Sex Week at Yale begins
What’s going on this week at one of America’s most prestigious institutions of higher learning? Why, it’s Sex Week, of course!
Yale undergrad Jake McGuire sends e-mails:
The biannual “Sex Week at Yale” began today at Yale University, and will continue through next Monday. The Yale Free Press, Yale’s only conservative student publication, will be covering the week’s events on our blog. Expect pictures, interviews, and student reactions to an event which won a Campus Outrage Award from the Collegiate Network for the YFP’s reporting in 2004.
The schedule for Sex Week can be found at http://www.sexweekatyale.com/schedule.htm. Saturday, February 16 will be the culmination of events and our week’s reporting with a pornographic film screening and panel discussion with Vivid Entertainment porn actresses Monique Alexander, Savanna Samson, and director Paul Thomas, followed by the “Skull and Boned” party with a dress-like-your-favorite-porn-star contest…
Best,
Jake McGuire ‘10
Yale University
Former Editor-in-Chief, Yale Free Press
Gail Dines adds a critique from the left in today’s Hartford Courant:
The real story of porn, one which looks nothing like the chic media image, will be well hidden next week at Yale. The student organizers have invited mainly representatives from the porn industry and their supporters, with the only voice of opposition being XXX Church pastor Craig Gross.
Missing are the voices of women who have left the industry after being brutalized and exploited, for whom a college education, let alone at an Ivy, is unaffordable and almost unimaginable.
Also missing is the anti-pornography feminist voice, which sees pornography as sexist, violent and harmful to women. After 30 years of researching the industry, the business practices of the pornographers, and the effects on women and men, we anti-porn feminists are “disappeared” from the debate.
Two years ago I spoke on a pornography panel at Yale Law School. Of the six people invited, I was the only speaker to criticize the porn industry, with the others either being pornographers, or bar one, so pro-porn, they might as well have been industry representatives. After the panel, some students came up to me to express their disgust with the way the panel had been organized, and how they felt cheated out of a thoughtful dialogue.
“Thoughtful dialogue?” Not much of that going on at university campuses these days.
***
Here’s a message from the “director” of Sex Week at Yale:
A LETTER FROM THE DIRECTOR
Sex Week is an interdisciplinary sex education program designed to pique students’ interest through creative, interactive, and exciting programming. In February 2008, renowned professionals from a wide variety of industries, from models and television stars to professors and relationship specialists, will convene at Yale University to challenge students’ conceptions of sex and sexuality and question the way sex is presented in our society.
Sex Week explores love, sex, intimacy and relationships by focusing on how sexuality is manifested in America, helping students to reconcile these issues in their own lives. We strive to get beyond the awkwardness, the discomfort, and the taboo of conventional sex education programs by treating sexual behavior as the reality it is, not as it has been portrayed. Through debates, seminars, fashion shows, concerts, and discussions, students are given the chance to interact formally and informally with professionals who deal with these issues every day, so they can learn about sexuality from those who are responsible for shaping it. Relationship therapists offer advice on all aspects of relationships. Media executives discuss sex in advertising. Court judges explain the still-controversial ruling that protects pornography as a freedom of speech. And porn stars comment on the reality of pornography in America. Sex Week covers sex and sexuality from the most practical aspects to the more personal facets, and everything in between.
There is no ideology behind Sex Week. Its mission is simple: present students with a range of perspectives about sexuality to get them talking, so that they can begin to reconcile serious issues of love, sex, and relationships in their lives. Let the discussion begin.
Joseph Citarrella
Director
And a sample from the schedule:
Tuesday, February 12
WHAT A GIRL WANTS
Logan Levkoff
The Female Orgasm
4pm, LC 102
Patty Brisben, founder & CEO, Pure Romance, Inc.
Everything You’ve Always Wanted to Know about Sex*
(and sex toys!)
Free Pure Romance product giveaways!
*100 FREE tickets to the Great Porn Debate on 2/15 (see below) will be available.
First come, first serve.
Wednesday, February 13
SEDUCTION
Matador, from VH1’s The Pick-Up Artist
Seduction: How to get the girl you’ve always wanted*
*100 FREE tickets to the Great Porn Debate on 2/15 (see below) will be available.
First come, first serve.
4:30pm, LC 102
Mystery, from VH1’s The Pick-Up Artist
The Mystery Method: Ladies want him, guys want to be him.
7:30pm, SSS 114
Friday, February 15
The Sex Week at Yale Fashion & Lingerie Show
AIDS Awareness Benefit, $5 suggested donation.
All proceeds will be donated to various AIDS research
and awareness organizations
Business attire requested
Cocktail hour, 6pm.
Show starts 7pm.
LoRicco Ballroom
216 Crown St.
Ron Jeremy & Vivid Girl Monique Alexander vs.
Craig Gross & Donnie Pauling
The Great Porn Debate*
Moderated and televised by Nightline ABC, with host Martin Bashir
*SEATING LIMITED. Be sure to get your seats early at the Patty Brisben or Matador events. 8:30pm, LoRicco Ballroom
216 Crown St.
Saturday, February 16
VIVID DAY
Steven Hirsch, co-founder and co-chairman of Vivid Entertainment
The Business of Pornography: How Vivid made it mainstream*
4:30pm, WLH 119
Vivid Girls Monique Alexander & Savanna Samson, with acclaimed director Paul Thomas
Panel discussion and Q&A with Vivid’s adult superstars
Yes, there will be a screening. 7:30pm, Law School Auditorium
Skull & Boned Party @ The TOAD*
Featuring: The Who Looks Most Like a Vivid Girl contest!
