Adequacy front page
Stories Diaries Polls Users
Google

Web Adequacy.org
Home About Topics Rejects Abortions
This is an archive site only. It is no longer maintained. You can not post comments. You can not make an account. Your email will not be read. Please read this page if you have questions.
Poll
Bring back the Hays code ?
Yes 18%
No, its not restrictive enough 81%

Votes: 27

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

 Author:  Topic:  Posted:
Mar 20, 2002
 Comments:
A leading Hollywood film director is predicting that major Hollywood movies will be showing explicit sex within 10 years.

John Waters is famous for his work with Harris Glenn Milstead aka "Divine" on movies such as 'Pink Flamingos'. Walters, like adequacy.org is no stranger to controversy, so we should pay attention to him when he sends out a prophetic warning like this: "by the end of this decade a Hollywood star will show penetration"

cinema

More stories about Cinema
Review: Jurassic Park III
Review: Planet of the Apes
Rock Star: Headbanging Nights
Shrek: the greatest basest fairy tale never ever told
Monsters Incorporated: Film Review and Merchandise Buyer's Guide.
Not just harmless fun
Looking Forward: Cinema in 2002
Anakin Loses a Hand
The New Faust

More stories by
dmg

America wages psychological war on Iranian soccer team
Wicca - a scientific, Christian approach to the problem
Reparation and reconcilation - the time is right.
Is it time women covered up at work ?
The Malaise of the Middle Classes.
Christianity isn't working in the USA; Is Islam the answer ?
European Union eclipses US in games market - what next ?
SUV's Bigger and Better - The Ultimate American Dream
Sports- The direct cause of Racism in America today.
US in recession. What should we do about it ?
Marion 'Suge' Knight to be released - Young white rap fans in danger ?
Building your dream PC. What the experts don't tell you.
How to increase the lifespan of your PC.
The Democratization of Status. Rap music is to blame.
World Trade Center - Capitalizing on terrorist atrocities.
You are not Irish, They are not Republicans. Please stop sending them money and guns.
A Taliban Warlord answers YOUR questions.
Anthrax - Please, PLEASE change your name.
The US Constitution - past its sell-by date ?
Anthrax - Some factual corrections, but no apology.
Some help for all you aspiring Santas.
Fuck Cunt Shit Piss Cocksucker Motherfucker Tits
DMG's spicy chilli-lemon chicken with toasted cashews
The Semiotics of modern 'Popular' music - Symbolism and Discourse
Linux Zealot - The Internet's most controversial cartoon superhero
My Vacation Dilemma. How can I be an ethical tourist ?
Linux Zealot learns a valuable lesson.
Internet Licenses: An Idea Whose Time Has Come?
Linux Zealot sticks to his guns.
Great Britain must keep the pound.
Torture - it's inevitable, so lets do it right !
The supposedly civilized Europeans. (A WARNING TO ALL AMERICANS)
Sigmund Freud, Linux and The Narcissism of Minor Difference
British engineering genius and the Homosexualist Socialist conspiracy
Linux Zealot attempts to get laid.
Which is the best way to predict the future ?
God Bless you your Majesty, adequacy.org salutes you!
The History of Rap.
Theater Review: My Fair Lady
Linux Zealot contributes to the Open Source Community
Linux Zealot vs the RIAA.
A Guide to the United Kingdom for Americans.
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 passť 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.

  •        
    Tweet

    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



     
    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.





    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.



    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. :(


    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.

    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.)


     
    Michael Douglas's erect penis in full technicolor (none / 0) (#5)
    by hauntedattics on Wed Mar 20th, 2002 at 11:06:03 AM PST
    *shudder*



    Michael Douglas, Tarzan of Hollywood (5.00 / 3) (#6)
    by bc on Wed Mar 20th, 2002 at 11:36:07 AM PST
    Don't be so squeemish.

    After watching the incredible performance of Mr Douglas in Wall Street, I have to say that the prospect of watching his technicolour penis bobbing across the local 20 foot provincial cinema screen is one I would relish.

    Although some may argue Wall Street was primarily a film exploring morality among the moneyed and ambitious, humanity (or what remains of it) at the throbbing nexus of world capitalism, I would argue that Wall Street is not an exploration of humanity, but rather a testament to the power of Man - the "Man" in this particular case being Michael Douglas.

    How anyone can watch that film and not palpitate with joy as he backstabs, carpetbags and double deals to the top is beyond me. The sheer naked masculinity, the ambition, the power, baby, it sweats from the pores of the screen! This film should inspire any futures trader or stockbroker, and I am told it frequently does.

