Think of the children!!!

[LadyJeanne]

Good point. I guess I was assuming that it was legal to buy and use the sex toys. Could be like Ohio, though, where it's legal to sell fireworks but not to use them in the state (other than sparklers and things like that).

I'd think that law enforcement officers would have better things to do with their time than bust people for owning more than the legal limit of dildos. But obviously not.

"Hello, ma'am."

"Yes?"

"Er, um, we have a citizen's complaint filed against you here. Um, it states that you have more than 4, er, um, personal massagers in the house."

"What are you talking about?"

"Well, ma'am, it seems your husband swore out this complaint..."

"Huh. No sex for him this year!"

"Yes, ma'am, of course. But about those massagers..."

"Here, take this one. It never really got me off anyway. That puts me at the legal limit, right?"

 

[emap]

Oh my, that was hilarious, I almost fell out of my chair, scared the cat even.

LadyJeanne congrats on the new house, I hope your husband and kids do most of the unpacking.

Though I'm not sure San Francisco is going to be better about those things, they just have different pet peeves and still get the sex shops are immoral not in my backyard people. I've been all over this country, and people tend to be the same everywhere, they just have different not in my backyard issues, and theys talk funny in them thar hills.

 

[eudaemonia]

"Here, take this one. It never really got me off anyway. That puts me at the legal limit, right?"

Brilliant, LJ!!!

re: the offended class. Not only are their arguments not about "the children," as emap well explicated, but the Offended Ones' arguments aren't even about an affront to themselves. It's about FEAR: Fear of their own sexuality, fear of the unknown about their bodies and about what could happen if they found out. Sad.

 

[TBKahuna123]

Procreative sex is serious business...no fun or toys allowed! *stern face*

You know, this brings up a very tough subject for me, which leads into the current discussion. I've mentioned before that I am a Catholic, but what I don't say very often is that I've spent a lot of time researching the church and it's catechism. Particularly this is true in regards to sex, as I try to resolve differences in my views of sex and that of the church's teachings on sex.

The Pornography issue is one I have resolved. They say that it is disruptive to a marriage(remember this is only as it applies to me) and I understand how it can be from personal experiences. It's very easy to get wrapped up in porn to the point where it lessens your desire for contact with your spouse. That;s the same argument they use against masturbation. I'm glad to say I've never gone down that road, but I know a number of people that have. So, when they start talking about pornography being bad for this reason, it's hard to dispute it, because their argument has SOME merit.

But then we move onto what peole call deviant sexual behavior. What is deviant? Well it's not OFFICIALLY spelled out, basically it means anything that could not result in procreation. OK, based on church teachings that sex is for procreation first and pleasure second, I'll buy that(well kinda). So I get a blowjob which has no chance of procreation, that qualifies, but what if I don't cum? What if it's just a part of foreplay? Am I still being disruptive to the true purpose of sex? I can't make that compute because if I can't stimulate my partner in anyway that doesn't result in procreation, then sex is going to be very boring after a while, which can lead to fantasizing, masturbating, even extramarrital affairs, which they call disruption as well. So where's the line?

Now to bring it home, sex toys. NO WHERE in the offical teachigns of the church does it mention sex toys being bad, or blowjobs for that matter, and it certainly isn't in the bible. So what's the problem here? If the toy is used alone for masturbation, then we fall into point number 1, but that has nothing to do with the toy. If the toy is used to stimulate a partner as a preparatoion for intercourse(aka foreplay) how is that deviant or disruptive? Studies have shown that extensive foreplay which stimulates and lubricates the woman is actually more conducive to conception then sex without foreplay. So would that not be enhancing the "proper" use of sex? They call them marital aids for a reason, right?

The point is, while you could make a point for XXX videos and books, there's nothing inthere that says anything about sex toys. It's a psuedoreligious cultural bias that is based not on religious beliefs but on the social beliefs of people who are really too weak to resist temptation. They therefore think we're all unable to resist temptation, so it must be removed from our presence. For them, having a big ole 10" floppy dong might make them yearn for someone other than their husband, but that's just not true of all people.

All I personally ask is that these kind of stores be put in an appropriate place so that I can keep my kids away if I so choose. For example, in my town we have one about 2 blocks from a public library. Now, that bothers me a bit, but it's not a part of town kids should be unsupervised anyway. The other one is out by the interstate truck stops in an industrial area. To me, that's perfect because there's no reason kids would be out there without supervision. Besides I'm more worried about my kids on the internet than cruising by the local dildo shop.

