I was surprised at the forthright manner of a comment we received here at Irregular Times yesterday. The comment was in response to an article describing a campaign commercial in which Mitt Romney suggests that he would work as President of the United States to censor the content of televison, movies and video games, in order to reduce the level of sex, violence, and even “indolence” in the media.
The commenter argued that complaints about censorship are less worthy of consideration than the “chains” that tear families apart:
“We need Romney and many others to stand up against those who drag people down into pornography, violence, etc. Those who claim freedom of censorship do not see the Chains of pornography, sexual freedom, and the selfishness they promote. There is no benefit to the family, in fact many are torn apart from these evils every day.”
I don’t recognize the value of wrecking freedom of speech and freedom of the press in order to enable the government to manage private family in the effort to prevent divorce. How family members choose to relate to eachother, so long as their activities are within the law, is their business. I don’t agree when this supporter of Mitt Romney suggests that it’s the government’s business to try to keep family members from behaving selfishly toward one another. Yes, selfishness is bad, but then again, so is bad breath. Would Mitt Romney’s supporters favor government action to mandate brushing and flossing first thing in the morning?
What bothers me most about this comment, though, is not it’s silly suggestion that the government try to regulate selfishness out of family life. What concerns me is the suggestion that sexual freedom is a kind of “chain” that drags people down and ought to be controlled by President Romney in order to hold weak families together.
First of all, I disagree with the idea that sexual freedom is a danger to families. The families that are threatened by sexual freedom are those families that are already in trouble for other reasons.
I’ve been married to my wife for almost seven years now, and I can tell you that I’m not even close to feeling the infamous “itch” of sexual infidelity. That’s not because there are government regulations preventing me from looking at pornography, or controlling what kind of sexual activity I can legally engage in. I don’t refrain from having sex with women other than my wife because there are laws against “adultery”, but because I love my wife and am loyal to her.
If a wife is sexually unfaithful to her husband, it isn’t because she’s seen pornography. It’s because she doesn’t love her husband enough to control herself. The lack of love, not the sex, is the real problem with the marriage. There’s nothing that Mitt Romney’s programs of media censorship can do to make wives and husbands love eachother.
My wife and I retain our sexual freedom. We could have sex with anyone else. We have chosen only to have sex with eachother. That’s a meaningful choice because it’s a free choice. Sexual freedom makes our monogamy more valuable. It doesn’t drag us down and tear us apart.
Government regulation to diminish sexual freedom is rotten idea. Giving the Republican sex police the power to snoop into our bedrooms wouldn’t make American marriages any stronger. It would just put a lot of people in jail for no other reason than the fact that their sexual habits are different from what people like Mitt Romney think they ought to be.
Besides, if Mitt Romney’s supporters want the government to move against sexual freedom, what exactly would they replace it with? Sexual oppression? Sexual servitude?
Progressives recognize that the right wing’s efforts to expand government regulation of sex is a terrible idea. So, to make sure that your sex life remains your own, vote to elect a progressive President in 2008.
Studies show that both men & women are affected when porn is consumed. If that were not the case, why then would anyone consume it? Just interview any rapist and see if they have porn problems.
You liberals value things such as “freedom of speech and freedom of the press” over families. Therefore I think selfishness is both fair & accurate assessment of your behavior and opinion. You may not like it, but is what it is.. Families require work and selfless sacrifice. “Sexual Freedoms” are about selfishly gratifying lusts. Make no mistake about it, porn can hurt and damage families.
FYI, Romney is not going after your “sexual freedoms.” You still have rights to get it on with as many men, women, cows or whatever your liberal heart desires. Nobody here is saying you can’t. All sodomy laws have been stricken down so party on dude! No need to hit the panic button here but I’m sure that it resonates will with the troops.
Seems to me that poster was just trying to make aware some of the negative consequences associated with sexual freedom. Something liberals usually don’t want to hear.
No, cwpete, I don’t “value such things as ‘freedom of speech and freedom of the press’ over families.
