War on Sex

[Art Eatman]

Mike, until "Mr. Herbert" Kokernot got real old, he had one of the last cow-calf oerations in Texas that still used cowboys on horseback and chuckwagons.  Into the 1980s.  But, with somewhere north of 200,000 acres it worked.

Nowadays, most ranches in Texas, "Roundup" is when you go out and honk the horn on the pickup and cow critters come running from all directions.

Back on topic, with drift:

The ultimate in physical coordination:  Making love while standing up--in a hammock.

This conclusion was reached after much discussion and numerous glasses of Liquid Enthusiasm on the part of a US Ambassador to the Philippines, a Far East correspondent to the Christian Science Monitor, my mother, and a few other well-lubricated souls.  Circa 1953.  The ambassador later had small model hammocks--no people--made and sent to the members of that august discussion group.

, Art

[Perd Hapley]

Art, way too much info.

"Christo-fascists"?  "Fundamentalists"?  "religious extremism?"  Who is claiming to be a Christian here, and more importantly, where do they claim a religious basis for their actions?

This type of legislation usually emmanates from the above list of usual suspects and those who pander to them. There's no reason to believe it's any different this time.

A lot of people have traditional moral beliefs, and a belief in legislating them, without adhering to any religion at all.  I would say such laws become more valid as religious belief has less control over peoples' actions.

A crackdown on "adult" stores is a war on sex?

The question remains.  Some o' yall are gettin' mighty worked up about a bill in one out of fifty statehouses.  

The concern that we might start down a slippery slope to theocracy is understandable, but the fear and disdain are unfortunate.  I have grown up around various types of conservative evangelicals, and I can tell you they have a lot of libertarian ideas about some topics.  Most of them, however, are just working and taking care of their families and are no more consistent in their political thinking than most other Americans.  Rather than insulting and demeaning my fellows, it would be much more helpful to try to explain to them why prohibition of various things would be a bad idea.  If you believe in the seperation of church and state, you should respectfully explain to such people how you interpret this concept.  As it is, they are only listening to people like Richard Land, Judge Roy Moore and others who actually respect their beliefs.

[Brad Johnson]

War on Sex.

Pretty soon there will be a "War on Talking Dirty" and a "War on Staring at Good Looking Members of the Opposite Gender"

Brad

[Azrael256]

This type of legislation usually emmanates from the above list of usual suspects and those who pander to them.

I can agree with that.  On a practical level, I don't care who it comes from, or what their motivations are.  If something involves consenting adults, it is none of my business and it is most definitely not the government's business.  I think the folks who hold prayer vigils outside erotic art shows are a tad bit off their collective rocker, but I will pick up a rifle and defend their rights as well as the people they're protesting against.  

On a somewhat less practical level, I wonder about the motivation for this "war on sex" nonsense.  I am not a biblical scholar, but I question the religious motives.  I wonder what, exactly, they are trying to control.  Gun control advocates are not really trying to control crime, so I don't think "sex control" advocates are really trying to control morality.  I don't have the answer, but it's something worth contemplating.

[thebaldguy]

"When sex toys are outlawed, only outlaws will have sex toys."

LOL!

I love the felony part. A felony for selling sex toys? Give me a break. This is tax dollars well wasted in my opinion.


Edited for more jokes. This level of legislative stupidy deserves it.

People could serve felony time for selling sex toys. Just like rapists, arsonists, drug dealers and murderers do. Unreal.

"Better shoot to kill officer. She's a felon with a vibrator and it looks like she's not afraid to use it!"

Will there be a sex toy amnesty - like for handguns? Will they pay people $50.00 cash to turn in their sex toys no questions asked?

What will happen if you don't turn them in? Will they issue search warrants? What about mail order? I bet that would be illegal too.  

We will all be better off with sex toys off the streets. Oops, I meant out of the stores and bedrooms.

[Perd Hapley]

Pretty soon there will be a "War on Talking Dirty" and a "War on Staring at Good Looking Members of the Opposite Gender"

Don't you remember the sexual hair-as-ment craze a few years back?

