Kuro5hin.org: technology and culture, from the trenches
create account | help/FAQ | contact | links | search | IRC | site news
[ Everything | Diaries | Technology | Science | Culture | Politics | Media | News | Internet | Op-Ed | Fiction | Meta | MLP ]
We need your support: buy an ad | premium membership

[P]
Religious Right versus General Motors

By leviramsey in Media
Thu Mar 06, 2003 at 05:43:36 PM EST
Tags: News (all tags)
News

General Motors, the world's largest automaker (and one of the largest corporations on the planet) has been targeted in the past by activists like Ralph Nader and pundits like Arianna Huffington for environmental and safety issues with their vehicles. Now we can add Jerry Kirk to the list.


Kirk, a co-founder of the Religious Alliance Against Pornography (RAAP), has, according to an article published by Focus on the Family (a group which is generally sympathetic to the religious right), says, "You can either have your good name or you can distribute pornography, but you cannot do both."

At issue is General Motors subsidiary Hughes Electronics, which operates a variety of satellite services. The most famous of these services is digital satellite broadcaster DirecTV, the largest service of its kind in the US. DirecTV carries a few channels with "adult" material. From looking at the prices DirecTV charges for those channels ($4.99 for 55 minutes, for example), it immediately becomes apparent that these are among the most profitable channels for DirecTV.

General Motors is not the only corporation being targeted by these activists. They are collecting signatures for a petition to US President George W. Bush and Attorney-General John Ashcroft to force Comcast, AOL Time Warner, and Echostar to drop "pornographic" channels from their lineups.

The petition implicitly claims that the channels in question violate federal obscenity laws and that Bush and Ashcroft are sworn to uphold them.

It has not been a secret that the Republican party has grown to be dependent on two groups for its power: corporations (for financial support, although they tend to be just as open to supporting Democrat candidates) and the religious right (which provides many voters for the party). It will be very interesting to see which group Bush will side with.

Further complicating the issue is that Rupert Murdoch's News Corporation, through its Sky Global subsidiary (owners of BSkyB, the dominant pay-TV provider in the UK), is considered the front-runner to purchase Hughes from General Motors. Murdoch has a reputation of being a staunch supporter of the current administration; his US media assets (most notably Fox News Channel) have generally been uncritical of Bush's policies. However, if Bush kowtows to the religious right on this issue, that may change.

Murdoch has a history of changing his politics if his business interests require it; One of the major reasons that New Labour was swept into power in the 1997 election was that Murdoch's traditionally Conservative papers turned on the Tories. In return, some speculate, Blair's government has pushed for relaxed ownership restrictions on the UK's commercial television channels, a move that would allow Murdoch to expand his control over the British media landscape. DirecTV is a major part of Murdoch's ambitions (during the late-1990s media boom, he proposed to buy all of General Motors and sell off the automotive operations to other automakers in order to get DirecTV) and it is certain that removing one of its profit centers would reduce its value.

Of course, maybe Bush won't need to do anything. Don Argue, a member of RAAP, calls for Christians to "pray for [General Motors CEO] Rick Wagoner" in the hopes that he will voluntarily stop carrying the channels in question. Presumably, such prayers would also cause other executives to "see the light".

Sponsors

Voxel dot net
o Managed Hosting
o VoxCAST Content Delivery
o Raw Infrastructure

Login

Related Links
o General Motors
o Jerry Kirk
o Focus on the Family
o You can either have your good name or you can distribute pornography, but you cannot do both
o Hughes Electronics
o DirecTV
o channels with "adult" material
o petition
o Comcast
o AOL Time Warner
o Echostar
o News Corporation
o BSkyB
o Fox News Channel
o pushed for relaxed ownership restrictions on the UK's commercial television channels
o Also by leviramsey


Display: Sort:
Religious Right versus General Motors | 175 comments (161 topical, 14 editorial, 0 hidden)
GM (4.80 / 5) (#4)
by SaintPort on Thu Mar 06, 2003 at 02:24:09 PM EST

will handle this in an all business fashion.  Recently I emailed them a thank-you for helping sponser an event frequented by Christians.  GM wrote me back immediately and informed me that they did not endorse the message, but only sponsored as a service to their customer base.  I felt punished for thanking them.

Look for Ashcroft to define and prosecute obsenity.  US military base store underwent some of this scrutiny and had to quit carrying all magazines racier than Playboy.

The fallout of all this will probably be tamer offerings at the same price and profitabilty.

--
Search the Scriptures
Start with some cheap grace...Got Life?

Why did you feel punished? (4.50 / 4) (#18)
by waxmop on Thu Mar 06, 2003 at 03:44:11 PM EST

It sounds like GM was just trying to make it clear they don't want to affiliate themselves with any particular religion.
--
We are a monoculture of horsecock. Liar
[ Parent ]

Too sensitive (4.00 / 2) (#23)
by SaintPort on Thu Mar 06, 2003 at 04:23:18 PM EST

I suppose.  I thought they'd appeciate a pat on the back... and they didn't.  I do empathize with their position, but was surprised by the bluntness.

--
Search the Scriptures
Start with some cheap grace...Got Life?

[ Parent ]
Sometimes, (5.00 / 2) (#52)
by bjlhct on Thu Mar 06, 2003 at 08:35:26 PM EST

you'll wish corporations will be that blunt.

Sigh, well, cluetrain I guess.

*
[kur0(or)5hin http://www.kuro5hin.org/intelligence] - drowning your sorrows in intellectualism
[ Parent ]

US Military (5.00 / 3) (#57)
by Bios_Hakr on Thu Mar 06, 2003 at 10:26:49 PM EST

I was in the military during the time when the magazines were pulled.  The basic argument was that we don't pay face value for a magazine...we get a 15% discount.  That 15% is paid back to the published by the government.  The problem was that Conservative Christians did not want the government to be subsidizing porn when any GI could walk off-base and buy the same thing.

<sidetrack>
They could have focused on something truly harmful, like gambling in military clubs (even in non-gambling states), the subsidized sale of tobacco and alcohol, but they chose to focus on porn.  I think they were very smart in this respect.  An attempt to ban anything else would have resulted in dismal failure.  And as much as CCs hate gambling, they hate losing even more.
</sidetrack>

The argument broke down for a huge portion of the military community.  I lived in Italy at the time.  You cannot get Gallery, Jugs, Penthouse, etc in ENGLISH there.  To make things even worse, the military postal system makes having a subscription to pornography a felony offense.

Yet another example of "your brother's keeper" taking care of you.  Who cares that we are out here defending your right to buy "Barely Legal", so long as we don't have the oppertunity to exercise the same freedom.  Fucking CCs...

[ Parent ]

Language matters??! (4.50 / 2) (#105)
by atomicokc on Fri Mar 07, 2003 at 12:48:15 PM EST

You cannot get Gallery, Jugs, Penthouse, etc in ENGLISH there.

Does it really matter what language the text is in? Come on now....:)

[ Parent ]
Yes (4.50 / 2) (#139)
by Bios_Hakr on Fri Mar 07, 2003 at 08:31:50 PM EST

Whoever modded you as a 5 is a fucking idiot.  Well, sort of.  Gallery and Jugs are hardcore porn mags.  People mostly get them for the photo layouts.  But they also have a monthly section of erotic text.  Not to mention letters to the editor type stuff.

Penthouse is mostly a magazine about being a man.  It has a small (compared to the number of pages) selection of pictures.  It also has reviews, comics, editorials (Faldwell lost his virginity in an outhouse), and even science fiction/fact articles.  Penthouse, and by extention, most porn mags, are much more than just porn.

[ Parent ]

Ever hear of a joke? n/t (5.00 / 1) (#154)
by atomicokc on Sat Mar 08, 2003 at 02:08:32 PM EST



[ Parent ]
Bzzt Wrong (none / 0) (#155)
by leviramsey on Sat Mar 08, 2003 at 03:02:11 PM EST

Penthouse... It also has reviews, comics, editorials (Faldwell lost his virginity in an outhouse)...

Incorrect. It was Hustler that did the Falwell losing his virginity to his mother in the outhouse cartoon, which Falwell later sued over (and lost, thankfully).

To be honest, Hustler may well be the most meritorious of the Playboy, Penthouse, Hustler triumvirate. It doesn't hold back and build an unrealistic standard of woman (look at the variety of body types displayed in its pages, for instance). I also find its willingness to offend anyone and everyone (it's trailblazing pictorial featuring interracial sex was lambasted by both the KKK and the NAACP).



[ Parent ]
I rated it a 5 in keeping with my standard policy (none / 0) (#156)
by leviramsey on Sat Mar 08, 2003 at 03:06:38 PM EST

Which is just about anything that's a reply to a post of mine gets a 5.

As for your assertion that Gallery is nothing more than a hardcore porn mag, you are also wide of the mark. Gallery was one of the last to show penetration (their January 2002 issue, IIRC), leaving Playboy the only one of the majors (the others being Penthouse, Hustler, High Society, and the various Clubs) that doesn't do penetration. At last check (which was January 2002, as it happens), Gallery is still with Club on the list of penetration but not ejaculation (a frontier which Penthouse crossed long ago).

These things one learns from working third shift at a convenience store... ;o)



[ Parent ]
Penthouse (5.00 / 1) (#169)
by Bios_Hakr on Sun Mar 09, 2003 at 08:19:48 PM EST

Is Penthouse still on its pissing phase?

[ Parent ]
Last I checked, yeah (n/t) (none / 0) (#170)
by leviramsey on Sun Mar 09, 2003 at 08:26:44 PM EST



[ Parent ]
GM (5.00 / 1) (#161)
by wolguin on Sun Mar 09, 2003 at 04:08:23 PM EST

As a member of middle management, I apologize for the company if the response did not make you feel appreciated. Any and all thank you notes are appreciated. Particularly since we also received many notes complaining about our sponsership of that and other events.

[ Parent ]
Amazing (4.40 / 5) (#9)
by solstice on Thu Mar 06, 2003 at 02:55:44 PM EST

Focus on the Family is a joke, and I don't think anyone should be worried by this kind of thing. I have DirecTV and it's great. I don't purchase adult programming and all my receivers are locked down so my kids can't buy it either. I don't have a problem if someone wants to pay to watch some porn in the privacy of their own home. If a provider were to ever cave in on this kind of thing, guess what would be next? HBO/Showtime, R-rated movies, NYPD Blue, etc, etc.

Consorship could theoretically be good. (5.00 / 1) (#53)
by bjlhct on Thu Mar 06, 2003 at 08:36:40 PM EST

But who is to decide what is to be censored? Noone can.

*
[kur0(or)5hin http://www.kuro5hin.org/intelligence] - drowning your sorrows in intellectualism
[ Parent ]
Who's Noone? /nt (5.00 / 1) (#73)
by greenrd on Fri Mar 07, 2003 at 04:56:30 AM EST


"Capitalism is the absurd belief that the worst of men, for the worst of reasons, will somehow work for the benefit of us all." -- John Maynard Keynes
[ Parent ]
Re: Who's Noone? (5.00 / 2) (#75)
by PenguinWrangler on Fri Mar 07, 2003 at 05:21:53 AM EST

You know, Noone, Peter Noone, lead singer with Herman's Hermits...
"Information wants to be paid"
[ Parent ]
Augh! NT (5.00 / 1) (#108)
by bjlhct on Fri Mar 07, 2003 at 01:05:51 PM EST



*
[kur0(or)5hin http://www.kuro5hin.org/intelligence] - drowning your sorrows in intellectualism
[ Parent ]
Like the RIAA (5.00 / 2) (#56)
by KnightStalker on Thu Mar 06, 2003 at 10:02:58 PM EST

Unfortunately, FotF is a very influential joke.

[ Parent ]
What's the point? (3.87 / 8) (#10)
by bigbtommy on Thu Mar 06, 2003 at 02:56:57 PM EST

Isn't one of the whole hearted American values is freedom of choice? Freedom to think for yourself and not be enslaved by morons who take everything written thousands of years ago seriously.

America really can be the land of the dumb, and news articles like this prove it.

Meanwhile, I'd rather the "good natured" priest was watching pornography on cable TV than a-fiddling-and-a-diddling your children at Sunday Service.
-- bbCity.co.uk - When I see kids, I speed up

its just intolerance (4.50 / 4) (#12)
by omegadan on Thu Mar 06, 2003 at 03:10:51 PM EST

There is a sizeable base of *VERY VOCAL* christians who seeth with hatred and ager at any non-christian idea. And unfourtantley, our president is their leader...

Religion is a gateway psychosis. - Dave Foley
[ Parent ]

its just intolerance (3.00 / 4) (#13)
by The Customizer on Thu Mar 06, 2003 at 03:17:18 PM EST

There is a sizeable base of *VERY VOCAL* mulsims who seeth with hatred and ager at any non-mulsim idea. And unfourtantley, our president is their leader...

[ Parent ]
Those mulsims (4.42 / 7) (#32)
by sien on Thu Mar 06, 2003 at 04:45:07 PM EST

God I hate those mulsims, how can they simulate the mul ? the mul is unique.

[ Parent ]
Religious nuts blow up buildings (5.00 / 1) (#120)
by bill_mcgonigle on Fri Mar 07, 2003 at 02:03:02 PM EST

I don't care what the motivation is, don't try to force your beliefs on someone else who has made a free choice.  Education is fine, but attempting to control others doing no harm but to themselves is just tyrrany.

Note that forcing the option of choice on someone is far better than them not having a choice (e.g. liberation).

[ Parent ]

Religious != Religious Right (5.00 / 1) (#167)
by afeldspar on Sun Mar 09, 2003 at 07:04:48 PM EST

Thank you, drive through, try not to be as complete a fucktard as you've managed so far.
-- For those concerned about the "virality" of the GPL, a suggestion: Write Your Own Damn Code.
[ Parent ]
+1 Gotta love christians (2.94 / 17) (#11)
by omegadan on Thu Mar 06, 2003 at 03:05:49 PM EST

The loveable mental midgets they are ...

