Announcement

**VonWeiner** · 01-27-2004, 08:58 PM

Hmmmm

can't see the article and not sure which NPR thingee is relevant. sry.

What's up bro?

Someone trying to take away our porn?

Ashcroft up to his old tricks again?

**Anonymous** · 01-27-2004, 09:34 PM

Hello,

If you didn't see anything you must not have a subscription to the New York Times. You can get a free one by just typing in a few generic things, and then you'll be able to read the subject.

The NPR subject would be the interview with Peter Landesman. I apologize if the connection between the writer of the article for the NEW YORK TIMES and him being interviewed on NPR was not clear.

No, this has nothing to do with freedom of speach/press issues. The article and interview is about child sex slavery in the United States and the tens of thousands of childern being raped hourly, beaten and murdered.

Serious stuff. The NPR interview made me sick.

**VonWeiner** · 01-28-2004, 05:45 AM

whoa

Whoa,

That sounds horrible. I'll check it out. I've got three kids of my own so it will be painful to read, I'm sure.

If only we could cast these monsters on Elric's sword...

**Michael Moorcock** · 01-28-2004, 09:29 AM

I have written extensively on pornography, especially that which exploits women and children, and I have strong feelings about it, seeing it as a form of propaganda used in much the same way that racial propaganda has been used in the past to dehumanise black people and Jews. Anyone interested can find articles by me in, for instance, Casablanca and in a book published by OUP a few years ago called The Case Against Pornography. You'll also find some reference in my long essay The Retreat from Liberty. It's interesting how in a 'free market' porn proliferates. When Yugoslavia was originally liberated from communism it was suddenly flooded with home-produced porn and all the paper previously used for literature disappeared -- simple economics. I'm wary of phrases like 'taking away our porn' because I understand the deep connection people make between it and their sexuality, especially their sexual pleasure, but I happen to believe we can enjoy even better sex if we DON'T have porn around. It has fetishised and vulgarised much of what was once exquisite and has produced, at very least, a
nation where little girls now believe that fellatio isn't as serious as
kissing (cf many studies, TV programmes and so forth). Some studies also show that introducing porn into a community brutalises and makes more violent that community. That's part of the case against porn.
I'm not about to get into a discussion about wht is 'eroticism' and what is 'porn' but for me pornography is that which degrades and dehumanises human beings, objectifying them as sex objects or diminishing them as feeling, sentient people.

**dlackey** · 01-28-2004, 09:34 AM

There should be harsh penalties for this kind of crap. Like castration. People who exploit children are lower than the lowest amoeba. I feel ill thinking about it...

**Michael Moorcock** · 01-28-2004, 09:56 AM

I've known quite a few people involved in all this stuff and they pretty much all agree that castration doesn't actually stop the criminals. It's more to do with power than sex and there are deep drives causing it which are triggered by pornography but probably never actually 'caused' by pornography. I know one guy who counsels the criminals and he says that often only medication or some form of restriction (imprisonment, tagging, house-arrest, whatever) ever seems to work.
Castrated criminals will often commit further crimes. I do believe that someone who robs another individual of their life, as it were, should be
punished accordingly and that the sentences are often inappropriately short or mild, but we also have to be careful not to punish the genuinely remorseful. There are several cases, as perhaps you know, where sex criminals who have NOT repeated crimes have been murdered by people who have focussed all their hatred on them. It's a complicated issue and one which needs serious attention but, as I say, castration often only makes them worse -- i.e. they are even more liable to try to get power over a weaker individual.

**dlackey** · 01-28-2004, 10:09 AM

I know, I didn't really mean it, but the whole thing pissed me off.

I'm thinking Elric would have castrated them and then forced them to consume their own privates!!!

**VonWeiner** · 01-28-2004, 08:42 PM

Hmmm

My statement "taking away our porn" was in relation to Ashcroft and/or certain republicans who seem bent on driving their sense of morality down other's throats. It doesn't seem motivated by a concern for the portrayal of human sexuality, but a need to bring their puritanical beliefs into every American's home.

I am, actually, a bit old for the stuff (or a bit jaded!). I never "understood" a lot of it - the attraction for some. Especially nowadays. With the internet, you can see all kinds of craziness. Some sites are very disturbing. I even get them in my hotmail account (I never give out my "home" one) - yesterday it was a beastiality site. I sent them back an email and told them "No, I never want to see Michelle ride the 'horse'".