Now that I've made the case for them being there, I also believe that communities have a right to decide what is in their own town. We're a country of majority rule, so if the majority of people don't want that business, they should be able to stop it. however, the problem is that opens a huge can of worms? Where do you draw the line? What if the town doesn't want that new Iranian deli to open because they believe it will be a potential meeting place for local terrorists? Whose right takes precedent, the right of majority rule, or the protection against discrimination?

Wow, not sure any of that made any sense.

 

[bobsgirl]

TBK, you're giving my brain a workout!

The problem is, what does the Church expect couples who have passed those child-conceiving years to do?

I'm not taking issue with you, just the Church's narrow views concerning sex.

BTW, where the heck have you been hiding?

 

[eudaemonia]

I also believe that communities have a right to decide what is in their own town. We're a country of majority rule,

Not quite. The U.S. is a federal (representative) republic. Our system of checks and balances was designed precisely to prevent the tyranny of the majority. Which is why the Supreme Court would protect, for example, the right of Larry Flynt to publish lewd material about Rev. Jerry Falwell. "Government shall not abridge ... " is the key concept here.

so if the majority of people don't want that business, they should be able to stop it. however, the problem is that opens a huge can of worms?

The majority would have to prove harm. Community standards aren't sufficient claims to harm. Invoking the Hustler example again, "actual malice" is difficult to prove.

 

[TBKahuna123]

Not quite. The U.S. is a federal (representative) republic. Our system of checks and balances was designed precisely to prevent the tyranny of the majority. Which is why the Supreme Court would protect, for example, the right of Larry Flynt to publish lewd material about Rev. Jerry Falwell. "Government shall not abridge ... " is the key concept here.

That's what makes things tricky and why I said "Whose right takes precedent, the right of majority rule, or the protection against discrimination?" Does not the inability to enact community standards violate the majority's right to live free of what they view as obscenity? Keep in mind that I'm not advocating such standards, but does not this inability to enact them constitute tyranny of the minority?

 

[TBKahuna123]

TBK, you're giving my brain a workout!

The problem is, what does the Church expect couples who have passed those child-conceiving years to do?

I'm not taking issue with you, just the Church's narrow views concerning sex.

The church does acknowledge the importance of sex in the congegal relationship between a man and wife(or some fancy language like that). This actually came up in a discussion one time with a local priest. Technically, if one member of a couple was unable to perform sexually, they could not be wed. Now, in practice that would never happen, but if you went on technicalities...

Narrow viewed, yes, without question. I think it's acknowledged that a fulfilling sexual relationship is essential to a happy marriage. The problem is that people fear what they don't understand. Some people just can't see how BDSM could be sexually fulfilling. Because of that, they think it must be bad.

BTW, where the heck have you been hiding?

Been busy and a sprained wrist that kept me off my keyboard for over a week.

 

[wicked woman]

You know, this brings up a very tough subject for me, which leads into the current discussion. I've mentioned before that I am a Catholic, but what I don't say very often is that I've spent a lot of time researching the church and it's catechism. Particularly this is true in regards to sex, as I try to resolve differences in my views of sex and that of the church's teachings on sex.


Now to bring it home, sex toys. NO WHERE in the offical teachigns of the church does it mention sex toys being bad, or blowjobs for that matter, and it certainly isn't in the bible. So what's the problem here? If the toy is used alone for masturbation, then we fall into point number 1, but that has nothing to do with the toy. If the toy is used to stimulate a partner as a preparatoion for intercourse(aka foreplay) how is that deviant or disruptive? Studies have shown that extensive foreplay which stimulates and lubricates the woman is actually more conducive to conception then sex without foreplay. So would that not be enhancing the "proper" use of sex? They call them marital aids for a reason, right?



Wow, not sure any of that made any sense.

um I was just being silly....although thought it true. I'm not Catholic and not religious enough that any of my possible sexual practices would bother my faith. Having said that I have to admit I'm more familiar with what the Quran says about sex than I am the Bible. Blame it on the ex-Muslim boyfriend.

Part of me is having difficulty not commenting on the fact that you're assuming women are supposed to/permitted to have sexual feelings. hmmm guess I lost that fight with myself. Don't mind me...just being silly again.

Glad you've found a way to rationalize your religion with your sex practices.

 

[TBKahuna123]

Part of me is having difficulty not commenting on the fact that you're assuming women are supposed to/permitted to have sexual feelings. hmmm guess I lost that fight with myself. Don't mind me...just being silly again.

I'm not sure what you mean. I don't know much about what the Quran says, but everything I've been taught is that sexual feelings and desires are perfectly normal in both sexes. It's not the desires, but how we act upon then that is in question.

Glad you've found a way to rationalize your religion with your sex practices.

Well I said I've started, but I wouldn't say I've found it. The hard part is finding the truth, even if it means admitting that some behaviors may not be right by my religious beliefs. The easy way is just finding some way to justify everything, but that's not really a discovery of truth, that's discovery of excuses. Oh well, never said it would be easy. All I really know is that sex isn't bad, no matter what closed minded people might like to say, and that religion is often just an excuse for most their closed mindedness.

Sorry for hijacking the thread, just trying to shed a a little more light on the inner thoughts of these closed minded people.

 

[eudaemonia]

That's what makes things tricky and why I said "Whose right takes precedent, the right of majority rule, or the protection against discrimination?"

Again, there's no "right to" majority rule. Government (in the US anway) exists to protect the individual's right to life, liberty and pursuit of happiness. When your rights are infringed -- someone is trying to take them away from you or systematically prevent you from pursing them -- it's job of government to protect your, erm, Creator-granted rights.**

Does not the inability to enact community standards violate the majority's right to live free of what they view as obscenity? Keep in mind that I'm not advocating such standards, but does not this inability to enact them constitute tyranny of the minority?

No. You don't have the right not to be offended. In the given scenario, the enactment of community standards veers dangerously into censorship. The US government is strictly prohibited from doing that.

The case of yelling "fire" in a crowded movie house is the oft-cited example of what constitutes the difference b/w freedom of speech and reckless endangerment.

That said, what is legislated/ajudicated in the name of public interest has slippery slope potential all over it. But that's another thread.

**N.B. I hope the irony is not lost that the founding fathers invoked God's laws in framing the Constitution to protect us from religious tyranny, but it's precisely that tyranny that's used to argue *for* community standards.


I know it seems distasteful and unfair. But think about it for

 

[wicked woman]

I'm not sure what you mean. I don't know much about what the Quran says, but everything I've been taught is that sexual feelings and desires are perfectly normal in both sexes. It's not the desires, but how we act upon then that is in question.


Well I said I've started, but I wouldn't say I've found it. The hard part is finding the truth, even if it means admitting that some behaviors may not be right by my religious beliefs. The easy way is just finding some way to justify everything, but that's not really a discovery of truth, that's discovery of excuses. Oh well, never said it would be easy. All I really know is that sex isn't bad, no matter what closed minded people might like to say, and that religion is often just an excuse for most their closed mindedness.

Sorry for hijacking the thread, just trying to shed a a little more light on the inner thoughts of these closed minded people.

TBK I'm referring to the number of people on here, and else where, that have spouses who dislike sex, think ít's dirty, make their spouses feel like scum because they enjoy and want sex. They take no enjoyment, or very little, from sex... don't think they should enjoy it...get pleasure from it...etc., etc. All based on their religious upbringing/beliefs.

My reference to the Quran was only meant to explain that I know very little about what the Bible says about sex...I haven't studied it...where as I have in the Quran. The Quran's take on sex is irrelevant to the discussion here.

I think the crux of the discussion is what I've bolded of your comments.

 

[Eilan]

Does not the inability to enact community standards violate the majority's right to live free of what they view as obscenity?

But then it all comes down to what obscenity is, and that's where there's a lot of disagreement. Where I live, there's a pretty vocal group (maybe not a majority, but close, since I live on the fringes of the Bible Belt) that wants to ban "obscene" materials like Glamour and Cosmo from grocery stores.

 

[TBKahuna123]

Again, there's no "right to" majority rule. Government (in the US anway) exists to protect the individual's right to life, liberty and pursuit of happiness. When your rights are infringed -- someone is trying to take them away from you or systematically prevent you from pursing them -- it's job of government to protect your, erm, Creator-granted rights.**

So how do you reconcile that we are a democracy which refers questions to a vote where majority decides? That's the very nature of a democracy. Right or wrong, that is what we promote as our style of government, a government committed to freedom. But whose freedom? Why is your right to pursue happiness through something I find offensive more important than my right to pursue happiness by NOT being offended? Mind you, not me or you specifically, just saying...

The way you cite it sounds to me like state-protected anarchy. Government protects my right to do and say what I want, but not your right to stop me from doing anything. If it were that easy, couldn't any law be overturned in a court of law?