[zahc]

"I wonder what, exactly, they are trying to control.  Gun control advocates are not really trying to control crime, so I don't think "sex control" advocates are really trying to control morality."

I think they are trying to control other people, plain and simple. People like power. People are afraid of other people that are different than they. I don't know, I really don't.

[RadioFreeSeaLab]

Perhaps they don't want other people having better sex than they are.

[Preacherman]

I'm looking forward to the travel implications.  If you have to unload your gun to travel through another state, does this mean you can take your sex toys through that state if you take the battery out?

I'm also reminded of my first-ever encounter with a sex shop, back in 1996, on my first visit to North America.  My sister, who lived over here, took me into one just to show me how the other half lived.  I burst out in hysterical laughter after a few minutes, and she, rather embarrassed, tried to shush me, and asked me what was so funny.  I pointed at an infra-red remote-controlled vibrator on special, and asked what would happen to it when the guy in the apartment next door changed his TV channel using his remote.  I had visions of the vibrator going into overdrive!

Still laugh at that one...

[Perd Hapley]

"I wonder what, exactly, they are trying to control.  Gun control advocates are not really trying to control crime, so I don't think "sex control" advocates are really trying to control morality."

I think they are trying to control other people, plain and simple. People like power. People are afraid of other people that are different than they. I don't know, I really don't.

The article is not worthing my scanning it again, so I will take a guess.  Probably, these politicians feel that banning dirty smut stores will be popular with some people, and get them re-elected.  Citizens who support this measure probably feel that such dirty smut stores are selling trashy videos and magazines and disturbing sex gadgets that honest folks wouldn't be caught dead with, and making their community look trashy.  No big brother stuff, really, they just want the law to keep dirty smut stores out of their town, or at least out of their sight.  

Now maybe these people have not thought through the logical implications of such laws, or how they may or may not lead to other laws controlling every single human behavior.  Most people don't think that way until such can be used as an argument in their favor.  Welcome to democracy.

[stevelyn]

Art, way too much info.

"Christo-fascists"?  "Fundamentalists"?  "religious extremism?"  Who is claiming to be a Christian here, and more importantly, where do they claim a religious basis for their actions?

This type of legislation usually emmanates from the above list of usual suspects and those who pander to them. There's no reason to believe it's any different this time.

A lot of people have traditional moral beliefs, and a belief in legislating them, without adhering to any religion at all.  I would say such laws become more valid as religious belief has less control over peoples' actions.

A crackdown on "adult" stores is a war on sex?

The question remains.  Some o' yall are gettin' mighty worked up about a bill in one out of fifty statehouses.  

The concern that we might start down a slippery slope to theocracy is understandable, but the fear and disdain are unfortunate.  I have grown up around various types of conservative evangelicals, and I can tell you they have a lot of libertarian ideas about some topics.  Most of them, however, are just working and taking care of their families and are no more consistent in their political thinking than most other Americans.  Rather than insulting and demeaning my fellows, it would be much more helpful to try to explain to them why prohibition of various things would be a bad idea.  If you believe in the seperation of church and state, you should respectfully explain to such people how you interpret this concept.  As it is, they are only listening to people like Richard Land, Judge Roy Moore and others who actually respect their beliefs.

Just because people have traditional moral beliefs, doesn't give them the right or the duty to legislate those beliefs on others.
Moral and religious beliefs are personal codes of conduct for an individual to choose whether or not they will follow them.
Legislating morality makes one no different than the Taliban trash.

[Art Eatman]

I think that to a large extent, there is a backlash against what people see as a "package of porno".  The "toy" stores, TV programming with foul language and nudity, the tabloid's recitation of every Hollywood pecadillo...It all adds up.  No one thing is The Problem; it's the totality that bugs people.

So, backlash.  Whatever is a handy target does indeed get targeted.

I'd bet that there aren't really all that many who give a hoot about what's done in privacy.  What's repulsive to many, though, is public flaunting of whatever sort of sexual interest folks might have.  Doesn't matter if it's prime time on a major network, or "Queer Eye for the Straight Guy" on an obscure cable channel.  It's seen as flaunting of what is believed to be, more appropriately, private behavior.