    Watching Wall Street, one is left with a desire to see more and more of Michael Douglas, such that one might learn the secret of his masculinity and apply it, salve-like, to one's own fading, limp ego.

    That's why I would welcome any penile projection of Mr Douglas. It would really allow us to understand masculinity, ambition, and the torture of success, and perhaps allow us to acheive them ourselves.


    ♥, bc.

    Mr. Douglas's body parts (none / 0) (#51)
    by hauntedattics on Sun Mar 24th, 2002 at 02:03:09 PM PST
    Hell, you didn't see enough of Michael Douglas in Basic Instinct?

    Basic Instinct. Now that was a great comedy.




     
    Thankfully, we have capalert.com (5.00 / 1) (#7)
    by Adam Rightmann on Wed Mar 20th, 2002 at 11:56:49 AM PST
    to warn us of foul movies. If you have never been to capalert.com, I urge to you swiftly check it out, no longer will you wonder just how obscene the latest filth from homosexual-sanctioning Disney is, you can read a review flagging every instance of debauchery.


    A. Rightmann

    Re: Thankfully, we have capalert.com (none / 0) (#20)
    by Anonymous Reader on Thu Mar 21st, 2002 at 02:09:25 AM PST
    This reminds me of this one song... some of the lyrics go, `He has the whole wide world on remote control...'


     
    Hmm (1.00 / 1) (#8)
    by budlite on Wed Mar 20th, 2002 at 12:25:57 PM PST
    You, my good man, sound like a very boring person.


     
    I take it you support full resurrection. (none / 0) (#9)
    by jvance on Wed Mar 20th, 2002 at 01:55:55 PM PST
    Including Section II.6.
    --
    Adequacy has turned into a cesspool consisting of ... blubbering, superstitious fools arguing with smug, pseudointellectual assholes. -AR

     
    John waters (none / 0) (#10)
    by DG on Wed Mar 20th, 2002 at 02:36:57 PM PST
    I have to say i enjoyed reading this.. one question though, where did you get the idea john waters was a leading director? he prides himself on not conforming to hollywood's "standards"

    now i like john waters all his movies are ejoyable in a sick twisted way but come on.. you insult him saying that BS
    © 2002, DG. You may not reproduce this material, in whole or in part, without written permission of the owner.

    Re: John waters (none / 0) (#18)
    by Anonymous Reader on Thu Mar 21st, 2002 at 02:01:46 AM PST
    I wasn't too surprised by the assertation... it's not like John Waters cares what some Morman on some conservative website says about him, though, really. :)


     
    Is this going far enough? (none / 0) (#11)
    by NoahVale on Wed Mar 20th, 2002 at 02:54:53 PM PST
    While I respect DMG for raising concerns about these sinister developments, I feel his remedy is ill conceived.
    It was the ambiguity of the Hays Code creatively interpreted by libertine artists that began this avalanche of indecency.
    We can't opt for the reactionary solution of readopting inadequate codes of practice. We need to create a regime of artistic integrity that doesn't allow for such broad interpretation.

    The Vale Code:
    (1) Cinema exists to display the wonderful creations of human thought, it should not burden itself with idolatrous depictions of living things.
    (2) The purist form of cinema depicts the wonder of calligraphy.
    (3) Popularist cinema that perseveres in the animation of hues, colours and perhaps amorphous shapes will be tolerated.
    (4) Images of inanimate things such as the gravel, water or mountains will be tolerated, but must be regarded as a lowest form of cinema, as it does not reflect the splendour of the intellect in the way that calligraphry does.
    (5) Cinema must not portray inanimate things that are sly depictions of animate nature. For example, images of graven ice-sculptures or fossils are beyond the decency of the cinematic experience.

    I hope you will appreciate the potential of this code to enhance the cinematic experience by removing it from the realm of controversy.




    let me say something here.. (none / 0) (#14)
    by DG on Wed Mar 20th, 2002 at 09:49:31 PM PST
    while i admire the thought you put into your comment, i think it would be rather dull if it went through, why? becuse i don't go to movies to think deep thoughts, i got to movies to enjoy a story, sfx, acting (or lack there of), and to escape from reality for a while, while it is good to drop some of the smut and violance from movies i believe there has to be some becuse it's not real, some people would condemn me with such things like "think about the children!" but thats irrelevent to what i'm saying
    © 2002, DG. You may not reproduce this material, in whole or in part, without written permission of the owner.

     
    suggestion (none / 0) (#19)
    by StrawMan on Thu Mar 21st, 2002 at 02:03:10 AM PST
    Peter Greenaway's The Pillow Book.
    Should attend to most of your needs, I think.


