America - Land of the free ? Or home of the DEPRAVED ?

Normally, I would not pay any attention to the pronouncements of a pornographer such as Waters, as I have no interest in listening to the lurid rantings and ravings of a Baltimore-based moral bankrupt. But then I thought of America's children, and I realised that something must be done to protect those poor innocents from the rising tide of Hollywood filth.

With every year that goes by, Hollywood's output grows more and more obscene. What is controversial and cutting edge one year is passé and 'unhip' the next. Hollywood's pornographers and smut-peddlers are locked into an escalating erotic arms race, which shows no signs of slowing. In the same way that so-called "soft" drugs like marijuana act as a gateway to harder drugs like cocaine and ecstacy, so the prurient movies Hollywood puts out today lead the audience on to demand more hardcore images to satisfy their voyeuristic lusts.

A dangerous precedent has already been set (by those moral degenerates of Europe - the French of course). Billed as "The most controversial film of the year", Patrice Chereau's Intimacy is a porno film masquerading as 'art'. I won't go into the scenes of utter depravity contained in this movie, as I don't wish to give it any free publicity. The French continue to promote the "pornoization" of cinema with Virginie Despentes' truly dreadful "Baise Moi" and Catherine Breillat's extremely offensive "Romance".

Europe has shown that the public can be brainwashed into accepting hardcore porn as 'art', it looks as if America will be next.

Imagine if Water's predictions are correct. Cinema-goers could soon be treated to the sight of Michael Douglas's erect penis in full technicolor blown up to an auditorium-filling 10 meters on the silver screen. America is simply not ready for this.

When I go to the movies I want to be entertained. I don't want to see Michael Douglas's aging erection. I am not a prude, but there is a time and a place for everything, and the place for Michael Douglas's penis is in his boxer shorts, not blown up to ludicrous proportions in a movie theater. It was bad enough having to look at his flabby buttocks in "Basic Instinct".

As if that wasn't bad enough, I predict that the ongoing pornoization of Hollywood movies will lead to more expensive movie tickets, as the big stars demand extra 'nudity money' to compensate them for participating in the variety of depraved acts the perverted directors dream up. After all, if full blown intercourse is allowed past the censors, what next ? Teabagging ? Bagpiping ? Felching ? I don't even want to think about it.

Before the moral collapse brought on by the liberal anything goes 'free love' culture of the sixties, America's movies were governed by something called the Hays Code. Amongst other things, this very fine set of rules protected our children by mandating that certain levels of decency prevailed on our screens. Here are some extracts to give you an idea of the moral strength of the code:

Excessive and lustful kissing, lustful embraces, suggestive postures and gestures, are not to be shown.

Pointed profanity (this includes the words, God, Lord, Jesus, Christ - unless used reverently - Hell, S.O.B., damn, Gawd), or every other profane or vulgar expression however used, is forbidden.

No film or episode may throw ridicule on any religious faith.

The use of the Flag shall be consistently respectful.

Impure love must not be presented as attractive and beautiful.

Nowadays, modern cinematographers seem to take the Hays code, and invert it. They don't feel as if their movie is complete, unless it has scenes of impure love, disrespect for the flag, and blasphemy. This sorry state of affairs cannot be allowed to continue.

In conclusion, this increasing permissiveness will cause movie ticket prices to rise, and you may be forced to view Michael Douglas's erect penis enlarged until it is 10 meters long. Now you can understand why the Hays code must be ressurected. Hopefully with Mr Bush now firmly seated in the Whitehouse, America will enter a new era of wholesome family entertainment and the Hollywood pornographers will be claiming unemployment.