With judges Paul Thomas, Monique Alexander, and Savanna Samson!
*Free Vivid DVD at the door
See what others have said
Note from Michelle: This section is for comments from michellemalkin.com's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that I agree with or endorse any particular comment just because I let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with my terms of use may lose his or her posting privilege.
Trackbacks
- discarded lies - hyperlinkopotamus
- Never Yet Melted » Sex Week at Yale (yawn!)
- IB Years » Blog Archive » Happy V-Day!
- Michelle Malkin » Move over, Jose Serrano and Karen Finley: Here comes blood-smearing Yale art student Aliza Shvarts
Comments
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Categories: Education
Big Government
» BREAKING: San Diego ACORN Document Dump Scandal
Big Government
» Why Isn’t Anyone Really Investigating ACORN?Big Government
» ACORN Scandal, Part 2: The Evidentiary PhaseMudville Gazette
» War costs money (2)Green Room
» Going Un-Framed?Mudville Gazette
» Surrender, he whisperedPundit & Pundette
» The rebirth of Rom Houben
Pervert.
…And Soap, you can add this one to the equation:
And we are back to no personal responsibility.
Hasn’t Yale really missed out here? Why no “Sex with Interns While Running the Free World” seminars with Alum Bill himself? Or a “Fighting Global Warming with Icy Stares in the Bedroom” seminar with Alum Hill?
How the school will be able to determine whether or not the students actually use birth control is beyond me… Oh wait.
30,
I love the “An unwanted child”. There are NO unwanted children just unwanted pregnancies. All children are wanted by someone. We just took in 7 more “unwanted” girls!
*Pffffffft*
There went my soft drink all over my desk calendar! ROFLMAO
englishqueen01 (#92) Once again, brilliant point.
Soap,
Exactly. People want to live a consequence free life and when they find out there is no such thing their whole world is turned upside down.
Joseph Citarella didn’t put that in his letter. It’s all just fun and games.
box, you calling one of my comments “dumb” is the height of irony. You’re about the most vacuous individual on this site.
Here’s my position: I don’t care. Libertarian view (think Neal Boortz) on the subject of personal choices made by consenting adults. Individual freedom to live your life free of governmental interference or the self-righteous moral sermonizing of religious zealots.
And God Bless you Soap for the wonder work you are doing.
Do we have to think about Neal Boortz?
Excellent point. Sorry for using the phrase “unwanted children.”
Time to re-read Gov. Lamm’s essay again, on his plan to destroy America…
–Ken
Thanks
No one needs to learn about sex.
Consequences? yes.
Dogs, cats, skunks, elephants, do it and no one had to teach them.
Idiots.
cRusty: This is a know-nothing position you are promoting.
Drug addiction and alcoholism go hand in hand with the pornography industry.
Many of the “stars” might be “clean”. But for every “Vivid” mainstream “star” there are plenty who are either dead, strung out, or infected.
Also, the use of “paid sex-workers” is the same as the use of mules and soldiers to bring the drugs to market. Women and men are killed in that undertaking….and if it isnt physical death there is a psychic death that occurs for the sake of the masturbating public who cannot cultivate human relationships that include sexual intercourse and sensual communion with human beings.
The money in pornography is huge. And as far as the end users are concerned…. i will say this: there are two kinds of people in the world- those who don’t use pornography and those who need to.
And many who do “use pornography” do so with their civilized bottles of wine that they use to prove they aren’t alcoholics. Or who use their prescription drugs to prove they are not junkies.
And some just use pornography so they “feel better” (a little inferiorization goes a long way to turn the sexual function into a form of self-medication.)
The industry and use of pornography is part of a social narcissism complex that is based on addictive complulsions needed to substitute for the lack of spiritual meaning, compensate for the cynicism of liberal fascist rationalizations (cRusty’s philosophy), and material affluence.
Rationalizing smut as some kind of pragmatic approach to the social rot of dysfunction on college campuses is inane.
You are in over your head on this one (again).
Now what time is your next class, cRusty? Or are you an intern this semester.
All moral codes aside….
…. does anyone really believe that porn can teach people how to be romantic and anything remotely good their sexuality has got a serious screw loose.
and Rusty…
“Deal ” with sexuality…..don’t even know what to say about that one…..
Let’s try:
EQ, have you ever had sex without porn mags? Your comment suggests the answer to be no.
Congruent? I should say so – both being equally dumb.
No, it isn’t. It’s in the best interest of the student’s responsibility. That’s part of being an adult. It’s in the best interest of the college to inform these students of their choices, their responsibilities, and the consequences of their actions (for example, that sex – even protected sex – can lead to pregnancy or STDs). And even that’s pushing it – sexual behavior and consequences should be taught by parents, at home, long before colleges get involved.
Then they can make the fully informed decision to engage in behavior which may lead to undesired consequences.
Saying, “Well, if you don’t let college kids have access to birth control and sex seminars, they’re going to jack up your insurance rates or they’re going to have abortions” is emotional blackmail. Not paying for one’s medical treatment after contracting an STD or threatening to have (or actually having) an abortion just reaffirms the notion that these people are not adults capable of behaving accordingly, but rather overgrown adolescents.
The mentality that “they’re just going to do it anyway” or that the school needs to discourage irresponsibility is a slippery slope. If people want to be adults, they need to act like adults. Otherwise, they’re nothing more than perpetual adolescents who look to their colleges, their employers, and – eventually – the government to play Nanny and tell them what they can or cannot do.