You push people long enough and hard enough, they'll push back.

Art

[Justin]

A lot of people have traditional moral beliefs, and a belief in legislating them, without adhering to any religion at all.  I would say such laws become more valid as religious belief has less control over peoples' actions.

Yes, because without these laws an army of atheists toting dildos will surely conquer us all.

[RadioFreeSeaLab]

Yes, because without these laws an army of atheists toting dildos will surely conquer us all.

I don't know about you, but that scares the hell out of me

[thebaldguy]

This is great. Here's one from my girlfriend:

"You'll have to pry my Magic Wand vibrator from my cold, dead hands!"

LOL

[Perd Hapley]

This is great. Here's one from my girlfriend:

"You'll have to pry my Magic Wand vibrator from my cold, dead hands!"

LOL

Note to self; don't admit my significant other needs a vibrator.  Embarassing!

[Perd Hapley]

Just because people have traditional moral beliefs, doesn't give them the right or the duty to legislate those beliefs on others.
Moral and religious beliefs are personal codes of conduct for an individual to choose whether or not they will follow them.
Legislating morality makes one no different than the Taliban trash.

I didn't say that moral beliefs against sex toys give anyone a right to ban them.  You are really missing my point, part of which was to say that when people do not control themselves with their own moral codes, the majority will demand more government control.  Unfortunate, but true.  This is partly why the decline of religious belief in America has coincided with an increase in legislation.  

Also, religions are much more than just personal codes of conduct.  Most of them are all-encompassing frameworks for how one acts in and views the world.  Some religions, such as the brand of Islam practiced in much of the Middle East today, teach that the state must enforce religious moral codes.  You and I may disagree with this, but that is their religion.  

Thirdly, I don't believe that you are opposed to "legislating morality."  Most, if not all, laws impose morality on the violator.  Even if laws are based on the idea of human rights, these are moral concepts with no more validity than traditional religious ideas.  If you don't want anyone's morality imposed on anyone else, then you cannot justify the arrest, trial and sentencing of a terrorist who blows up a bus full of innocents, certainly not if he believes that his religion, his morality, compelled him to do it.

[Tallpine]

"You are really missing my point, part of which was to say that when people do not control themselves with their own moral codes, the majority will demand more government control.  Unfortunate, but true.  This is partly why the decline of religious belief in America has coincided with an increase in legislation."

Really ...?

Ever heard of Plymouth Colony and the Puritans

[Justin]

You are really missing my point, part of which was to say that when people do not control themselves with their own moral codes, the majority will demand more government control.

Feel free to point us to a news story that highlights the rampant crimewave resulting from the wide availability of sex toys.

No, really.

I mean, I can almost understand the point of a person like Brent Bozell and his army of clones who get offended at television.  But, I'm sorry, attempting to legislate morality via restriction of products that are sold in age-restricted shops or via age-restricted mail order is fractally stupid.

[stevelyn]

Thirdly, I don't believe that you are opposed to "legislating morality."  Most, if not all, laws impose morality on the violator.  Even if laws are based on the idea of human rights, these are moral concepts with no more validity than traditional religious ideas.  If you don't want anyone's morality imposed on anyone else, then you cannot justify the arrest, trial and sentencing of a terrorist who blows up a bus full of innocents, certainly not if he believes that his religion, his morality, compelled him to do it.

Apples and oranges comparison and yes I'm opposed to legislating morality.
A terrorist blowing up innocent people or any criminal aggression against other persons is not the same thing as prohibiting the sale of certain items or prohibiting activities to consenting adults.

[tyme]

http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-nimby30apr30,0,3822927.story?coll=la-home-local

Helaine Gesas, who has lived on Hayvenhurst Avenue for 38 years, was in her kitchen cooking Passover supper when she noticed men hauling cameras and lights into the two-story house across the street.

