 |  | top stories | | 1 new story
no new comments | | etcetera | 2 new stories
31 new comments | | filmtv | 3 new stories
48 new comments | | media | 1 new story
44 new comments | | politics | 3 new stories
125 new comments | | scitech | 1 new story
7 new comments | | work | 2 new stories
28 new comments | |
| | | | | This Ain't No Religious Cervix: College Christians Vs. Annie Sprinkle | | | | | found on Philadelphia Weekly
written by Nephthys, edited by Nick (Plastic) [ read unedited ]
posted Mon 14 Oct 2:46pm | | | | |
 | "Annie Sprinkle, the porn star turned sex educator, is causing a ruckus on a college campus. [Link's probably not quite work-safe.] Ted Passon, a college promotor had booked Sprinkle for a lecture. He was thrilled to have the compelling and controversial speaker discuss her porn work, lesbian experiences and various sexual taboos on his campus. Remember, this is the woman who taught us about the cervix [very not work-friendly], by showing hers on stage.
"Joe Christian, the president of a campus group called Soldiers for Christ, promptly filed his complaints, requesting that the show be cancelled - repeatedly, calling Passon's parents at home repeatedly threatening to picket their home and businesses. When Passon tried to argue the merits of Sprinkle's lecture, Christian allegedly responded by asserting that Sprinkle 'was perverted and asking if I was aware she was a lesbian. Then he threw in that he thought all Muslims were terrorists and called Annie a witch. There was no point in arguing.'
"During the lecture the Soldiers protested outside the venue, their request to debate Sprinkle on stage denied. Sprinkle later discussed the brouhaha, saying, 'I feel compassionate toward [Soldiers], and am curious about them, and try to understand why they feel the way they do.' Perhaps the Soldiers should take more interest in what others have to say and their viewpoints."
| |
[ more plastic... ] |
| | | | | | | 1. Debate? | | | | by Daemonik |  | | | at Mon 14 Oct 3:06pm | score of 2 astute | | | | | | |
Perhaps the Soldiers should take more interest in what others have to say and their viewpoints.
The only form of debate that zealots believe in is the kind where their opposition is silenced and unable to defend themselves.
| | | | [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ] | | |
| | | | | | | 3. It's kind of funny... | | | | by shagoth | | | | at Mon 14 Oct 3:47pm | score of 2.5 incoherent | | | | | | |
That there are even "Soldiers for Christ" inasmuch as Christ himself was pacifist and for that matter that these same soldiers are so venomous and lacking in compassion for their fellow humans. Not overly Christian I wouldn't think. Unfortunately, this kind of hypocrisy is more typical of religious extremists than it the exception.
Of further note, though, is that this group no matter how kooky is well within their rights to protest to their hearts content, though it does sound like their expression may border on harassment.
| | | | [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ] | | |
| | | | | | 15. Re: It's kind of funny... | | | | by Tashtego |  | | | at Mon 14 Oct 5:14pm | score of 3.5 astute | | in reply to comment 8 | | | | | |
You have heard that it was said, 'An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth.' But I say to you, Do not resist one who is evil. But if any one strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also; and if any one would sue you and take your coat, let him have your cloak as well; and if any one forces you to go one mile, go with him two miles.
Matthew 5:38-41
god is a putter
Liberals apparently make huge sweeping generalizations without one iota of evidence to back them up.
| | | | [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ] | | |
|
| | | | | 26. Re: It's kind of funny... | | | | by musiquestar |  | | | at Mon 14 Oct 8:03pm | score of 1.5 scholarly | | in reply to comment 15 | | | | | |
I wrote a comment into the local paper against the death penalty by citing that, among other things. Someone decided to track me down and quote for 20 minutes biblical quotations in opposition. And were desperate enough that they had to call five or so numbers first, since my name isn't listed as the household name in the phonebook. I was freaked out enough to let them rant and then hang up. Just kind of shows that no matter how blatantly obvious the point of the text may be, someone will manipulate it to their purpose, no matter how illogical it may turn out.
Your fantasies are unlikely, but beautiful.
| | | | [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ] | | |
|
| | | | | 34. eye for eye, cervix for cervix | | | | by Anonymouse Savant | | | | at Tue 15 Oct 5:58am | score of 2 funny | | in reply to comment 15 | | | | | |
Seems to me that if the rule is "an eye for an eye" that if this nice woman is willing to show us her cervix and discuss sex that the christian thing to do would be to all take our clothes off, look each other over and discuss sex.
After that we could go forth and multiply.
Why don't they put a marketing firm in charge of this religion business instead of a bunch of young white male idiots?
Little girls, like butterflies, need no excuses. (R. Heinlein)
| | | | [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ] | | |
|
| | | | | 36. Re: It's kind of funny... | | | | by vir3x | | | | at Tue 15 Oct 6:45am | score of 2.5 brilliant | | in reply to comment 15 | | | | | |
"Think not that I am come to send peace on Earth; I came not to send peace, but a sword." -- Matthew 10:34
You have heard that it was said, 'An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth.' But I say to you, Do not resist one who is evil. But if any one strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also; and if any one would sue you and take your coat, let him have your cloak as well; and if any one forces you to go one mile, go with him two miles. Matthew 5:38-41
Aw, maaaaan. You mean the Bible contradicts itself?! Geez, I guess that means that anyone who claims to know anything about God or Jesus and/or what God or Jesus wants for humanity and/or tries to silence, oppress or kill others in God or Jesus' name is complete fucking moron. But then, I knew that anyway. On a related note, what's that crazy little Bush kid up to these days?
| | | | [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ] | | |
|
| | | | | 40. Re: It's kind of funny... | | | | by durstann | | | | at Tue 15 Oct 7:50am | score of 2 nuanced | | in reply to comment 36 | | | | | |
I don't quite see how these passages contradict one another. It seems to me that is quite possible to be a pacifist and still be the cause of turmoil. As I recall, Gandhi was a pacifist (perhaps even more so than our carpenter friend), and yet his actions caused great turmoil and unrest in his region, and though he urged his followers to follow a line of peaceful protest, maybe not everyone listened to him on that point.
Just as many christians (not all, probably not most, but some) will pick out only the quotes that serve their purpose, so to do heathens tend to jump on any quotes that are in any way damning.
Hate, or even dislike, for all christians because of the actions of a few is just as retarded as hate or dislike of any group, because of the actions of a few members of that group.
| | | | [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ] | | |
|
| | | | | 50. Re: It's kind of funny... | | | | by Yosarian |  | | | at Tue 15 Oct 10:23am | score of 0.5 disingenuous | | in reply to comment 40 | | | | | |
I don't quite see how these passages contradict one another. It seems to me that is quite possible to be a pacifist and still be the cause of turmoil. As I recall, Gandhi was a pacifist (perhaps even more so than our carpenter friend), and yet his actions caused great turmoil and unrest in his region, and though he urged his followers to follow a line of peaceful protest, maybe not everyone listened to him on that point.
If Christ was devoted to peace then why'd he say he wasn't and bring a sword? answer me that. And what about destroying the vendors booths at the table? Not to mention the tiny fraction of writings and accounts the "bible" shows us. How much you want to bet one of the myriad accounts the Church unceremoniously dropped in the dumpster showed that Christ advocated violence, or had a harem to make the Sultan of Brunei jealous? The biblical writings of the new testament might as well have been written by an infinite number of monkeys at an infinite number of typewriters in an infinite amount of time (or one monkey/typewriter for that matter) and culled by the good people of the church, who of course weren't looking for worldly power. The whole thing stinks. Worshiping the contents as the word of some invisible Creator is delusional, to say the least.