I value such things as freedom of speech and freedom of the press FOR American families.
You make a lot of assertions, but you offer no proof. Prove that pornography damages families that are not already damaged in some other way. Prove that exposure to pornography takes healthy families and wrecks them. Prove it.
I also I value such things as freedom of speech and freedom of the press **FOR** American families like you state. However, I differ since a person’s “freedoms” should be regulated so that they don’t cause another harm. Sounds as if you are trying to have it both ways by claiming to be pro-porn/freedom & pro-family
You seem to think that porn does not harm families? You ask me to offer proof. I doubt you’ll accept any of it. But here goes:
1) Porn *is* harmful to children. It is illegal for porn to be distributed to kids or for kids to participate in porn. Yet your “freedoms” allow for any kid to walk into a public library and get the full gambit. I say regulate it there, you’ll probably say no way, my freedoms are at stake.
2) Porn can lead to sexual addiction. Sexual addiction can cause abuse to family members, infidelity to spouses, and disease. To justify your porn, I’m sure you can probably blame it on some other thing. Make no mistake about it, porn does contribute to the hardships of families.
Checkout webMD on sexual addition & porn. Please note the negative consequences associated therein:
http://www.webmd.com/sexual-conditions/sexual-addiction
-Multiple affairs (extra-marital affairs)
-Multiple or anonymous sexual partners and/or one-night stands
-Unsafe sex
-Prostitution or use of prostitutes
-Exhibitionism
-Obsessive dating through personal ads
-Voyeurism (watching others) and/or stalking
-Sexual harassment
-Molestation/rape
But seriously, How can anyone state that porn does not affect families? It certainly does.
Interesting site here, I’ll come by occasionally for my daily dose of liberalism..
Cwpete, the issue is the difference betwen association and causation. As any researcher worth their salt will tell you, the two are not the same. Pornography could very well be associated with unhealthy sexual obsessions, but that doesn’t mean that the pornography CAUSES unhealthy sexual obsessions.
Sexual addiction is a very controversial term, and a lot of professionals don’t accept it. But, for terms of this discussion, let’s say that there really is such a problem as sexual addiction. The WebMD article you link to says the following: “Behaviors associated with sexual addiction include… Consistent use of pornography”.
The article does NOT say that pornography CAUSES sexual addiction. To argue, as you do, from this article that sexual addiction is a consequence of pornography is as illogical as claiming that, because cleaning behaviors are often part of obsessive compulsive disorder that cleaning causes obsessive compulsive disorder. It doesn’t.
You have not brought any proof that pornography has the power to damage healthy families.
Start thinking about the implicit logical structure of the arguments being made by the Romney campaign, and you’ll start to understand how Mitt Romney’s weird political obsession with sex isn’t well grounded in reality.
“Pornography could very well be associated with unhealthy sexual obsessions,”
I’m glad you at least recognize that much. Pornography can cause sexual addiction much the same way cigarettes can cause nicotine addiction. While it is true that sexual addictions can lead to porn, I’m amazed that you refuse to accept the possibility that porn leads to sexual addiction. There is nothing more that I could ever say or do to help you see the obvious. You can have last word if you wish..
It has been fun J. Clifford. I have to get going here. I’ll visit again for any other Romney bashing you got going on provided it is a slow work day.
Regards,
Again, you claim that pornography causes sexual addiction, when there’s no evidence of any such thing. You seem to just want to believe it to be true.
Cwpete, I’m not refusing to accept the possibility of such a thing. I’m pointing out that there is no proof of it.
I’ve challenged you to provide such proof, and you haven’t been able to do it. No wonder you’re bowing out.
In spite of the complete lack of evidence for any widespread problem, Mitt Romney and his ilk are proposing censorship of the freedom of speech and freedom of the press.
I think that proves that Mitt Romney does not have the mental discipline necessary to be a responsible President.
Sexual obsessions? Is that like ‘food obsessions’, ‘water obsessions’, or ‘sleep obsessions’? I have heard that the normal person thinks about sex every 11 seconds. What a drag if that were to become obsessive or anything.