Her neighbor Kerry Cohen, a paralegal and mother, was on her way out to organize a charity event. As she squeezed past several large production trucks, Cohen looked in her rear-view mirror and saw "scantily clad" young women parking their cars and heading toward the same house.

As far as John R. Johnson was concerned, "that was the end of Easter Sunday." Johnson, another neighbor, told his 9-year-old daughter to stay inside while what he described as a "prison-yard break"  a large film crew, many of its members covered in tattoos  entered the iron gates of the house in the 3600 block of Hayvenhurst.

Outraged, Johnson called the city seeking to shut the porn shoot down. But everything, he was told, was perfectly legal.

Tattoos, cameras, and scantily-clad women?  The horror!

[Perd Hapley]

stevelyn, I am not trying to justify this legislation, and I doubt I would vote for it.  I was not making a comparison, I was giving you an example of a legal imposition of morality which you wholly support.

[roo_ster]

If you don't want anyone's morality imposed on anyone else, then you cannot justify the arrest, trial and sentencing of a terrorist who blows up a bus full of innocents, certainly not if he believes that his religion, his morality, compelled him to do it.

Apples and oranges comparison and yes I'm opposed to legislating morality.
A terrorist blowing up innocent people or any criminal aggression against other persons is not the same thing as prohibiting the sale of certain items or prohibiting activities to consenting adults.

A goodly portion of our law is based on imposing society's moral judgements on the whole.  Murder, rape, theft, etc. are all pretty good survival tactics, in an amoral, Darwinian sense.  Murder eliminates threats & competition.  Rape increases the liklihood of passing on one's genes.  Theft increases one's chances of survival in a world of scarcity.

We, as a society, have made a moral judgement that murder, rape, & theft are wrong, despite the benefits for the perpetrators.

Arguing that one is opposed to "legislating morality" is akin to saying "I want to live in anarchy where the most ruthlessly violent rule over all others."

Arguing that one is opposed to "legislating morality with regard to sex and its manifestations in the market" seems to be more accurate.

---------------------------------

As to Rep Ralphie Boy & his bill, I am not overly riled.  It is a state matter at the state level, & I firmly believe that states, counties, & municipalities ought to be governed as their constitutions and constituents see fit.  If his fellow South Carolinians desire such a law & the law passes state constitutional muster, let them lock up the toys.  If not, let them make fun at his expense: "Ralph: The man who would put the lock on bondage"

I would be more likely to vote against Ralphie Boy's bill, but would be quite receptive to bills taking a hard look at stores that sell such products, similar to the way I would want feed lots treated.  Both can foul up the neighborhood & the locals ought to have a say in the matter.

[Perd Hapley]

"You are really missing my point, part of which was to say that when people do not control themselves with their own moral codes, the majority will demand more government control.  Unfortunate, but true.  This is partly why the decline of religious belief in America has coincided with an increase in legislation."

Really ...?

Ever heard of Plymouth Colony and the Puritans

I'm not denying that are and have been oppresive theocracies.  An example of what I mean is this.  If more people adhered to a religion of some sort, a greater share of the TV audience would be offended by profanity, obscenity and sexual content on television.  Such content would be more likely to negatively affect the profits of sponsors.  In this case, the free market would control TV programming, relegating the FCC to near uselessness.

As it is, few really care what's on broadcast TV, so a vocal minority demands, and gets, greater government involvement.

[Strings]

Fistful:

Just to answer your question about "blaming" the "Christian Right" for such legislation: EVERY time I've seen any kind of "anti-porn" initiative, it's been run by a group with "Christian" mentioned prominantly in the title. Haven't caught "Muslims for Sexual Purity", or "Jews Against Lewd Behavior"...

>Probably, these politicians feel that banning dirty smut stores will be popular with some people, and get them re-elected.  Citizens who support this measure probably feel that such dirty smut stores are selling trashy videos and magazines and disturbing sex gadgets that honest folks wouldn't be caught dead with, and making their community look trashy. No big brother stuff, really, they just want the law to keep dirty smut stores out of their town, or at least out of their sight.<

 Isn't the definition of "Big Brother Stuff" one group telling another how to live?