Does anyone else think that if we told kids the truth about sex, and the truth about porn, and stoped hushing it away and acting as if it was secret knowledge, that THEY would be alot better off? I know alot of 15 - 17 year old kids, and they're having more and better sex then I've ever had, so what we're doing now, ain't working.

Religion is a gateway psychosis. - Dave Foley

There's more to it than that (4.25 / 8) (#33)
by UltraNurd on Thu Mar 06, 2003 at 04:49:58 PM EST

After all, there are a lot of us in this country. And because there are a lot of us, that means that there are a lot of different opinions (probably the complete political spectrum) lumped under one over-arching category of people.

In a recent discussion in a campus christian group that I am in, we talked about how our parents had addressed the issue of sex in general and specifically sex before marriage. Well over half of the group had gotten no direct message at all - there had been no sort of "birds and the bees" talk. One person had been told directly by his father (who I don't believe was Christian) that it's important to be experienced and know about sex before committing to a binding long-term relationship like marriage. The remainder all got varying degrees of the "abstinence until marriage" message. I was in the first group, but the abstinence message was impressed upon me elsewhere, since that is what I believe in.

I do think I would have been better off if things had been explained to me outside of spiritual and academic contexts (the Bible and required health classes). However, that didn't happen, so I'll just have to continue to rely on what ideas and information I do have about sex. In some ways I agree with some of what that Christian group was saying, in that it seems to me that sex should be a private, and even spiritual, thing between two partners. I also think that a general lack of understanding about sex and love makes you afriad of pursuing relationships, or at least much more nervous about it. I'm the wrong person to ask due to a complete lack of experience on the dating front, but I can still have opinions.

I think of a decision to be abstinent as rebelling against our nature. We are clearly meant to reproduce, and the process is meant to be pleasurable to help balance out the opportunity costs of having children. I don't know where I stand on issues like this: on the one hand, it seems like there are lots of things that fall under the category of resisting our nature, which seems kind of counterproductive, so maybe we should just accept it. On the other hand, there is something to be said for overcoming an obstacle like staying true to a personal pledge of abstinence.

The generalization you made also tends to apply mostly to American Christians, probably due to how heavily Puritanism influenced our early development as a country. More liberal Christians here and especially abroad would probably be okay with a long-term relationship that had a sexual aspect to it. I guess it depends on how you define being sanctified under God. For most, that requires the sacrament of marriage. For people who support gay rights, almost no churches will provide that ceremony for gay couples, and those same people would not expect an essentially married same-sex couple to remain celibate. I know that this is what the Protestant advisor at my school largely believes in, in that she believes a long-term relationship can reach the point spiritually where sex is acceptable.

It's also important, if you're in the abstinence camp, not to see marriage as a permission slip for sex. If a big part of getting married is so you will be 'allowed' to have sex, then you've probably got some wrong reasons. It's pretty likely that if two virgins get married, the sex that they have will not be great until they get better at it, which is probably one of the roots of the argument that being experienced before entering a long-term relationship like marriage is a good thing.

--
"Your Mint Mountain Dew idea is hideous and wrong."
-Hide The Hamster
[ Parent ]

very reasonable (3.85 / 7) (#41)
by omegadan on Thu Mar 06, 2003 at 05:40:38 PM EST

very reasonable viewpoint! the question then becomes, why aren't christians content to live within their moral systems themselves, but insist on bothering others?

Lemme tell you about every person I know. The 18-25 crowd atleast where i live in southern california, is very active in the sexual economy. *Everyone* watches porn, and I know quite a few people making their own for private viewership ... This includes all the christians I know.

But the christians then turn around and tell you you're bad, you're going to hell, and what you're doing is wrong, when in some cases you have seen videotape of them doing the very same things :)

I've only ever met one christian who took the commitment of being a christian seriously. The rest of them, hypocrites.

Religion is a gateway psychosis. - Dave Foley
[ Parent ]

The Great Commission (3.75 / 4) (#46)
by UltraNurd on Thu Mar 06, 2003 at 06:14:50 PM EST

"Go therefore and make disciples out of all nations" (At the end of for sure two of the Gospels, Matthew and Luke I think) has been misinterpreted to some extent - hence the "bothering others" act of proselytization. It's part of setting an example and spreading the word. It largely defeats the point if you're not at least trying to do what you say.

I'm a hypocrite too. Everyone is. It's because we're not perfect. Most of us try to do what we believe and say. None of us can succeed completely. When you screw up, it's helpful to be aware that you have. Realizing what you're doing and stopping the behavior entirely are two completely different things.

I am sure that with a few clicks of my mouse I could find some really good porn. It's everywhere, which is why pro-censorship Christians are fighting a losing battle. It's not like I'm completely innocent either. My friends insisted on dragging me to a sex shop on my 18th birthday. More for the shock value (and the excellent video of me being dragged off of my front porch and thrown into the back of an unmarked SUV) than anything else. I guess I am in the camp that I know what's out there, but I choose to ignore it, so my first reactions are along the lines of embarassment or "ewww, gross". I'd like to think it's a little better than being completely naïve, but it's hard to say.

Both here in college and in high school I know both members of a sexually active couple as friends. I guess it just weirds me out a little bit, but at the same time makes me wonder what I'm missing by not having a physical relationship with someone (or any relationship for that matter :o\). That anticipation is dangerous, because it can lead to the permission slip treatment of marriage I mentioned before.

I guess I'm a little surprised that you know about your Christian friends' 'extracurricular' activities. I would think that most people who have somehow violated their own moral code would try to hide it from everyone, possibly even themselves.

I'm just kind of rambling now, so I think it's time for me to go to the dining hall and grab some eats. I'll stick to my seven-year-old kid approach to the whole thing: "Girls are icky, and they have cooties". :oP

--
"Your Mint Mountain Dew idea is hideous and wrong."
-Hide The Hamster
[ Parent ]

OK, but... (4.00 / 3) (#54)
by bjlhct on Thu Mar 06, 2003 at 08:54:59 PM EST

Well, we don't want you evangelizing to us any more than you want a gnostic evangelizing to you.

And you won't be very successful either. Like me, I suddenly became very religious once for about 10 minutes. And the whole while I was observing myself. So now I can feel religious whenever I want, and think it's just a a reorganization with some parts of the brain switching what they do. Not only that, but I have a very vague memory, a instant of an image, of when I was being baptized, and I thought the guy was trying to drown me.

And it's not like people get hit with lightning for sinning. Never really happens.

*
[kur0(or)5hin http://www.kuro5hin.org/intelligence] - drowning your sorrows in intellectualism
[ Parent ]

It's not the sinner (5.00 / 2) (#83)
by UltraNurd on Fri Mar 07, 2003 at 09:53:41 AM EST

It's the sin. Which is why we've got things like grace and forgiveness coming to us whether we think we deserve them or not. It' all about being a little penitent, I guess. And it is certainly not my place to judge what defines a sin, although there's not much to stop me from talking about it at length :oP.

As far as my personal encounters with proselytization are concerned, it was only ever trying to convince those of my friends who were nominally Christian but did not attend church regularly to come to a service or activity at my church. With my non-Christian friends, discussion of religion is almost always limited to the academic side of things, as opposed to actually getting to the spiritual aspect of it.

Finally, there's a lot to be said for silently setting a good example. Especially since the door-to-door stuff tends to freak people out or make them made at you. Which I suppose is another case of me wimping out with regards to my religious "duties", but oh well...

--
"Your Mint Mountain Dew idea is hideous and wrong."
-Hide The Hamster
[ Parent ]

Well, then, (none / 0) (#127)
by bjlhct on Fri Mar 07, 2003 at 02:48:53 PM EST

my complaint is not against you.

*
[kur0(or)5hin http://www.kuro5hin.org/intelligence] - drowning your sorrows in intellectualism
[ Parent ]
Well (5.00 / 1) (#68)
by tetrode on Fri Mar 07, 2003 at 04:41:44 AM EST

Your parents are (or at least have been) sexually active. So have a lot of other people that you see every day (your teacher, your granny, the bus-driver, the policeman, the president, ...) Do you look at them different?
________ The world has respect for US for two main reasons: you are patriotic, you invented rock'n'roll (mlapanadras)
[ Parent ]
That may be the case (5.00 / 1) (#82)
by UltraNurd on Fri Mar 07, 2003 at 09:47:47 AM EST

...but those that have been/are sexually active (i.e. they have children) are married. Which in my mind is "how it should be", even though I don't totally agree with it myself. I definitely look at marital infidelity a lot differently than I do pre-marital sex, since one is a violation of a self-imposed rule, and the other is a violation of a mutual agreement between two people. Plus they're adults, so I'm not supposed to ry and comprehend their mysterious ways ;o).

On that note, I can't believe that I'm supposed to be an adult in less than 2 years, and the state will recognize me as one in only a few more months. Freaky.

--
"Your Mint Mountain Dew idea is hideous and wrong."
-Hide The Hamster
[ Parent ]

extramarital sex (5.00 / 2) (#96)
by adequate nathan on Fri Mar 07, 2003 at 11:44:01 AM EST

As someone who is still undergoing the process of converting to Christianity, my perspective might be useful here.

Before my conversion, I played the field. I wanted love, I wanted sex, I wanted experience, and I wanted girls. I have a high sex drive and I had a number of lovers.

Let me tell you, I bent over backwards to be respectful and decent to my girlfriends. I tried as hard as I could not to jerk them around emotionally. I was scrupulously honest with them. Still, because of the adversarial model of relationships that all of us shared, no real committment ever took place. I realised about six months ago that even my heartfelt, sincere attempts at committment had been irredeemably tainted by selfishness during that period of my life.

Since my coversion, I have rejected the conventional model of the relationship, in which two people like each other, are attracted to each other, and try to make it work. Now, I believe in consecrating myself to the service of another human being, in which two people become one flesh. There is no comparing my relations with my fiancée with those I had had with my girlfriends, once upon a time. Every single minute that we are together is a priceless treasure. There has never been the faintest shadow. We have never even had an argument. I can't even express how novel it all is.

Sex isn't such a big deal. It's fascinating before you have it, but in the final analysis it's just another bodily function. It is not fit to be a central part of a person's life.

Nathan
"For me -- ugghhh, arrgghh."
-Canadian Prime Minister Jean Chrétien, in Frank magazine, Jan. 20th 2003

Join the petition: Rusty! Make dumped stories & discussion public!
[ Parent ]

The other day... (5.00 / 1) (#142)
by gzt on Fri Mar 07, 2003 at 11:51:48 PM EST

I was trying to explain something similar about the "adversarial model of relationships" [I wish I had thought of that term] to a female friend of mine in Minnesota, but I just couldn't quite get the idea right. Rock on, Nathan.

[ Parent ]
hey, one PHUPI to another, (5.00 / 1) (#151)
by adequate nathan on Sat Mar 08, 2003 at 12:28:25 PM EST

Ever read this by David Foster Wallace?

Nathan
"For me -- ugghhh, arrgghh."
-Canadian Prime Minister Jean Chrétien, in Frank magazine, Jan. 20th 2003

Join the petition: Rusty! Make dumped stories & discussion public!
[ Parent ]

Yeah (5.00 / 1) (#152)
by gzt on Sat Mar 08, 2003 at 12:45:02 PM EST

Makes me feel like we're all lying by the pool at Bethesda.

[ Parent ]
Girls do *not* have cooties! (4.00 / 2) (#77)
by Yekrats on Fri Mar 07, 2003 at 06:18:08 AM EST

I think that's some sort of urban legend. My wife doesn't have cooties. I admit I don't have a very large sample group (ahem), but from my experience, they simply don't have cooties. :-)

Moral codes are good, but taken to the extreme can be harmful. Question: Does it say in the Bible anything about abstention, or is that something imposed later by the Church? I consider myself Christian, but I don't know of anything like that in there. (I could be wrong, however.)

Just curious. I mean, Jesus regularly hung out with prostitutes for cryin'-out-loud. That's about as close as you can come to PPV porn 2000 years ago.

[ Parent ]

Well, Jesus had a lot of sympathy for them (none / 0) (#172)
by porkchop_d_clown on Sun Mar 09, 2003 at 10:58:42 PM EST

because there weren't many "career ladders" a woman could climb in those days, and working on your back beats starving to death.

He mainly reserved his contempt for the men who pushed women into that kind of life, both thru their behavior and thru their attitudes.

But, now that I set the context for you, He did also say once you play wiggle the weenie with some girl, you are responsible for her for the rest of your life, and divorce doesn't change that. I'm pretty sure His reasons for saying this were what I said in the previous paragraphs.


--
You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make him go off the high dive.


[ Parent ]
christianity and sex (5.00 / 3) (#78)
by mattw on Fri Mar 07, 2003 at 09:21:49 AM EST

I don't think the typical Christian viewpoint on sex promotes healthy sexual interaction as an adult. Even if you're unshakable in your faith, I'm not aware of anywhere where the bible explicity declares pre-marital sex to be adultery, or specifically names pre-marital (as opposed to post-marraige extramarital) sex as a sin.

I think it's unwise to be married before determining you are sexually compatible with someone. Sex is an important part of married life, and I think it would be easy to get stuck with the wrong partner. The repressive environment that some Christian upbringings have with respect to sex has produced a lot of gays and lesbians who get married while still in the closet. Not that this is a christian afflication -- it will happen in any household overtly critical of homosexuality, but that's most common when backed by religious reasons.

I think it's important to look back, historically, about how things get modified by persons in power to fit the social needs of the time. As a christian, you can look at things like the invention of the priesthood and control over reading/writing by the priesthood as a control method; priests had a role in confession and such because it was taught that THEY were your conduit to God; you could not just pray on your own. When the printing press was invented and anyone could have their own bible, this viewpoint changed rapidly (helped along by some influential theologian/philosophers). In the same sense, in the millenia before birth control, religion provides an ideal way to control unwanted procreation. The problem is that society was not (and, really, still is not) set up to handle unwanted, unplanned, or single-parent children.