If you turn over control for things like your birth control over to a governing body – any governing body – you’re essentially telling said body that they can make decisions for you because you either 1) aren’t capable of making decisions on your own or 2) can’t be bothered to take care of yourself.
Which naturally opens wide the door for that governing body to make even more decisions for you. And, eventually, someone is going to come into power in that governing body who decides she/he doesn’t like the status quo and enacts policies people aren’t going to like – policies that really restrict one’s behavior.
So…Gayle…
how do you really feel?
Oh. My. Sides.
That’s hilarious. Thanks for the laugh, Soap.
Bear and feebz back to back.
My day is made!
During my college days I found that not to many of the high dollar floozies that attended there were worth a damn in the sack. Give me a farmers daugter, in the hay mow any time. Maybe what those Eli girls need is a field trip down to the old cow pasture to get the idea, it would sure as hell be a lot cheaper,and be more educational than listening to a bunch of left wing loons trying to explain something they’ve probably never tried themselves’ and for those out there who worry about the gays not being included, never fear, about 20 years ago some research group figured out that about 15% of all sheep were homosexual, don’t ask me how they did it, but I swear they did get the data and published it, so now all the flighty boys will have a place to learn about the birds and bees too. Problem solved.
EQ,
Thank dakine for the ammo. It was too easy for me – it was not even a challenge for this “most vacuous individual”.
Hi BEAR!!!!!!!!!!
I’ve been wonderin’ where you’ve been!
Back to the topic……..
guess Rusty’s gone to watch his favorite Movie, “Rusty’s Busties”.
Right here layin low during all this election mess. Pahhhh- tooooieeee!
cRusty- he is so hip with all of his cosmopolitan views on smut, gay sex, hate crimes; u name it, and cRusty has some weary dreck to splash about with.
Keep it comin’, Gayle!
First of all, it is pathetic that 20-somethings need any education in sex “how-to’s.”
If these kids have chosen to be active, there are far, far better ways to learn than “the academic” way. What a bunch of pathetic geeks.
If we want serious discourse (insert hysterical laughter here) then, yes, they would also be offered discussions on celibacy. There would be truth in the “great porn debate” about how many people are exploited, how drugs fuel a lot of it, etc.
BUT, they would also learn what a lot of people know: there are a lot of amateur porn stars and wannabes who (a) turn out all kinds of videos, (b) enjoy it, and (c) profit by it.
Some grow up to regret it. Madonna’s book “Sex” will be fun to explain to her kids, and that’s mild compared to some of these other pieces.
Others don’t regret it, now or ever.
If we want a debate (insert even more hysterical laughter) here at Yale, then let’s have a debate.
This isn’t a debate. It’s a pathetic attempt to titillate kids who were too busy studying to get into Yale during High School to learn what they now are looking for.
Why even pay attention to this, beyond telling yourself “my kids ain’t going there.”
What a bunch of LOSERs Yale must let in.
My cousin goes to Yale. To think her folks are paying a fortune for this sort of nonsense.
This sort of “Culture Of The Groin” stuff is becoming all of the rage on campuses where the administrators are acting like the Cool Moms who hang out with their kids’ friends and buy them pot, and the student government geeks are trying to buy popularity through these distracting circuses. The more bizarre, the better. As though this generation of young people isn’t getting bombarded with enough sex already.
What’s truly disturbing is how hardcore porn, not the Playboy stuff, is often celebrated at these campus events as mainstream and liberating. Jenna Jameson is held up as a role model. If there’s any agreement I have with feminists like Catharine MacKinnon, it’s on how the sex trade exploits and objectifies women. Morever, it exploits and objectifies men as well. In porn, everyone is reduced to a commodity of body parts. Because it is so accessible these days, more men are becoming addicted to porn and are unable to form or maintain relationships with a woman in real life. Marriages have been destroyed because of it.
If you want your kids to get a solid education these days without the baloney, you’re going to have to consider schools like Patrick Henry, Hillsdale College, or Ave Maria University. Or a school with solid religious principles like Catholic University or Brigham Young University.
My cosmopolitan views? I don’t even know why I bother talking to someone who thinks messing around with someone’s name is the height of discourse, but here goes:
??? I’m sure drug use is higher in the pornography industry when compared to the rest of American society. The same can be said of investment bankers.
And college goes hand in hand with alcoholism too. More so than pornography I’m sure.
Name them. Also, this can be said for every industry in the world. Sexual infections are rarer in pornography than in the general population.
A psychic death. Are you out of your gourd? And I really hate it when people equate consuming pornography with not being able to cultivate a human sexual/sensual relationship. There are millions upon millions of healthy relationships. Yet pornography remains a multi-billion dollar industry. Maybe you should give pornography consumers a little more credit.
Or those who use pornography and don’t need it. AKA: most people.
I love beer. And bourbon. And Bloody Marys. Doesn’t make me an alcoholic.
Your argument is that using pornography automatically means you’re addicted. As you said, there are those who don’t see it and those that need to see it.
This argument is laughable and you have to know why. Just because someone has a drink occasionally doesn’t make them an alcoholic. You must be quite the teetotaler to have such a black/white view of things.
No. I’m saying pornography is a part of enough people’s sexuality that it no longer can be considered shameful. It should be discussed. Which is what Yale is doing. With optional attendance of course.
Frankly, Bear, this might be the kind of thing you need to see. Maybe hearing from two adult stars will show you that they aren’t facing psychic deaths.
Not to mention pornography is only one part of Sex Week. There’s also Dr. Ruth, an orgasm and sex toy class, and, the only part I find to be debasing, some morons from vh-1 talking about talking to girls.