Just as many christians (not all, probably not most, but some) will pick out only the quotes that serve their purpose, so to do heathens tend to jump on any quotes that are in any way damning.
Um... shouldn't the burden of proof been on the Christians? They are trying to make me believe something that by any rational account is ludicrous -- that I have my own invisible superhero-advocate in a world of invisible superheros, trying to get me into 'heaven'. More than that, he's all knowing and cares very deeply about me even if i think he's a batshit wacko, and all i need to do is admit to myself that he exists to get his protection (the other conditions of such protection following logically from his existence.) If these wackos want ten percent of my paycheck, then that book they're telling me has all the answers better be rock solid and coherent, and i would hope that anyone (so-called 'heathens') who found a contradiction in this book of great truth would bring it forward for scrutiny.
Hate, or even dislike, for all christians because of the actions of a few is just as retarded as hate or dislike of any group, because of the actions of a few members of that group.
But I should be able to dislike them for their beliefs, no? I mean they are an organization founded around the central belief that they are right and that anyone who disagrees with them is wrong and will therefore burn in hell for all eternity for daring to contradict them, no? Ignoring for a moment their 'witnessing' (and what does that mean anyway, they didn't actually witness anything), this view of theirs alone should allow me to view them as wackos, because it is a central tenant of every major branch. This isn't someone arguing irrationally with you for a while then, losing, saying that you can go to hell. This is an entire group of people who believe that if you do argue with them that you will go to hell, and hell is a very real place with guys in big red suits with horns and pointy tails sticking you in the rear with pitchforks at every opportunity. If someone came in off the street and told you similar stories but from a religion that you had not had shoved down your throat your entire life, you'd think they were out of their gourds. Why afford these 'christians' any extra privileges?
An 'o' for an 'i' leaves everyone blond.
| | | | [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ] | | |
|
| | | | | 83. *Sigh* | | | | by HerbieTheElf | | | | at Wed 16 Oct 11:45am | score of 1 | | in reply to comment 50 | | | | | |
Sorry about this. Can't help myself, and you seemed to be begging for it, so here it is. And I whisper it real quiet-like so as to not indicate anger or frustration:
not all christians are like jerry falwell, you goober.
Some of us even think you're going to heaven regardless of whether or not you believe. In fact, I personally believe that the only way you would NOT go to heaven is if, upon your death and witnessing of the presence of God and whatever "heaven" is, you said "No thank you, Sir. I'll take Option B." Then, like Milton's Satan, you'd just be removed from His presence. Not necessarily any hellfire or eternal titty-twisting or any such silliness. Just removal.
Can I back this up with Biblical quotes? Not really. But I've spent most of my life chewing on these questions in the dark of night and hope to continue doing so for what little precious time I have left, and this is the hopeful uplifting belief that I've sculpted to fit what I've personally made from all of those Biblical contradictions.
And yes, He loves you even if you think Him, His very fallible "Book," and most of his followers are all batshit wacko. At least that's what I believe. That you don't share this belief neither deters me nor brings me doubt. I have plenty of that every day without your sadly acerbic posts.
Merry Christmas!
"You never ask questions when God's on your side." -- Bob Dylan
| | | | [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ] | | |
|
| | | | | 84. Re: *Sigh* | | | | by Yosarian | | | | at Wed 16 Oct 1:57pm | score of 1 | | in reply to comment 83 | | | | | |
I can really only speak for my experiences growing up in a southern baptist church, but organized christianity seems largely a mechanism for distributing worldly power. I really have no problem with people who hold the beliefs of christianity, but i do have a problem with the people who decide how to treat me based on my believing or not believing in somthing, especially something like religion.
I have to agree with what Alice Walker said about church -- it's where people go to share god, not where they go to find him (horrible paraphrase). I have not found 'god' yet in my life, but if I do it won't be because some old guy told me there was a god when I was seven, and it won't be because i read some old book and believed the words that were in it, translated a dozen times and culled from a mass of other documents by an organisation with a tangible interest other than accuracy. I may find god, I may not, but it should be my unfettered right to look for him without people treating me like shit for not just taking someone else's word for it.
Personally, right now, I think the bible is most likely either made up, or that it is evidence of some sort of alien encounter. Job's leviathan is suspicious to me, as are the miracles attributed to christ. Revelation seems, in my reading, to spell it out, but that might just be my own bias and wish to resolve the Fermi Paradox in a way that does not lead to extinction. That is, if I were an alien (or alien race or whatever) and spaceflight were still expensive to me, then instead of sending an invading army, and try to invade, I would start a religion and show up later after that religion had taken hold on a larger scale. That's just me, though.
I really have no problem with other people believing things so long as they do not think it their duty to harass me until I tell them I believe it also. I'm sorry if I came off on that side, I am just used to incredible hostility surrounding religious discussion. The world is here, it is concrete and no one can appreciably change its nature. Everyone should be allowed to create their own heaven and hell, their own gods and saviors and villians, because beyond that is the real world, cruel at times, kind at times, but real, and reality has limits that minds do not.
An 'o' for an 'i' leaves everyone blond.
| | | | [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ] | | |
|
| | | | | 90. Re: It's kind of funny... | | | | by MustWork | | | | at Mon 28 Oct 10:32pm | score of 1 | | in reply to comment 15 | | | | | |
Submit yourselves therefore to God, resist the devil and he will flee from you.
James 4:7
...Even the devil can quote scripture - although he will often distort its meaning... (Matt 4:6, Gen 3, ...)
Those who forget the past are doomed to repeat History class.
| | | | [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ] | | |
|
| | | | | 28. Re: It's kind of funny... | | | | by holgate | | | | at Mon 14 Oct 9:08pm | score of 1.5 brilliant | | in reply to comment 3 | | | | | |
Jesus got pissed off with the margin traders in the Temple, though.
More to the point, he hung out with prostitutes. (Or at least, that's the usual reading of how Mary of Madgdala is described.) I don't suppose the Soldiers of Christ remembered that bit.
| | | | [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ] | | |
|
| | | | | 91. Re: It's kind of funny... | | | | by MustWork | | | | at Mon 28 Oct 10:45pm | score of 1 | | in reply to comment 28 | | | | | |
More to the point, he hung out with prostitutes. (Or at least, that's the usual reading of how Mary of Madgdala is described.) I don't suppose the Soldiers of Christ remembered that bit. If you are referring to the woman caught in adultery (John 8), you seem to have missed the part where He said, "Your sins are forgiven, go and sin no more."
If you are referring to the woman who bathed His feet with her tears and dried them with her hair (Luke 7) She had repented of her past and her sins were forgiven.
(Both of these have been attributed to Mary Magdelene, but the scriptures are quiet on their exact identity).
Do you begin to see a pattern here? He didn't "hang out" with prostitutes. He was around sinners, and they repented of their former ways. Somehow, I missed the part of the story where Annie Sprinkle had repented...
Those who forget the past are doomed to repeat History class.
| | | | [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ] | | |
|
| | | | | 37. Re: It's kind of funny... | | | | by Cetra | | | | at Tue 15 Oct 6:49am | score of 1.5 compelling | | in reply to comment 3 | | | | | |
Your comment instantly reminds me of Mr. Brainiac Jerry Falwell and his infamous "Muhammad was a terrorist" statement.