	Help (5.00 / 1) (#1)
	by Right Hand Man on Wed Mar 20th, 2002 at 06:46:49 AM PST

	I don't think we could bring back the Hays Code quickly enough. What with abortion clinics, porn shops, and gay bars popping on every street corner we are overwhelmed with tactical objectives. Luckily I expect my home state of Pennsylvania to take the lead in preventing this type of filth from appearing on our streets. We have taken the unprecedented and unpopular with the leftists step of banning the transmission of child pornography over the internet. I do not expect it will be long before we are able to bring the people responsible for that particular brand of depravity to justice. I hope these Hollywood directors meet with the same fate and I expect that all right thinking people will encourage their local governments to do the same. The sooner we get over the idea that government is here to steal our money and use it to support lay-about ne'er do wells the sooner we can get this country on the road to recovery. Government exists to provide for the common defense. That ought to include defending our children from the corrupting influence of porno. ------------------------- "Keep your bible open and your powder dry."

	Transmission of child pornography (none / 0) (#17)
	by Anonymous Reader on Thu Mar 21st, 2002 at 01:58:11 AM PST

	I suggest someone scroll up a few posts and remove (or edit out) someones linking of some child pornography sites, namely LAMBDA and kuro5hen... ...we cannot let the pedophiles win!

	Body hair? (none / 0) (#2)
	by Anonymous Reader on Wed Mar 20th, 2002 at 06:52:51 AM PST

	Can we also ban the depiction of any and all body hair? I can't think of any good reason why we should have to see body hair.

	Robin Williams (none / 0) (#3)
	by Anonymous Reader on Wed Mar 20th, 2002 at 07:28:31 AM PST

	Mr Williams would never be able to appear in a film ever again. Though with his present career, this might not be much of a problem for him.

	Morman? (1.00 / 1) (#4)
	by Anonymous Reader on Wed Mar 20th, 2002 at 08:15:22 AM PST

	Are you a morman or other religious fanatic who lives a bland cultural lifestlye without any desire to have any kind of fun whatsoever? Do you feel so inadequate that you must hide in some hole somewhere writing articles that hold no meaning? Hollywood and the media in general are crap, yes. For years they've been banning `bad words' on TV, trying to program us to hate sex and so on and so forth. Too bad they've gotten to you already dmg, as I'm sure you run your TV with the highest parental control possible. Do you even get to see Barney? I think in some religious states it's banned for homosexuality and pedophilia. I'm beginning to think that America isn't the place for conservatives who live in reality boxes. Adequacy.org convinces me of this more and more every day. Let's see how much of the media tries to scare American individuals from seeing a perfectly harmless, yet totally unique movie. I mean, really, if they can't be forced not to chose, by god they can damn well be programmed not to chose.

	Abuse of anonymity (none / 0) (#12)
	by NoahVale on Wed Mar 20th, 2002 at 03:07:09 PM PST

	Dear "Anonymous Reader", You really are an "Anonymous Typist", but you can't be elevated to the status of "Anonymous Thinker". You denegrate others for their attachement to a "bland lifestyle", but I wonder what is so interesting about yours that gives you the time of day to defend these pornographers. Usually, salivating at the every Hollywood preview, or defending its values would be regarded as symptomatic of a "bland lifestyle". Let me hope for your sake that you evolved and were not created, because for you any meeting with your Creator would not be a pleasant one. Noah Vale

	Re: Abuse of anonymity (none / 0) (#16)
	by Anonymous Reader on Thu Mar 21st, 2002 at 01:54:03 AM PST

	Dear NoahVale, It was my intent to `dengenrate others' by implying that they have bland lifestyles. Indeed, if you're not disinterested in the author of the article, you too must be as boring. Please, don't make vague generalizations about me from one little post. Most porn is actually grotesque to me, mainly because of conservative thinking; where women must wear high heels, lots of makeup and have huge disproportionate breasts. Really, I blame the conservatives for taking `natural' out of porn and making into a pathetic industry where the most `masculine' woman is also the most `popular.' And BTW, I never make accounts with a site that allows anonymous posting. I'm simply too lazy. I would leave a signature, but I often times forget. And again, I'm too lazy.