As for virgins and sex, you have an interesting point. I think if you looked at people who get married young, the vast majority would be christian. I don't even claim to know why -- but of all the people I've ever known who got married before, say, 22-24 (which is, of course, still young in many eyes), about two-thirds were christian (and the other one third were pregnant, christian or not). Why do they get married, sometimes nearly right out of high school? Personally, my vote is on sex. I'm pretty sure they're all masturbating, abstinence or not, and they probably just want more. Throw in a guy/girl they really like at the time, and a feeling that God will watch over them and their marriage... guess what our divorce rate is. I think that if people felt more free to have sex without being married, and were better-educated about contraception, we'd have a lot less failed marriages. (Although by no means do I think that's all that's to blame for high divorce, but I do think it is a significant component.)

In any event, that's all mostly off-topic. I really feel like Focus on the Family should shut up and go adopt Romanian orphans who are eating each others' vomit instead of worrying about who's watching pornography. But I think their motivation has more to do with purifying their environment. This is hard to describe; I recall having similar high-critical attitudes toward pornography when I was in the religiously-raised group and before I really re-thought my opinions instead of just taking what was spoon-fed. It wasn't just that I believed porn was morally reprehensible, I had a guy reaction of: that should not be available. But it's not like there was porn all over TV. I was just hearing that you could buy it on pay-per-view, and being self-righteously angry about it. Why? I'm still not even sure. Maybe it's envy; perhaps I wanted to see it, knew I couldn't have it, and thus wanted to deny it to others?  That's about the best motivation I can supply for people campaigning against it. I am certain there are a lot of greater evils they could be spending their time on, even if you want to call pornography evil.


[Scrapbooking Supplies]
[ Parent ]

Excellent points (5.00 / 2) (#84)
by UltraNurd on Fri Mar 07, 2003 at 10:33:30 AM EST

As soon as I get access to a good study bible (I'm currently away from my dorm room), I'll take a look. I'm inclined to agree with you that the doctrine of abstinence is a church one, and I wouldn't be surprised if it's only loosely derived from some Old Testament laws about adultery or rape or something.

I think a lot of more conservative Christians have a "we'll make it work" attitude towards marriage, which is definitely unhealthy. On the other hand, I'd like to believe that if you're in a relationship where you reall, really love someone (in a romantic sense), then transitioning to the post-marriage sexual relationship would not be difficult. That is, that you can find the right person for one set of attributes, which significantly increases your chances of being compatible sexually. I guess this falls under the category of finding someone with whom you are (mutually) sure that it will work.

One of my friends in the campus group I mentioned has a gay father. I assume that he suppressed his homosexuality for a really long time, and obviously during his marriage since he conceived children. Do you know any statistics on how often this happens?

In terms of social controls, religion (in general) is an excellent way of bringing them about. I think that most of the laws in Deuteronomy are about hygiene, which was obviously a big concern 2000-5000 years ago, as well as setting yourself apart from other social groups of the time.

From a biological standpoint, look at the large amount of our physical resources that are dedicated to having sex and procreating. It just makes sense that we enjoy it and can easily become obsessed with it, especeially if we're not "getting any". There may be lots of marriages that are rushed into because of this, especially at young ages. On the other hand, it seems like marriages happen a lot faster for middle-aged people; they know each other for a few weeks or months, and then get married because they've been searching for so long they know a compatible mate when they see one.

The Christian and general American viewpoints on masturbation are definitely varied and conflicting. You've got the biblical basis of Onanism, in which Onan was smitten (smited? smote?) for "spilling his seed upon the ground" because it meant he failed in his duty to create heirs for his dead brother ::shudder::. I think that in that story God really had a problem with Onan not fulfilling his 'duty' (no matter how twisted you may think it is) because he wanted heirs of his own. I think the general attitude towards it is "everyone does it". It's probably not far from the truth. A friend of a friend (who I don't know personally, but when has second-hand information ever stopped me? :oP) had her new vibrator taken from its shipping box in the dining hall, and discussed loudly for everyone nearby to hear. The trite counter-argument to this would probably be "that doesn't make it right", which is equally non-productive. I have read Christian books (in this case in a Biblical Studies class) that basically say that masturbation is okay as long as you stay well short of it becoming your exclusive source of pleasure. In other wirds, moderation in all things, or, get yourself in a real relationship where sex can work towards procreation.

To bring this whole mess back to the porn censorship issue, being brought up with no exposure to sex, or generally negative attitudes about sex (perhaps you've seen that e-mail forward about how 19th century Christians only had sex in the dark, fully clothed, silently, and only for the purpose of procreation), leads to a habit of wearing blinders when it comes to such things. People don't want to wear blinders, so the only way they can take them off and still have their 'purity' intact is to try and remove the threatening information from society as a whole. On top of that, if you're learning about sex from porn, you will probably be fairly disillusioned, what with the faked nature of it. This doesn't even delve into the really disgusting stuff you get e-mail spam about (horses, rape, etc.), which presumably never gets shown even on the pay-per-view channels. Finally, I would definitely like to see these activists concentrating on things like education, world hunger, stopping the spread of disease (whoops, can't do that, condoms are EVIL), and so forth. Porn is fairly low on the scale of things we really need to be worried about in our society.

--
"Your Mint Mountain Dew idea is hideous and wrong."
-Hide The Hamster
[ Parent ]

Attitude towards sex... (5.00 / 1) (#134)
by Kintanon on Fri Mar 07, 2003 at 05:15:16 PM EST

Though I agree with almost everything you said I have to wonder why you seem to focus entirely on sex as solely a means of procreation. Is it a requirement of sex to be procreative in nature? I had a vasectomy at 21 because I simply do NOT want to have children. My wife feels the same way, are we violating some religious precept?

Procreation is not necessarily a laudible goal. Many countries in the world could benefit from lower birthrates and fewer children.

Eh, just ny 2 cents.

Kintanon

[ Parent ]

procreation (5.00 / 1) (#145)
by UltraNurd on Sat Mar 08, 2003 at 12:54:27 AM EST

I assume you would agree that the original purpose or base purpose of sex is procreation, to pass genes on to future generations and thus perpetuate the species. I just needed a good generic term, and procreation seemed to fit the best.

Yes, over-population is an issue in many areas of the world. But it is unlikely that you will be able to convince people of the merits of birth control if they believe that such methods/devices constitute some form of sin.

--
"Your Mint Mountain Dew idea is hideous and wrong."
-Hide The Hamster
[ Parent ]

Precisely (5.00 / 1) (#173)
by Kintanon on Mon Mar 10, 2003 at 09:42:51 AM EST

Agreed.
The biological purpose of sex is procreation. Of course, Humanity has never been that interested in what nature intended for us and I doubt we'll start any time soon.

Kintanon

[ Parent ]

Most of the biblical morality on sex was based on (none / 0) (#93)
by porkchop_d_clown on Fri Mar 07, 2003 at 11:25:27 AM EST

the idea that because of the culture pre- and extra- marital sex would cause the woman to suffer in the extreme. Remember the society the lived in treated women much more harshly than men. Therefore, no moral man would violate the rules on sex because it would be the same as if they had stoned the woman themselves. That, I think, was Jesus' rather explicit point: if you schtup a girl, you owe it to her to care for her - not because you scthupped her, but because if you didn't, no one else would. She would suffer for the rest of her life for a few minutes of pleasure.

Modern objections tend to revolve around points mentioned above: the still prevalent tendency to reduce women, but not men, to the status of sex-toy: something to be used for pleasure and discarded. Not quite the same has being stoned to death, but it still (they argue) has a corrosive effect on the overall manner in which people treat each other.


--
You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make him go off the high dive.


[ Parent ]
My basic problems with Christians and sex: (5.00 / 2) (#86)
by amarodeeps on Fri Mar 07, 2003 at 10:49:33 AM EST

who cares what you Christians think about sex? Only other Christians. Who does the majority of Christians in the U.S. want to care about what Christians think about sex? Apparently everybody, Christian or not.

This ends up translating to the Bush administration changing the information on a government website to reflect more Christian attitudes about the efficacy of condom use in preventing stds, for example. This is a problem. We need to use science and rational thought to determine how we implement public health policy in this country, not the religious opinions, of a segment of the population.



[ Parent ]
Christians in public office and elsewhere (5.00 / 1) (#146)
by UltraNurd on Sat Mar 08, 2003 at 01:02:46 AM EST

It took me a while to parse your first comment, but as I understand it you are saying that the majority of American Christians want to tell their opinions on sex to everyone, but no one cares. I'm not entirely sure about the Christian/non-Christian division of the responders to my post, but it's fairly clear that several people on this forum care. Also, be careful about lumping all of Christendom together. We've had 2000 years to come up with lots of different ways of getting at the same basic ideals. In other words, not all Christians share the same view(s) about sex, and not all people who have a given view about sex are Christian.

I do not agree with the current administration's approach in this department, especially since the application of doctrine that is apparently religious in origin seems to be stepping on the toes of the Constitution a little bit. I'm a big fan of the scientific method, but the fact is, we (America as a whole) elected people who also happen to be fairly conservative Christians. Obviously that segment of the population has garnered enough support to put people in office that support their ideals and initiatives. I don't know who you voted for, but if you don't want this sort of thing happening, vote against people who are in favor of it, and talk to your representative.

--
"Your Mint Mountain Dew idea is hideous and wrong."
-Hide The Hamster
[ Parent ]

Sorry... (5.00 / 1) (#153)
by amarodeeps on Sat Mar 08, 2003 at 12:56:49 PM EST

I'm fully ready to recognize that this doesn't count for all Christians, and that some non-Christian people DO care what Christians think (I do to a certain extent, or else I wouldn't be interacting on this thread). Place 'fundamentalist' or 'born-again' in front of 'Christian' in my last post , and instead of 'only other Christians,' try 'for the most part only other Christians,' and you'll have something pretty close to the truth I think.

Basically, the idea I was trying to get at was that no one group should be promoting legislating their idea of what sex should be and how other people, especially people outside of their group, should be doing that activity. We need to defer to the option that lets the most possible people live their lives freely. The Christian right doesn't seem to realize that if we let gays and lesbians marry they won't turn around and try to force everybody to be in gay marriages. If we educate people about condom use their sons and daughters won't turn around and starting fucking; they already are! and if you actually care enough to try to prevent disease, if you want to save people, you will teach people the proper way to use a condom and bang it into their head that it is not just their problem but society's problem when they start spreading a communicable disease around because of their ignorance.

Whew, sorry about that little mini-rant. It just really pisses me off, because some of these people are not only trying to subject me to their perverse morality, but they are actively influencing public policy and people are dying as a result. We need to put money toward combatting HIV/AIDS in Africa for example, but if we can't do it because some people are concerned about abstinence only education vs. teaching about condom use; that's a BIG problem.

Anyways, sounds like you agree (if you think science is a better tool for deciding these things than otherwise) for the most part anyways, sorry to rant at you. In any case, you are right about voting for the right people and talking to your reps. That's what it takes.



[ Parent ]
Condoms != sex? (5.00 / 1) (#158)
by UltraNurd on Sun Mar 09, 2003 at 01:26:59 AM EST

Wow! And here I thought as soon as I got my hands on a condom, women would be banging down my door to have wild monkey sex with me! How wrong I was... ;o)

I pretty much agree with everything you said in your last post. Sorry to jump on you for your generalizations, but I think you understand why I don't want to be lumped together with the people you're rant is more appropriately directed towards.

I do have a question about your one-group promotion - do you only mean religious groups that promote sex-related legislation, or any group? I think that the government needs to have some role in it (counting as a group), so that they can help fix sexually related societal problems like STDs and single mothers.

HIV/AIDS is a huge problem worldwide, but it is concentrated in Africa, although I think India has the highest increase in the number of cases. I also think that we have the resources to do something about it, both in the form of prevention and medical treatments after infection. My understanding is that condoms are already frowned upon by many African cultures, without any Christian-flavored American sex education to encourage that idea. I also remember the president of Kenya (I think) saying something along the lines of "the AIDS epidemic is a white conspiracy", so we probably have bigger problems than just what should and ahould not be taught in the educational battle against HIV.

Finally, I'll touch upon the gay marriage issue. It should be allowed legally (from a benefits/taxes/shared bank accounts standpoint), even if churches don't want to recognize it. My uncle Andrew has been with his current partner Craig for about 3 (maybe 4?) years. Craig comes to our family vacations and reunions and stuff, and he was introduced to the family at the same time as my now-aunt Deanna. I guess that makes him sort of like a fiancé or something, but they can never really be married. They're both Christian, so I think they do care about that sort of thing, but I don't believe they're willing to move to Vermont or Hawaii just to get married.

--
"Your Mint Mountain Dew idea is hideous and wrong."
-Hide The Hamster
[ Parent ]

How exactly is this different (5.00 / 1) (#58)
by porkchop_d_clown on Thu Mar 06, 2003 at 10:45:02 PM EST

than an athiest suing because a town put up a christmas tree? After all, there are more christians claiming to be offended by porn than people claiming to be offended by christmas trees. So why should we kowtow to one, but not the other?


--
You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make him go off the high dive.


[ Parent ]
Your logic is impenetrable (5.00 / 1) (#59)
by DominantParadigm on Fri Mar 07, 2003 at 12:25:37 AM EST

Clearly, porn is religious symbology, and thus has something to do with your much vaunted Separation of Church and Estate.

Caller:So you're advocating bombing innocent children? Howard Stern:Yes, of course!


[ Parent ]
Is it not? (1.66 / 3) (#74)
by tkatchev on Fri Mar 07, 2003 at 04:57:20 AM EST

Get a clue.

   -- Signed, Lev Andropoff, cosmonaut.
[ Parent ]

Yet the point is.. (3.00 / 2) (#85)
by porkchop_d_clown on Fri Mar 07, 2003 at 10:45:28 AM EST

People are frequently and successfully sued in the US for public display of religion because it can "offend" - to the point where an NYC bank photoshopped a church out of the picture they chose for their "holiday cards".

So, why are Christians expected to exhibit a higher level of tolerence than the people who hate them?


--
You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make him go off the high dive.