Indeed, Mr. Falwell, nothing spreads peace and goodwill like calling the leading figure of a major religion a terrorist. We could all learn a lesson from your tact and compassion. Hows that for hypocrisy?
More on line with the story itself, where do these types of groups get the idea that acting in such a manner will win them any support? I mean, it seems to me that their bullying and harrassing tactics are most similar to trying to win an argument by saying nuh-uh whenever your opponent starts to say something. It makes them look more intelligent, and makes you look like a blathering dolt. (Hey! Back to Jerry Falwell again!)
Personally, I'm not a religious man, nor am I pacifist. I'd like to round up all the religious extremists (and TV evangelists, while I'm at it) and have round after round of abortion clinic doctors, un-wed mothers and... why not? Ex-porn stars beat the stupid out of them with cricket bats.
Where I work, they pay me to post on Plastic.com! ...They just don't know it yet!
| | | | [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ] | | |
|
| | | | | 75. Re: It's kind of funny... | | | | by Cerebus | | | | at Tue 15 Oct 9:36pm | score of 1 | | in reply to comment 37 | | | | | |
More on line with the story itself, where do these types of groups get the idea that acting in such a manner will win them any support?
It doesn't; and what's more, deep down they know it. These events are pure exercises in preaching to the choir-- it satisfies their egos to be praised from the pulpit next Sunday about their crusade against the godless immorality of today's secular society. They-- like most humans-- like to feel superior, and this is one way in which they accomplish it.
Self-satisfied superiority is not part of a true Christian ethic. After all, Jesus washed the feet of his own followers-- something this crowd would do good to remember.
-- Cerebus
| | | | [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ] | | |
|
| | | | | | 6. "Gosh darned liberals!" | | | | by SnarkyPup | | | | at Mon 14 Oct 3:57pm | score of 3 brilliant | | | | | | |
This is just another example of political correctness gone amuck! Those liberals don't want anyone to speak on campus who doesn't agree with their rigid view of things! They'll do anything to shut down the open exchange of ideas! I mean it's ... what? ... I'm sorry? ... um, what was the topic again?
"disingenous" - learn what it means before you use it: "lacking in candour or frankness, insincere, morally fraudulent."
| | | | [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ] | | |
| | | | | | 7. Buh? | | | | by Violator | | | | at Mon 14 Oct 4:06pm | score of 2 astute | | | | | | |
What's the big deal? A porn star speaks about her experiences - one would assume not all of them will glorify the world of pornography and thus entice with forked tongue and honeyed lies, the young "innocent" college women who may hear it, into a life of spread-eagled devotion to the twelve inch black studs hung like horses which one assumes is the general state of affairs of porn (going by the spam in my hotmail inbox).
Rather, if one is to actually understand something, that requires actually observing it. Rather than, say, reading it in a book which is more like a collection of sanctimonious haiku written by an uptight peyote-eating mystic, and therefore the "literal truth". But then again, its hardly news to anyone to mention that Christians are quite puissant at changing things they never observed or understood based on something they read in a book and their own narrow-minded myopic moralism.
I wish porn stars would come and lecture more at my campus. Of course, I also wish that the christian brigade would turn up to blockade and boycott the event - I always enjoy lambasting their more extreme and ridiculous moral outpourings, and derive a certain smug satisfaction from displaying my own moral turpitude to them, say by walking into a porn lecture.
Consistently modded down for being an asshole since 2003
| | | | [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ] | | |
| | | | | | | 10. And...? | | | | by mad_clown | | | | at Mon 14 Oct 4:43pm | score of 2.5 clever | | | | | | |
So a Christian group is holding protests against something it finds morally objective. Big deal. It's really no different than all the liberals who protested on campus a few years ago when an anti-abortion group had an exhibit featuring large pictures of aborted fetuses. As far as I know, the backlash against that particular exhibit was so great that the anti-abortion people have never come back. So much for "other people's viewpoints."
Were the guy's comments about Muslims and witches out of order? Yeah. But isn't protesting that which you're opposed to the bread and butter of "free speech?" Or is that right just reserved for "the liberal voice of dissent" speaking out against all the "close-minded conservatives" and their pet causes?
Unfortunately, the implication of this story seems to be just that: "sex education is a Good Thing(tm), and anyone opposed to it is ignorant." If we're gonna get up on a soapbox and accuse people of "not having interest in what others have to say and their viewpoints," perhaps we should take the first step and not denounce them when they express an opinion that might not be so popular.
Society had become divided into two ideologically hostile camps, and each viewed the other with suspicion. -Thucydides
| | | | [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ] | | |
| | | | | | 16. Re: And...? | | | | by 6StringSamurai | | | | at Mon 14 Oct 5:25pm | score of 1.5 astute | | in reply to comment 10 | | | | | |
Christian has a right to his opinion. But I think he went over the line a couple of times: in allegedly calling Passon's parents and sister and ripping down event flyers (generally, on the majority of college campuses, this is a violation of unwritten campus law when done by students.)
The rest is all fine and good, and frankly, it would have been funny to hear of the fireworks between Sprinkle and this firebrand reverend the article mentions.
"I beg to differ, and on the contrary, I agree with every word that you say." - Green Day
| | | | [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ] | | |
|
| | | | | 24. Re: And...? | | | | by mad_clown | | | | at Mon 14 Oct 7:17pm | score of 1 obnoxious | | in reply to comment 16 | | | | | |
Absolutely. I'm not defending his actions (or his opinion, as a matter of fact). Babbling about Muslims and witches, calling people's homes, and tearing down flyers is un-called for.
However, I interpreted the thrust of this particular writeup as being an excuse to bash his views and his religion, which is an act of blatant hypocrisy on the part of the submitter and anyone who engaged in that kind of behavior along the thread.
Society had become divided into two ideologically hostile camps, and each viewed the other with suspicion. -Thucydides
| | | | [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ] | | |
|
| | | | | 32. Re: And...? | | | | by Nephthys | | | | at Tue 15 Oct 5:22am | score of 1.5 informative | | in reply to comment 24 | | | | | |
However, I interpreted the thrust of this particular writeup as being an excuse to bash his views and his religion, which is an act of blatant hypocrisy on the part of the submitter and anyone who engaged in that kind of behavior along the thread.
I am the submitter. I did this writeup because I adore Sprinkle, and I wanted to introduce her to plastic readers who might not know of her. A current news story happened to be about protests against her lecture. There are several things here to talk about other than just Christian bashing: what constitutes education vs. obscenity, whether speakers should be compelled to defend their topic, etc. As you may not have noticed, some people did not jump on the obvious and looked at other issues involved. My headline was edited to focus on the religious slant.
Please do not assign motivation to my write up. My original draft for this write up included many questions that suggested other discussion points, but I did not feel that plastic needed to be force fed so I removed them.
Cake or Death? Cake, please.
| | | | [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ] | | |
|
| | | | | 43. Preparing the trap ... and falling into it | | | | by Miguel Agullo | | | | at Tue 15 Oct 8:03am | score of 2 compelling | | in reply to comment 24 | | | | | |
I interpreted the thrust of this particular writeup as being an excuse to bash his views and his religion
Here is an idea: he's got his religion and views all fucked up. I don't suppose you'd assign much intellectual credit to Bin Ladin's rants, specially after the 9-11 attacks. Well, the same applies here. His actions have already shown what kind of a moron he is (he can broadcast his ideas, but he thinks he has the right to harass uninvolved 3rd parties to prevent other people from broadcasting theirs). You are free to ask people to judge his ideas without taking into consideration his actions. And people have the right to refuse to do so. Specifically, people have the right to say he is a freaking moron - even without a reason. That is also free speech, as practiced often by fringe groups. Didn't you know?
| | | | [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ] | | |
|
| | | | | 22. Re: And...? | | | | by SnarkyPup | | | | at Mon 14 Oct 6:28pm | score of 3 helpful | | in reply to comment 10 | | | | | |
But isn't protesting that which you're opposed to the bread and butter of "free speech?" Or is that right just reserved for "the liberal voice of dissent" speaking out against all the "close-minded conservatives" and their pet causes?