	Conservative porn (none / 0) (#22)
	by T Reginald Gibbons on Thu Mar 21st, 2002 at 04:17:01 AM PST

	For the benefit of readers just arriving, I'll quote a brief passage. Most porn is actually grotesque to me, mainly because of conservative thinking; where women must wear high heels, lots of makeup and have huge disproportionate breasts. Really, I blame the conservatives for taking `natural' out of porn and making into a pathetic industry where the most `masculine' woman is also the most `popular.' If conservative porn is apparently the status quo in the smut industry, what will liberal-minded perverts be expecting to see in more progressive objectification of women?

	Conservative porn (none / 0) (#23)
	by Anonymous Reader on Thu Mar 21st, 2002 at 05:55:04 AM PST

	If conservative porn is apparently the status quo in the smut industry, what will liberal- minded perverts be expecting to see in more progressive objectification of women? With `liberal porn' `objectivication' becomes `admiration.' There isn't a requirement to `dress ones self up' to fullfill a `programmed' requirement. Legs are good they way they are, not pushed up in heels 4 inches high. Faces are good they way they are, not covered in $2 makeup harvested from aborted fetuses. Breasts are good they way they are, not implanted with silicon the size of large melons. Really, a conservative porn model, in her getup, is truely hard to distinguish from a mere drag queen. In fact, I pulled a little experiment with my friend, and he chose drag queens over normal women! It's sad, really.

	they = the (none / 0) (#25)
	by Anonymous Reader on Thu Mar 21st, 2002 at 09:02:10 AM PST

	Re: Labels. (5.00 / 1) (#35)
	by Anonymous Reader on Thu Mar 21st, 2002 at 03:55:04 PM PST

	You first have to understand WHY porn is considered `objectifying.' We're talking about creating some kind of sexual creature that's supposed to stimulate our fantasies and envoke sexual emotions. Conservative porn isn't reality, and thusly, conservative porn is an objectifying delusion. Liberal porn, on the other hand, is natural, down to earth, and simply more real. That's the difference. If you can, of course, prove to me, that most conservatives don't require their women to wear lots and lots of masculinizing makeup, and basically hide their real appearance, I will promptly change my opinion.

	I think... (none / 0) (#42)
	by hauntedattics on Fri Mar 22nd, 2002 at 10:17:18 AM PST

	we're talking at cross purposes here. Your assertion is that so-called 'liberal' porn is better than 'conservative' porn because it is 'natural, down to earth, and simply more real.' Mine is that it doesn't matter whether the chick is wearing 2 inches of makeup and shaved within an inch of her life, or whether she's Nature Girl with pores and pubic hair. It's all still porn, and it's all still designed to titillate the person watching it, and thus it's all the same. You can put whatever political labels you want on porn (labels I've never heard of before, by the way), but that doesn't make some of it better than other examples of the genre. As for conservative males requiring their women to hide their real appearance behind lots of makeup, I think you'd have to ask the individual conservative and his wife. One Tammy Faye does not a generalization make.

	you're out of your mind. (none / 0) (#48)
	by nathan on Sat Mar 23rd, 2002 at 09:16:58 AM PST

	I'm pretty conservative, but my girlfriend doesn't wear makeup, or heels. On the other hand, she's a great salsa dancer. I expect my written apology now. Nathan -- Li'l Sis: Yo, that's a real grey area. Even by my lax standards.

	you are insane. (none / 0) (#28)
	by nathan on Thu Mar 21st, 2002 at 12:49:19 PM PST

	Where are you getting these distinctions? Are you aware that your definitions are arbitrary, shared by no-one, in contravention of every theory about pornography ever proposed, and totally internally incoherent? Nathan -- Li'l Sis: Yo, that's a real grey area. Even by my lax standards.

	Labels. (none / 0) (#27)
	by hauntedattics on Thu Mar 21st, 2002 at 12:08:08 PM PST

	You can call porn 'liberal' or 'conservative' based on random differences like how much makeup a chick is wearing, or how high her heels are, but it's still porn. And as porn, it still represents the objectification of sex and the human body. But if you want to fool yourself and call it 'admiration,' that's your business.

