A disturbing trend?

[nemo]

Kirk,

Amazing... you managed to use a font color that makes your post almost unreadable, rant in near-decipherable grammar, and fill your signature with spam for a similarly illegible website. You hit the trifecta! Congrats on fueling the wacko Christian stereotype.

 

If you have an opinion, please share it. If you have an unhealthy love of exclamation points, deal with it elsewhere. Reasoned opinions will be rewarded with (mostly) thoughtful responses. Posts like this will be disregarded and avoided by people who may even share some of your views.

 

SPAM is never appreciated. Sliding it into your signature does not make it better.

[IrishEyes]

We have a teenaged daughter. She is hormonal, and she has crushes (which are quite drastic, but usually silent- yes, I've scanned her diary on occassion). But she still rolls her eyes when you actually say s-e-x in front of her. But it's gotten less intense than when she used to actually shriek and run out of the room. I'm not sure if I like that or not. ???

 

even though she's not totally comfortable with the topic, I discuss sex with her on a very regular basis. I don't mean to imply that I get graphic, far from it. Usually I discuss relationships, and why it's better to wait until you are ready, and 'when' you can know that you are ready. I discuss what kind of man she should look for (no, not just tall, dark, and handsome!), and why certain personality traits are important. I've told her, and the other 3 girls, that they should never settle for a man that doesn't treat them like their daddy treats me. They see how he treats me, and I think it's been a very good thing for them to see a healthy, happy couple that both love each other and are attracted to each other.

 

I think it is very important to be honest with her, but I still refrain from being too graphic. She's 13, and not exposed to all the trash she'd be getting if enrolled in junior high, so it's rather refreshing. I don't know if she'll wait until she's married to have sex. I know I didn't! But I'd be very happy if she waited until she was mature enough to handle the experience when it happens. I know I wasn't. And I'm really hoping that she will still feel ok with talking with her mother about things when that time arrives. I know I couldn't. Basically, I want her to have the knowledge that I never had about a subject that was never discussed in my house, the freedom to make her own decisions (even if I don't agree), the confidence to speak with us about those decisions, and the maturity to prevent or deal with any consequences of her actions.

 

I think each generation of parents wants better for their children than what they had. Of course I'd like my daughter to wait until she is married, but I don't know if that is realistic. And if she doesn't wait, I want her to be safe. For her (and the other 3 girls, and 2 boys) - Abstinence is my choice, but responsible decisions are my goal.

 

Does that make sense?

[IrishEyes]

They see how he treats me, and I think it's been a very good thing for them to see a healthy, happy couple that both love each other and are attracted to each other.

 

I want to clarify this before someone shoots daggers at me...

I do not mean to imply that a family unit that is not identical to ours is a bad thing. I know many single parents, both moms and dads, that are doing a superb job of raising their children. I only mean that I think it is easier for me to say "Find a good man, and this is what a good man will 'look' like" when I have the good man sitting right across the dinner table.

I know that growing up in a most-of-the-time single family home, I was not exposed to 'healthy' male-female relationships. My mom married many times. I had more step-dads than I care to remember. I'm not joking, she danced down the aisle more times than Liz... I credit this lack of 'seeing' what a marriage was supposed to be to my first (failed) marriage. I don't *blame* her for the failure of my marriage - *I* made the choice to marry, and I accept the consequences. But I really had no idea what a 'good' marriage looked like, well, except the Cosby's and the Keaton's. Everybody else on tv was single or divorced, pretty much. I wasn't exposed to the daily give-and-take that is required in a lasting relationship. I had no idea how tough it would actually be. My kids see the good, the bad, and the ugly. They see that we don't always agree, that we sometimes fight (sometimes really loud even!), but at the end of the day - nobody sleeps on the couch, and nobody storms off in a huff. And they see that we like to kiss each other, that a brush of the hand on a cheek is well-received, and that even over the din, a look is all it takes to remind me of a very special dance. My kids think it's both gross and kinda cool that dad still holds moms hand when walking down the street, and mom still smiles when dad comes riding in the driveway on the motorcycle at the end of the day.

Sorry, didn't mean to get all sappy. I'm a very strong advocate of two-parent families. But that's mainly because I was raised in a one-parent family and it really affected the way I dealt with men for a long time. I don't want to imply that this happens to everyone, because I doubt most single moms get married 9 or 10 times. But it can happen. i'm the proof of that.

