A sad note

[PrettySquareGal]

Believe me, square gal, I was glad you did defend me! thanks

Good.

 

[jamespowers]

So where's YOUR sexy avatar???

Uh yeah. Not going to happen. Too old and too wary of the camera. Or better yet as Cicero said:
"Justice consists in doing no injury to men; decency in giving them no offense."
I might injure or offend someone.

Regards,

J

 

[griffer]

... are you meaning this is how our culture sees this?

Bingo. The text of the post i referred to was, on the surface, very different than the image your avatar projects. So different as to be at odds. That does not make you a hypocrite, per se. I don't know you.

Porn is time and context relative, your avatar would not have been acceptable to 'prudish protestants' back in this beloved golden era we refer to; it would have been labelled 'blue' at best. Even today there are many that would take issue with it.

Do I have an issue with it? No. I was just making an observation.

...If that had been directed at me I would feel like I was being called a hypocrite. Maybe I shouldn't have jumped in. I know mysterygal can defend herself, if she feels she has been slighted...

Sorry I wasn't clearer. The collective 'we' is society in general, which by definition is an average and not indicative of an individual. 'We' is the opposite of personal. As a society, a vocal minority scream 'SIN!' when it comes to porn, but that same society clearly accepts and consumes the same smut. As a society, we say one thing and do another. The visual affect of MysteryGal's post was like a microcosm of this duality. Clearly, you can be pretty and attractive while still being as pure as the driven snow. I don't know her, how could I presume to know?

...Believe me, square gal, I was glad you did defend me!...

But you weren't being attacked!

...Mysterygals pose is I would assume an homage to the golden era starlets. it is tasteful and fun. Frankly such things, including pin ups are kind of quant by our standards...

Yes, clearly quaint. But, pin-ups were not usually photos, and they weren't considered polite for mixed company, back in the day. The raised hemline, reclined position, feet up on a couch, and displaying her crinoline, back in the day these would have been considered very immoral.

Today, they are clearly acceptable.

 

[Ben]

In all fariness, I think the topic is being discussed fairly civilly all things considered.

But I'd like to add another two cents.

Why is it that the "prudes" have to "get with the program" and quit being hung up on taboo?

QUOTE]

RedPop4, I don't think that most people are saying that folks who want some couth must change their ways. What they are, or should be saying, is don't put your 'couth' over theirs.

In other words, the concern is that the prudes will try to mandate their views of the world through force, whether it be by law or something else.

But no one can bring blue movies or magazines into your home, and there should be no compulsion for you to do so. But sometimes, when you are out in the world, with people who have different ideas than you, you are going to runinto things you don't like.

But seeing a naked person on a billboard or a magazine is like when the sun get sin your eyes, some times you just have to look away.

If you have the strength of your beliefs, then you will be fine regardless of what is in the outside world.

 

[PrettySquareGal]

Year 2000 sexuality is wrong but 1940's sexuality is not? How does one justify that?

The way I see it, in the 40's it wasn't mainstream culture the way it is now. The bimbos of the hour didn't have their own talk shows. I doubt fathers would take their daughters to a burlesque show (I read an article a few years ago about Britney Spear's concerts and how it definitely wasn't like taking one's daughter to Disney on ice). You weren't bombarded with gross ads. Young girls weren't expected to dress and act like MTV trollops...on and on...

But this from a prude. [huh]

 

[griffer]

I surrender.

 

[mysterygal]

griffer, I really don't want you to feel ganged up on...and I do understand a lot of what you are saying. THe avatar was done all in fun, I really didn't think it would portray 'hussy'.
*added note* I really am a good girl!

 

[Miss Neecerie]

See....

we are back to..

Everyone else is not just like me.


This one phrase explains differences in morality, ideals,etc. Expecting any single other person on this planet to have their views in line with anyone elses....

 

[Baron Kurtz]

I knew that resurrecting threads would lead to this. Please, if you resurrect threads, don't do it to the ones that cna lead to the kind of nastiness i thought had been run out of town.

I realise some of the newer people don't know what it was like. it was not nice. It had alot of us running from the OB and not participating because we knew (absolutely for certain) that we would be ganged up upon.

bk

 

[jamespowers]

But seeing a naked person on a billboard or a magazine is like when the sun get sin your eyes, some times you just have to look away.

If you have the strength of your beliefs, then you will be fine regardless of what is in the outside world.

I think you are missing the discretion part of the argument here. I could care less what people have in their homes. That is private property and the run of it is theirs to do as they wish---smoke, drink and have porn on the coffee table. Doesn't bother me as long as its there.
My problem is when it is encountered in public and by the time I find it or turn my child away from it---it is too late. Most decent stores put the offending magazines behind the counter for just such a reason. The same with billboards. You can have it but not subject others to it while you are there. If society consisted of all adults then I might have a different perspective.
It is when they have it out that I wonder what impression that sends to children. Britney Spears---its ok. Porn---its ok. What next beastiality---its ok? At least in the 1940s they had the good sense not to put our worst and most ribald side on display. There is nothing new under the sun. It is just now out in the sunlight much more.
I don't want a bunch of new nanny laws. I just want people to keep society dignified and civil where you don't have to get/consult a parental guidance map before leaving the house. Having children to raise in this society makes you look at the world entirely different. Well, it didn't to me. I always felt this way but that goes to strength of belief and upbringing. Give others the chance to do the same with their children.
It all reality, it is this kind of seemingly innnocent society that draws us to the Golden Era and The Fedora Lounge. :eusa_clap

Regards,

J

 

[Dapper Dan]

Miss Neecerie is completely right. I think we're really just going around in circles at this point. Obviously, this is something people feel strongly about. When I made my lengthy post, I was not at all meaning to tell people "take your morals and shove them." On a personal level, I'm a very conservative person. I'd kind of have to be, to be in a place like this, right? But I'm very liberal when it comes to social liberties and freedoms. So when I say that pornography should not be censored or banned, it is strictly from a legal standpoint. I just want to be free to make my own choices on topics like pornography, drugs, alcohol, etc. And I think that's basically what everyone else here wants. I think 85% of the people debating here are like me, in that they don't at all mind the existance of pornography, they just want to make choices for themselves and their family without feeling pressured by the government or the media. Not having children, I can't say that I know what it's like to raise young ones in today's society, but I can definitely empathize with those out there who are taking on the seemingly Sysiphean task of bringing up their own children without their parenting and beliefs being gainsayed by society.

Anyway, I think we're basically all on the same page here, viz. that sex is a great thing, but modesty is still a virtue. I think maybe we all need to take a step back and realize that we're not exactly debating what we think we are, since most of us already believe surprisingly similar things.

As for mysterygal's avatar, I think it may just go to prove her point; that is, sexiness accentuated by the unknown. And PrettySquareGal is right: if you go to the beach, you'll see less clothing than that.

But I take umbrage at one thing, PrettySquareGal. Are you saying Oliver Hardy isn't sexy?

 

[PrettySquareGal]

But I take umbrage at one thing, PrettySquareGal. Are you saying Oliver Hardy isn't sexy?

Well of COURSE he is, but I want to see him in a slinky dress. lol

 

[jamespowers]

Well of COURSE he is, but I want to see him in a slinky dress. lol

Please, let me avert my son's eyes first---for that matter mine as well.

regards,

J

 

[Senator Jack]

Now we're offended by MysteryGal's avatar? Perhaps the Lounge can get a psychologist at a group rate.

Regards,

Senator Jack

 

[scotrace]

I think we have five or six.

 

[jamespowers]

I think we have five or six.

That might be the problem right there.

Regards,

J

 

[Quigley Brown]

Thank you all for a most interesting hour of reading.:eusa_doh:

 

[Tango Yankee]

One thing I've never quite understood...

...is why sex on film is considered pornographic, but a wide-screen view of someone's head being blown apart isn't? Or any other type of graphic violence? Personally, I think the violence has a much greater negative impact on our society than any adult film or photos.

For what it's worth, Congress decided a few years ago that they knew what was pornography and what wasn't. They passed a law called the "`Military Honor and Decency Act of 1996' A BILL To amend title 10, United States Code, to prohibit the Department of Defense from selling, renting, or otherwise providing sexually explicit material to any individual." The title alone made me feel that Congress felt the US Armed Forces had no honor or decency.

They wanted to ban the DoD from selling "adult" magazines in the base exchanges. The bill was passed without being voted on. As a result, all "adult" magazines were pulled from exchange shelves except for some reason, Playboy magazine.

So there you have it. All adult magazines with the exception of Playboy apparently are pornographic. Of course, they still had the women's magazines at the check out counters with headlines on the covers like "Teach your man how to give you an orgasm!" where anyone can pick them up and read them.

All in all, I think there is something very wrong with a society that revels in violence, gore, and bloodshed on the screen (TV or movie) yet reacts so negatively to the sight of a naked body (or bodies.) I'd much rather it was the other way around if it came to that.

Cheers,
Tom

 

[PrettySquareGal]

I'm not seeing anyone glorifying violence. In fact, a lot of porn these days seems to be very violent.

I agree that Cosmo is more like porn ever since Helen Gurley Brown retired.

 

[Viola]

Not to ruin the intellectual tone of this thread, but:

Movie violence is awesome. You'll all take my Scorsese movies from my cold dead hands.

Chick flicks are boring.

-Viola