I'm female, too, though on both the boards I frequent, I get mistaken for a male. why is that, do you think?

and w/out going into detail, I'm pretty confident of my "majority of sex toys are made for women" comment. there are catalogues; you can trust me on this, if you don't want to look at them. I would also say that the majority of porn is made for men--probably because of the aforementioned silliness of the dangly bits.

Lurker
2005-Mar-05, 01:12 AM
I'll second that. our particular euphemism in my group of friends is "dangly bits."
I should add then that the pictures I used were "tasteful"; "dangly bits" NOT included. [-(

Wow... I had no idea there was so much "culture" associated with nude pictures. :o

Perhaps my literature review was not thorough enough. :P

:wink:

Spacewriter
2005-Mar-05, 01:43 AM
Well, I find it interesting that women found the "dangly bits" ugly. I wonder how much of that is cultural conditioning? I mean, I HAVE seen a few images of the dangly bits when they're not dangling, if you catch my drift, and they're not ugly at all. Some of have been downright awe-inspiring. I suspect that some females respond with an "ewww" reaction because we just don't get to see that many of them "in the literature" and certainly not often rampant.

Now, that being said, the first time I saw the female bits in a photograph (not in Playboy but in an anatomy book) I thought they weren't all that great-looking. But they seem to elicit great interest in the opposite sex, some of whom spend many hours gazing at photographs of them. I've often wondered what it is they see in the photos -- what would their decoded thought processes be?

And I think that's about as far as I wanna take this train of thought... ;)

Ilya
2005-Mar-05, 02:41 AM
Well, I find it interesting that women found the "dangly bits" ugly. I wonder how much of that is cultural conditioning? I mean, I HAVE seen a few images of the dangly bits when they're not dangling, if you catch my drift, and they're not ugly at all.

Some (not all) of the women I mentioned earlier felt more or less the same way -- it is "bits" in the dangly state that they found ridiculous.



Now, that being said, the first time I saw the female bits in a photograph (not in Playboy but in an anatomy book) I thought they weren't all that great-looking. But they seem to elicit great interest in the opposite sex, some of whom spend many hours gazing at photographs of them. I've often wondered what it is they see in the photos -- what would their decoded thought processes be?


First, I am not one of the males who would spend hours (or even more than a couple minutes) in such gazing, and second, I may have an answer for you... but it would really be going into X-rated territory, so send me a private message if you are interested.

Lurker
2005-Mar-05, 02:50 AM
Now, that being said, the first time I saw the female bits in a photograph (not in Playboy but in an anatomy book) I thought they weren't all that great-looking. But they seem to elicit great interest in the opposite sex, some of whom spend many hours gazing at photographs of them. I've often wondered what it is they see in the photos -- what would their decoded thought processes be?

And I think that's about as far as I wanna take this train of thought... ;)

I think its simply the forbidden nature of the subject in American society. That which is forbidden generates the most curiosity.

Spacewriter
2005-Mar-05, 02:56 AM
Too bad it's forbidden in such a way as to make it shameful though. Modesty is one thing, shame is another. Heinlein once had one of his characters say of the female bits, "Have you ever noticed how they look like orchids?" Until I read that I'd never thought of it that way...

Gillianren
2005-Mar-05, 04:42 AM
depending on when Heinlein wrote it, Virginia O'Keefe may've beaten him to it.

I don't find female genitalia particular attractive, either, and as far as I can tell, a majority of male interest centers around breasts. then again, as a straight woman, what do I know?

Evan
2005-Mar-05, 08:14 AM
Nah, not at first glance. The first thing a male looks for is the hip to waist ratio. This is something a male can spot at a thousands yards. It is the first and best indicator of youthfullness and the ability to bear children well. Feeding them is next on the list.

frogesque
2005-Mar-05, 11:50 AM
Some time ago I spent a whole evening chatting to this gorgeous girl who I really fancied and it wasn't untill I went to the bar to get us another drink when someone commented on her (ample) bosom. I hadn't even noticed, it was her eyes that had held me captivated.

All things to all folk, some go for out and out sensuality, others go for a slow fuse to a wild keg of powder.

Ilya
2005-Mar-05, 06:57 PM
I think its simply the forbidden nature of the subject in American society. That which is forbidden generates the most curiosity.

That's certainly part of it.

Ilya
2005-Mar-05, 07:01 PM
I don't find female genitalia particular attractive, either, and as far as I can tell, a majority of male interest centers around breasts. then again, as a straight woman, what do I know?

It's also a cultural thing. In most of SubSaharan Africa breasts are not a sexual signal AT ALL -- or at least they were not as late as 20 years ago. That may be changing, along with other Western influences.

To me personally, by far the most physically attractive part of a woman is butt.

Evan
2005-Mar-05, 07:34 PM
To me personally, by far the most physically attractive part of a woman is butt.

Yep. That is a key part of the subconcious hip/waist ratio assessment.

Lurker
2005-Mar-06, 12:13 AM
depending on when Heinlein wrote it, Virginia O'Keefe may've beaten him to it.

I don't find female genitalia particular attractive, either, and as far as I can tell, a majority of male interest centers around breasts. then again, as a straight woman, what do I know?
I don't know... I think that the human form as a whole is beautiful. My interest has never centered on the breasts or any part in particular. I do, however, agree with spacewriter that the heinlein observation "Have you ever noticed how they look like orchids" is a valid one. The human form is a part of nature and I find it as well sculpted and beautiful as any flower. One can make a long list of its limitations from an engineering point of view, but to me this is part of the natural beauty that is homo sapien. We are an imperfect organism sculpted by an imperfected world.