	Fact is. (none / 0) (#45)
	by Anonymous Reader on Sat Mar 23rd, 2002 at 08:28:32 AM PST

	A conservative male wouldn't even TOUCH his wife unless she was all dressed up like some kind of sex goddess... ...it's too bad that you can't see through the obvious psychological force applied to women by their cruel conservative male masters. :(

	Theory of which now? (none / 0) (#29)
	by Anonymous Reader on Thu Mar 21st, 2002 at 01:25:09 PM PST

	Is there really a unified theory of pornography? Do you have a reference?

	Various Theorists are trying to create a G.U.T (5.00 / 1) (#33)
	by bc on Thu Mar 21st, 2002 at 03:54:18 PM PST

	Man has always searched for a Grand Unified Theory of pornography, ever since our prehistory. However, despite valiant efforts by the Greeks, the Romans, the ancient Egyptians, and renaissance Europe, things didn't really move out of superstition and hearsay until the dawning of the Enlightenment. The seminal text of this era has to be Memoirs of a Woman of Pleasure, or Fanny Hill, by John Cleland. This remarkable intellectual Tour de Force revolutionised the field and was the first real attempt at a Grand Unified Theory. During the Regency, there was much further progress, but later in the 19th century researchers were forced underground by the persecution of the Monarch and the Church, much like Galileo Galilei and Copernicus before them. In the 60's, in some parts of Nothern Europe freed from the pressures of the Mother Church and their inquisitions against the search for secular knowledge, there was a great flowering of great, humanistic, liberal thought, and progress began once more. At first there were different schools of thought, going by a flurry of exotic names, but as time has passed it is hoped that the different schools will be united into a Grand Unified Theory that will explain everything about pornography. Some noticable attempts have already been made, and cutting edge research can be found at nifty.org, but rest assured thousands of the brightest young, male minds are working round the clock on this thorny problem, and results are expected any time soon. ♥, bc.

	fool. (1.00 / 1) (#37)
	by nathan on Thu Mar 21st, 2002 at 07:35:45 PM PST

	I didn't say there was a unified theory of pornography. I simply pointed out that, from Andrea Dworkin's to the Pope's, no-one's jibes with that of the Anonymous Moron in question. He is an idiot. Nathan -- Li'l Sis: Yo, that's a real grey area. Even by my lax standards.

	shrug (none / 0) (#47)
	by Anonymous Reader on Sat Mar 23rd, 2002 at 08:39:49 AM PST

	If you can't see the difference between `porn' which is 90% air brushed and `porn' which is completely real, why should I even respond to you? I mean, really, that's all it boils down to. You probably don't even look at porn to be able to tell the difference.

	Believe it or not, (none / 0) (#49)
	by hauntedattics on Sat Mar 23rd, 2002 at 09:39:31 AM PST

	there are people out there who live happy and fulfilled lives without ever watching porn. And they even (gasp!) manage to have good sex while they're at it! Knowledge of porn is only an index of hipness in your own eyes, my friend.

	Re: you are insane. (none / 0) (#34)
	by Anonymous Reader on Thu Mar 21st, 2002 at 03:54:22 PM PST

	Isn't your opinion about my conclusions just as `arbitrary?' Anyway, you should actually try backing up your statements instead of droning on in the typical, `this is that is this is ... ' crap that truely holds no weight with me.

	Where do 16-year-olds like you get porn, anyway? (none / 0) (#36)
	by T Reginald Gibbons on Thu Mar 21st, 2002 at 04:20:49 PM PST

	Isn't your opinion about my conclusions just as `arbitrary?' I know you are, but what am I? Anyway, you should actually try backing up your statements instead of droning on in the typical, `this is that is this is ... ' crap that truely holds no weight with me. What, you mean like references and examples and statistics and stuff?