I am not saying this to be funny. That I can get this unsolicited in my email is deplorable. I know it's just an email-blast type program that hits anything@hotmail.com, thus impossible to block unless you only accept from known contacts (but then I couldn't get email from any of you

).

I think if people like to watch pornography(not child; not animal; etc...) it is fine with me, but as for its affects on society as a whole I don't know the answer.

**Shaeve** · 01-28-2004, 10:04 PM

Unfortunately,

I believe the boundaries of what is normal and what is not are allways being diminished/increased.

In our modern day society it is difficult to draw the line as what we believe is unacceptable today will in 10 years will be the norm..

i am not saying I think pornography is fine but again as MM says what is pornography and what is eroticism, one says this another says that .

I am in the camp that says if you molest a child that castration is a perfectly acceptable punishment...but then again is having a child out of wedlock gross enough a crime to be stoned to death.

everything changes. points of view change and perception changes.

What can we expect as "normal" people will be the state of affairs in 50 years

S

**geemarcus** · 01-29-2004, 01:17 AM

Originally posted by Shaeve

I am in the camp that says if you molest a child that castration is a perfectly acceptable punishment...but then again is having a child out of wedlock gross enough a crime to be stoned to death.

everything changes. points of view change and perception changes.

What can we expect as "normal" people will be the state of affairs in 50 years

Wow. Did you just imply that in fifty years child molest might be considered acceptable? Wow.

Actually, I guess the implication is that castration may no longer be considered an acceptable punishment for it?

**Anonymous** · 01-29-2004, 05:37 AM

Comment

"My statement "taking away our porn" was in relation to Ashcroft and/or certain republicans who seem bent on driving their sense of morality down other's throats. It doesn't seem motivated by a concern for the portrayal of human sexuality, but a need to bring their puritanical beliefs into every American's home."

Not to create an argument where none exists, but probably the biggest proponents of censorship in the political arena today are Al Gore (and his wife Tipper) and Joe Leiberman. Both, um, Democrats. Leiberman particularly likes to make a huge point of the "filth" on our televisions today. Apparently, his television doesn't have an "off" button.

I still think it hilarious that Tipper's PMRC group required a sticker on the Frank Zappa album "Jazz From Hell" for offensive lyrics. Quite a slight on ol' Frank since the album was an instrumental album...

**geemarcus** · 01-29-2004, 05:44 AM

Re: Jazz from hell

Speaking as a Zappa fanatic who has nearly 100 Zappa CD's, I can am quite certain that Frank NEVER consented to the parental advisory stickers. They are put on only at the record companies option, not required by law. Perhaps what you saw was the Warning/Guarantee that appeared on most of his CDs around that time:

WARNING/GUARANTEE

This album contains material which a truly free
society would neither fear nor suppress.
In some socially retarded areas, religious fanatics
and Ultraconservative political organizations violate
your First Amendment Rights by attempting to censor
rock & roll albums.
We feel that this is un-Constitutional and un-American.

As an alternative to these government-supported programs
(designed to keep you docile and ignorant),
Barking Pumpkin is pleased to provide stimulating
digital audio entertainment for those of you
who have outgrown the ordinary.

The language and concepts contained herein are
GUARANTEED NOT TO CAUSE ETERNAL
TORMENT IN THE PLACE WHERE THE GUY
WITH THE HORNS AND THE POINTED STICK
CONDUCTS HIS BUSINESS.

This guarantee is as real as the threats of the video
fundamentalists who use attacks on rock music
in their attempt to transform America
into a nation of check-mailing nincompoops
(in the name of Jesus Christ).
If there is a hell, its fires wait for them, not us.

**VonWeiner** · 01-29-2004, 06:16 AM

Thanks

Thx for the info Bill. Hadn't thought of them. Lieberman is a Putz. But hey didn't Al Gore invent the internet? :lol:

It is true that when thinking of the "morality police" I often picture Republicans (I'm guilty), but it is on both sides of the isle.

Thanks for pointing it out.

When will my gov't just worry about running the country and not my life?

Ahhh, I just need to build a cabin by a lake in the woods, maybe grow some beans...

**Anonymous** · 01-29-2004, 08:30 AM

I don't know if the label went on the CD, but I know the PMRC targeted him. Frank was a character.

Announcement

Welcome to Moorcock's Miscellany

Please consider...

Please consider...

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment