if there's a hustle in your stride...

[Jester]

I dunno.  How we went from TRP to Larry Flynt, and Gravity's Rainbow to
Hustler, I'll never understand... (well, I suppose the stretch isn't too
great -- after all, some critics did label GR "obscene.")

There is much that we could categorize as pornographic which has absolutely
nothing to do with sexuality -- case in point, check out this link a friend
just forwarded to me (http://www.dragonfire.net/~PaulMc/Home.htm) and check
out his "Sick and Wrong" category.  What you'll find is extrememly
disturbing, and if ANYONE finds it arousing, I would strongly urge the
individual to seek psychiactric help -- it's a collection of forensic
photographs, the first one being a young blonde (18 and "barely legal") who
appears to have fallen headfirst 10-12 stories to the pavement.

Personally, I find 80% of the evening news pornographic -- and the
current-events of the little "beauty queen" from Colorado and Cosby's son
are prime examples.  The problem with pornography, in my opinion, isn't the
images or subject matter -- what is one man's pornography is another man's
art -- but pornography per se is EXPLOITIVE in nature, exploitive of the
viewer as much as the "subject."  While feminists argue that porn is an
exploiter of women, many times they forget it is an exploiter of men.
Personally, I think some porn (oh, and erotica (but who decides which is
which?)) is exciting, arousing and healthy -- but when addiction,
exploitation and desensitization ensue, something is amiss.  Flynt's
publication may be for "the working man," and the women photographed may be
"the neighbor," the "attainable" and simply the beautiful -- but so much of
his magazine is fake and superficial.  Though he does occasionally publish
an article which is commendable for it's journalism, for the most part,
month after month, (from whay I've seen) the mag is devoted to hedonism,
athiesm and simple-minded, many times "penny-anty" and infantile "revenge."  

Like someone earlier posted, Flynt's portrayal of Jerry Falwell as an
incestuous drunk wasn't so much for parody and because of Flynt's
disagreement or disapproval of Falwell's religious message or his "Moral
Majority," but as an act of revenge for his public statements about AIDS. 

Yes, Flynt should be allowed to publish his magazine, and we should be
allowed to read it -- but at what cost?  I wonder.  I remember reading the
mag as a youngster -- for the pictures, and stumbling upon some of the
ancillary material within.  What was offensive, in my opinion, was not the
exposed genetalia of the men and women, or the sex acts portrayed, or the
fiction, the xxx movie reviews, or the "Beaver Hunt," but the cartoons (one
of the most pivotal lines ion the film is Althea's (Courtney Love) plea to
Flynt, "People don't want their porn and religion mixed" (or something like
that). Just think, this is a publication which repeatedly blasphemes the
Christian religion (for nothing but Flynt's own "guilty pleasure" and
childish need for satisfaction against religious hypocrisy and fanaticism)
and for years ran a comic strip called "Chester the Molester," which
commented on, and glorified the wonders of pedophilia.  That is pornography.
That is downright wrong.  Antinomianism which allows, champions and rewards
the  exploitation, denegration and destruction of innocence, beauty and love
just doesn't work in the human heart and soul -- no matter how glossy and
airbrushed the pictures.

So as much as I personally loved the movie, can stomach Flynt as an
"anti-hero," and I can even pick up the mag occasionally for cheap, lurid
thrills -- somewhere, I still believe, there's something not quite right
about it all -- moral relativism aside.  

Thanks for letting me toss in 2cents.

Adrift on a sea of gray waters,
Jester

 

Jester at snet.net    http://www.wcsu.ctstateu.edu/~sargent001/
JesterWeb / Dinner With Mr. Sardonicus / Scream Queen Salad / WesWeb
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
NOTICE: By sending unsolicited commercial advertising/solicitations (or 
otherwise on or as part of a mailing list) to the above e-mail address 
you will be indicating your express consent to paying *me* $500 US 
Dollars/hour for a minimum of 1 hour for my time spent dealing with it 
pursuant to US Code, Title 47, Chapter 5, Subchapter II, §227 (b)(1)(c). 
Payment due in 30 days upon receipt of an invoice (e-mail or regular mail)
from me or my authorised representative. I have a good lawyer and keep records.