    I am straw


     
    Simple (1.00 / 1) (#21)
    by Anonymous Reader on Thu Mar 21st, 2002 at 04:09:49 AM PST
    If ya don't like it, don't go to see it at the cinema and don't rent it out on video. If you don't want your kids to watch it, ensure that they do the same.

    Plenty of other people will go see it for their own reasons. Why do you think you have the right to proscribe what they can and can't watch?


     
    Michael Douglas (none / 0) (#24)
    by Anonymous Reader on Thu Mar 21st, 2002 at 06:04:35 AM PST
    I can remember of another place for Michael douglas penis !!! But I have a question: Why do you think of his penis so much?


    Michael Douglas's Penis (none / 0) (#32)
    by Bad English on Thu Mar 21st, 2002 at 02:45:18 PM PST
    Why wouldn't he be obsessed with Michael Douglas's massive, throbbing erection? Come on, this is the famous phallus of Oscar winner Michael Douglas he's talking about. Do I really need to explicate further?


    Yes. (none / 0) (#52)
    by Anonymous Reader on Mon Mar 25th, 2002 at 01:30:33 PM PST
    Please.


     
    You forgot one thing... (none / 0) (#26)
    by Anonymous Reader on Thu Mar 21st, 2002 at 11:55:49 AM PST
    "by the end of this decade a Hollywood star will show penetration"

    Provided you find a hollywood star willing to do this. Despite the fact that many "actors" make up most of the sludge that is coming out in theaters today, I don't think they would be willing to stoop this low.

    There is a limit to desensitization...


    Stardom comes easy (none / 0) (#30)
    by Anonymous Reader on Thu Mar 21st, 2002 at 01:36:27 PM PST
    By "Hollywood star" most people mean "Star in a Hollywood production."

    If Jenna Jameson got a leading role in a major Hollywood release, why then she'd be a Hollywood star.

    I don't see any problem there...


     
    What's wrong with John Waters? (5.00 / 1) (#31)
    by Bad English on Thu Mar 21st, 2002 at 02:31:20 PM PST
    I mean, come on, he's a cinematic genius, feeding off of the voyeuristic tendencies of all people in his audience. We go to the movies to be taken to a world that doesn't exist and to be elevated to a god-like status by invisibly observing characters' lives. There is nothing wrong with "the gaze;" by attending even the most wholesome film we all employ it.

    Therefore, what's wrong with Water's blatant exhibitionism? He's giving us what we want to see: the strange and unknown. If enjoying watching a 300-pound transvestite give another man a blowjob, eat fecal matter, and shove raw meat between his legs is wrong, then I don't want to be right. John Waters is an artist, and art is art, despite it being high or low.



     
    Stars and their Cocks (5.00 / 2) (#38)
    by phenocryst on Thu Mar 21st, 2002 at 07:39:09 PM PST
    "by the end of this decade a Hollywood star will show penetration"

    The easiest interpretation of this is "by the end of this decade penetration will be shown in a widely-shown mainstream Hollywood film". This may be true. Suppose it is: in 2006 Disney, already famed for their depiction of erect cocks and scraping the barrel of ancient ethnic stories to bastardise, release a live-action picture of the Kama Sutra, starring Brad Pitt. Several scenes show close-ups of his cock.

    But it's not going to be his cock. It'll be someone else's cock. A cock double. And this will quickly become common knowledge, if not openly announced from the start.

    However, given the Michael Douglas comments, we seem to be interpreting the Waters quotation as "by the end of this decade, people who occupy the same social role in their time as current Hollywood stars do in ours (and who may in many cases be the same people), will show penetration". This is more questionable: if they're showing penetration on screen, could they possibly have the same status?

    Of course, there are some sluts, male and female, who already blur the line between Hollywood and porn, starring in 'erotic thrillers' and straight-to-video softcore flics. These are the people more likely to end up showing both face and pumping genitals in the same shot. If this ends up in the Odeon, breaking box office records, it'll be the rise of an existing genre to the popularity of another. Much like the B-movies of the past became the blockbusters of the 90s. It won't be the Michael Douglases doing it at the Odeon, but the Shannon Tweeds and their male equivalents.