[ Parent ]
Well, Jesus preached tolerance (5.00 / 1) (#92)
by leviramsey on Fri Mar 07, 2003 at 11:18:00 AM EST

But the whole "it offends me" argument is the wrong argument for the atheist to make (at least if by "public display" you mean "gov't subsidized display" or even "display on gov't property").



[ Parent ]
Legally, you're right. (5.00 / 1) (#94)
by porkchop_d_clown on Fri Mar 07, 2003 at 11:30:40 AM EST

there is no way for an athiest to force a private company to, say, remove a star of david from their offices. But the heavy drumbeat of lawsuits - extending to such things as forcing towns to remove century old plaques and statues - has created a climate where private organizations are seriously concerned about being tarred with the same brush.

And if you don't think the whole "it offends me so it's wrong" argument doesn't carry any weight in the USA these days, you haven't been paying attention. I saw an article recently where an airline is being sued because a flight attendant used the old nursery rhyme "eeny meany miney moo.." - not because the attendant said anything inappropriate but because the woman who heard it remembered hearing racially derogatory versions of it as a child.


--
You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make him go off the high dive.


[ Parent ]
No, I'm saying that the argument (none / 0) (#110)
by leviramsey on Fri Mar 07, 2003 at 01:12:25 PM EST

...is wrong, and should have no legal merit, regardless of what merit it may currently be believed to have. There is no right in the Constitution to not be offended.



[ Parent ]
Actually, I agree with you 100% (5.00 / 1) (#121)
by porkchop_d_clown on Fri Mar 07, 2003 at 02:03:37 PM EST

about whether or not it's morally right. Certainly happens a lot, though.

--
You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make him go off the high dive.


[ Parent ]
Aww, Christians are Soo persecuted..NOT (5.00 / 2) (#104)
by jubal3 on Fri Mar 07, 2003 at 12:33:48 PM EST

While I tend to be more sympathetic than most to Christian's complaints of repression, etc,this kind of drivel is one of the reasons non-Evangelical Christians view ECs with such disdain.

People are frequently and successfully sued in the US for public display of religion because it can "offend"

This simply isn't true.
This is a myth spouted by ECs and their sympathizers. People sue for lots of silly reasons. What they SUCCESSFULY sue for is another question.
I'm unaware of a single example, upheld by an appelate court, where the court ruled a religious symbol had to be removed because it "offended" someone.
What people succesfully sue for is the implication of state support for a particular religion. Having a nativity on the courthouse lawn for example, is a clear statement that the state supports Christianity. The only way to NOT make such a statement, would be to include as mandatory, displays of EVERY religion, including Zoroastrianism, Satan worship, etc. Seeing as you are inevitably going to miss SOMEONE's religion, the courts have held that you can't effectively allow ANY religious statement by a state entity.

While it's true, there have been many abuses by the state, particularly in schools, about things like not allowing student Christian groups, those abuses have been universally struck downby the courts -Rightly so.
What most ECs complain about stems from the fact that they cannot imagine anyone who does not share belief in the Judeo-Christian mythos. To them, the 10 Commandments, for instance, seems harmless at worst.
What they routinely fail to account for is that lots of people, me included, not only don't find the 10 Commandments to be inoccuous, they find it anathema to THEIR religious beliefs. I don't object to your belief in the 10 Commandments, I object to the State holding these things as correct, implying that MY religious beliefs are not supported at best, and held anathema at worst, BY THE STATE.

Since something like 80% of Americans identify themselves a christian, why is it that the majority religion feels the need to be defended from the rest of the country? Persecution complex? what?
I will fight and die, if necessary, defending your right to worship whatever you want to. What I won't condone, is having the government force your beliefs down my throat. Where the government is involved, there can be no implication of favoritism of one religion over another.
Why don't we make a deal: I won't ask the state to post pictures and statements about the sacred nature the earth and it's spirits, and you don't ask them to post the 10 Commandments. Sound fair? Or am I just screwed because I'm a religious minority?


***Never attribute to malice that which can be easily attributed to incompetence. -HB Owen***
[ Parent ]
So, because they're the majority (5.00 / 1) (#124)
by porkchop_d_clown on Fri Mar 07, 2003 at 02:22:18 PM EST

they can't be the target of unfair treatment? Interesting argument.

Perhaps it's precisely because they are in the majority that they feel bewildered by the inattention and disregard of the media and the hyper-sensitive care accorded to the few individuals who feel they are being "persecuted" by the christians.


--
You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make him go off the high dive.


[ Parent ]
You should have a read here... (5.00 / 1) (#174)
by inherent on Sun Mar 16, 2003 at 02:35:44 AM EST

Hopefully you're still following this thread.

I consider myself a Christian.  I do not consider myself a proponent of what the "Christian right" or "Evangelical Christians" refer to as "School Prayer."  

Here's a great article that explains it better than I (warning: it's written by a guy who likes words).

October 1999, Austin College Acolyte

[ Parent ]

Interesting article (5.00 / 1) (#175)
by jubal3 on Sun Mar 16, 2003 at 04:59:20 PM EST

Nice link.

I wrote a lengthy response, but it was just a rant. I really get tired of hearing extremist Christian propaganda which is blatantly untrue. Unfortunately, the Evangelicals (ECs) are very well organized in this country and are able to get their message out very effectively. (See "Big Lie")
It's always nice to see a Christian who has actually read their book responding to the extremist positions.



***Never attribute to malice that which can be easily attributed to incompetence. -HB Owen***
[ Parent ]
porn and teenagers (5.00 / 1) (#61)
by jjayson on Fri Mar 07, 2003 at 01:29:14 AM EST

I study came out about six months about. Porn is alread a significant influence on kids. The recent propblem with high school orgies has shown that it isn't a good place to learn sexual conduct.
_______
Smile =)
* bt krav magas kitten THE FUCK UP
<bt> Eat Kung Jew, bitch.

[ Parent ]
high school orgies? (5.00 / 1) (#63)
by lucius on Fri Mar 07, 2003 at 02:10:47 AM EST

Forgive me, but as an Australian I have not heard of this problem.

So what's it all about?

[ Parent ]

neither have we in the US. (5.00 / 1) (#67)
by Vellmont on Fri Mar 07, 2003 at 04:05:43 AM EST

I suspect it's a bunch of claptrap manufactured by a news outlet, or talkshow. Dateline NBC, Dr. Phil, Ophrah, take your pick. Sadly a lot of people don't see the mainstream media for the tabloid crap that most of it has become.

[ Parent ]
Or, jjayson was joking. (nt) (5.00 / 1) (#95)
by amarodeeps on Fri Mar 07, 2003 at 11:43:07 AM EST



[ Parent ]
I know jjayson (none / 0) (#97)
by leviramsey on Fri Mar 07, 2003 at 12:00:46 PM EST

Unless it's some component of a massive troll persona, it's genuine (because it's consistent). I disagree with him in every way, though.



[ Parent ]
wow, I'm totally confused then. (5.00 / 1) (#103)
by amarodeeps on Fri Mar 07, 2003 at 12:18:58 PM EST

I suggested he was joking on the basis of you giving him a 5 for that comment. What a mind-fuck. Does that mean that whenever you give me a 5 you disagree? Or are you that rare breed that really does mod based on if you think someone has made a point, whether you agree or not?

Or are you now messing with me? Oh lord, I can't take it!! I'm going to go dunk my head in a bowl of ice cubes.



[ Parent ]
I'm an easy 5 (none / 0) (#109)
by leviramsey on Fri Mar 07, 2003 at 01:12:00 PM EST

Unless I can think of a good reason that you should not have TU (or your post is so entirely without merit), I'll generally give a 5. Replies to posts I make, posts I reply to, and replies to stories/diaries I post in general automatically get 5s (the sole exception being if I think you'll abuse TU privileges if you get them, in which case my standard rating is a 3).



[ Parent ]
Ah. (4.50 / 2) (#123)
by amarodeeps on Fri Mar 07, 2003 at 02:12:43 PM EST

Hmm. Interesting policy, at least as good as any other methinks.

One of the interesting things that I've found definitely is how everyone uses the point system differently here. I generally mod people 4-5 if I agree with them and I think they've made a good point, but avoid giving people any points at all if I disagree with them unless I respond directly to them; I find giving low points without responding kinda lame, although I've started getting better at getting used to people doing that to me, because, well that's what people do. Lately though, after an unsatisfying and regrettable correspondence with another k5er, I've started to rethink this policy...or rather (not to digress too much) started to rethink how I speak to people in general—I'd like to be more civil in general.

Anyways, thanks for the explanation. What was especially good for me about this little conversation especially is that I realized I was making the mistake of assuming everyone mods the way I do. Thank you.



[ Parent ]
I like jjayson (5.00 / 1) (#141)
by lucius on Fri Mar 07, 2003 at 11:18:03 PM EST

He's seems earnest among the disingenuous, and a little humble among the proud.

Plus he speaks Farsi and has a big (seemingly extracurricular) interest in Iran.

[ Parent ]

Iran interest (5.00 / 1) (#160)
by jjayson on Sun Mar 09, 2003 at 03:43:12 PM EST

Two Persian ex-girlfriends does weird things to you :)
_______
Smile =)
* bt krav magas kitten THE FUCK UP
<bt> Eat Kung Jew, bitch.

[ Parent ]
Sorry, I have to post this... (5.00 / 1) (#163)
by leviramsey on Sun Mar 09, 2003 at 06:40:10 PM EST

Persian pussy?

Feel free to downrate this...



[ Parent ]
OT: NCAA tourney bracket (5.00 / 1) (#164)
by jjayson on Sun Mar 09, 2003 at 06:52:48 PM EST

I am posting a tourney bracket diary on Selection Sunday, and I am going to offer a few free months of K5 as a prize. I expect you to enter.
_______
Smile =)
* bt krav magas kitten THE FUCK UP
<bt> Eat Kung Jew, bitch.

[ Parent ]
I'll give it a shot (none / 0) (#165)
by leviramsey on Sun Mar 09, 2003 at 06:59:51 PM EST

But I'll prolly suck... I only really follow college basketball in March.

In order to avoid pissing off my sister, I'll have to root for Duke, Oregon, (depending on whether Stanford admits her) Stanford, a litany of teams with former Duke players or assistant coaches. And if UMass makes some kind of run through the A-10 tournament and gets a tourney bid, I'll root for them also. I'll give Cal props until they run into one of the above...



[ Parent ]
I run brackets every year... (5.00 / 1) (#168)
by jjayson on Sun Mar 09, 2003 at 07:06:49 PM EST

and why do I run them? Because I suck at picking. I have been know to come in last in my own pool (like two years ago when the Pac-10 just collapsed, since I usually vote on my emotional attachment to Cal and the Pac-10, instead of reason).
_______
Smile =)
* bt krav magas kitten THE FUCK UP
<bt> Eat Kung Jew, bitch.

[ Parent ]
then you haven't been paying attention. (5.00 / 1) (#122)
by porkchop_d_clown on Fri Mar 07, 2003 at 02:07:17 PM EST

It's not a nationwide phenomenon, mind you, but there was a case in the south east (Kentucky?) last year where there was a big outbreak of STDs and when they began tracking it back they found that the word "promiscuous" didn't really describe the behavior of the teens in that area....


--
You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make him go off the high dive.


[ Parent ]
It's a rural area (5.00 / 1) (#129)
by leviramsey on Fri Mar 07, 2003 at 03:02:14 PM EST

What the hell is there to do?

I'm serious. There's only so many minimum wage jobs in a rural area (this is true pretty much across the board). Movie theatres are a ways away. You put hormonally charged teenagers of both genders together wit nothing to do and they'll find a way to amuse themselves.



[ Parent ]
Also, my sort-of-first hand experience (5.00 / 1) (#125)
by porkchop_d_clown on Fri Mar 07, 2003 at 02:25:19 PM EST

My baby brothers are considerably younger than me. From their descriptions of dating in the 90s - attitudes had changed so much, and were so casual, it seemed as though they didn't go through puberty on the same *planet* I did.


--
You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make him go off the high dive.


[ Parent ]
In the queue (4.00 / 3) (#112)
by jjayson on Fri Mar 07, 2003 at 01:23:00 PM EST

There was a story submitted to the queue a couple of months ago that linked to an article that talked about students at a high school having orgies. It wasn't like a single orgy, it was multiple orgies with many partners.
_______
Smile =)
* bt krav magas kitten THE FUCK UP
<bt> Eat Kung Jew, bitch.

[ Parent ]
What "problem"? (5.00 / 2) (#115)
by Hizonner on Fri Mar 07, 2003 at 01:38:35 PM EST

First of all, the last time we discussed this, nobody really presented any evidence that there were any more high-school orgies than there had ever been, or at least than there had been at any time in the latter part of the twentieth century. Before you claim that the phenomenon is a problem, you have to show that it exists, and news stories about isolated groups don't count.

However, even if you show that the orgies exist, you have more work to do to show that they're a problem. It's possible to approach an orgy with a bad attitude or bad technique, and have it cause you and/or others emotional and/or physical harm. It's also possible to approach an orgy with a good attitude and good technique, in which case it's generally at least a lot of fun, and not uncommonly a fulfilling and even positively transforming experience.

Or did you mean that porn is causing a problem with high-school orgies by making the kids do them wrong, rather than by making the kids do them in the first place? I might be persuaded of that, I suppose. Certainly a lot of porn (not all porn) displays attitudes a humane person wouldn't want to take into an orgy, and a young person who swallowed such attitudes whole would be at some risk.

I suspect that high schoolers have both "good" and "bad" orgies. I have no real clue what the relative proportions of the two might be. I suspect that there are more "bad" ones than "good" ones, because the entire culture, not just porn, pushes attitudes that make it hard to have a "good" one. Lots of adult orgies certainly have a vibe that can make you want to cringe.

My prescription for that, of course, is to fix the attitudes, rather than prevent the orgies.

Orgies per se are less of a "problem" than, say, just to pick a completely non-random example, the use of MDMA, since it's considerably harder to use MDMA safely than it is to have an orgy safely. Plus, MDMA tends to wreck your orgy. :-)

Your (garbled) first sentence mentions some sort of study. Got a reference to it?