You, and some others here, might benefit from reading this interview with adult star Nina Hartley from the Onion AV Club. Hartley has been in the industry for 20 years and she is both complimentrary and critical of it.
At the very least, Bear, it will show you that the sex industry isn’t nearly as horrible as you make it out to be.
I mean, psychic deaths! Hahahahaha.
So if murder becomes part of people’s sexuality, will we have to stop considering murder a crime, too?
Just because something’s “popular” doesn’t make it appropriate for the public sphere.
Porn Troll
Most porn stars, females in particular, were sexually molested or abused when they were younger.
That is a fact.
There is a history of drug/alcohol abuse amoung porn stars. They intoxicate so they can function.
I look at it as a sickness.
There is NOTHING healthy about the porn industry.
For a few young boys, immature men, and even some women, you’ve seen one you’ve seen them all. It is exploitation, plain and simple.
If you have to learn about sex from Dr. Ruth or porno, then you apparently have issues that most of us care to not discuss in detail on this site.
Is it? Prove it.
Seems more like a lie to me.
Murder is a crime. Pornography is not a crime. Showing explicit material on a private campus is also not a crime. It’s fine if you’re against the last two. But the people who support the last two, they aren’t doing anything wrong either.
greenfairie #127 – “Jenna Jameson is held up as a role model.”
Interesting factoid, William Morrow, the publishers that brought us Jenna Jameson’s 2004 book, “How to Make Love Like a Porn Star”, is owned by News Corp, parent company of none other than Fox News.
Box, you really aren’t very bright are you? My 5 year old would’ve picked up on my original point about EQ knowing nothing about Yale, but being more than willing to generalize as to what goes on there. BTW, your use of the word “congruent” was a nice try, but imprecise.
On Topic: why do so many of you care so much about what other consenting adults do in their private lives? It’s really pretty disturbing.
dakine (#134) The thing is, they’re taking things that belong in one’s private life and making a very public display of it on a college campus.
So many places to go with this analogy.
How about the dumbing down of our schools – just on the high school level? Since it seems to be part of so many people’s lives we should not be ashamed about what we are doing to our kids?
If enough people get rich stealing from grandma, shouldn’t we all get rich from doing it? I mean, fair is fair and it is my right no matter the effect on the public.
So, if enough people act like animals, we should just throw all caution to the wind and rely on the universities to “fix” the problem?
So, if I just throw out my conscience, I can do what ever I want in the name of – it’s my life, bug off?
I think I am going to like the new me!
Funny how the only “animal” that acts this way is the human.
/ “most vacuous individual” sarc off
P.S. I like my new title! I have never been the most anything!
When they bring it into the public sphere, dakine, it’s no longer a private matter between two consenting adults. When they expect the public to pay for their birth control, it’s no longer a private matter.
You know for a fact EQ knows nothing about Yale? Your 5yo could teach you something 5watt.
As I said earlier, this discussion is not about the rare non-publc leafing through a skin mag or rare non-public viewing of a skin flick.
It is about the extreme, out-of-control form of the above, much as drunkenness and alcoholism are the extreme, out-of-control form of social drinking, or having wine, or a beer or two, with meals;
or much as losing one’s life savings due to a gambling addiction is the extreme of the monthly nickle-and-dime poker game with friends, or the biweekly Bingo night.
It is about how a particular, societally/culturally parasitic worldview celebrates and promotes extreme voyeurism and extreme exhibitionism, pure and simple – as the saying goes…”their vehement protestations to the contrary notwithstanding”.
And, it is about how they give the rest of us the finger when we voice our concerns about what addiction to pornography, and voyeurism and exhibitionism, will do to our children, and to our society, and to our culture.
This is what you consider beneficial reading? Is it the part where
1. She talks about doing over 1000 sex scenes
2. Complains because the government has regulations in place that prevent them from hiring minors
3. Mentions that minors frequently manage to circumvent those rules.
4. Talks about how underpaid they are with no security, benefits or stability
5. Discusses how your family inevitably finds out and the strain it causes
6. Reveals (suprise!) that lots of sleazy people work in the industry
7. Warns that many people have regrets 10 or 20 years down the road.
Looks like a great career option to me. Maybe Yale will allow recruiters on campus at graduation time. Just imagine how proud Mom and Dad will be!
jsr,
How dare you use a link provided to prove YOUR point.
Soap – I can’t help it. Liberal make it too easy at times.
LOL – no kidding!
Just because I didn’t go to Yale, or know someone who did, doesn’t disqualify me from having an opinion.
Soap was right. Asking me if I’m “qualified” to discuss this based on what I know about Yale is just as asinine as judging whether or not I’m qualified to talk about sex based on whether or not I read/watch pornography.
As I said above – if Yale students receive any form of federal financial aid, my tax dollars (however minimal) are going to support this “educational” week of seminars and porno flicks.
That qualifies me to offer my opinion – not my intrinsic knowledge of Yale.
I doubt you, dakine, are 100% knowledgable on every topic ever discussed here yet I don’t see anyone asking whether or not you’re qualified to discuss this topic.
JSR, I linked to that article for precisely that purpose. She has plenty of very valid complaints. Yet she still defends the industry and claims to have a happy marriage. She isn’t dead on the inside like Bear would have you believe. She wasn’t molested like Gayle would have you believe.
And my point is that the extreme out-of-control pornography viewer is incredibly rare. People are writing this off as something immediately addicting. That is patently false.
I didn’t see anyone call porn “immediately addicting.” But to argue that it is not seriously addictive is naive and misguided at best.