Okay, here's where this conversation starts to get wacky. Can we really use this story and the ensuing conversation as an example of how "the liberal voice of dissent" is the only voice allowed on campuses? This is a story about a conservative Christian group trying to shut down discourse!! Not about how a liberal group is trying to to keep conservatives from speaking on campus.
You're telling us not to denouce someone for what they have to say. But the person you're telling us not to denouce is in fact engaged not just in "denouncing" another's expression, but in trying to prevent another's expression altogether.
If you speak, you'd better be prepared for others to speak in response, and possibly not in agreement. This is how the First Amendment works. But if you're going to try to prevent someone from speaking altogether, as Ted Passon was attempting to do, then you're pretty much violating the spirit of free speech.
It seems pretty hypocritical to then turn around and complain that because other people are making fun of you, your right to expression is being compromised.
"disingenous" - learn what it means before you use it: "lacking in candour or frankness, insincere, morally fraudulent."
| | | | [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ] | | |
|
| | | | | 42. Re: And...? | | | | by RebolMan | | | | at Tue 15 Oct 7:58am | score of 1 | | in reply to comment 22 | | | | | |
Okay, here's where this conversation starts to get wacky. Can we really use this story and the ensuing conversation as an example of how "the liberal voice of dissent" is the only voice allowed on campuses? This is a story about a conservative Christian group trying to shut down discourse!! Not about how a liberal group is trying to to keep conservatives from speaking on campus.
In general one finds that the only rallies, and events that are granted space for discussion by the administration are ones which toe the line of the "liberal voice of dissent". I went to school in Boston, and continue to live here, so I'm pretty familiar with what goes on for various events.
U-Mass in Amherst had a few events post 9/11 which were very clearly the squelching of conservative view points. A number of students wanted to display American flags prominently in their windows, etc. At some point that was banned, as it would be unfriendly to our foreign visitors. OK - so it's fine that I see Italian flags, Irish flags, Korean flags and what not in dorm windows, and yet... When I try to hang my own damn countries flag it's not OK?
This has moved fairly far afield from the original topic. I notice Annie was interested in hearing the "Soldiers" viewpoints - so she's clearly an open minded individual (as her previous body of work clearly indicates). I'm just tired of either end left or right trying to jam their stupid, extremist views down everyone and everybody's throat.
| | | | [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ] | | |
|
| | | | | 63. Re: And...? | | | | by Anaximander | | | | at Tue 15 Oct 1:14pm | score of 1 | | in reply to comment 42 | | | | | |
In general one finds [...]. I went to school in Boston, and continue to live here, so I'm pretty familiar with what goes on for various events.
That's good logic, that is.
Your example is U-Mass Amherst? Not a very representative sample.
| | | | [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ] | | |
|
| | | | | 35. Re: And...? | | | | by newtownneurotic | | | | at Tue 15 Oct 6:41am | score of 1 | | in reply to comment 10 | | | | | |
Actually, funny you mention that travelling abortion display. I am a student at Temple University (the college in question in this article) and they just swung by us yesterday. Pro-lifers managed to aggravated many students on campus too, especially with their poster showing an aborted fetus on top of a pile of dead Rwandans. Charming folks, those pro-life zealots, really.
everything means less than zero.
| | | | [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ] | | |
|
| | | | | 51. Attn: Carl | | | | by Yosarian | | | | at Tue 15 Oct 10:43am | score of 1.5 compelling | | in reply to comment 10 | | | | | |
Carl,
We need better mods. I should be able to mod someone down (-wrong) or (-RTFA), or (-batshit) for that matter. Here we have someone who either did not read the linked article, or did not understand it. The linked article comes out in favor of this 'Joe Christian' guy in the end, with the guy he harassed (Passon) saying that it took guys like Joe to make the publicity/controversy world go 'round. If I wanted to mod mad_clown down because I thought mad_clown was wrong when s/he said:
Unfortunately, the implication of this story seems to be just that: "sex education is a Good Thing(tm), and anyone opposed to it is ignorant." If we're gonna get up on a soapbox and accuse people of "not having interest in what others have to say and their viewpoints," perhaps we should take the first step and not denounce them when they express an opinion that might not be so popular.
then I could choose obnoxious, incoherent, disingenious, or a few others that would have no relevance. There are a wide variety of up-mods, though really there should be one just for being right/speaking truth as well. Why can't there be downmods that more clearly express the reason for modding down a post. That is, mad_clown was not being obnoxious, incoherent, or disingenious, but in my view should have been down-modded anyway. I lacked the proper down-mod with which to express this.
An 'o' for an 'i' leaves everyone blond.
| | | | [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ] | | |
|
| | | | | | 11. Annie is one of the most Christian women I know. | | | | by Norman108 | | | | at Mon 14 Oct 4:44pm | score of 3 informative | | | | | | |
I've met Annie Sprinkle (in fact we've made out, and almost had sex once) and have followed her life and career for awhile now. She is kind, compassionate, helpful, charitable, loving, and never rude or judgmental toward others.
In other words, she's a exemplar for Christian behavior that could teach those bigots a thing or two, if they would just get down on their knees and listen, or look, or whatever...to what she is showing them with every fiber of her being.
In man's stone-dark heart there burns a fire, That burns all veils to their root and foundation. Jelauddin Rumi
| | | | [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ] | | |
| | | | | | 14. We'll have to add a line to the Mass | | | | by Brian Jones | | | | at Mon 14 Oct 5:09pm | score of 1 | | in reply to comment 11 | | | | | |
This is my body, which will be given up for you... And here's my cervix!
Maybe not such a good idea.
I'm pretty sure parish priests don't have the correct equipment for that sort of thing, plus they're already busy enough cleaning the chalice and whatnot after Communion. Besides, there's no room on most altars for an autoclave to clean the speculum, even if the Church says it's okay for Thelma from the ladies' auxiliary to show us hers.
Cheap crass attention-whoring plug goes here.
| | | | [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ] | | |
|
| | | | | 17. Re: Annie is one of the most Christian women I | | | | by andy p | | | | at Mon 14 Oct 5:27pm | score of 1 | | in reply to comment 11 | | | | | |
"[...]if they would just get down on their knees" hehehe! "and listen," oh :( "or look,or whatever...to what she is showing them" hahah! with every fiber of her being. oh.
[/schoolgirl]
Barrels are just crates with delusions of grandeur
| | | | [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ] | | |
|
| | | | | 53. Re: Annie is one of the most Christian women I | | | | by Zaphod Beeblebrox | | | | at Tue 15 Oct 11:45am | score of 1 | | in reply to comment 11 | | | | | |
Either I'm missing your sarcasm or you truly have no idea what Christianity is. Almost having sex with you does not constitute an exemplary Christian. Being kind, compassionate, helpful, charitable, loving, well mannered and non judgemental are all admirable qualities, but these qualities too do not in themselves make one a good Christian.
For more information, read the Gospels. Then I suggest the letters of Paul.