[ Parent ]

How can orgies be good? (4.00 / 2) (#132)
by jjayson on Fri Mar 07, 2003 at 04:38:47 PM EST

First of all, the last time we discussed this, nobody really presented any evidence that there were any more high-school orgies than there had ever been, or at least than there had been at any time in the latter part of the twentieth century. Before you claim that the phenomenon is a problem, you have to show that it exists, and news stories about isolated groups don't count.
I am not arguing about a general orgy problem. There was a study that came out about 6 months ago that showed, amoung high school students, pronography played a substantial role in shaping their sexual attitudes. If you think that I am lying, then I can find try to google it for you and get back to you with a link. I fear for the sexual health of the younger half of my generation if they think that acting out what they see in a porno will give them a satisfying sex life. Too often now, when we speak of sex it is completely detached from love, and love is what will give you a fulfilling sex life.

However, even if you show that the orgies exist, you have more work to do to show that they're a problem. It's possible to approach an orgy with a bad attitude or bad technique, and have it cause you and/or others emotional and/or physical harm. It's also possible to approach an orgy with a good attitude and good technique, in which case it's generally at least a lot of fun, and not uncommonly a fulfilling and even positively transforming experience.
I would argue that orgies are always harmful emotionally, especially for women who (for the most part) place a higher value on sex than men. There have been experiments done that show women experience a physioligical-caused fundamentally stronger emotional attachment than men during sex. Also, group orgies just reinforce the idea that people are just masturbation devices. How can that be healthy? I think the reasoning shows that orgies probably negatively affect a person's attitudes, and the burden of proof now falls on showing that isn't true.

My prescription for that, of course, is to fix the attitudes, rather than prevent the orgies.
I think it is endemic in the orgy itself. It breeds these negative sexual interations, similar to how power breeds corruption. You cannot take the corruption out of power any more than you can take the "bad" out of orgies. They are inextricably linked.

Orgies per se are less of a "problem" than, say, just to pick a completely non-random example, the use of MDMA, since it's considerably harder to use MDMA safely than it is to have an orgy safely. Plus, MDMA tends to wreck your orgy. :-)
Did you mention MDMA for a reason? I am a vocal proponent of ecstacy at Kuro5hin. The last time the idea of getting drunk and watching porn came up (for Valentine's Day), I advocated not getting drunk and not watching porn, but rolling with a close group of friends, although this is completely unrelated to the discussion.

_______
Smile =)
* bt krav magas kitten THE FUCK UP
<bt> Eat Kung Jew, bitch.

[ Parent ]
Because they're fun and may help you love people (5.00 / 1) (#135)
by Hizonner on Fri Mar 07, 2003 at 06:12:52 PM EST

I am not arguing about a general orgy problem. There was a study that came out about 6 months ago that showed, amoung high school students, pronography played a substantial role in shaping their sexual attitudes. If you think that I am lying, then I can find try to google it for you and get back to you with a link.
It's not a matter of me thinking you're lying. It's simply that most of the "studies" in this area are really poorly done, and the rest are usually overinterpreted, so it's a good idea to provide a link when you mention one. I don't doubt for a second that the study you mention exists, but I have some doubts about whether or not I would find it particularly convincing, and even more doubts about whether I'd consider it relevant. Also, I wasn't sure what point you were trying to make by mentioning the study, since I couldn't understand the sentence.
I fear for the sexual health of the younger half of my generation if they think that acting out what they see in a porno will give them a satisfying sex life. Too often now, when we speak of sex it is completely detached from love, and love is what will give you a fulfilling sex life.
Well, I tend to agree that porn is entertainment, not education, and most of it frankly sucks as education.
I would argue that orgies are always harmful emotionally,
OK, start arguing...
especially for women who (for the most part) place a higher value on sex than men. There have been experiments done that show women experience a physioligical-caused fundamentally stronger emotional attachment than men during sex.
Really, you have to start providing links for these papers if you're going to use them in your arguments.

I know, as general knowledge, that sex, and particularly orgasm, cause both sexes to release a hormone called oxytocin. Oxytocin seems to cause both sexes to develop stronger emotional attachments to the people they're having sex with. There are probably also other neurological and psychological processes that contribute to that effect; rarely are these things as simple as a single hormone.

Regardless of the underlying process, most people of both sexes who have had any significant sex agree that it often causes you to develop emotional attachments to the people you have sex with. That's commonplace, everyday knowledge. The attachments don't end when the sex ends, either; they can last a very long time.

I've never heard of any research that says the effect is stronger in women than in men (which doesn't mean that none exists), and I don't really have a personal opinion in the matter. It wouldn't surprise me either way. I have met women who seem to feel the effect substantially less than I do, but such anecdotes prove little. So, anyway, you're right, sex has emotional effects on people.

So what?

I didn't realize that loving people was now considered emotional harm. Even in the absence of long-term commitment, I've generally found loving people to be a good thing. Including people at orgies.

Of course, both many women and many men are capable, under some circumstances, of having casual sex without forming attachments of any great strength. It's less fun that way, and it leads to less general improvement in your social life, but it can be done. Unless you have a big and unnecessary guilt complex about it, the only knock against such casual sex is that it doesn't do you as much good as more emotionally connected sex, not that it does you any active harm. It's still fun.

Now, some people do have guilt issues around various forms of unconventional sexual behavior. Many people also find that, when they're involved in long-term romantic relationships, sex outside of those relationships tends to weaken the emotional ties they feel to their partners. This is by no means universal, but it's certainly common. Such people may experience negative emotional consequences from orgies, casual sex, and whatnot. The answer to that is that those people should stay away from orgies, at least unless and until they have found ways to reduce the harm until it's outweighed by the good.

Some people are allergic to cats, too, but you don't go around claiming that cats are "always harmful".

Also, group orgies just reinforce the idea that people are just masturbation devices. How can that be healthy?
They only reinforce that idea if you bring that idea in with you.

If you start out with the view that sex, or sex outside marriage, or whatever, is dehumanizing, then you're going to feel dehumanized by group sex, and you're going to feel like you're dehumanizing the other participants. This attitude is, unfortunately, so common that people often don't question it, and sometimes criticize it without noticing that they themselves have it.

If you start out with the attitude that it's just a fun thing you're all doing together, you're going to feel that the people you're doing it with are "masturbation devices" in exactly the same degree that you feel that the people you play volleyball with are "sports devices". Note, before you discard this analogy, that sports release aggression hormones just as sex releases affection hormones.

If you start out with the attitude that it's both a fun thing and a way to reinforce your emotional connections to the people you're doing it with, you will, in all probability, end up reinforcing your emotional connections to the people you're doing it with.

I think the reasoning shows that orgies probably negatively affect a person's attitudes, and the burden of proof now falls on showing that isn't true.
Um, what you're calling "the reasoning" is basically a bunch of assertions which you seem to think are self evident and universal... and most of which I don't accept. Using these and a lot of hidden assumptions, you construct a long, shakey chain of argument starting from some uncited and, I suspect, very preliminary research.

Not only that, but you seem to be adopting the extreme position that orgies are (probably) universally emotionally damaging to all the particpants. I can trivially prove that false from empirical evidence. I have personally been to orgies that I found not only enjoyable, but positively life-affirming, and that strengthened and deepened my friendships with the other participants. I can find you lots of other people (yes, including women) who will say the same. If you want to call us all deluded, well, I guess this discussion has to be over, since you're not going to find any more objective evidence than ours.

Even if you back off from the extreme, universal position, I do not accept that you have established that anything is "probable".

None of which is to say that I doubt that some people are emotionally hurt by orgies. It's all a matter of the prevalence, and, more importantly, of how you go about alleviating the damage. If people see high school kids breaking bones playing football, they make them wear padding; they don't tell them to stop playing. If people see high school kids breaking hearts with sex, they don't try to teach them to do it right; they try to stop them from doing it entirely.

Did you mention MDMA for a reason? I am a vocal proponent of ecstacy at Kuro5hin.
I mentioned MDMA for two reasons:

  1. Because you're a vocal proponent of MDMA at Kuro5hin, and I thought it might help to analogize the widely-condemned activity that you like with the widely-condemned activity that I like. There are a lot of similar knee-jerk attacks on both.

  2. Because there are some very real parallels. Oxytocin plays with your emotions and changes your feelings and actions toward other people. So does MDMA.

I thought that my mentioning that it was a non-random example would make it clear that it was aimed at you specifically

[ Parent ]

I can't find the study... (5.00 / 1) (#137)
by jjayson on Fri Mar 07, 2003 at 07:12:35 PM EST

Personal annecdote of group sex are mostly irrelevant to the conversation. I could tell you of how bringing a third person into my bed destroyed a relationship, but that doesn't prove anything, now does it?

After doing some searching, I cannot find the study. It asked teenagers where they get most of their information about sex, and pornography beat out school and parents easily. I did find a study from China that says rought 70% of the teenagers there learn sexual behavior from pornography, and I expect the US numbers to be about the same.

I've never heard of any research that says the effect is stronger in women than in men (which doesn't mean that none exists), and I don't really have a personal opinion in the matter.
I learned it from a girlfriend's class in college that dealt with human sexuality. I (or she) could be wrong, but I doubt it. From personal experience, it seems to be highly true. Any study on sexual practices shows that women are much more selective than men and equate stong feelings of love with sexual intercourse much more than men. That seems to be general knowledge. But, you are right, it really doesn't matter to the argument as a whole. The argued impacts coule happen to men or women and they would be just as tragic.

I didn't realize that loving people was now considered emotional harm. Even in the absence of long-term commitment, I've generally found loving people to be a good thing. Including people at orgies.
Nobody is saying that love is wrong, but you are confusing love and attachment, and that just shows how common this is! You go on to actually show a good example of how society doesn't seem to understand what love truly is and equate it to sex.

However, the issues isn't if sex outside of love is bad, it is if group orgies are conducive to loving feelings or future sexual health. I see it failing at both of these. First, is seems almost by definition to not form stronger bonds of love with somebody, since you have to be able to turn it off and on depending on the partner. This detract from the real meaning of sex as a demonstration of romantic and erotic love. Second, it may lead to always wanting more. People who view pornograhy often have the dentency to view more extreme images as time goes on, progressing from softcore to hardcore to fetishes and beyond. Also, it teaches that sex's primary role is to feel good, but that wouldn't be true. Sex is primarily an act of love, not of friendship.

Many people also find that, when they're involved in long-term romantic relationships, sex outside of those relationships tends to weaken the emotional ties they feel to their partners. This is by no means universal, but it's certainly common. Such people may experience negative emotional consequences from orgies, casual sex, and whatnot.
Physically and biochemically, I don't think this is possible. Your own views of trying to equate having sex to love seems to show how easily emotions can be confused.

If you start out with the attitude that it's both a fun thing and a way to reinforce your emotional connections to the people you're doing it with, you will, in all probability, end up reinforcing your emotional connections to the people you're doing it with.
This could be a big sticking point between us. I don't view sex as "just fun" anymore, like volleyball. After slutting around in college, I have determined that this lowers what sex is about and corrodes future ability to feel the depth of sex. That is not to say that having sex isn't fun, though, just that it mixes the priorities.

Not only that, but you seem to be adopting the extreme position that orgies are (probably) universally emotionally damaging to all the particpants.
This is obviously not the position that I took. Sweeping generalizes are rarely defensible, and I am certainly not making one here. After all, if somebody already views other as just their toys, absent humanity, then how group orgies are not going to make that much a difference.

The choice at the end is based on consequences (if you want it to be). Engaging in orgies can lower sex to just another activity for fun, and that is huge downside. I think when you do this, you semi-permanently harm your ability to have fulfilling with just a single partner. The potential upside is a single new experience and some giggles after that, nothing special.
_______
Smile =)
* bt krav magas kitten THE FUCK UP
<bt> Eat Kung Jew, bitch.

[ Parent ]

Oh yes. (5.00 / 1) (#72)
by tkatchev on Fri Mar 07, 2003 at 04:56:27 AM EST

Because we all know that the real purpose of life is to have good sex.


   -- Signed, Lev Andropoff, cosmonaut.
[ Parent ]

that, (5.00 / 1) (#90)
by adequate nathan on Fri Mar 07, 2003 at 11:16:45 AM EST

And to anally colonize other planets.

Nathan
"For me -- ugghhh, arrgghh."
-Canadian Prime Minister Jean Chrétien, in Frank magazine, Jan. 20th 2003

Join the petition: Rusty! Make dumped stories & discussion public!
[ Parent ]

That's fine because as long as you think... (5.00 / 1) (#126)
by the on Fri Mar 07, 2003 at 02:43:31 PM EST

...it isn't there's less competition for the rest of us.

--
The Definite Article
[ Parent ]
I believe you mean (5.00 / 1) (#148)
by adequate nathan on Sat Mar 08, 2003 at 03:06:35 AM EST

...for the rest of our anuses.

HTH

Nathan
"For me -- ugghhh, arrgghh."
-Canadian Prime Minister Jean Chrétien, in Frank magazine, Jan. 20th 2003

Join the petition: Rusty! Make dumped stories & discussion public!
[ Parent ]

Free clue. (5.00 / 1) (#149)
by tkatchev on Sat Mar 08, 2003 at 06:07:18 AM EST

Science shows us in an empirical and incontrovertible way that those who enjoy sex the least reproduce the most.

Likewise, those who love sex for sex' sake reproduce the least.

In short, mother nature sayz that you lose.

   -- Signed, Lev Andropoff, cosmonaut.
[ Parent ]

Loveable mental midgets? (5.00 / 2) (#131)
by Valdrax on Fri Mar 07, 2003 at 04:16:27 PM EST

Oh, thank you for reminding me.  I forgot all Christians were the same and that we can all be tarred by the actions of our most ludicrous brothers.  While I'm thinking about it, this principal probably applies to other large groups of people too.

Why, your infinite wisdom shows me that:
All Blacks are the same.
All Jews are the same.
All Asians are the same.
All French people are the same.
All gay people are the same.
All Wiccans are the same.
All football fans are the same.

Most of all, all jackasses who read Kuro5hin are the same -- especially all the jackasses who insult and stereotype people different from them or who give such posts a 5 rating.  Good show, everybody, for making a mental midget like myself see what I was obviously missing.

[ Parent ]

Religious != Religious Right (3.00 / 1) (#166)
by afeldspar on Sun Mar 09, 2003 at 07:01:28 PM EST

Thank you, drive through, try not to be such a fucktard.
-- For those concerned about the "virality" of the GPL, a suggestion: Write Your Own Damn Code.
[ Parent ]
I want my porn! (5.00 / 1) (#15)
by Gooba42 on Thu Mar 06, 2003 at 03:23:28 PM EST

What is the deal here? The company gives us the disincentive of making it more expensive than other pay per view offerings already. It is, in fact, more expensive than going to the video store where "adult" videos are still more expensive than general fare.

Porn sounds like a great business with its sworn opposition raising its prices. The more it gets fought, the more money it's worth. Kill it as an "industry" and there'll be a black market for it. The usual legalization rhetoric applies.

The reason PPV porn is expensive... (4.00 / 2) (#17)
by leviramsey on Thu Mar 06, 2003 at 03:28:39 PM EST

...is stigma. Because it's simply ordered through your TV, only you and the computers at your cable/satellite company know that you just ordered "The Ozzporns". In essence, you're paying a premium for the fact that the local busybodies who might be watching your local porn store can't see you going in.



[ Parent ]
Clancy!! (nt) (5.00 / 1) (#48)
by Wah on Thu Mar 06, 2003 at 06:33:54 PM EST

.
--
YAR
[
Parent ]
Uh-oh... (3.66 / 3) (#16)
by Publius on Thu Mar 06, 2003 at 03:23:54 PM EST

Isn't the Internet the single largest source of pornography on the planet?

---

This place is to writers what cock-fighting is to roosters: if you get out alive, you've had a good day.

Well, I'm sure... (none / 0) (#119)
by bill_mcgonigle on Fri Mar 07, 2003 at 01:56:58 PM EST

...they're using an ISP that doesn't transit any porn.  Ha!  That's funny.

Excellent point; pot,kettle,black.

[ Parent ]

Pray for Bush (2.66 / 3) (#19)
by imrdkl on Thu Mar 06, 2003 at 03:52:49 PM EST

Corporations ain't got souls.

What would Jesus drive? (5.00 / 1) (#22)
by I am Jack's username on Thu Mar 06, 2003 at 04:23:15 PM EST

Reading the title, I thought this was about the What would Jesus drive? pledge.
--
Inoshiro for president!
"War does not determine who is right - only who is left." - Bertrand Russell
nope it's What would Jesus Watch, apparently. (nt) (5.00 / 1) (#64)
by Rhinobird on Fri Mar 07, 2003 at 02:40:03 AM EST


"If Mr. Edison had thought more about what he was doing, he wouldn't sweat as much." --Nikola Tesla
[ Parent ]
Jesus wouldn't watch porn (3.20 / 5) (#66)
by Big Dogs Cock on Fri Mar 07, 2003 at 03:53:25 AM EST

At least not until those holes in his hands have healed up properly.

People say that anal sex is unhealthy. Well it cured my hiccups.
[ Parent ]
Yeah (4.50 / 2) (#76)
by carbon on Fri Mar 07, 2003 at 05:52:59 AM EST

Handling the remote would be a bugger.


Wasn't Dr. Claus the bad guy on Inspector Gadget? - dirvish
[ Parent ]
Media influence (4.33 / 3) (#24)
by Scrymarch on Thu Mar 06, 2003 at 04:26:33 PM EST

One of the major reasons that New Labour was swept into power in the 1997 election was that Murdoch's traditionally Conservative papers turned on the Tories.

You're talking it up.  The Tories were and are dead, and Blair had taken his party decisevly to the centre.  The Tories already had a paper thin margin across the country after the previous, close, election.  Murdoch's papers swung behind New Labour, but so did the rest of the country.  The Times has since gone back to its traditional pining after the Conservative party, and it hasn't helped them a jot.

However (none / 0) (#51)
by leviramsey on Thu Mar 06, 2003 at 07:36:10 PM EST

The Times is arguably less important to actually affecting what people think (though those who it does affect are more influential) than the Sun, which has become very Blairite over the past several years. The Times move back to the right could be explained away as nothing more than a means of holding off the Telegraph.

I still stand by my original statement (a statement for which I am definitely not the first to make). While Rupert's papers may not have delivered Labour the 1997 elections, they have not really opposed Blair (again, especially the Sun). And it is undeniable that New Labour scratches Rupert's back from time to time (the Channel 5 being only one of the latest examples). There is definitely a symbiotic relationship between Tony and Rupert.



[ Parent ]
Media influence (5.00 / 1) (#162)
by Scrymarch on Sun Mar 09, 2003 at 06:01:29 PM EST

I read a fair bit of news, and I know what I read has biases that filter what I see, but I still don't think newspapers or TV have all that much power to make or break political parties.  If they uncover a scandal, they can break a government.  Otherwise they just reflect their readership, and if they don't, they move, to make a profit.

Look at The Mirror, which is losing readership as it tries to make a virtuous tabloid left-wing stand on Iraq.  The Sun certainly tries to brag of its influence, "It's The Sun Wot Swung It!", but I doubt it.  The Economist (yes, we choose our filters) had an interesting article on the influence of British tabloids a while back, that suggested their political preference tracks the opinion polls of their demographic - a sound commercial strategy, of course.

Tony does get along well with Rupert, but sadly not well enough to sell him BBC1.

[ Parent ]

If Kirk had actually tried DirecTV (3.66 / 3) (#27)
by maynard on Thu Mar 06, 2003 at 04:35:39 PM EST

he'd know that the service is so spotty he'd be lucky to get 55 minutes uninteruppted viewing, porn or not. I've got an 18x24" tripple LNB dish recently installed that drops signal with the slightest wind. And when the temperature drops below 20 degrees, forget it. I'm about ready to pack it in and toss the dish. Maybe he should pick on Comcast instead? They show porn too and their signal is pretty reliable. grumble grumble grumble --M


Read The Proxies, a short crime thriller.
Real men don't view porn. [nt] (2.66 / 3) (#35)
by Trollaxor on Thu Mar 06, 2003 at 05:05:45 PM EST



[ Parent ]
I bought it for HBO-HD and SHO-HD /nt (4.00 / 2) (#36)
by maynard on Thu Mar 06, 2003 at 05:11:09 PM EST

HDTV is good. Hmmmmmmm. --M


Read The Proxies, a short crime thriller.
[ Parent ]
you sure mentioned it enough (2.75 / 4) (#37)
by Trollaxor on Thu Mar 06, 2003 at 05:13:01 PM EST

porn, that is. that's a very freudian commentary onyour psyche, maynard.

[ Parent ]
Real porn doesn't use men ;o) (n/t) (5.00 / 2) (#44)
by leviramsey on Thu Mar 06, 2003 at 05:56:59 PM EST



[ Parent ]
Odd (none / 0) (#43)
by leviramsey on Thu Mar 06, 2003 at 05:56:41 PM EST

I have DirecTV and the only times I lose signal are in torrential downpours, with lightning increasing the chances.



[ Parent ]
It's the dish... (5.00 / 2) (#45)
by maynard on Thu Mar 06, 2003 at 06:13:59 PM EST

There are known problems with some 18" x 24" dishes with the integrated triple LNB and multiswitch. Word is, they tend to die in cold below 20F degrees. Also, since the larger dishes have to track three birds instead of just one they're affected by alignment problems much worse than a round dish tracking a single bird. Of course I had no idea about these issues when I originally ordered DirecTV, but with this year's unexpectedly cold winter here in Boston I've learned much more than I ever wanted to know (and met several nice repair techs in the process). Too bad Comcast doesn't offer HDTV programming yet... I'm stuck with DirecTV. Oh well, it's not like HDTV is really that much better... oh yeah, IT IS. feh. --M


Read The Proxies, a short crime thriller.
[ Parent ]
Ah (none / 0) (#49)
by leviramsey on Thu Mar 06, 2003 at 06:51:39 PM EST

I'm out in Western Worcester county (well, actually that's where my DirecTV is...) with regular def. HDTV. I figure that, with so little HD content on DTV (apart from SHO and HBO, which I don't subscribe to), there's no point in going HD yet.



[ Parent ]
OT: You're also missing... (5.00 / 1) (#55)
by maynard on Thu Mar 06, 2003 at 09:57:49 PM EST

HDNET on DirecTV and all of the local broadcast stations. And - whew - yesterday HDNET showed Hogan's Heros in HD. WHOOHOOO! Can you imagine, someone actually paid to retransfer Hogan's Heros from film to HD video? Can't wait for I Dream of Jeannie. Now you know you need to buy an HDTV. :)

Boston (and Worcester, though I don't know about Amherst) gets ABC, NBC, and CBS, which all broadcast a good deal of HD content. FOX, WB, and UPN all broadcast varying amounts of 480P widescreen, which is what you'd get with an anamorphic DVD through component input. Of course, most of the broadcast content is total crap. But if you like football, hockey, or baseball HD makes a huge difference for widescreen and long shots. You can read the helmets, really see the puck, and actually track the baseball after it's been hit. Which is cool. Certainly it's good to invite friends over to watch a game and drink a few brews. And DVDs on widescreen really do look good. But it's early adopter stuff, so you might be better off waiting for the technology to really penetrate the market.

Ontopic: I have no idea what porn looks like on HD as I don't bother with the stuff. I do know that DirecTV does have some HD PPV porn, so if that's your bag and you're willing to pay, you know where to go.

Cheers,
--Maynard


Read The Proxies, a short crime thriller.
[ Parent ]

Ah (none / 0) (#89)
by leviramsey on Fri Mar 07, 2003 at 11:15:50 AM EST

Out here in Western Mass, I don't believe the sat providers carry anything local.

Hogan's Heroes in HD... that's awesome!



[ Parent ]
LOL moment (2.66 / 3) (#28)
by radish on Thu Mar 06, 2003 at 04:37:14 PM EST

However, if Bush kowtows to the religious right on this issue, that may change.

I love this!  thanks for pointing it out.  the mere thought of Fox TV gradually dropping out from under the neo-cons is enough to give me the giggles, even though it's terribly unlikely.  on second thought, weren't Donahue's ratings going straight up when they cancelled him?  hmmm....

"Donohue's ratings going straight up" (5.00 / 3) (#30)
by bobpence on Thu Mar 06, 2003 at 04:42:13 PM EST

Yes, a third viewer tuned in to see the Rosie interview, an MS-NBC record.

MS-NBC: Popular like FoxNews is balanced.
"Interesting. No wait, the other thing: tedious." - Bender
[ Parent ]

Donahue: highest rated program on MSNBC (4.00 / 3) (#34)
by maynard on Thu Mar 06, 2003 at 05:02:16 PM EST

Donahue had the highest rated program of any on MSNBC at the time of cancellation, with an average 470,000 viewers in his timeslot. See this CNN article on the subject. In addition, allyourtv.com has an recent (as in this week) "insiders" article on the death of Donahue's program.

Cheers,
--Maynard


Read The Proxies, a short crime thriller.
[ Parent ]

Competition (5.00 / 1) (#62)
by mstefan on Fri Mar 07, 2003 at 01:47:36 AM EST

But isn't the real issue how the show was stacking up against their competitors, not how it was doing relative to other programs on the name network? As I recall, when he was getting around those half-million viewers, The Factor was pulling in five times that number.

As a liberal counterbalance to the more conservative programming on networks like Fox, Donahue was an abject failure with zero traction. Not a dynamic that makes advertisers eager to open their wallets, I'd say.



[ Parent ]
OT: Two perspectives on Donahue's sacking (5.00 / 2) (#87)
by maynard on Fri Mar 07, 2003 at 11:04:21 AM EST

But isn't the real issue how the show was stacking up against their competitors, not how it was doing relative to other programs on the name network?

There are two perspectives to this. We don't know if Donahue was having any trouble finding sponsors, though no one from either MSNBC or the program has claimed he did. I assume he was not. We do know that Chris Matthews and MSNBC Reports generate significantly less ratings than Donahue did (I don't know the numbers). And there's the internal quote of MSNBC executives who said that, "[Donahue's program might become] a home for the liberal anti-war agenda at the same time our competitors are waving the flag at every opportunity." This suggests he was fired for political reasons and not due to ratings or lack of sponsors.

Your point would be the other perspective. MSNBC may be hiring right wing commentators such as Michael Savage in order to compete directly with Fox News. Though I think that if this is their gambit, why didn't they fire Chris Matthews either first or along with? His ratings suck against FOX and CNN even worse, and he's been publicly questioning the war as well. Why not hire both Savage and Coulter (or any of a number of other right leaning talking heads) to take both timeslots? If this is their gambit I don't think they'll win. FOX (and especially O'Rielly) has a dedicated following which isn't likely to migrate to MSNBC because of a new commentator, whatever his/her political views. MSNBC needs to find new cable news viewers, or attract viewers from CNN, because I don't think FOX is about to lose the conservative viewing audience.

Who knows; Donahue's out, game over. I think it's a shame though. Donahue certainly isn't my favorite liberal, though he is telegenic. Personally, I think, intellectually, Katrina Vanden Huevel would have done a much better job of representing the left than Donahue, though she doesn't have any experience as a host. And now it appears there's not a single commentator running his/her own show on US cable or broadcast TV news who is expressly presenting a viewpoint from the left, though there are a plethora of commentators from the right on all channels. This is obvious bias. And I think Donahue's sacking in the face of his having the highest ratings for MSNBC shows that it is bias for political reasons and not financial.

Cheers,
--Maynard


Read The Proxies, a short crime thriller.
[ Parent ]

Re: Donahue's sacking (5.00 / 2) (#107)
by mstefan on Fri Mar 07, 2003 at 12:55:12 PM EST

And now it appears there's not a single commentator running his/her own show on US cable or broadcast TV news who is expressly presenting a viewpoint from the left...

I agree completely with you there. I'm sure the folks here who've read my posts know that I'm not exactly a left-leaning individual, however I appreciate hearing from all sides. I think it's critical that everyone have a voice, most importantly the people that we strongly disagree with.

That said, I think Donahue wasn't the right voice for the left; I always got the impression that he was lecturing. Instead of saying "This is my opinion, and here are the facts to support it", he would say "This is the way it should be, and this is why you are wrong if you don't agree with me". I disliked Limbaugh for the same reason.

While I don't discount that there was politics at hand in the decision to fire him, I also think that retreading his show wasn't the formula for attracting the "ideal" demographic that marketeers want. Heck, most people under 30 probably didn't even have a clue as to who the man was. So while he may not have had trouble finding sponsors, I doubt those sponsors were forking over the same kind of cash that they would for spots on O'Reilly's program, for example.



[ Parent ]
Bad Logic (4.47 / 19) (#29)
by pmc on Thu Mar 06, 2003 at 04:41:50 PM EST

From looking at the prices DirecTV charges for those channels ($4.99 for 55 minutes, for example), it immediately becomes apparent that these are among the most profitable channels for DirecTV.

It may be true, but the inference ("among most profitable channels" because of high per hour charges) does not actually follow. It may be that there is a small market (relative to the number of subscribers to any Hughes channel) for the porn channels. Based on the results from British porn channels the profitability (in dollar terms) is probably fairly marginal (as a percentage of turnover it's probably a bit higher).

Apart from that, what are these loons doing on the internet - don't they know it's full of porn?

I think I'll start a new organisation: Pornographers Opposed to Religions Nutters (PORN, conveniently enough) dedicated to remove the vile influence of religion from the internet. Just looking at the score card should convince you of the merits of Porn over Religion:

Religion's Greatest Wrongs: Over One Billion Deaths (including the Son of God!), a large majority of wars, and bad fashion.

Porn's Greatest Wrongs: Dirty Sheets, Shortsightedness, and some really bad background music/dialog/acting.

Yes, porn is not only less evil than religion, it is more fun. So join the crusade: buy a magazine, rent a video, get a cable subscription, visit a club, see a stripper and CRACK ONE OFF TODAY!!! Come, and do your bit for a better world.

Porn's Greatest Wrongs (4.16 / 6) (#31)
by TurboThy on Thu Mar 06, 2003 at 04:43:51 PM EST

Porn's Greatest Wrongs: Dirty Sheets, Shortsightedness, and some really bad background music/dialog/acting.
Hey, I got hairy palms and can't see a thing. It's really cruel to make fun of people so disabled.
__
'Someone will sig this comment. They will. I know it.' [Egil Skallagrimson]
[ Parent ]
According to Frontline... (4.33 / 3) (#40)
by maynard on Thu Mar 06, 2003 at 05:34:18 PM EST

...Pay-Per-View generates "...close to a billion dollars" revenues anually. See this interview with Dennis McAlpine from the Frontline program Amercan Porn.

Cheers,
--Maynard


Read The Proxies, a short crime thriller.
[ Parent ]

Multi Billion Dollar Business. (4.00 / 1) (#42)
by pmc on Thu Mar 06, 2003 at 05:55:50 PM EST

Hughes has revenues of ~10 Billion per annum (and large losses). Supposing they have a 10% slice of the adult pie of 1 billion, then porn is about 1% of their take.

[ Parent ]
And how many channels does porn consume? (4.33 / 3) (#47)
by maynard on Thu Mar 06, 2003 at 06:24:00 PM EST

With all three birds I get something like 1000 video and music channels. Most of the PPV channels are consumed by film and sporting events. I don't know how many are used for porn, but it's a small minority of the PPV; maybe ten channels or so. So if porn generates 1% of their revenue while only consuming .1% of the available satellite bandwidth I'd say that's pretty significant. Of course, this doesn't consider programming costs - we'll never know what they're paying for the content, so it could be running at a loss. But I doubt it. Good point, BTW. --M


Read The Proxies, a short crime thriller.
[ Parent ]
iba (3.42 / 7) (#50)
by pmc on Thu Mar 06, 2003 at 07:05:19 PM EST

You have won today's "I'm a religious nutter award". Congratulations.

Just remember, pornography helps you love the person in the world you care most about more. Well, mostly. Some people love their partner most, and that's good: porn will give you ideas, and help build a better, more physical, but more caring, relationship. Others love themselves most, and that's OK too: masturbation means never having to say you're sorry. And others, above all, love their mothers most. But we won't go there.

[ Parent ]

bullshit (1.75 / 4) (#60)
by jjayson on Fri Mar 07, 2003 at 01:21:46 AM EST

porn with desensitize you to sexual feeling. It gives people the impression that all women always want it and want it in any way. Exactly, how does watching some guy shoot on a girl's face help your sex life?
_______
Smile =)
* bt krav magas kitten THE FUCK UP
<bt> Eat Kung Jew, bitch.

[ Parent ]
excuse me... (3.00 / 1) (#65)
by alizard on Fri Mar 07, 2003 at 02:54:30 AM EST

You seem to have accidentally interchanged your handle and the title of your post. Perhaps the k5 admin can help you out.
"The horse is dead. Fuck it or walk away, but stop beating it." Juan Rico
[ Parent ]
Cute. (2.33 / 3) (#70)
by tkatchev on Fri Mar 07, 2003 at 04:53:13 AM EST

Actually, no. Please go kill yourself.

   -- Signed, Lev Andropoff, cosmonaut.
[ Parent ]

Being Serious For A Moment (5.00 / 6) (#69)
by pmc on Fri Mar 07, 2003 at 04:45:02 AM EST

porn with desensitize you to sexual feeling.

On mainland Europe porn is much more widely available than here, yet there does not seem to be any great lack of sexual feeling between partners. I would reckon that the culture's attitude towards women is a much greater desensitiser of sexual feeling (and the objectification of women) than consumption of porn.

On a more personal level I know people with huge porn collections. I know people who never look at the stuff. I would defy anybody to tell them apart without knowing which was which. I don't think that watching porn desensitises you to sexual feeling any more than watching the weather forecast desensitises you to rain.

It gives people the impression that all women always want it and want it in any way.

It may give you that impression, but it has certainly never given me, nor I think most people, that impression (and what about gay porn?). What does demean women much more is (some) religions. Just cast your mind over the phrases that are used: "wife and mother", "a woman's place is in the home". How seldom you hear the complement "Husband and father". Think about how male almost all religious leaders are (I think particularly of the religious right here), and how the wife is practically a prop (but an essential one). And if you want real objectification then The Family web site has some crackers.

Exactly, how does watching some guy shoot on a girl's face help your sex life?

How does watching someone get shot and slowly bleeding to death entertain? It seems incredible, but the action film (where murders, mutilations, and deaths are common) are actually quite enjoyable (and profitable). Same applies with porn, except nobody dies, they just get sticky.

But does watching a money shot help my sex life? I have no idea - the last money shot I saw was well before my marriage. Not that we don't like watching titillating things on TV together (and UK titillating is probably considered porn in the US) as it helps us explore the sexual landscape and enjoy each other more. When you both see an activity on screen (possibly something we wouldn't have thought of on our own) then it's easy to judge whether both of us are interested in it. And that too is probably the reason we don't watch "hardcore" - it's unimaginative and boring, by and large.

[ Parent ]

Can you clarify something? (4.00 / 2) (#114)
by jjayson on Fri Mar 07, 2003 at 01:30:28 PM EST

Before I resond, can you tell me if the top of your post (the first two paragraphs) is refering to hardcore porn of just the softcore variety?

And please, keep the anti-religious rhetoric out of it. That was completely unnecessary.
_______
Smile =)
* bt krav magas kitten THE FUCK UP
<bt> Eat Kung Jew, bitch.

[ Parent ]

Sure (5.00 / 1) (#159)
by pmc on Sun Mar 09, 2003 at 10:14:50 AM EST

Either - but be aware that hardcore and softcore are broad and woolly categories: one man's hardcore is another man's softcore, especially when comparing across cultures and eras.

If you want anti-religious rhetoric removed from the discussion, can we have the anti-porn diatribes removed too? We wouldn't have much to talk about (this being an article about religion and porn) but I feel it's a step you should take in order to be even handed.

[ Parent ]

Answers (5.00 / 1) (#157)
by epepke on Sat Mar 08, 2003 at 03:06:59 PM EST

It may give you that impression, but it has certainly never given me, nor I think most people, that impression (and what about gay porn?).

Radical feminism has an answer: it's demeaning to women because the men are symbolically becoming women.

Hey, I didn't say it was a good answer; I'm just the messenger.

Just cast your mind over the phrases that are used: "wife and mother", "a woman's place is in the home". How seldom you hear the complement "Husband and father".

Quite frankly, I'd like to see the complement "husband and father" as a compliment more often. And I'd like to see "a man's place is with his family" a lot more often, too. Religion is screwed up in a lot of ways, but it's not like too many of those enlightened atheists pay even lip service toward the value of a man's connectedness with his family. (I'm an exception.) You can laugh at Promise Keepers all you want, but there's pathology in turning men into walking wallets, too.


The truth may be out there, but lies are inside your head.--Terry Pratchett


[ Parent ]
Yes (3.00 / 3) (#71)
by greenrd on Fri Mar 07, 2003 at 04:53:46 AM EST

Well, like advertising, it will have an effect, yes. But...

It gives people the impression that all women always want it and want it in any way.

Only if they're stupid and/or ignorant.


"Capitalism is the absurd belief that the worst of men, for the worst of reasons, will somehow work for the benefit of us all." -- John Maynard Keynes
[ Parent ]

well, hurm (5.00 / 1) (#88)
by adequate nathan on Fri Mar 07, 2003 at 11:13:51 AM EST

Only if they're stupid and/or ignorant.

Isn't it stupid, ignorant people who are most in need of guidance?

Nathan
"For me -- ugghhh, arrgghh."
-Canadian Prime Minister Jean Chrétien, in Frank magazine, Jan. 20th 2003

Join the petition: Rusty! Make dumped stories & discussion public!
[ Parent ]

Well in my experience (none / 0) (#100)
by leviramsey on Fri Mar 07, 2003 at 12:07:15 PM EST

Women do always want it and in every way... then again, the fact that my last girlfriend was a nymphette may have something to do with that.



[ Parent ]
Your last girlfriend... (5.00 / 1) (#150)
by TheEldestOyster on Sat Mar 08, 2003 at 08:32:24 AM EST

... was a nymphette? Really? I would think that you would not want to admit that, lest the other prisoners in the federal penn. you would be sent to would crack your head open.

(read: Don't you mean "nympho"?)
--
TheEldestOyster (rizen/bancus) * PGP Signed/Encrypted mail preferred
[ Parent ]

My best sex was (5.00 / 1) (#106)
by Hillman on Fri Mar 07, 2003 at 12:54:15 PM EST

with girls that told me that they watched porn now and then. They pick up tips that can turn any man crazy... What's more exciting than a girl doing something with there something in that place without you even asking for it.

[ Parent ]
I have had this argument before... (3.00 / 2) (#113)
by jjayson on Fri Mar 07, 2003 at 01:26:17 PM EST

and nobody has ever shown me anything of value from porn. Exactly what can you learn from it? Most porn follows a very standard format and there isn't anything that a couple can learn from watching it. (This doesn't count instuctional videos or the books like the Kamasutra, since I can see value in them.)

_______
Smile =)
* bt krav magas kitten THE FUCK UP
<bt> Eat Kung Jew, bitch.

[ Parent ]
That's not what it's about anyways. (5.00 / 2) (#136)
by amarodeeps on Fri Mar 07, 2003 at 06:26:52 PM EST

It's about whether it turns you on or not. And it turns a lot of people on. Some people who are turned on by porn are aware of issues of objectification and sexism, some are not. Some porn is itself aware of issues of objectification and sexism, and some is not. But you can't judge for anyone else what will or won't do it for them, and so you don't really have anything to say about it except in terms of your own appreciation/disgust for porn.

If you don't like it, don't watch it, but don't expect to get anything but guffaws and "gimme a break" from a lot of people when you talk about it like you are the sex thought police.



[ Parent ]
police? (5.00 / 1) (#138)
by jjayson on Fri Mar 07, 2003 at 07:27:12 PM EST

Who said anything about me wanting to make laws. I can think something is stupid and want to tell other not to do it because of negative repurcussions that they may not be aware of, while still not wanted to pass a law.
_______
Smile =)
* bt krav magas kitten THE FUCK UP
<bt> Eat Kung Jew, bitch.

[ Parent ]
Hmm. (4.00 / 3) (#140)
by amarodeeps on Fri Mar 07, 2003 at 11:01:32 PM EST

Who said anything about me wanting to make laws.

I didn't. The police don't make laws. At least not in the U.S. You're thinking of the legislative branch, go down to the end of the hall, take a right, second door on the left.

I can think something is stupid and want to tell other not to do it because of negative repurcussions that they may not be aware of, while still not wanted to pass a law.

True, how magnanimous of you. And to me that makes you an irritating busybody who might want to keep his opinions to himself. "Sex thought police" was over the top I suppose, but I guess I meant that in the sense that you talk as if there was some sort of moral law at work here, like porn == bad, and you're hear to inform all us heathens and thereby enforce it.

Nevertheless, this is Kuro5hin, we're here to jabber, so "busybody away." I'm just telling you what I think when you get all uppity about porn.



[ Parent ]
you are more upset at my thoughts on porn (5.00 / 1) (#144)
by jjayson on Sat Mar 08, 2003 at 12:13:17 AM EST

than I am upset about porn, Because truthfully, there is worse out there that people could be doing.
_______
Smile =)
* bt krav magas kitten THE FUCK UP
<bt> Eat Kung Jew, bitch.

[ Parent ]
Sorry, but... (5.00 / 1) (#147)
by amarodeeps on Sat Mar 08, 2003 at 02:54:45 AM EST

If you weren't equally upset then you wouldn't be spending so much time replying to me and giving my comments low points.