Is she the exception or the rule?
EQ,
You going for my title? YOU CAN’T HAVE IT!!!
Dakine: simple answer- because those consenting adults have money and power to influence my own child’s life in a way that i prefer they did not. Read the “Pornification” chapter of L. Ingraham’s book for the more sophisticated answer.
#146 On February 11th, 2008 at 4:09 pm, RaisedRight said:
“I didn’t see anyone call porn “immediately addicting.” But to argue that it is not seriously addictive is naive and misguided at best.”
Thank you, RaisedRight.
I also tried to find “immediately” somewhere; but, I also was unsuccessful.
Another attempt by the opposite worldview to sneak in a straw man exposed!
Kudos to you!
If he/she’s in college, then he/she is an adult who can do whatever they want. Unless you decide to pull your tuition at a top-3 school over his/her attendance at an AIDS fundraiser. But what would be a little Draconian, would it not?
RaisedRight is on the ball!
Straw man meet pitchfork!
I quote Bear:
Well, a need like that implies an addiction. Since it’s either you don’t use it or you need to use it, yes, that means “immediately addicting.”
Woo Hoo, I’m on fire today! Thanks granite and Soap.
(Well, Rusty and dakine do make it easy.)
It is about an Aids fund raier!
ROFL Good on.
I am sure the college students are not there for the free porn.
Like Miller Beer showing up with free beer and trying to sell the idea they are doing a fund raiser for MADD. Yep, the crowds at college will be there for the lecture!
HAHHHHAAAAAAAHHHAAAAA
Good one.
Rusty, I think you’re reaching. But, since I know Bear can stand on his own to paws, I will leave it at that.
cRusty- it’s all in good fun. And as you will see over the next hour or so, it is fun to poke holes in your rejoinders to me.
Do you think before you write? Or is that next semester?
Anyways, I know why you bother talking to me. You need to.
#147 On February 11th, 2008 at 4:09 pm, On-my-soap-box said:
“Is she the exception or the rule?”
Precisely, soap.
Another typical, very weak “debating” tactic of the opposite worldview – overgeneralization…in fact, extreme (there’s that word again) overgeneralization.
By their logic, we don’t need to wear parachutes, or to be careful when we are on ladders or on scaffolding; since there are (rare, I believe) reports of individuals surviving a fall out of an airplane without a parachute, or of surviving a three-story fall from a ladder.
And, how can we forget the: “My Aunt Bessie smoked four packs of cigarettes a day for 85 years and was healthy and strong all her life until she died at 98!”
I don’t know about the rest of you; but, I’m not going to take any leaps off scaffolding, let alone out of airplanes without a ‘chute.
Nor am I going to take up ueberheavy smoking.
ROFL Bear – you.da.Bear
Rusty, something you and other liberals need to learn: he who holds the purse strings makes the rules. This applies from government (in things like socialized medicine) on downward. The person who pays gets to decide what he/she is willing to pay for.
Now I – as a parent – could decide to have strict rules or lax rules, but if I’m dropping $30 or $40k/year to send my child to school, they’re going to play by my rules…whether or not they’re adults. This is no different than parents expecting their children to receive good grades in exchange for that monthly tuition check.
If they don’t want to pay by my rules, then they – as adults – can find a way to pay for school.
And I don’t think a reasonable parent would deny their child going to an AIDS fundraiser. But that’s wholly different from going to a workshop on pornography, don’t you think?
To be honest, you’re right. I tried giving this site up after our hostess made some personal attacks at Ezra Klein during the whole S-CHIP debate. But here I am.
I assure you, this site is more addicting than pornography. I guess I like getting yelled at via the Internet.
And, EQ, I know he/she with the purse makes the rules. But if you’re not going to let your children live their own life, what’s the point of sending them off to college in the first place? Would you stop sending tuition if they converted to Islam, came out of the closet, or drank too much? I don’t mean to suggest you would. (Unlike others around these parts, I like debating with you and want to stay on your good side.) But it’s a hard line to draw.
Even the Amish, who I assume are slightly more socially conservative than the average Michelle Malkin reader, let their children have rumspringa. Would you really cut your kid’s future off at the knees to make a point over the female orgasm?
cRusty completely misses the point by saying:
Image: Bear1909 pitching beach balls to cRusty.
My poor cRusty. The post you are trying to respond to isn’t about rates of alcoholism or drug addiction.
The post is about an industry that is predicated on addictive behavior. And therefore, exploits addictive behavior and tendencies to generate revenue.
(I am curious though cRusty- why are you such a strident defender of the sex-for-money trade?)
Oh goodness Rusty. I have to ask you the same question as Bear. Do you think about what you write?
Dude, you are soooo out there.
BTW, “Is she (Nina Hartley) the exception or the rule?” needs an answer.
There are a few of us who want to know.
Wow!
Anyone else having trouble following the reasoning in #153?
First, I don’t recall seeing the word “immediately” in Bear’s post.
Second, I believe the “immediately addicting” straw man was created in order to supposedly belong to one of MY posts. (Sorry for the syntax in that sentence.)
Would the logic used in #153 qualify as, like the Steely Dan album title, “Pretzle Logic?”
Man, in high-school debating, I would have loved to have such opponents!
The link provided by Rusty seems to provide plenty of ammunition aainst the porn industry. This poor lady, despite giving a list of reasons to avoid getting involved in pornography like the plague, defends it because-what-she personally has money and fame and a currently happy marriage? What sort of logic is this?
Porn and romance? I doubt they are referring to chocolates and roses. Okay, there has to be a joke in there somewhere right?