[Southtown]

If there's government coddling of the porn industry, I have to admit I don't really see it...

 

Cheers,

Buffy

There's a Supreme Court "coddling" of the porn industry (among other things):

 

3. Voters are overwhelmingly against recent examples of judges' activism.

• Allowing child pornography because it's a form of free speech
  
  
  FOR: 2% AGAINST: 97%
  
  
   
  
  
• Taking the words "under God" out of the Pledge of Allegiance
  
  
  FOR: 11% AGAINST: 85%
  
  
   
  
  
• Allowing a minor to get an abortion without her parent's consent
  
  
  FOR: 17% AGAINST: 77%
  
  
   
  
  
• Allowing burning the American flag because it's a form of free speech
  
  
  FOR: 19% AGAINST: 77%
  
  
   
  
  
• Eliminating the death penalty for murderers and terrorists
  
  
  FOR: 24% AGAINST: 67%
  
  
   
  
  
• Legalizing gay marriage
  
  
  FOR: 31% AGAINST: 61%
  
  

4. Consequently, voters want decisions about controversial political issues made by their elected representatives, not by unelected judges.

• By a margin of 65 to 25 percent, voters think that "decisions about political issues like gay marriage should be made by elected representatives, not by unelected judges." Republicans agree by 70 to 19 percent, Independents by 66 to 25 percent, and Democrats by 58 to 30 percent.
  
  

— Questions 3 and 4 of 8 of a scientific telephone survey by Ayres - McHenry and Associates,

http://judicialnetwork.com/contents/press/031505.shtml

 

Do you have a link for the telco control thing? I'm interested in reading that/those. It sounds like you're implying that only Conservatives have the decency not to push the envelope in pursuit of ratings, and hence aren't fined as much by a vast proportion. Is that what you're saying?

 

Can you suggest any alternatives to fining indecent broadcasters? I heard from a commentator on some random news broadcast once that there were "laws on the books to protect" her from being assaulted (or whatever crime was being talked about, I can't remember,) but this isn't the case. The law can't stop crime. People always have a choice how they will act. Hence any legislation passed at all is merely a standard for what actions to punish and how to punish them.

[pgrmdave]

— Questions 3 and 4 of 8 of a scientific telephone survey by Ayres - McHenry and Associates, http://judicialnetwork.com/contents/press/031505.shtml

 

This site is only slightly biased...

We believe that the proper role of a judge or justice is to interpret the law and the Constitution – not make up the law and deprive the people of the right to govern ourselves.

 

We believe that a judge or a justice should not use the power of the court to impose his or her personal or political agenda on the people.

[Southtown]

I've told her, and the other 3 girls, that they should never settle for a man that doesn't treat them like their daddy treats me. They see how he treats me, and I think it's been a very good thing for them to see a healthy, happy couple that both love each other and are attracted to each other.

Can't get that from premarital relations... =) And I whole-heartedly concur. If I can dig up some statistics, I can show how two moral heterosexuals raise kids into wiser more stable adults through demonstrating how to hold a "long-term" relationship together over many years by being tolerant, compassionate, and adaptive for the two decades of a child's time at home. There's no better teacher than experience, ay?

 

Of course I'd like my daughter to wait until she is married, but I don't know if that is realistic. And if she doesn't wait, I want her to be safe. For her (and the other 3 girls, and 2 boys) - Abstinence is my choice, but responsible decisions are my goal.

 

Does that make sense?

Of course. I can't see how anyone would assume they could control the choices of others. What surprizes me is unfounded opposition to the suggested reasoning based on such delusions of authoritarianism.

[Southtown]

This site is only slightly biased...

How is that quote from JN's "about" page demonstrate political bias? It reinforces the seperation of powers.

 

And, the survey was held by someone else, anyway. Can you demonstrate their bias?

[questor]

1. when you go to a movie: SEX, VIOLENCE, LOUD NOISES, SEX, MORE VIOLENCE,

MORE LOUD NOISES. if you look at the movie guide today, what percent of the movies showing do not have the above as their central interest?

2. when you watch prime time TV, what percent of the shows do not have sexual

escapades as their central theme?

would you say that movies and TV are produced and programmed mainly by conservatives?

since these forms of education are the most prevalent in our society, what do our children accept as normal occurrences? SEX, VIOLENCE, LOUD NOISES.