So let the civics lesson begin, because I don't have the answer to that one!

No. You don't have the right not to be offended.

Why not? Again, why is one right more important than the other?

In the given scenario, the enactment of community standards veers dangerously into censorship. The US government is strictly prohibited from doing that.

The case of yelling "fire" in a crowded movie house is the oft-cited example of what constitutes the difference b/w freedom of speech and reckless endangerment.

That said, what is legislated/ajudicated in the name of public interest has slippery slope potential all over it. But that's another thread.

I agree with that totally. Especially as a net dweller, this is a scary situation. It's like the current row over the media printing stories about leaked terror investigations over national security concerns. What takes precedence, freedom of the pressor national security? I firmly believe that you can't have it both ways, we're either free or safe.

**N.B. I hope the irony is not lost that the founding fathers invoked God's laws in framing the Constitution to protect us from religious tyranny, but it's precisely that tyranny that's used to argue *for* community standards.


I know it seems distasteful and unfair. But think about it for

No, doesn't sound distasteful and unfair, it's the same argument i could make about what the seperation of church and state really means. What a lot of people forget though is that when the constitution was enacted, there were extensive community standards in place. Social strictures were considered outside the realm of law, there was no right to be offensive and the rightof the people to protect themselves from offensive things was considered the paramount right. Things have flip flopped now on a cultural level, but back than, the rights have the opposite precedence. Could it be that the founding fathers did not codify this because to them it wasn't an issue, that it was totally unthinkable that it would ever become a concern in a decent society?

Our world is different and changing every day. Me personally, I'm not offended very easily. Ok, I'm not offended at all. The issues that face me personally are the same as face all people of faith, I just choose to deal with my response to those issues, rather than to remove the issue so I don't have to deal with it.

Think of the children? I grew up in the 80's the decade of decadence if there ever was one. Porns stores didn't warp my mind, music didn't make me want to have sex(hell the wind could have done that), and D&D didn't make me kill my friends in satanic rituals. Why? Because my parents gave a shit, took an interest in my life, taught me right from wrong on a real level and lived what they preached. My parents, in effect, raised me right and did one hell of a job teaching me what a parent should be. Because of that I have no fear I can raise my kids the same way in this society and that they will turn out ok. They may fuck up and make some bad decisions, but they'll survive just like I did, without major damage.

 

[TBKahuna123]

But then it all comes down to what obscenity is, and that's where there's a lot of disagreement. Where I live, there's a pretty vocal group (maybe not a majority, but close, since I live on the fringes of the Bible Belt) that wants to ban "obscene" materials like Glamour and Cosmo from grocery stores.

Of course! magazines like that make wmen think we men should give a shit if they cum or not. How rude!

 

[emap]

Glamour and Cosmo offensive????

I hate to say this, but you really should move far away from there, those people are seriously fucked up. I fail to see how two magazines that talk about fashion and kinda skirt around sex life issues. They talk in generalities about sex and promote feeling good during sex, as being offensive or obscene.

I could understand something like Penthouse being offensive or obscene, at least in reference to being in a grocery store or a Target, I mean yes not have them in places you take your kids since you know kids are curious,are crafty and dang if they don't get in all the places you would prefer they didn't. But good greif, Glamour and Cosmo???

I mean yeah fine they don't like them, there are plenty of women who happen to like those magazines and many live in those area's to. I swear, someone should just stand right up and scream so loud the whole country hears it, if you don't like something, don't fucking look, don't read it and hey look, your not offended.

 

[Eilan]

I hate to say this, but you really should move far away from there, those people are seriously fucked up.

I'm not going to leave my home because of some vocal idiots. I can be just as vocal.

 

[Quoll]

Righteous rewrites on Enid Blyton

02jul06

CHILDREN'S books by Enid Blyton have been given another makeover in the name of political correctness.






In Faraway Tree, Dame Slap has been replaced by Dame Snap who will scold naughty children instead of giving them a smack. Fanny and Dick from the Famous Five have been given the boot in favour of Franny and Rick and the word "queer" becomes "odd".

Bessie, a black character with a name associated with slavery, is now a white girl called Beth. New editions of Blyton's best-known books have been purged of all references to racism, sexism and elitism.

This follows changes in the 1980s when the golliwog in the Noddy series was replaced with teddy bears.

 

[Eilan]

I got a good laugh yesterday. The local "store for couples" that's come under fire where we live took out a full-page ad in an advertising insert that comes with our Sunday paper. At the top and bottom of the page, the ad said, "God Bless America."