Someone?
Please?
LOL WarTip. So many jokes, so little time!
Yup, duh-huh.
cRusty- the only gourd i own is used for ceremonial purposes. so yes, i am out of the gourd at the moment, keyboarding this to you.
but let me ask you some basic questions:
how many women have you helped heal from the impact of pornography viewing in their marriages by themselves or their spouses or both of them together?
How many kids have you helped recover from seeing things on a screen because some butthead forgot to put away their stuff and they saw it?
How many addicts have you worked with who were hurt by performing on camera for some “amateur” pornographer?
I am asking you these questions, cRusty, because are speaking about pronography as this neat and clean off the shelf “product” or “tool”- if that works for ya- like some good little consumer who does whatever he is told “isnt hurting anybody”. And he is being told by an “industry” that is hurting many people.
But of course, in your liberal fascist fantasy world, you get to pick and choose who is being harmed and who is not. You assign legitimacy by convenience.
Of course your moral relativism and investment banker theory dismisses any objections to your position.
As for the million upon millions of healthy relationships—
Well, cRusty, healthy is a relative term. What people do in their healthy bedrooms— if it involves porn, the therapists of today may sanction it and maybe even suggest it. But it doesn’t make it healthy if the sacred has to be taken and commodified in order for somebody to get aroused.
Call me crazy. Call me draconian. Call me a prude. Call me a tea totaler.
Call me whatever you need to. Paying for sex may be healthy to you. But it is a glaring red flag to some of us.
I see a multi-billion dollar industry of sex for money as “necessity”.
Do you need that spelled out?
And your term “pornography consumers”…what is that exactly? Are they paying money for sex?
Pornography consumers: “Hi, there! Roberta and I have been pornography consumers for 30 years. Boy oh Boy these pornography products just keep getting better and better. They are so good, we started a Pornography Consumer Protection Club in order to keep the quality up and getting better all the time. No low quality pornography! Keep it clean. Keep it healthy. But most of all keep it comin’ because we love our first ammendment rights to view it. It’s a family value, by God!”
A few people have compared porn to gambling. The big difference here is that politicians see loads of money for themselves in gambling and promote it no matter how addictive and destructive it is.
cRusty- Nina Hartley is a marketing shill for the industry. The liberal fascists hold her up as some kind of honest reliable source for an industry that has not moral compass.
She gives workshops here in the Bay Area.
Now she is helping to launder the image and increase sales for the industry.
cRusty- your just a lil pornohound and you’ve found a way to justify it.
You wouldn’t know the first thing about psychic death. And your “laughter” of derision is no more to me than the high school punks who mocked people who questioned what they had decided was okay for them to do. They didn’t survive.
So laugh all you want: pornography is not essential for my and my family’s survival. And there is danger in anything that preys on youth. Nor is it essential for the survival of our communities, schools, or any other things we hold dear to us.
jsr (#140), with the exception of #1 on your list, that pretty much describes every retail or service job in America.
Meanwhile, this has been a fairly fascinating debate. Stripping out the ad hominems has been a chore though.
I’m not convinced of the arguments against, but that could be because I don’t see where they’ve been clearly stated. Don’t take that as some sort of insult, rather it means that I don’t see the basis for the anti-Sex Week position. Is it religious? Is it based on some definitive morality? Is it because sex (or just porn) is dangerous?
Rusty posted in opposition to the tone of MM’s post, stating that these are adults and they should be given the benefit of the doubt. He made some other assertions that didn’t help his case, but at the core of his argument, I don’t see where he’s off base.
I’m inclined to be with Regulus (#4) on this one. The lineup of presenters and seminars is laughable.
Sexual mores are (and have been) in constant flux. Maybe they aren’t for anyone personally on this blog’s community, but they must be for someone. I cannot deny that things have changed since I was a young adult.
One assumes that these college kids are adults of some sort. They can choose to attend or to ignore or to protest. If they go, they can choose to be educated or titillated or both.
Our lamenting this sad state of affairs isn’t going to change a thing.
What would we change anyway? Make pornography illegal? Not allow a private college campus filled with adults to host a Sex Week?
One more time….
This is one of those things that, if it has to be explained to you…you’ll never, ever understand.
Oh, the unbridgable cosmic gulf between the worldviews. *sigh*
granite (#172)
That answer, attitude, and approach to the discussion doesn’t bode well for the growth and acceptance of conservative principles.
If you are dismissive there’s no chance to bridge the “cosmic gulf”.
Of course, if you’re saying that you’re views aren’t understandable, then I won’t press. (And I meant that last line to be read tongue in cheek, not mean-spirited.)
Disconnect:
College Republicans and their speakers are shouted off of a stage at an Ivy League institution.
Pornography Industry gets an expense paid venue at an Ivy League institution to teach love, romance, and healthy relationships.
What case needs to be made?
And why?
Who’s talking about banning anything on a college campus?
Let’s just not pretend that the freedom of expression swings both ways on our college campuses. No pun intended.
Assinine. I have a nine year old son. He is whom i am most concerned about. I have 4 nieces all under the age of thirteen.
The pornofication of the culture is what i am speaking about. The inclusion of the sex trade into the co-curricular programming on a college campus would be a concern to me too.
And as far as an 18-21 year old being “an adult”, cRusty, that is wishful thinking. Ask any campus professional involved in teaching that age group.
They are not all at adult level- not by a long shot. Check the rape stats, accidental death stats, alcohol related fatalities stats.
You know not of what you speak.
You’re too close to the issue, cRusty, and haven’t had to prove your mettle as a grown up yet.