What you are missing Jclifford, (and that piece was really TMI–can’t you find your children under cabbage leaves like everyone else?), is the misuse of sexuality that can occur when it becomes a commodity, although that’s probably not at all what Romney had in mind. We do limit sexuality with children as well as for people in positions of authority, like teachers and supervisors. That is partly because the element of consent can be missing in these situations. Money can also be coercive, and a lot of money changes hands over porn.
I’ve ben using free porn since the dawn of the internet. All it did was make me more liberal.
TMI? Sorry, I don’t text message. What does that mean? Totally meaningless iodine?
Save me Governor Romney!
Fashion magazines are associated with annorexia.
Save me, Governor Romney!
Junk food is associated with obesity, heart disease, and diabetes.
Save me, Governor Romney!
Driving is associated with traffic fatalities.
Save me, Governor Romney!
State lotteries are associated with compulsive gambling.
Save me, Governor Romney!
Save me from anything that is in any way associated with something I might be tempted to indulge in irresponsibly to the detriment of myself, my family, and my community by punishing me for having it!
And while you’re at it, defend my FREEDOM!
TMI=too much information..I usually have to plug those text thingies into the little answers.com window in my firefox toolbar, but I thought that one was as common as lol.
How can using porn make you “liberal”? Doesn’t it just make you breathe heavy?
Porn is right up the conservative alley of loving things and using people, instead of the other way around. Of course they pretend they’re not really doing it, but I’m always amazed that the conservatives are the ones who seem to have so many details about pornography, perversions, on and on…almost as if it were, well, an obsession.
It’s their form of excersize.
Why the anti-sex progressive puritanism from Iroquois?
It’s not puritanism, scrumptious, it’s more a question of privacy. I would hope jClifford and his wife, uh, hold hands and, er, stuff, but doesn’t that really belong behind closed doors?
Well, he’s not inviting you to watch, is he? He’s just using his marriage as a point of reference on a political discussion about sex in the media and censorship, and personal freedom.
No one is doing anything to you, Iroquois. Besides, if people want to look at sensual imagery, what business is it of yours to get all judgmental at them?
Who made you and Mitt Romney the ones to tell other people what kinds of speech and press are allowable?
The real question, T.S., might be why you’re getting so defensive and emotional.
Read what I wrote again. Where did I say what should be allowable?
Do not put words in my mouth.
Because you’re getting irrational. Where did J. Clifford do anything sexual NOT behind closed doors?
No.
I didn’t write that.
Read what I wrote again.
What does anyone make of this?
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20070720/od_nm/nigeria_pornography_dc;_ylt=Av8Uvd6ubOCZ.ZEFc7M.MCcZ.3QA
Oh, and here’s a *purely hypothetical* situation: a class is held in the back of a community center late at night and taught by a female instructor. The front of the center is staffed by a lone male who is always looking at a computer screen. When the teacher borrows the computer one day she notices the browser history has twenty porn sites on it. What should be the teacher’s recommendation about using this location for fall semester? Is this a good place to bring students?
Don’t those places have security and cameras? Whose idea was it to have a class so late in the back of a center? Can’t the teacher carry a firearm or learn a martial art? What if the man has no wife or has a lot of tension? Is the guy an nice person (not insane, etc.)
No, Animist, no security. This is a run-down poor community and the place is used for people to apply for city programs. The class is late at night because people work during the day. The teachers try to have other jobs too since they don’t get health insurance and they can’t work more than 25 hours a week. They have the class there to try to serve the community and give people a better future. I have never seen the porno guy myself and don’t know anything personally about the situation, but I am being asked advice about where to have the class.
This sounds to me like a potentially threatening situation, but the other posters here say I’m irrational and puritanical.