My ex-husband worked with a woman who refused to allow an adult toy/novelty store to place an ad in the newspaper they both worked for because she didn't believe in those types of businesses.

 

[bobsgirl]

I got a good laugh yesterday. The local "store for couples" that's come under fire where we live took out a full-page ad in an advertising insert that comes with our Sunday paper. At the top and bottom of the page, the ad said, "God Bless America."

My ex-husband worked with a woman who refused to allow an adult toy/novelty store to place an ad in the newspaper they both worked for because she didn't believe in those types of businesses.

I can just see the letters to the editor... "And on the Lord's day! Shameful!"

 

[Straight-8]

Glamour and Cosmo offensive????

I could understand something like Penthouse being offensive or obscene

I can't! I find Glamour or Cosmo far more offensive and even obscene than a real (though fairly tame) sex mag like Penthouse. I think G and C promote at least as bad a self image in a far more insidious way to women than so called porn mags.

But, of course, that is not to even remotely suggest I would favour banning them OR Penthouse.

I am with Eudomania on this. The purpose of a democratic government is not so the majority of the moment can dictate to the minority of the moment. It is to protect the rights of the individual/minorities and only infringe upon those rights to the extent necessary for the proper operation of the state. Those are those 'constitutional rights' everybody hates until theirs are infringed. Now, of course, there will be constant debate over exactly where the line is which justifies imposing the majority will, but it is very important to allow the minority every possible freedom (if for no other reason than the fact you will be the minority someday on some issues).

Most people would prefer (at some level) to live in a benevolent dictatorship ( especially if they get to be the dictator) that coresponded exactly with their beliefs. Fortunately for the rest of us who have to share the planet - they don't. And that is worth fighting for!

So pardon me another set of song lyrics but I can't resist:

Trouble - Iris Dement

I went to church on Sunday, I swung my chariot low
Reached up to kiss the deacon, he said "You'd better go"
Trouble, I'm in trouble with him
Trouble's where I'm going
Trouble's the only place I've ever been

Let's buy a watermelon, swallow all the seeds
Forget what Mama told us, do everything we please
Trouble, trouble again
Trouble's where we're going
Trouble's the only place we've ever been

Let's pour a little whiskey, drink a little gin
Listen to Merle Haggard like he's loving me again
Trouble, I'm even in trouble with him
Trouble's where I'm going
Trouble's the only place I've ever been

Let's turn off the TV, I'm tired of CNN
Let's throw a little party, invite some sinners in
Trouble, trouble again
Trouble's where we're going
Trouble's the only place we've ever been

I'll paint your toenails baby, you paint my toenails too
We'll take a walk down Main Street and watch what people do
Trouble, let's get in trouble with them
Trouble's where we're going
Trouble's the only place we've ever been

There's people building prisons for people like you and me
Some people just can't stand people like us being free
Trouble, what's trouble with them
Trouble's where we're heading
Trouble's the only place we've ever been

Sooner or later, darling, everybody's gotta go
Let's you and me leave early, get a seat on the first row
Trouble, trouble again
Trouble's where we're going
Trouble's the only place we've ever been

 

[Eilan]

I can just see the letters to the editor... "And on the Lord's day! Shameful!"

At some point, I may be forced to write my own letter to the editor. My husband's been wanting me to do it for some time now.

I think G and C promote at least as bad a self image in a far more insidious way to women than so called porn mags.

In that respect, then, yeah, they're offensive, and I'm glad I outgrew them. Their sex tips are lame, anyway.

 

[bobsgirl]

At some point, I may be forced to write my own letter to the editor. My husband's been wanting me to do it for some time now.

Please do, and post it here so we can applaud.

 

[LadyJeanne]

At some point, I may be forced to write my own letter to the editor. My husband's been wanting me to do it for some time now.

Do it! Do it! It's so much fun!!

 

[Eilan]

Please do, and post it here so we can applaud

Do it! Do it! It's so much fun!!

Oh, if/when I do, you can rest assured that I will post it here. I think, however, I will go to the establishment and buy a few things first, just so I can say that I supported the business with dollars in addition to words.

I've noticed that some local politicians (e.g. county comissioners, city council members, etc) are getting involved. They must be running for re-election this fall.

I don't get it, though. The woman who owns the store that causing all the controversy in our town also has one of these stores in my hometown (35 miles from where I currently live), and I don't remember reading about any backlash when it opened. A lot of my mother's coworkers bought naighty birthday cards and novelties there.