Anyone who has had kids can see ya coming a million miles away.
Ya gotta love it when someone pokes a Bear with a stick. You would think they would learn the first time. I for one hope they never do as this site might just become a little boring!
I’m not saying it wouldn’t be a difficult decision. Michelle’s other post today – “The Rebirth of Shame” – is a great example of the hard decisions parents have to make in order to raise their children the way they see fit.
But even this argument is based in the “they’re adults, but we have to pay their way” line of thinking.
You’re saying my kids are adults, and should have the freedom to do what they please, but that I still need to foot the bill — even if I disapprove of the behaviors they engage in.
I’m not denying they have the right to convert to Islam, be homosexual, or drink heavily. If they want to attend porno seminars, that’s their decision. But if they’re adults and they make those decisions as adults, then my belief is they can figure out how to pay their way. Like adults are supposed to do.
That does not mean I will love them any less, either; however, love – even the unconditional love of a parent – does not, cannot, and must not become love that is blindly tolerant to or enables one’s bad behavior and poor choices. Look at what the “parent as friend” mentality has wrought – a generation of disrespectful, lazy, hoodlums and spoiled, Paris-Hilton-wannabe brats.
When my sons and daughters turn 18, they are adults with all the benefits of the same. My hope and prayer is that I raise them to be loving, respectful adults who are faithful (both religiously and to friends and their eventual spouses), honest, hard working, decent people.
I hope I instill in them a sense of respect for their bodies and their sexuality that drives them to abstain until marriage – not to oppress or deny them – but in order to strengthen their marriages, and their other vocations. To help them avoid contracting and STD, an unplanned pregnancy, or the mental/emotional trauma that comes from being promiscuous.
I don’t expect my kids to be perfect. We all make mistakes. However, there is a difference between a mistake and a willful, complete abandonment of decency and self-respect.
Read the book Unprotected by MD Anonymous. It will open your eyes as to how destructive and harmful attitudes like the ones behind Sex Week are to college students.
I never said pornography should be illegal or banned. However, it belongs in the privacy of one’s home.
As I said above, since 1967 and the Summer of Love, many have argued that just a little more license, just a little more loosening of cultural mores regarding sexual behavior will make people happy, will make men and women equal.
It’s been 40 years since the dawn of the era of birth control, abortion, and eschewing “oppressive” and “prudish” attitudes toward sex and people are *still* unhappy. To me, when something doesn’t work after four decades of experimentation, it’s an indication that it’s time to shift direction.
Rumspringa is a good point. However, it’s also important to note that large numbers (well more than half) of the Amish kids who do go out make the choice to come back – an indication there’s something to be said for having solid morals and grounding.
The purpose of college is to educate students in their specific areas of study, in order to provide them opportunity for better careers, better pay, and a better standard of living. If they decide to study English, I want them to study Shakespeare. If they study business, I want them to learn how to properly run a Fortune 500 company.
Unless a college offers a major in sex therapy, there is no reason to have something as offensive to the senses as pornography on a college campus – especially when *no* dissenting viewpoints (e.g., abstinence and chastity) are being offered. If no one volunteered, the school – in the name and for the sake of a well-rounded education – had an obligation to find someone. Dawn Eden, for example. I know from reading her blog she’d be more than willing to come speak.
To me, the weirdest part of the whole thing is the merger of Vivid Video and Yale University. Yale’s promoting a porn company, a commercial pornography enterprise, far more aggressively than they’ve ever promoted anything remotely capitalist. I guess raw capitalism is only okay when it’s raw, hardcore porno.
DougT nailed it once again and stated the case much more eloquently than I did.
bear, you make some fair points, and as the parent of 4 terrific young men, I appreciate your perspective on this topic. Porn doesn’t do much for me and I’m not here to defend it, but personal freedom and the right for all of us to be free from government intrusion in our personal lives is very important to me. I’m also not interested in having religious zealots attempt to impose their beliefs on me. “Live free or die” and “live and let live” brah.
Also, kudos to Rusty for taking numerous shots (many of them of the personal variety) while maintaining a civil tone and a sense of humor. I disagree with a majority of your positions, but appreciate what you bring to this site my man.
box, not sure what more to say about you. Other than being the most vacuous poster on this site, your highest and best use seems to be as a groupie for bear.
Been following this debate all day. I have appreciated the many salient points put forth by the likes of EnglishQueen, Bear, Soap Boy, and several other. I laughed out loud at the absurdity of the weak argument of Rusty, Dakine (why you talk stink, brah?), and a few other hit-and-run trolls.
I have come to the conclusion the Rusty is either a condom distributor, a porn producer, or a horny co-ed who can’t admit he enjoys a hot shower with his rommate.
I kid because I care. Don’t get your shorts in a bunch.
As to the topic at hand, Rusty and his ready defenders are so quick to point out the benefits of pornography to society, yet quickly dismiss the detriments as inconvenient anomalies. They are delusional. They also make the point that pornography has now BECOME morally acceptable because it is widely accepted. Wrong again. Morality is not subject to the changing whims of one society. Just as stealing is always wrong, and lying is always bad, sex-for-money and devaluing human life (by objectifying women and men both as sexual means to sexual ends) is and always has been bad.
I suppose Rusty and his cohorts support the prostitution industry as well. After all, if the goal is sexual release without all the pesky emotional baggage, what could be better than sacking a random girl for half an hour? You get relase, she gets paid!
I’m thankful for the many of you on this site who see through this ruse for what it is. It gives me hope for the future, knowing maybe, just maybe, I can raise my kids in a world without subjecting them to the kind of moral turpitude so beloved by Rusty & co.