Zaphod
Don't Panic
| | | | [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ] | | |
|
| | | | | 56. Re: Not being a Christian | | | | by Norman108 | | | | at Tue 15 Oct 12:13pm | score of 1 | | in reply to comment 53 | | | | | |
Either I'm missing your sarcasm
Well that goes without saying...
Being kind, compassionate, helpful, charitable, loving, well mannered and non judgemental are all admirable qualities, but these qualities too do not (in themselves) make one a good Christian.
...and that's the crux of problem isn't it? Are Christians part of the Religion of Paul, the Apostles and/or the Popes, or are they practicing the Religion of Jesus Christ?
Enough said.
In man's stone-dark heart there burns a fire, That burns all veils to their root and foundation. Jelauddin Rumi
| | | | [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ] | | |
|
| | | | | 74. Re: Annie is one of the most Christian women I | | | | by Cerebus | | | | at Tue 15 Oct 9:28pm | score of 1 | | in reply to comment 53 | | | | | |
Being kind, compassionate, helpful, charitable, loving, well mannered and non judgemental are all admirable qualities, but these qualities too do not in themselves make one a good Christian.
Which is a crying shame, since these kinds of people are actually easy to get along with and nice to have around. Especially when you think that, if there is eternal life after death, spending it with a truckload of obnoxious (but faithful, and therefore potentially "good Christians") is going to be right unpleasant.
Then I suggest the letters of Paul.
I wouldn't. Paul was a zealot. Paul was an obnoxious zealot before his epiphany, and he was an obnoxious zealot after his epiphany. Paul clearly felt that people who didn't see things his way deserved to rot; this is not what I'd call being a good person -- "good Christianhood" not withstanding.
-- Cerebus
| | | | [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ] | | |
|
| | | | | 82. Re: Annie is one of the most Christian women I | | | | by Psycho Chihuahua | | | | at Wed 16 Oct 10:59am | score of 1 | | in reply to comment 53 | | | | | |
I'm probably missing your point. As a Roman Catholic who went to school with a bunch of priests as bible studies professors I'd say that being kind, compassionnate, helpful, charitable and non-judgemental are some of the core qualities that any self-proclaimed Christian should have. We were taught that if Jesus could be said to have added one commandment to the previous ten it was, and I'm translating here, "Love thy neighboor as I have loved you". If that is not loving, I don't know what is. And how about "Judge not lest ye be judged" or "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone" for non-judgmental? And I don't have my bible at work with me, but I don't think it would be very difficult for me to find either examples of or paraboles preaching charitability, kindness, and helpfulness. What about the "Good Samaritan" parabole? Or when He cured the blind person with mud. Or when He washed the whore's feet!
If you want to fixate on the original commentor's relashionship with Ms. Sprinkle, fine, all the more power to you but, have you ever even seen a bible!?
Ceci n'est pas une signature
| | | | [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ] | | |
|
| | | | | 61. Re: Not being a Christian | | | | by Zaphod Beeblebrox | | | | at Tue 15 Oct 1:00pm | score of 1 | | in reply to comment 56 | | | | | |
Ah the old, "Paul hijacked the religion of Jesus" theory. Well it shouldn't suprise you to know that not everyone buys into that line. In fact many noted Bible scholars think there is no fundamental difference at all between what the two men taught. Personally I believe (based on my studies) that Paul's works enlighten and enrich the Gospels. True I've never almost slept with a semi-famous porn star, but I do know how to read.
Don't Panic
| | | | [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ] | | |
|
| | | | | 71. Re: Not being a Christian | | | | by evie | | | | at Tue 15 Oct 6:42pm | score of 1 | | in reply to comment 56 | | | | | | |
and that's the crux of problem isn't it? Are Christians part of the Religion of Paul, the Apostles and/or the Popes, or are they practicing the Religion of Jesus Christ?
That's just the problem, most Christians prefer to ignore the good teaching of Jesus, and concentrate on the rule driven, bigoted writings of the other chapters. I've coined the term Jesusism to differentiate. These are the people who may or may not identify with a church but follow the teachings of Jesus: love one another, turn the other cheek, forgive. These are the Christians that you want to meet.
Annie Sprinkle: the problem a lot of religions have is the idea of a separation divided along the idea of mind/body, good/evil, pure/corrupt. Sins of the flesh involve enjoying the corrupt bodily pleasures of the Earth, rather than focussing on their spiritual development. Annie Sprinkle is someone who comes forward and says that not only is the body not sinful, and therefore sex is not bad, but that sex can be spiritual and sacred. This seems to scare religious conservatives more than just the (relatively) simple idea of sex education (which can be used to teach the "sex is bad" theory).
Your comment scores 100 on the Flesch scale of reading ease, making it comparable to selections from Dr. Seuss.
| | | | [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ] | | |
|
| | | | | 88. Re: Not being a Christian | | | | by cy guy | | | | at Thu 17 Oct 7:45am | score of 1 | | in reply to comment 71 | | | | | |
most Christians prefer to ignore the good teaching of Jesus, and concentrate on the rule driven, bigoted writings of the other chapters. I've coined the term Jesusism to differentiate. These are the people who may or may not identify with a church but follow the teachings of Jesus: love one another, turn the other cheek, forgive. These are the Christians that you want to meet.
You may want to check out a Society of Friends (Quaker) meeting in your area. Their principals are perfectly in line with what your are proposing.
"Everybody's plastic, but I love plastic. I want to be plastic."-Andy Warhol
| | | | [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ] | | |
|
| | | | | 89. Re: Sex is Bad??? | | | | by MustWork | | | | at Mon 28 Oct 10:18pm | score of 1 | | in reply to comment 71 | | | | | |
This theory, that Christians view sex as sinful has been promulgated in, among other things, "Inherit the Wind." It never was a Christian doctrine. Adultery/Fornication - yep, those make the list of things that are sinful. Making Love to your spouse can and should be more than just physical. It should also involve your emotions and your spirit.
If you think that Christianity is "down" on married people making love, then you have never read the Song of Solomon. It is one of the most image-filled, descriptive books about loving and making love to your spouse. And get this - it is in the Bible.
Those who forget the past are doomed to repeat History class.
| | | | [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ] | | |
|
| | | | | 93. Re: Not being a Christian | | | | by Teaflax | | | | at Fri 1 Nov 7:26am | score of 1 | | in reply to comment 61 | | | | | |
You, Sir, do not know how to read if you take your nick not only from an author who was deeply anti-authoritarian and highly suspicious of organized religion, but choose the name of one of his most irreverent creations. I submit to you that to those of us who place much greater value on the works of Douglas N Adams than that Bible, you are nothing but a cheap blasphemer. Also, S/Paul was a fucking nutcase, if he ever existed at all.
"None are more hopelessly enslaved than those who falsely believe they are free." - Johann Wolfgang von Goethe
| | | | [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ] | | |
|
| | | | | | 12. Joe Sixpack, on the other hand, favors the lecture | | | | by phenry | | | | at Mon 14 Oct 4:50pm | score of 1.5 clever | | | | | | |
Joe Christian, the president of a campus group called Soldiers for Christ, promptly filed his complaints, requesting that the show be cancelled...
"Joe Christian." Yeah, right. What's his wife's name, Jane? Maybe they can get together with the Publics and help us finally identify Mr. and Mrs. Doe once and for all.
phh | Away for 3 years and still in the karma top 50! Woo hoo!
| | | | [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ] | | |
| | | | | | 19. Sometimes parody is the richest form of reality. | | | | by MAYORBOB | | | | at Mon 14 Oct 6:02pm | score of 3.5 clever | | | | | | |
"Joe Christian, the president of a campus group called Soldiers for Christ..."