[Buffy]

There's a Supreme Court "coddling" of the porn industry (among other things):

The only item on your list that had anything to do with the porn industry was the red herring about "child pornography is free speech". No such thing has happened, and the closest you can point to are some controversies associated with art photography that had naked children in it. By that standard, virtually every parent with a camera is a child pornographer.

 

Your protestations that the source is independent is a bit debatable: Ayers/McHenry does virtually all of their work for conservative causes.

 

Do you have a link for the telco control thing? I'm interested in reading that/those. It sounds like you're implying that only Conservatives have the decency not to push the envelope in pursuit of ratings, and hence aren't fined as much by a vast proportion. Is that what you're saying?

Concentration of the telco industry has been widespread, and the decision to lock up DSL. Just a few links:

 

http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2005/08/06/BUGQ6E3SA01.DTL&hw=DSL+FCC&sn=002&sc=904

http://www.infoworld.com/article/05/08/04/HNdslderegulation_1.html

http://www.pkarchive.org/column/120602.html

 

Can you suggest any alternatives to fining indecent broadcasters? I heard from a commentator on some random news broadcast once that there were "laws on the books to protect" her from being assaulted (or whatever crime was being talked about, I can't remember,) but this isn't the case.

Heck maybe CBS did deserve a fine for Janet Jackson's "wardrobe malfunction" on a "family" program. The folks in Europe laugh at us about our problem with seeing exposed breasts. I will tell you that "Up With People" is not going to be coming back to the Super Bowl anytime soon though. On the other hand, if you listen to Howard Stern or Rush Limbaugh, you should not be surprised if you hear obscene, misogynist blather.

 

This however is *not* my point: its that the FCC, driven by a very few complaints is spending an inordinant amount of time trying to find sex, when violence is a much bigger problem:

From MediaWeek Magazine:

According to a new FCC estimate obtained by Mediaweek, nearly all indecency complaints in 2003—99.8 percent—were filed by the Parents Television Council, an activist group.

 

Through early October, 99.9 percent of indecency complaints—aside from those concerning the Janet Jackson “wardrobe malfunction” during the Super Bowl halftime show broadcast on CBS— were brought by the PTC, according to the FCC analysis dated Oct. 1. (The agency last week estimated it had received 1,068,767 complaints about broadcast indecency so far this year; the Super Bowl broadcast accounted for over 540,000, according to commissioners’ statements.)

 

The prominent role played by the PTC has raised concerns among critics of the FCC’s crackdown on indecency. "It means that really a tiny minority with a very focused political agenda is trying to censor American television and radio," said Jonathan Rintels, president and executive director of the Center for Creative Voices in Media, an artists’ advocacy group.

 

Maybe some people do have a problem with sex, so some effort is arguably fine, but *all* of it?

 

Cheers,

Buffy

[nemo]

Honestly, I would not have a problem with much of the programming on television today, if it showed somewhat realistic consequences to the actions depicted.

• The hero pulls out his .45 (I have one too, that's why I'm using the caliber as an example) to respond to the bad guy's gunfire. Immediately following the heroic gunfight, the camera pans to the 4 year old shot while watching cartoons in her living room
  
• Sexy beast meets hot mama and spends romantic night on the beach. Two weeks later, sexy beast has painful pimples "down there" that will never go away.
  
• Toga, Toga! ...oh crap. Jimmy had a few too many jello shots and died of alcohol poisoning
  

 

I don't suppose that would sell, but I'd find it entertaining.

[Southtown]

The only item on your list that had anything to do with the porn industry was the red herring about "child pornography is free speech". No such thing has happened, and the closest you can point to are some controversies associated with art photography that had naked children in it. By that standard, virtually every parent with a camera is a child pornographer.

True, maybe that survey was out of place. But how many parents distribute or sell such photos? That is where it becomes indecent. Art is an industry, after all. And business is like water, it will take the past of least resistence, and it will travel as far as it can before being obstructed, at which place it will "pool" all of its resources in opposition. If there is any notion of decency whatsoever held commonplace, industries will need to be legally restricted or they will not abide in the slightest (unless it eventually effects their sales, of course.)

 

http://www.insightmag.com/main.cfm?include=detail&storyid=249998

 

Your protestations that the source is independent is a bit debatable: Ayers/McHenry does virtually all of their work for conservative causes.