Please a little harder than that, or just give it up.



[ Parent ]
companies want to make money (5.00 / 2) (#79)
by ibbie on Fri Mar 07, 2003 at 09:31:54 AM EST

!! newsflash !! sex sells. they would be complete and utter idiots to turn away the dollars made from pornography.

and i'm certain that god's own accountants would agree.

--
george washington not only chopped down his father's cherry tree, but he also admitted doing it. now, do you know why his father didn't punish him? because george still had the axe in his hand.
ubiquitous sexualization (4.33 / 3) (#80)
by cgenman on Fri Mar 07, 2003 at 09:34:02 AM EST

While we're at it can we boycott the RIAA and, for that matter, MTV, Cosmo Girl, and the south, for teaching pre-teen girls that the most important thing in life is to bare your midriff and be an effective object of sexual attraction?  Can we petition Ashcroft to force Safeway to remove the magazines that glorify and educate on the important subjects of "looking sexy for your man," and "fifty hot sex tips that will have him begging for more?"  Can we force the schools to remove those cheerleaders who play such a pivotal role in the games they attend, as exemplified by the XFL?

We're attacking the wrong thing here.  What needs to end and what is wrong is the culture of objectification, not necessarily the pornographic images that are a natural extension of that culture.  It's fundamentally wrong when the highest compliment that can be paid to someone is that they are "beautiful all over, inside and out."  100 years ago that might have been "Good all over," and 500 years ago "divine," showing the value of the times.  

Everyone in this culture, including women, objectifies women.  That is very, very wrong.  Sexual imagery is isn't the problem: ubiquitous sexualization is.

- This Sig is a mnemonic device designed to allow you to recognize this author in the future. This is only a device.

There's nothing more terrifying than (5.00 / 1) (#91)
by porkchop_d_clown on Fri Mar 07, 2003 at 11:16:52 AM EST

watching your 5 year old daughter try to imitate Britny Spears' music video.

We're in a society where men's magazines feature near-naked women, women's magazines feature near-naked women, car magazines feature near-naked women, and so on and so on...

I used to point to Japan as an example of a culture that appeared unaffected by heavy sex content in their media, but recent reports about attitudes and behavior among their teen agers show them to be as bad or worse than hte USA.

But, as a practical matter, what can you actually do - other than applying economic pressure on the corporations that shovel this stuff out? You can't restrict "bad speech" with out catching a lot of "good speech" in the cross fire. I really don't know of an ethical or effective way to do this besides what this organization is trying to do: shame the corporations into at least toning it down a little.


--
You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make him go off the high dive.


[ Parent ]
In reality... (4.00 / 2) (#99)
by tkatchev on Fri Mar 07, 2003 at 12:06:34 PM EST

...shlock like "Seventeen magazine" and MTV are probably more evil than outright pornography.

   -- Signed, Lev Andropoff, cosmonaut.
[ Parent ]

Exactly. (none / 0) (#101)
by porkchop_d_clown on Fri Mar 07, 2003 at 12:09:43 PM EST

They bend your attitudes about what a woman is supposed to be, far more than any number of anatomy diagrams...


--
You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make him go off the high dive.


[ Parent ]
Especially with body image type issues (4.50 / 2) (#102)
by leviramsey on Fri Mar 07, 2003 at 12:14:36 PM EST

If you watch porn you quickly see that there's a lot more acceptance of differing body type. Face it: with the exception of the glamour porn (a genre which seems to be in decline) the vogue has been to use women who are more real looking than anything else.



[ Parent ]
Phraseology (5.00 / 2) (#118)
by Hizonner on Fri Mar 07, 2003 at 01:49:14 PM EST

Sexual imagery is isn't the problem: ubiquitous sexualization is.
There's got to be a better word than "ubiquitous" for what you're talking about. People are ubiquitously sexual. Everbody's sexual. I think what you're objecting to is an attitude that divorces people's (women's) sexuality from the other aspects of their being, or that sees people as solely sexual, having no worth outside of their sexuality, or indeed outside of the most mechanical aspects of their sexuality. That, I agree, is bad, but I'm not sure ubiquity is really the problem.

[ Parent ]
Hello? It's a Free Market!!! (4.00 / 3) (#81)
by Rojareyn on Fri Mar 07, 2003 at 09:40:15 AM EST

My observation here is that if you don't want to watch the adult channels that DirecTV provides, then don't purchase them. It's called freedom of choice, which, IMHO, is something that the religious right is trying to undermine.

Mass Media is far from a free market (5.00 / 1) (#143)
by nomoreh1b on Sat Mar 08, 2003 at 12:05:31 AM EST

Look at Noam Chomsky, some of the major Black activists or the writings of Baldrson that have shown how certain kind of profitable films are systematically denied theater access for some range of ideas on the peculiarly narrow range of ideas that make it into the mass media.

[ Parent ]
yes (5.00 / 1) (#171)
by relief on Sun Mar 09, 2003 at 10:27:56 PM EST

noam would also say that bush would support the corporations. bush is only a nominal born-again (i think), and besides, voting against one corporation is an affront on all corporations. religion loses.

----------------------------
If you're afraid of eating chicken wings with my dick cheese as a condiment, you're a wuss.
[ Parent ]
Sympathetic? (5.00 / 5) (#98)
by killmepleez on Fri Mar 07, 2003 at 12:05:34 PM EST

according to an article published by Focus on the Family (a group which is generally sympathetic to the religious right)
Many of my relatives are, or have been, preachers. I've been to state and national Republican conventions with my nuclear family. I attended Pat Robertson's rallies and helped distribute his literature when he ran for president in 1988. I was Vice President of my High School Young Republicans club. I still have a t-shirt I purchased in 1993 that has the universal circle-and-slash "no" symbol over the words "Murphy Brown". I've helped lead See You at The Pole events at junior and senior high schools. I once spent two weeks at a fundie camp in Manitou Springs [near FOF headquarters], where they prepare you to argue against the insidious secular humanism they believe you're certain to encounter at university. I met James Dobson personally and have his autograph ["Dear ----, Keep lovin' Jesus!"].

Bearing this condensed version of my experiences in mind, let me suggest that your language was much too mild.

It still amazes me that when conversations such as this one arise, I end up having to explain to people who Dr. Dobson is. Pat Robertson, Jerry Falwell, and Fred Phelps might be the standard media foils trotted out to demonstrate the religious right's position [and Robertson's wealth was, of course, essential to kick-starting the Christian Coalition], but they are primarily niche pundits who are easily dismissed by moderates and others on the sociopolitical map. Dobson, on the other hand, has a much lower profile, and his organization escapes more public scrutiny because it classifies itself as a non-political group dedicate only to strengthening the "traditional christian family". He has advanced medical, psychological, and academic credentials, which provide his vast audience with a feeling that his opinions are not only Good Theology but also Good Science. Falwell and Robertson are merely clever and telegenic orators. Dobson has a highly analytical mind that is capable of constructing very persuasive arguments, which are then soundbyted and parroted by many of his listeners. That, in itself, is value neutral [and of course sometimes I agree with him], but his status as both originator and mouthpiece of the modern, politically active fundamentalist christian [insert fair warning about the relativism of ideological labels here] gives him enormous sway over the rhetoric dispersed throughout the larger-than-you-think christian niche media market -- rhetoric which bubbles up through the christian 'underground' and emerges in the national agenda six months later.

In culture wars, Überzeugungskraft geht vor recht, and after the 1997 departure of the highly effective and TV-friendly Ralph Reed from the Christian Coalition, James Dobson and FOF, more than any other single organization, is the religious right.

k.

We're all, not just those we kill, subordinated in the service of something larger. The difference between us and the corpses is that we are willing serv
Are you still in that scene? [nt] (5.00 / 1) (#111)
by waxmop on Fri Mar 07, 2003 at 01:16:00 PM EST


--
We are a monoculture of horsecock. Liar
[ Parent ]
Put your whole self in, put your whole self out... (5.00 / 1) (#117)
by killmepleez on Fri Mar 07, 2003 at 01:44:19 PM EST

No, I'm pretty well a nothingarian or bokononist these days. But I still try to keep up with a lot of the publications, because I feel more secure when I know exactly what they're up to. I could write more about it, but I've got to make an overnight trip and won't get back to the computer until tomorrow afternoon.

By the way, why did you ask that particular question?
We're all, not just those we kill, subordinated in the service of something larger. The difference between us and the corpses is that we are willing serv
[ Parent ]
because I grew up in that scene also (5.00 / 2) (#128)
by waxmop on Fri Mar 07, 2003 at 02:57:03 PM EST

But I left it far behind. I can still remember the opening music to the Focus on the Family radio show on KSBJ. Remember Marlin Maddoux? I spent my childhood years plagued with nightmares about Christians being hunted down in the Soviet Union. My parents were no help; everyone in the crazy church we belonged to was convinced that the end of the world was imminent.

On road trips I sometimes find one of those radio stations and listen for a while. It's all nonsense. It's hard to believe that such utter trash captivates the minds of literally millions of people in this country.

I remember the big thing back then was the music industry's conspiracy to use backward-masking to brainwash American youth; I don't know what the new scare is.
--
We are a monoculture of horsecock. Liar
[ Parent ]

Bush will side with corporations (5.00 / 2) (#116)
by nomoreh1b on Fri Mar 07, 2003 at 01:41:40 PM EST

It has not been a secret that the Republican party has grown to be dependent on two groups for its power: corporations (for financial support, although they tend to be just as open to supporting Democrat candidates) and the religious right (which provides many voters for the party). It will be very interesting to see which group Bush will side with.

I predict that ulimately, if push comes to shove, Bush will side with corporations. I am NOT a member of the Christian Right. What I ask folks to consider here:
Given the degree of contributions that the Christian Right has made to the GOP, what sort of real payoff have they gotten?

Abortion is still universally legal. Educational vouchers have never gotten delivered. Advertising and mass media are fairly blatently sexual in oritentation. The living standards of Christians themselves are in serious trouble and families are financially stressed compared to previous generations(Fundies draw their support from largely rural groups that are relatively unlikely to produce millionaires).

What is important to get here:
The average fundy Christian finds corporate behavior like we saw at Enron a serious embarrassment. The average fundy Christian finds neo-con types that dream of legalizing heroin and gambling a bit repugnant.

Seriously: Look at the degree of organizational effort that the Christian Right has exerted compared to say the Civil Rights Movement. Which has gotten more bang for the buck? The last serious victory I would say the Christian Right got was in a previous incarnation: Prohibition(which as a movement involved not only banning booze but also drugs and prostitution)-that is practically ancient history now.

The GOP takes Right Wing Christians for granted- they figure that the Christian right just won't have any place to go. What has changed that I would suggest is:

The emergence of support of Israel as a critical issue. Fundies are largely pro-Israel and are the only pro-Israel group with substantial presence in the US military.

The emergence of Democrats like Leiberman that are willing to deal on critical issues like school Vouchers(Leiberman favors school vouchers and unlike Bush might actually be able to deliver such a program).

I can imagine some serious political games getting played on this front-in fact this conflict may be such a game unfolding-putting Christian Rightists at odds with corporate interests.



The Christian Left (5.00 / 2) (#130)
by Valdrax on Fri Mar 07, 2003 at 03:32:12 PM EST

The last serious victory I would say the Christian Right got was in a previous incarnation: Prohibition(which as a movement involved not only banning booze but also drugs and prostitution)-that is practically ancient history now.

Actually, that was the Christian Left that did that.  Christian Socialism was a movement of liberal Christians who believed in social reform and were supporters of both unions and anti-trust legislation as well as temperance and prohibition.  There was even an important third party in those days called the Progressive Party which helped put the pressure on to get the 18th amendment passed.

That was back in the day before McCarthyism engineered the schism between leftist politics and mainstream Christian/American thought.  The modern split between fundamentalists and liberals began when the common "God fearing" man began to think of leftist politics as un-American.  The "hippie" movement also further aligned liberalism with bucking the religious establishment, as would the abortion movement and the strong ties between liberalism and evolution-advocating academics.  However, back in the days of Prohibition, progressive (liberal) politics and Christianity were well-linked, and it was the Progressives for whom the era is named that pushed Prohibition.

[ Parent ]

Little More Complicated (5.00 / 2) (#133)
by nomoreh1b on Fri Mar 07, 2003 at 05:06:14 PM EST

A lot of modern day fundies really do have a pretty continous lineage going back before WW I. Suffrage was a woman's movement that didn't really have left/right divisions as we think of them today from what I can see. Also "leftist" politics in that era were tied fundamentally different than what we now think of as "leftist"-it was more tied up with figures like Edward Bellamy and Henry George.

Marxism was never particularly popular among Americans of British descent that make up the backbone of Fundies today(Marx wrote for a GOP party organ and encouraged his supporters in the US to join the GOP). Largely Catholic Germans in places like Wisconsin did have a strong streak of Social Democracy/Marxism--and Prohibition was never popular there or in any city with substantial Jewish and/or ethnic populations-that were the backbone of modern day liberal Democratic politics.

My own characterization of the "Christian Right" is that the backbone of that movement is remarkably fickle politically. There is a lot of continuity there are political moral issues(i.e. anti-pornography, anti-prostitution, anti-abortion, prayer in schools) but that population is remarkably fickle/volatile on other issues--which is largely consistent with what you were saying here.

[ Parent ]

Religious Right versus General Motors | 175 comments (161 topical, 14 editorial, 0 hidden)
Display: Sort:

kuro5hin.org

[XML]
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective companies. The Rest © 2000 - Present Kuro5hin.org Inc.
See our legalese page for copyright policies. Please also read our Privacy Policy.
Kuro5hin.org is powered by Free Software, including Apache, Perl, and Linux, The Scoop Engine that runs this site is freely available, under the terms of the GPL.
Need some help? Email help@kuro5hin.org.
My heart's the long stairs.

Powered by Scoop create account | help/FAQ | mission | links | search | IRC | YOU choose the stories!