I wonder what the head of the "Students for Satan", Joe Beelzebub has to say about Ms. Sprinkle's cervix?
Tending to final details.
| | | | [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ] | | |
| | | | | | | | | 41. ARGH. | | | | by callmejay | | | | at Tue 15 Oct 7:50am | score of 1 succinct | | | | | | |
Why is it that (some) Christians feel that they have a right to enforce their views on others?? Nobody is forcing them to go to this thing, so what the hell do they care? Mind your own fucking business.
The best lack all conviction, while the worst/Are full of passionate intensity. -- Yeats, "The Second Coming"
| | | | [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ] | | |
| | | | | | 46. Re: ARGH. | | | | by shadow27 | | | | at Tue 15 Oct 9:18am | score of 1.5 astute | | in reply to comment 41 | | | | | |
That's a reasonably inane question.
It's the same reason (some) Atheist, Wiccans, Communists, Republicans, Democrats, Whigs, Tories, Zoro Asterans (sp), Scientists, Strippers, Priests, Popes, CEOs, President Bushes, Dictators, and fill in the blank demographic feel they have the right to enforce their view on other: they're jerks.
Kickintheeye.com
| | | | [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ] | | |
|
| | | | | | 47. Win-win | | | | by Uncle Heavy | | | | at Tue 15 Oct 9:25am | score of 1 | | | | | | |
Looking at Annie's website and her advertisement for college presentations it appears to me that she uses human sexuality and its taboo nature to promote herself. Joe Christian is a 20-year-old, recently "convicted" Christian who doesn't seem too shy about getting his name in the paper. How nice that they could find such a convenient way to serve both of their needs for notoriety in this way.
I'm not sure either one of them has anything redeeming to add. It sounds like fun though and I'm glad Nephthys took the time to introduce us to both of these characters.
Don't worry. It's not the Christian in Bob Christian that makes him myopic. Just unbridled human nature.
| | | | [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ] | | |
| | | | | | 48. ok... | | | | by GePS | | | | at Tue 15 Oct 9:32am | score of 1 | | | | | | |
Christian's attempt at squandering free speech aside, here's what I find illuminating about the origins of his stance.
"As a Christian, it's my responsibility to preach the word of God and point out those things God would disapprove of. I will continue to stand up for what I think."
Joe, if you are preaching someone else's words, then you are not thinking. What's your stance on abortion? What's your stance on contraception? What's your stance on homosexuals?
I doubt you did some serious soul searching to come up with them, as you say you just preach what is in the bible.
"Of course, there are people who approach you, curse at you and threaten to hurt you if you don't stop preaching God's word," Christian says. "When you admit you're a Christian on campus, you're viewed [as having] a lower level of intelligence."
Perhaps this is due to the lack of a literal-reader-of-the-bible's own thoughts in deciding how the world works. They accept what is written down as the truth as opposed to applying critical thought to the world around them in an attempt to understand it.
At his summer job at the Philadelphia Zoo, Christian says he tried to stop zoologists from teaching evolution to kids. He also dabbles in journalism, regularly using campus newsletters to vilify gays and lesbians.
Joe Christian is blatantly ignoring a scientific fact. Evolution, both micro and macro, has been proven to exist, whether literal christians want to believe it or not. Maybe it's just me, but when someone's belief flies in the face of empirical evidence, I would find that person to be of a lower intelligence.
_____Mongo only pawn in game of life_____
| | | | [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ] | | |
| | | | | | 54. Re: ok... | | | | by Zaphod Beeblebrox | | | | at Tue 15 Oct 12:01pm | score of 1 | | in reply to comment 48 | | | | | |
Evolution, both micro and macro, has been proven to exist, whether literal christians want to believe it or not. Maybe it's just me, but when someone's belief flies in the face of empirical evidence, I would find that person to be of a lower intelligence.
Here is a list of 100 scientists, evidentally of lower intelligence.
Joe, if you are preaching someone else's words, then you are not thinking.
Good advice GePS.
Zaphod
Don't Panic
| | | | [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ] | | |
|
| | | | | 57. Re: ok... | | | | by Norman108 | | | | at Tue 15 Oct 12:22pm | score of 1 | | in reply to comment 54 | | | | | |
Intelligent design (as I understand it) doesn't simply dismiss evolution. It most simply states the theory is insufficient as proposed and warrents furthur study before calling it unassailable fact. Evolutionists not on your list would agree with this, if they didn't have to be associated with Discovery Institute, I'm sure.
So, I think you are both right, so there!
In man's stone-dark heart there burns a fire, That burns all veils to their root and foundation. Jelauddin Rumi
| | | | [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ] | | |
|
| | | | | 59. Re: ok... | | | | by Adipic Acid | | | | at Tue 15 Oct 12:59pm | score of 3.5 nuanced | | in reply to comment 54 | | | | | |
Note: I have restricted my arguments to the general case of Intelligent Design, which I believe at least deserves a counterargument (as did Darwin). The literal biblical arguments deserve nothing but contempt. If that's the argument being advanced here, please go stand in the corner with the Flat Earthers and believers in Fairies.
The biggest argument against intelligent design is the lack of design in living organisms. There are more efficient ways to solve many anatomical problems than the ones that appear to have just happened. A few examples:
- The human pelvic girdle and spine. The anatomy down there is just good enough to get us to bipedalism. There are all kinds of good engineering principles that could have been used if we'd been designed as bipeds.
- The ridiculous amount of "junk" DNA in most organisms' genomes (Plants, I'm looking at you!). Why have all of the extra crap laying around? It's like a carpenter who didn't bother to trim all of his boards.
- The Panda's Thumb. (Required Reading)
I could go on, but I won't. The first half of The Origin of Species goes to great length to document many of these cases.
No folly is more costly than the folly of intolerant idealism. - Churchill
| | | | [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ] | | |
|
| | | | | 73. Re: ok... | | | | by marduk_kur | | | | at Tue 15 Oct 9:09pm | score of 1.5 helpful | | in reply to comment 59 | | | | | |
Not to mention that ID isn't even a scientific theory, as it makes no testable hypotheses. Hiding behind the legitimate-sounding jargon you find the exact same logical errors and flights of fancy that propped up classical Creationism.
Sad lad, he really couldn't handle starting from scratch on the very first level. But he died the death of a warrior.
| | | | [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ] | | |
|
| | | | | | 65. self-aware irony | | | | by mrradon | | | | at Tue 15 Oct 1:18pm | score of 1 | | | | | | |
I think these two consecutive paragraphs from the article say it all:
At his summer job at the Philadelphia Zoo, Christian says he tried to stop zoologists from teaching evolution to kids. He also dabbles in journalism, regularly using campus newsletters to vilify gays and lesbians.