That does not demonstrate bias, nor does it even relate to their methods.

 

Concentration of the telco industry has been widespread, and the decision to lock up DSL. Just a few links:

 

http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2005/08/06/BUGQ6E3SA01.DTL&hw=DSL+FCC&sn=002&sc=904

http://www.infoworld.com/article/05/08/04/HNdslderegulation_1.html

http://www.pkarchive.org/column/120602.html

Thanks. I'll check 'em out later, since I seem to be having net problems. I do agree this is bad for dsl competition. But it's a sticky argument when the government steps in and says how a company will use it's own resources. Where will it end? Socialism? Who knows, it could propagate the birth of new technologies, much like the oil industry is feeding the desperation for new forms of energy like hydrogen or cold fusion by their "brute strength" business practices.

 

Heck maybe CBS did deserve a fine for Janet Jackson's "wardrobe malfunction" on a "family" program. The folks in Europe laugh at us about our problem with seeing exposed breasts.

I give a flying turd to what Europe thinks, and in their direction. Our independence from England was hard-fought and, in my mind, worth holding on to. Their economy is in worse shape then ours anyway, judging by their lower reproductive rate.

 

I will tell you that "Up With People" is not going to be coming back to the Super Bowl anytime soon though. On the other hand, if you listen to Howard Stern or Rush Limbaugh, you should not be surprised if you hear obscene, misogynist blather.

While I might see where you're coming from, in my opinion Rush just occasionally tries to convey the more dispicable current events as cleanly as possible without getting his feet dirty (tongue in cheek,) while Howard adamantly jumps right it, revels in the filth, and even adds some of his own to the mix. As long as Stirin' can do it without any 4-letter words, it remains somehow legal. Big difference between the two.

 

This however is *not* my point: its that the FCC, driven by a very few complaints is spending an inordinant amount of time trying to find sex, when violence is a much bigger problem:

. . .

Maybe some people do have a problem with sex[ual broadcasting infractions], so some effort is arguably fine, but *all* of it?

 

Cheers,

Buffy

They don't have a problem with "sex." They have a problem with defiantly persistent, sexual infractions by broadcasters and the apparent impotency of the FCC to enforce themselves. Why have laws at all if they're not enforced? Talk about an "inordinate waste of time." If we need the same kind of action for violence, then so be it. This reasoning doesn't make enforcing pre-existing decency laws in the sexual context bad or censorship. It just says it's inadequate to cover the whole problem, and I'd have to agree.

[Southtown]

I don't suppose that would sell, but I'd find it entertaining.

Very good point, and me too! =)

[questor]

i can't furnish data to prove it, but i think the cheapening of the sex act by all the bimbos and bimbettes posing as actors on TV is subliminally preparing horny males to become

rapists. why not get all you can while the girls want to give it away. if they decide they don't want YOU to have it, take it anyway. the same for violence. killing on TV is as common as sex and has a similar effect. how could one think that making sex and killing

a daily bill of fare on movies and TV do not affect the adolescent brain ? some people

cannot understand cause and effect.

[Buffy]

True, maybe that survey was out of place. But how many parents distribute or sell such photos? That is where it becomes indecent.

And what is the definition of "distribute"? Pedophiles put their pictures up on their web sites for free. So do parents. Where is the line then? What about virtual child porn (see below)? If you just make it for personal reasons, is that okay then?

 

Your slippery slope argument is not terribly convicing:

Art is an industry, after all. And business is like water, it will take the past of least resistence, and it will travel as far as it can before being obstructed, at which place it will "pool" all of its resources in opposition.

So you're saying that child porn has a powerful lobby in Washington? Hmmmm. I don't see much power there....

If there is any notion of decency whatsoever held commonplace, industries will need to be legally restricted or they will not abide in the slightest (unless it eventually effects their sales, of course.)

Which pretty much negates your argument that all industries should be unregulated...

 

Your reference to the courts "defending" child porn while held up for riducule seems a bit of a stretch as it was *virtual* child porn and the courts opinion actually makes some sense if you value attacks to many forms of free speech:

"The argument that virtual child pornography whets pedophiles' appetites and encourages them to engage in illegal conduct is unavailing because the mere tendency of speech to encourage unlawful acts is not a sufficient reason for banning it … absent some showing of a direct connection between the speech and imminent illegal conduct."

 

It continues, "Finally, the First Amendment is turned upside down by the [government's] argument that, because it is difficult to distinguish between images made using real children and those produced by computer imaging, both kinds of images must be prohibited." Nonsense, said the majority, which opined authentic child pornography still is criminal and still can be prosecuted, while "virtual," or computer-generated images, are protected by the First Amendment.

Oddly this is the same sort of argument that the "gun banners" are using against the second amendment as discussed over in another thread!

I give a flying turd to what Europe thinks, and in their direction.

And I'm sure the feeling is mutual... I think your "strength of the their economy" is completely irrelevant, and are you saying that they're all immoral? For having models in bras in ads on TV? Goodness!

While I might see where you're coming from, in my opinion Rush just occasionally tries to convey the more dispicable current events as cleanly as possible without getting his feet dirty .... As long as Stirin' can do it without any 4-letter words, it remains somehow legal. Big difference between the two.

It definitely depends on your opinion, but some find the slander spread by Rush against whoever he's targeting (like Cindy Sheehan this week), just as offensive. I stongly support freedom of speech in both cases: let them blather all they want unfettered: they only prove that they're both the fools that they are....

They don't have a problem with "sex." They have a problem with defiantly persistent, sexual infractions by broadcasters and the apparent impotency of the FCC to enforce themselves. Why have laws at all if they're not enforced?

Note that there is a small minority that bothers to do the complaining, indeed its almost solely from a single source. If there was no demand for filth, there would be none: Its hard to argue that the broadcaster's stances in the least bit defiant, in fact they fall all over themselves to react to the slightest public or FCC pressure.

If we need the same kind of action for violence, then so be it. This reasoning doesn't make enforcing pre-existing decency laws in the sexual context bad or censorship. It just says it's inadequate to cover the whole problem, and I'd have to agree.

That's fine, but it still completely ignores the fact that only sex is being attacked, and this is evidence that to many of us, the priorities are quite out of whack, which is the whole point of this thread: It would appear that to the complainers, violence is just fine and sex in any form is horrifying.

 

Cheers,

Buffy

[Southtown]

You are right, Buffy, that the PTC is obsessed with sex and is ignoring violence. And you're right that they should devote more time to other areas of offense. And, I don't guess the government is aiding the porn industry, unless it can be considered "art."

 

In a hypothetical situation, a pervert is enjoying some family posted pictures of their little ones. Should the pictures be taken down? No, probably not. If the guy gets off watching trees sway back and forth, then so be it. The guy can be apprehended and punished when his perversions lead him to break laws already in existence, whatever those may be (that's why we have them,) and the parents can continue to live in a free country.

 

Industries should not be unregulated. I guess you're referring to my dsl comment. I said the government shouldn't tell companies what to do with their own property. If there's a monopoly then it will foster new technologies, or even a publicly funded transmission medium. Regulations instead should take the form of environment safety, consumer safety, truth in advertising, etc.

 

And I'm pro-firearms. The law will never be able to totally protect people. It can only provide a standard of behavior and consequences for deviations of such, just like the two examples above.

[pgrmdave]

i can't furnish data to prove it

 

If you can't furnish data, point people to statistics, give people a url, or a book, or a magazine, or an article, or something remotely related to something scientific, then you really shouldn't even bother posting it.

 

 

if you look at the movie guide today, what percent of the movies showing do not have the above as their central interest?

2. when you watch prime time TV, what percent of the shows do not have sexual

escapades as their central theme?

 

Why don't you check this, using google, or some other source, then show us the information, and link it back to us. That way, your argument might actually have some meaning to it, other than empty rhetoric.

[Happeh]

If you can't furnish data, point people to statistics, give people a url, or a book, or a magazine, or an article, or something remotely related to something scientific, then you really shouldn't even bother posting it.

 

Why don't you check this, using google, or some other source, then show us the information, and link it back to us. That way, your argument might actually have some meaning to it, other than empty rhetoric.

 

Crap.

 

Why not do some independent thinking on your own? Why not ask the man his story, listen to it, then make your own decision with your own brain?

 

Depending on verification by experts might be necessary in hard phsyical sciences. In real life, politics, psychology, etc, you are only going to stunt your growth by making demands like this.