I think that the point of their arguments is that porn itself doesn’t create a sex-ravenous person, but that it may just be a offshoot of such a problem. Porn combined with other problems may be very serious, but if it’s just porn, it’s just a love of masturbation. I’m probably not the best person to ask, though. In this post I just tried to summarize what the others said for easy reference.
http://www.irregulartimes.com/fatherdaughter.html
Anyone find this disturbing?
So my choices are either that a)this guy has a sex problem that may or may not manifest itself with me or my students or B) the guy is masturbating at work and is all hot and bothered while me and my students will be trying to concentrate on the lesson.
As a rule I do not let students find out where I live ever since a friend of mine had some problems and had to move. If I am being dropped off, I have someone drop me at the corner and walk the half block. You can bet he would be able to find out where I live–it’s right across the street, probably my door is in complete view of his little computer. I have already tentatively refused this class for fall semester.
The two things I find most disturbing about the thing you link to, Animist, is first that the person who wrote it did not see fit to sign their name and second that they did not provide a link to whatever they are talking about. The writers here do not have personal experience with religion and frequently misinterpret what is going on or intentionally misinterpret religion in order to be sarcastic. I would not pay any serious attention to it; it’s probably just filler to help their google mojo ranking and increase their sales.
I personally think ideas that oppressing “sexual freedom” is ok, is a rather scary idea. When the gov. can tell me what and what I can’t do(or look at)(sexually) I think it’s become too intrusive. I say Romney should keep his ideas out of my bedroom and personal life. Also I think people need to stop trying to control other peoples liberties based on thier own religiously motivated oppinions, I’m not saying they can have oppions and express that, but when they try to take my rights away based on what they think is best, they’ve gone too far.
On the last post when I said “I’m not saying they can have oppions and express that” I mean’t can’t. I’m all for people having having the right to thier own oppinions.
Well, dearie me, “Iroquois,” but although I didn’t write that, it’s hardly bullshit — a quick searchie-poo shows it to be accurate. It’s a real phenomenon.
Funny, you didn’t sign YOUR name to your comment.
Sorry we’re so sarcastic about religion, and the the idiocies of religion make you so uncomfortable. From now on, we’ll write just nice things about how nice religion is. No, no I’m not, and no, no I won’t. See how sarcastic we are? Think about it — if we had wanted to tailor our writing to sell crap, we would have been praising George W. Bush in 2002, and we would be writing cutesy little odes to our guardian angels, since the number of religious people in America dwarfs the number of people who think religion is a problem.
Well, Leapin’ Lizards, “Jim”, I guess I already knew you didn’t write it if it wasn’t sourced.
Funny that someone whose job doesn’t prohibit political expression would still choose not to blog with his real name.
The piece is indeed tailored and contains quite a few major inaccuracies. I would recommend that anyone who is genuinely interested in the subject should follow “Jim’s” linkie-poo and read the original article, which is quite startling enough when presented without distortion.
Maybe not the back of the center?
Jim is a nickname for James.
My name is James Matthew Cook.
I live at 1287 Hunter Avenue, Columbus, Ohio, Zip Code 43201.
I don’t see any inaccuracies. You haven’t cited any. Stop playing games.
I rather thought the address would come next, “Jim-a-nickname-for-James”.
But “stop playing games”? What’s with that little snark? Is our truce over? In that case, stop beating your wife.
Signed,
Iroquois
Come on now, let’s get back on track. So, maybe not the back of the center? Is there a more suitable place near the front, preferably with windows and light?
What on earth are you talking about, Animist?
You have indeed recognized one of Jim’s little tricks. When he runs into something that can’t be defended with reason, he starts blowing smoke to distract everyone away from the question he can’t answer.
The best thing to do is to read it for yourself and not depend on someone else to tell you what it says.
The writeup will tell you there is a priest in the story. Where is the priest? Are the people in the story Roman Catholics or are they something else? What religion do they belong to?
The writeup will tell you there are marriages in the story, but are there? People are signing something, but what are they signing and more importantly, what does it mean to them?
The writeup leads you to believe the girls are dressed “like brides”. But what are they wearing? How is this different from a prom, a coming out party, or a quinceaneros?