"Of course, there are people who approach you, curse at you and threaten to hurt you if you don't stop preaching God's word," Christian says. "When you admit you're a Christian on campus, you're viewed [as having] a lower level of intelligence."
| | | | [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ] | | |
| | | | | | 68. dreamboat annie | | | | by Mister Xian | | | | at Tue 15 Oct 1:49pm | score of 1 | | in reply to comment 65 | | | | | |
i am a recovering christian (hence, in, part, the moniker), raised in the protestant church, who finds self-appointed evangelists like this guy funny and sad. i can't figure out what loving christ has to do with hating lesbians, or sex-positive feminist pornstars. that's why i don't go to church any more--annie sprinkle knows more about god ("oh god!") than mr. christian does. a faith that is threatened by any of these things is not much of a faith. if christian really wants to preach god's word, he should perhaps bring a bible with him...that is, if he knows how to read.
i think measured against things like free love, masturbation, orgasmic liberation and same-sex relationships, war is an infinitely greater danger to the human soul. what do we prefer people indulge--their desire for ecstasy, or their desire for destruction and death?
the exquisite corpse shall drink the new wine.
| | | | [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ] | | |
|
| | | | | | 67. Another view... | | | | by Zaphod Beeblebrox | | | | at Tue 15 Oct 1:48pm | score of 3 astute | | | | | | |
'I feel compassionate toward [Soldiers], and am curious about them, and try to understand why they feel the way they do.'
I will not speak for "Joe Christian", and I don't care for his tactics. But if Annie seeks to understand why many religious people are opposed to her and other pornographers, I can offer my own opinion.
First it has nothing to do with, "Christians think sex is dirty and sinful" or "Christians are repressed sexually" or any of the variations I usually read in discussions like this.
Contrary to popular opinion, the Bible is anything but prudish about sex and speaks candidly about the joys of sex in a marriage. The Christian apostle Paul even counsels marriage partners to "not be depriving each other of it" (1 Cor 7:5). The key is context. Christian people believe that the only appropriate context for sex is within the marriage arrangement.
What I take exception to regarding pornography is the distorted view of sexuality it promotes. It promotes the idea that woman are nothing but worthless objects of sexual gratification for men, pliant, mindless receptacles. Women are routinely humiliated, perform whorish service for men and then pretend like there is nothing in the world they want more. How many marriages have suffered or been wrecked by men who's wives cannot meet the fantasy image of women promoted by pornographers like Annie Sprinkle or who's sex lives don't match up to the phoney sex lives they see in porn. The sex in porn is selfish, it is not about showing love to your mate, about giving pleasure to your mate, it is about receiving gratification from a faceless, humiliated, subservient prostitute. Girls are taught that this is how to please a man, that this is what will expected of them when they are in a relationship. They are taught to confuse empowerment with promiscuity.
All of these are legitimate reasons to protest an event like this which is laughably passed off as "sex education". To loudly protest was their right, and they did no wrong in exercising it. Where they crossed the line, where they lost me and no doubt countless others is when they harassed the promoters parents, inexplicably disparaged all Muslims etc.
Don't Panic
| | | | [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ] | | |
| | | | | | 72. Re: Another view... | | | | by SnarkyPup | | | | at Tue 15 Oct 6:56pm | score of 1.5 astute | | in reply to comment 67 | | | | | |
I guess I have a couple of different responses to this thoughtfully composed post:
it has nothing to do with, "Christians think sex is dirty and sinful" or "Christians are repressed sexually"
Actually, it really does have something to do with this. There is a long tradition of equating the body with sin, mortality, and corruption and the soul with purity and virtue. Sex, involving the body, is interpreted along the lines of the former, rather than the latter. One might debate whether this view is a valid interpretation of what is found in the Bible, but you cannot deny that many, many Christians have promoted this view for hundreds of years. And from within their particular interpretive framework, this interpretation makes sense: you want to be deserving of eternal salvation, so anything that's going to get in the way of that (e.g. sex) is a bad thing. Accept the premise; accept the conclusion. This is not to say that there are not Christians with different attitudes toward sexuality.
What I take exception to regarding pornography is the distorted view of sexuality it promotes.
I agree that anything that makes inequality and exploitation appear not only acceptable but sexually exciting is problematic, to say the least. However, I believe that pornography of this kind (and not all porn promotes this view) is generated by a culture that already endorses these things and expresses them in a hundred different ways (from labor laws to medical care to the legal system to advertising to sit-coms ...). Abusive, exploitative pornography, in other words, is but one example of an already existing ideology. The good news is that this is not the only available ideology, and that people have the ability to be self-aware, at their best, and recognize the promotion of ideas that they may or not choose to accept. I don't subscribe to a view of consumers, readers, or viewers as passive receptacles waiting to be formed by the images and sounds they take in, although these can be quite powerful and influential. Nor do I subscribe to its other extreme: that we are all completely self-determined individuals immune to persuasion or deception. My belief about our role as consumers, readers, or viewers is that we fall somewhere in between most of the time, and not always in the same place.
How many marriages have suffered or been wrecked by men who's wives cannot meet the fantasy image of women promoted by pornographers like Annie Sprinkle or who's sex lives don't match up to the phoney sex lives they see in porn.
This is also a traditionally Christian viewpoint: that things that are fictional are "phoney" and deceive us. Again, I'm not saying that all Christians believe this, but when Puritan arguments against the theaters in Renaissance England first appeared, this was one of their reasons, and when novels first appeared a century or so later, this argument was repeated. An alternate view is that fictional representations of, say, sexuality (whether in sexually explicit films viewed by men or in romance novels read by women) are not deceptive, but are recognized as fictions by their consumers.
There's a famous "annotated" photograph of Annie Sprinkle (who's not your typical airbrushed looking pin-up, by the way, just sort of a normal looking woman -- visit the website linked above and you'll see some photos) where she's all sexed up in some sort of outfit. The annotations on the photograph are handwritten comments in which she points out all the unrealistic, uncomfortable things that she has to go through in order to look like that (typing from memory here: a girdle, tight shoes, sucking in her cheeks to look thinner).
So here she's not promoting an unrealistic image of women; rather she's pointing out how constructed and artificial the typical porn image of women is. What complicates this all, however, is that she also writes that in the face of such discomfort, she still feels really sexy. This should not be read, I think, as her saying "Being uncomfortable makes me sexy as long as I look good for a man" but rather more like "How weird that even though I'm this uncomfortable, the fact that I have all these (socially constructed) markers of sexuality makes me feel sexy."
This is an example, I think, of the kind of self-awareness that can be productive and perhaps progressive. We're enmeshed in systems of representation to which we respond powerfully, but this doesn't mean that we have no control over those systems of representation, or that we cannot deflate some of their power by pointing to its source.
"disingenous" - learn what it means before you use it: "lacking in candour or frankness, insincere, morally fraudulent."
| | | | [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ] | | |
|
| | | | | 78. Re: Another view... | | | | by Adipic Acid | | | | at Wed 16 Oct 7:50am | score of 1 | | in reply to comment 67 | | | | | |
What I take exception to regarding Christianity is the distorted view of sexuality it promotes. I wonder how many marriages have broken up because wives can not live down to the subservient role pushed by Paul in the Bible?
If porn reduces women to nothing more than receptacles for gratification, what are we to say of a system of beliefs that reduces women to baby-making machines?
You will probably suggest that I need to expose myself to a broader range of biblical interpretations before making statements like that. Might I suggest that you also expose yourself to a broader range of "porn" before condemning all of it?
No folly is more costly than the folly of intolerant idealism. - Churchill
| | | | [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ] | | |
|
| | | | | 80. Re: Another view... | | | | by Zaphod Beeblebrox | | | | at Wed 16 Oct 9:29am | score of 1 | | in reply to comment 78 | | | | | |
The Christian view of women, indeed of humanity, is an ennobling one. It says we are each of us made in our creator's image, in that we are made in such a way that we can choose to reflect his qualities. It says that we are not just animals, enslaved to our physical drives but that we can and should be masters over them.