	Re: eh. (none / 0) (#46)
	by Anonymous Reader on Sat Mar 23rd, 2002 at 08:29:52 AM PST

	Do you have sex in the dark?

	I don't have sex (none / 0) (#50)
	by T Reginald Gibbons on Sat Mar 23rd, 2002 at 04:14:33 PM PST

	Since my wife and I already have six lovely children, we don't feel any need for further procreation just now. Since sex without that noble objective is an abomination, and often involves the use of contraception, we choose to abstain.

	Hahaha...Pencil dick (none / 0) (#53)
	by Anonymous Reader on Mon Mar 25th, 2002 at 11:42:16 PM PST

	No wonder your wife keeps coming over to my house with cookies. mmmmmmmmm.

	Drum roll please. (5.00 / 2) (#54)
	by hauntedattics on Tue Mar 26th, 2002 at 07:03:19 AM PST

	Ladies and gentlemen, I give you the wit, wisdom and maturity of Anonymous Reader in all its glory. A beautiful thing, isn't it?

	Not true (none / 0) (#39)
	by Anonymous Reader on Thu Mar 21st, 2002 at 08:52:21 PM PST

	You must read some Engels before you say that. He specifically points out this problem of objectification of women. Typical rightist 'what problem' attitiude -> your too far removed from reality buddy.

	I've read Engels, thanks. (none / 0) (#40)
	by nathan on Thu Mar 21st, 2002 at 09:08:30 PM PST

	I fail to see how he would have approved of 'liberal' porn, though. Isn't it as much 'objectification through loss of the object?' You can't possibly be arguing that, merely through porn being 'liberal,' the actors in it are completely fulfilling their own natures. Typical leftist - he only knows texts the way his prof presented them. Nathan -- Li'l Sis: Yo, that's a real grey area. Even by my lax standards.

	Tch. Leftists, eh? (none / 0) (#41)
	by because it isnt on Fri Mar 22nd, 2002 at 03:09:11 AM PST

	I bet they believed their prof when he told them Macbeth was a Shakespearian tragedy! Balderdash, I CAN READ BETTER THAN MY PROF - it's obviously a murder mystery, he's too blind to see it. adequacy.org -- because it isn't

	read the parent post. n/t (none / 0) (#43)
	by nathan on Fri Mar 22nd, 2002 at 12:06:07 PM PST

	-- Li'l Sis: Yo, that's a real grey area. Even by my lax standards.

	Midsummer Night's Dream (none / 0) (#44)
	by Bad English on Sat Mar 23rd, 2002 at 02:45:02 AM PST

	You're right. I know Midsummer Night's Dream is a tragedy. Nick Bottom's tragic flaw is that he trusts far too much and may be slightly foolish at times. Look at all the times he gets abused at the hands of nearly every character. That can't possibly be funny.

	Another pedophile (none / 0) (#13)
	by John Milton on Wed Mar 20th, 2002 at 09:03:20 PM PST

	Do you even get to see Barney? I think in some religious states it's banned for homosexuality and pedophilia. What is it about the internet that attracts pedophiles? Please take your perversion to Nambla or some other pedophile advocacy group. I must inform you that the editors of adequacy do log all ip addresses and send ones such as yours to the FBI. -John Milton

	Another pedophile (none / 0) (#15)
	by Anonymous Reader on Thu Mar 21st, 2002 at 01:53:38 AM PST

	Heheh! No, not quite. I think that there was a lot of crap from the `right' complaining about shows on PBS that had `asexual' or `feminine' characters. I'm actually too lazy to dig up a few links for you, but it's really no more ridiculous than the left whining about something as trival either. In the spirit of the Kids of Widney High: YOU BETTER WATCH OUT OR BARNEY WILL GET YOU! (Oh, and BTW, I would be utterly TICKLED if for some reason the police knocked on my door because they felt I was peddling child porn. Then I would sue Adequacy.org for slander.)