Thank you, and God bless America.
And my apologies for the poor grammar. Hard to keep track of your thoughts on a 2*2 BlakcBerry screen.
fourstring, very impressive use of demagoguery, hyperbole, self-righteous religious sermonizing and intellectual dishonesty to make a point. Well done. BTW, I talk stink to soap brah because he’s an insufferable tool. Sweet ride as an aside.
#180 On February 11th, 2008 at 9:18 pm, fourstringfuror said:
“Morality is not subject to the changing whims of one society. Just as stealing is always wrong, and lying is always bad, sex-for-money and devaluing human life (by objectifying women and men both as sexual means to sexual ends) is and always has been bad.”
Exactly.
There is right…and there is wrong.
There is good…and there is bad.
#173 On February 11th, 2008 at 6:17 pm, DougT said:
“granite (#172)
That answer, attitude, and approach to the discussion doesn’t bode well for the growth and acceptance of conservative principles.
If you are dismissive there’s no chance to bridge the “cosmic gulf”.
Of course, if you’re saying that you’re views aren’t understandable, then I won’t press. (And I meant that last line to be read tongue in cheek, not mean-spirited.)”
That’s the point.
I’m not being dismissive – just brutally honest.
There IS no chance to bridge the cosmic gulf.
As long as traditionalists believe there are such things as right and wrong, and good and bad; but progressives/relativists believe that right and wrong are meaningless terms, there can be, and never will be, any bridging of this gulf.
The two worldviews are irreconcilable – sorry, but that’s just the way it is.
I hardly think right and wrong are meaningless. I don’t know if I could bring myself to level that accusation to anyone who leaves comments here. (As a family man who has raised six children and has three grandchildren, I find it insulting, actually, but I’ll drop it.)
Perhaps it is more of a difference in determining what is right and what is wrong.
Because we differ in that, does not in any way make me a relativist. (I have no idea what the word progressive means in the context of your statement.)
I can have a consistent black and white view of the world that differs from yours. What makes your view more correct than mine?
And when these strict views of right and wrong (whether yours or mine) meet with real world situations, they usually require the wisdom of a judge (or a Solomon) to make a decision.
You have strong moral values. So do I. If those values differ, how can that be?
This “brutally honest traditionalist” line of reasoning is ripe for abuse in more violent hands.
I’d much rather have a reasoned discussion on what those moral and ethical values should be than to declare that there can be no understanding. But that, like this comment, would be off topic.
I’d argue that there are more negative aspects to pornography than positive. Same for alcohol, fatty foods, tobacco, guns, swear words and all sorts of other things that adults should be allowed to enjoy responsibly.
By the way, would anyone be upset if Yale offered a seminar on mixed drinks, wines, and beers. Would any one be willing to argue that pornography is more harmful than alcohol? Because that would be all sorts of crazy. Yet there is no way that would generate the same amount of outrage.
OK.
Would you answer yes or no to the following:
(Or would you say that these questions cannot be answered with a yes or a no-which itself is an answer that speaks volumes.)
Is the public promotion and celebration of pornography right or wrong?
(I’m not talking about a rare flip through a skin mag, or rare watching of a skin flick.)
Is the use of abortion to rid a woman of an inconvenience right or wrong?
(I’m not talking about when the health/life of the mother are actually at risk.)
Is marriage the union of one man and one woman?
Do humans have a soul?
Or, do physics and chemistry explain, and account for everything – everything?
Is the fertilized ovum a human (even though it cannot vote) with a soul? Or, is it just a blob of tissue?
Are all cultures really just as good as all others; or, are some actually significantly better than others?
No time to list any more right now.
Yes, I would be, for one. The purpose of institutions of higher learning is not to teach kids how to mix drinks, or have sex, or coddle people.
Rusty, to answer your question – yes. Just as I believe libertine attitudes toward sex (as demonstrated in Sex Week) cause more problems than they ever help “treat”, teaching college kids how to drink will only encourage them to drink to excess…which is already a problem on many, many campuses.
I think it’s pertinent to point out that, even without a Booze Week, college kids still figure out how to get alcohol, mix drinks, and get drunk. So why is it again that Sex Week is so important to their education?
Impressive vocab. Any 5watt can use a dictionary. If it were not for insults, you would add nothing to this site. Be that as it may, those of us you have insulted take it as an honor.
Then try saying nada to or about me as you are really starting to look foolish.
Soap Box,
It’s all good. I quite enjoy giving libs a good ribbing now and then. Lord knows they deserve it. I still haven’t figured out the “religious sermonizing” part – I guess “God Bless America” was over the top
So how many parents will be taking their sons and daughters out of Yale over this event?
I dare say fewer than 10.
Bottom line about this whole public sexual-morality complex regarding abortion, contraception, “pornography”/”obscenity”/”indecency”, pre/extramarital sex etc, is …. how many restrictionists are willing to fight or encourage their military-age descendants to fight Revolution/Civil War II over this?
Would they be willing to use NBC weaponry to advance their cause?
P.S. When internal economic, political and/or social conflicts deteriorate to the extent of open warfare with the objective of overthrowing the established authority, they’re called “revolutions” when they succeed and “civil wars” when they fail.
If the USA were to have a second Civil War, do keep in mind the political fault lines in the American body politic are still present 140+ years later, and recovery from the War Between the States took a good 30 years, that is when the decision-makers of the 1850s and 1860s on all sides had aged out of the System.
With todays weapons of mass destruction I don’t think a second American Civil War would be recoverable.