And the most important thing of all was not even mentioned by either the glamour magazine or the unknown writer. The girls are being taught that the most important thing in life is to be pretty because then daddy will love them. Where is the recognition for scholastic achievement, for true accomplishment? I know for a fact Jim is married to a very intelligent woman, so you can’t tell me all guys prefer dumb wives. But nobody picked up on that in the magazine article. They’re all freaking out over some dumb abstinence-based sex education going on at the function, which we all know doesn’t work, but we all know it goes on anyhow.
So Jim, I realize one of your friends wrote this, and loyalty is a wonderful thing, but don’t lie to children. Tell Animist the truth–that sometimes when people write they exaggerate in order to be funny or to make a point.
And how, exactly, am I “playing games”?
No.
1. The “writeup” doesn’t say that they are called marriages. Indeed, it explicitly states that they are not called marriages by the people who perform in them.
2. “during which the fathers dance with their daughters wearing the kind of formal attire typical of a wedding” is the language used in the “writeup” — and I’ve looked at more pictures, and they are. The “writeup” does not claim the daughters are in wedding dresses.
3. You have questions that aren’t answered by one source, which does not mean that the answers aren’t out there. Look for them.
4. I write under my name. You don’t write under yours.
5. You don’t know my wife. And I don’t beat her. “Games.”
There are no lies. You’re not being careful, and then you’re making assertions, and then you’re calling the disconnect “lies.”
Please stop this escalation.
Yes.
1. The writeup calls them marriages four times. It’s even in the title: “Fathers marry daughters in right wing rituals of sexual control”.
2. The father in the photo is wearing a black tux, the daughter is wearing a black lace gown with spaghetti straps. No one wears a tux to a wedding–that’s for proms. And certainly no one wears black to their own wedding.
3. The assertions in the piece are not born out by the article. Clearly the writer is overstating the case in order to make a point.
4. I bet you can’t name three people who call you “Jim”. No, it’s not your name. The other Irregulartimes writers don’t use their real names either. Why don’t you harass them. It doesn’t matter if your name is Leroy, the piece is still indefensible as a straight rant. If you want to defend it you’re going to have to recognize it as sarcasm or satire.
5. Your wife has chosen to make her opinions public by writing articles on this forum. I have read some of them, and she is indeed intelligent and educated. I don’t see any problem with recognizing that. Don’t worry, I’m not going to try to marry her.
I did not say there were “lies”. Do not put words in my mouth.
I think you are starting to understand that when you tell me “stop playing games” that is indeed a “when did you stop beating your wife” kind of statement.
If you want to disagree with my opinions, that is one thing. But that is not what you wrote. You wrote “stop playing games.” Either tell me what “games” I am playing, or stop your flame war.
And stop wasting my time.
The article is straight up about its contentions about marriages.
I wore a black tux to my own wedding, as did a number of others.
I can name loads of people who have called me “Jim.”
I’m not flaming you. I’m disagreeing with you, and you’re flying off the handle with really odd statements. Please stop.
Oh, if you are just disagreeing, that is a completely different matter.
I will consider the hatchet to be re-buried.
I did indeed wear white at my wedding, but without signing any abstinance pledges. If I marry again, I will consider black lace, and you will be invited.
As a matter of curiosity, pledges aren’t something new. Remember the phrase “take the pledge” as a metaphor for giving up alcohol? There used to be a real pledge and some elderly ladies from the Temperance Union (yes, it really existed!) who went around talking to groups of schoolchildren about the demon rum and the dangers of swearing.
This was the pledge:
I promise not to buy, sell, or give
Alcoholic beverages while I live
From all tobacco I abstain
And never take God’s name in vain.
Mind you they didn’t control the complete moral climate of the town, they were just one more interesting (and somewhat archaic) phenomenon floating through.
Wait a minute. Odd statements? Up there in post number 37: “you’re flying off the handle with really odd statements.” What on earth is that supposed to mean? Oh, it’s just more posturing, right?