What I take exception to regarding Christianity is the distorted view of sexuality it promotes.
Your comment is based on ignorance. No doubt you have read a couple of out of context quotes from Paul that are often tossed about to make the point that he was misogynist. You know, the "women should remain silent" quote that critics always use as a "Aha! Gotcha!" quote. I could encourage you to expose yourself to a range of commentary on Paul's view of women, but I think you would be better served to read Paul's words yourself. No fair minded reader could honestly say that Paul or anything in the Christian scriptures reduces women "to baby-making machines".
Might I suggest that you also expose yourself to a broader range of "porn" before condemning all of it?
Are you suggesting that a quick trip to the local XXX video store would change my opinion of pornography? That among the racks of "Anal Raiders 17" and "Sorority Sluts 19" I would suddenly realize that porn is more enlightened then I had thought? Porn is not art, it has no redeeming qualities. Porn is garbage and it is dangerous for all the reasons I mentioned in my post above. I see nothing in your or even SnarkyPups worthwhile post that would make me believe otherwise.
Don't Panic
| | | | [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ] | | |
|
| | | | | 92. Re: Another view... | | | | by MustWork | | | | at Mon 28 Oct 11:08pm | score of 1 | | in reply to comment 78 | | | | | |
If porn reduces women to nothing more than receptacles for gratification, what are we to say of a system of beliefs that reduces women to baby-making machines?
"Married men, in the same way, live with your wives in an understanding way. Since you are heirs with them of God's free gift of Grace, treat them with honour; so that your prayers may not be hindered." Let me see... Live with them in an understanding way, co-heirs with you, treat them with honour... Hardly sounds like reducing women to baby-making machines.
Might I suggest that you also expose yourself to a broader range of "porn" before condemning all of it? Had all of it I could stand before I came to Christ. Don't desire or need it now.
Those who forget the past are doomed to repeat History class.
| | | | [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ] | | |
|
| | | | | 81. Re: Another view... | | | | by Adipic Acid | | | | at Wed 16 Oct 9:52am | score of 1 | | in reply to comment 80 | | | | | |
I've studied this a little deeper than you give me credit for. New Testament History was my required Religion class in college. I've read Paul, several times. By modern definition he was a misogynist. And a control freak, but we'll let that one pass.
Are you aware of the lifestyles of some of pre-Pauline Christian communities? They had very different attitudes towards sex and marriage. Particularly in Corinth.
As for being my creator's image, I would agree. People confuse me for a younger version of my Dad all of the time. Those genes must be dominant.
No folly is more costly than the folly of intolerant idealism. - Churchill
| | | | [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ] | | |
|
| | | | | 87. Re: Another view... | | | | by evie | | | | at Wed 16 Oct 7:19pm | score of 1 | | in reply to comment 80 | | | | | | |
No fair minded reader could honestly say that Paul or anything in the Christian scriptures reduces women "to baby-making machines".
Maybe not, but he does make them less then men. He specifically says they are not to have authority over men, and they shouldn't teach. While it would be great to say, well just ignore the parts of Paul you don't like, or ignore the whole book altogether, you can't. This book was very influential in the development of Christianity and the way western society developed. Yes we can revise christianity today and try and undo the damage done by Paul, but that doesn't change the fact that it illustrates a lot of the misogynistic principles that found christianity, as well as the ideas of the earth/body is corrupt and earthly pleasures take away your ability to love god and reach heaven.
Porn is not art, it has no redeeming qualities
Well, that's the problem, art is subjective. The idea that something has redeeming qualities is subjective. What I think is art, someone else may think is obscene, its clouded by our personal biases to issues, as well as our own artistic tastes. I think Jackson Pollock's work is crap, I think my friends 18month child could do better work. Does that mean I can claim its not art? Other people seem to think it is.
I remember reading about an incident last year. It was at a small art gallery somewhere in America (that really narrows it down, doesn't it). An artist was showing her work which includes several nudes. Guess what got complained about - the picture of an old woman and the picture of a middle-aged woman who had a mastectomy. People were happy to consider attractive young women nude, but the old woman was called obscene. It just shows that personal biases affect what is considered obscence.
Just because you don't like the porn doesn't mean it doesn't have redeeming values (and movies like Anal Raiders, Barely Legal etc are not the only types of pornography available, there are books, pictures, statues, comics etc). So there is a lot of stuff out there which is quite offensive, women are demeaned. The redeeming value is that it inspires people to question it: why do some people find this attractive, why is sex seen as something done to women, what is it in our society that sees this as a valid form of sexual expression, what would be gained from banning this, what would be lost by banning this? I don't think everybody who watches these movies are going to think these kind of things, but the fact that someone, anyone can, suggests a redeeming value.
I tend to view the idea that no matter how offensive a porn movie is, it shouldn't be banned. It should be allowed long as crimes weren't committed in the making of, by crimes I mean things like actual rape (realistic looking rape doesn't count) not laws against anal sex. Remember, porn is representing fantasy, not real life. People shouldn't have to censor their fantasies. If you are worried that women are demeaned, maybe you should look at how attitudes towards women can be improved in the real world. Note: putting women on a pedestal doesn't improve attitudes, it creates the virgin/whore complex, which is not a healthy attitude towards women or sex.
Your comment scores 100 on the Flesch scale of reading ease, making it comparable to selections from Dr. Seuss.
| | | | [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ] | | |
|
| | | | | 85. Re: Another view... | | | | by greta | | | | at Wed 16 Oct 5:04pm | score of 1 | | in reply to comment 67 | | | | | |
How many marriages have suffered or been wrecked by men who's wives cannot meet the fantasy image of women promoted by pornographers like Annie Sprinkle or who's sex lives don't match up to the phoney sex lives they see in porn
I'm not sure which of your heads I am speaking to, but here goes. You seem like a nice, respectable person and I don't mean to be inflammatory per se. However used in the correct way (shared), pornography (or erotica if you choose to call it that) can be healthy and playful in a marriage. Marital sex is spiritual and pure and all, but all that spirituality and purity can get boring without, ahem, a change in routine.
Since I'm on a roll here, I'll just add, there are all kinds of women in the world and some of them like sex and exhibitionism. Not all of the women in pornography were exploited - or rather, some of them wanted to be.
Fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice, I'm a dumbass
| | | | [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ] | | |
|
| | | | | | 86. Oy Gevalt! | | | | by StofCircumstance | | | | at Wed 16 Oct 6:34pm | score of 1 | | | | | | |
Lest we all forget, Christianity is not the only religion with a "Big Book O' Stuff Purported to be Truth."
If you folks want to sit around and quote the gospels, be my guest. Perhaps you'd enjoy yourself more in a Christian bookstore's coffee nook? Perhaps not. Either way, the answer is not in anyone's holy book.
However, I DO have a answer that is commensurate with experience, reason, and sarsasm...
So, without further ado....
Tell the "Soldiers of Christ" not to go! Tell them they are perfectly free to exercise their Constitutionally granted right to not witness things they find offensive. Amazingly enough, there are free-thinking people running around a college campus in America. Amazingly enough, these same people like to learn interesting things about sex from former porn queens. Fascinatingly, these same people are protected by the same rights as our friends, the "Soldiers for Christ."
Are we all having fun with my lesson in obviousness? Good.
On a more serious note, ultra-conservative religious groups of many faiths are everywhere, especially college campuses. The only solution is to tolerate them, even if they refuse to return the favor.
Zen Happens
| | | | [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ] | | |
|
| | Member Login | | | |
|