    I wouldn't like to speculate about 50 years future (we'll all be energy-based hyper-beings by then anyway), but in ten years time I suspect we'll still be able to make a distinction between A-list stars like we have today, and porn actors who happen to be A-list because so many people watch their films; between actors we hate as spoiled, pretentious luvvies, and those we hate as slutty, spoiled, pretentious luvvies.


     
    Violence is what's truly depraved, not sex (5.00 / 1) (#55)
    by Anonymous Reader on Sat Mar 30th, 2002 at 12:31:32 PM PST
    I'd much rather have my kid watch a hardcore sex flick than some of the mindlessly ultraviolent crap that passes for entertainment these days.

    I'm of French ancestry, so maybe I'm just naturally depraved, but I think Europe has a far more healthy moral outlook than Americans: sex is good, violence is bad. Watch European TV and you'll see plenty of nudity and more explicit lovemaking than you'll see in the US. What you'll see far less of are shootings, stabbings, bombings, and other acts of violence which Americans are fed on a regular basis.

    What kind of sick culture do we live in where killing is considered more acceptable entertainment than making love? Where it's okay to show people getting graphically killed on TV, but it's forbidden to show a pair of female breasts? Do you sexually repressed Puritans out there believe that your kids are going to be turned into some kind of sex-fiend-psychos if they see people naked?

    In any case, there's a simple solution to dealing with Hollywood "depravity", regardless of how you define it: don't watch it. Movies have ratings and TV shows have warnings based on their content - use this to decide what to see and what to avoid. This is America, supposedly the "land of the free". A legally enforced Hays code would be blatant censorship, a gross violation of the Constitution, and an act more worthy of the Taliban than a free and democratic government.


    You really are sick (none / 0) (#56)
    by T Reginald Gibbons on Sat Mar 30th, 2002 at 05:43:44 PM PST
    Or blissfully uninformed.

    An article on American porn, both hard and soft.

    To summarise what you just said, you'd rather have your children see women choked, beated, spat upon and abused in ways too obscene to mention here, than have them watch actors involved in pretend violence, usually with a respectable purpose, such as saving planet Earth.

    Do you really think people and society are unaffected by the images they see? I'm sure if you've read the linked article, you will concede that porn is more than just naked people. We have a responsibility to comment upon the depraved trade that is debasing society, not to mention the impact that porn of any kind has upon men's feelings towards women. Don't deceive yourself into thinking that ignoring the world around you is a better exercise of freedom than trying to improve it.


    Umm... (none / 0) (#57)
    by budlite on Sun Mar 31st, 2002 at 07:51:51 AM PST
    No, I don't think that's what he said, and I agree with him.

    Admittedly, there is some pornography that crosses lines that shouldn't be crossed, but softcore and pornography showing simple penetration is going to be a lot less harmful to a child's mentality than a film glorifying the dismemberment and other brutal killing methods that can be used on people.

    Plus, if you come across something you don't want to see - don't watch it. It's that simple.


    Read. (none / 0) (#60)
    by T Reginald Gibbons on Sun Mar 31st, 2002 at 07:31:36 PM PST
    I'd much rather have my kid watch a hardcore sex flick than some of the mindlessly ultraviolent crap that passes for entertainment these days.

    That's what he said. Now read the article I linked. Particularly the sections describing the hardcore porn industry. See the word "hardcore" in what he said?


     
    Re: You really are sick (none / 0) (#58)
    by Anonymous Reader on Sun Mar 31st, 2002 at 06:44:25 PM PST
    You're the one who's blissfully uninformed. Obviously you've never seen porn, you've just read propaganda about it in Femi-Nazi diatribes. I'm sure there's some really sick violent porn out there, but the majority of it isn't, certainly not the mainstream popular stuff. I've watched plenty of porn (much of it with my wife) and I have never seen "women choked, beated, spat upon and abused in ways too obscene to mention here". In fact, the most "violence" I've ever seen in a porn film are butts getting lightly slapped (both male and female).

    Porn has had no effect on my feelings toward women. Women are human beings who are equal in every way to men, except for the fact that as a heterosexual I am far more sexually attracted to them, and I enjoy seeing them naked. So shoot me. Watching porn is a way for many couples to get in the mood and/or learn some new tricks, while for single men it's a way to vent their frustration if they're not getting any real sex.

    Freedom is always threatened by self-righteous do-gooders like yourself who think you should decide what others can or cannot see, read, or hear. Go join the Saudi religious police if you feel like imposing your sexually repressed ethics on others.




    Martin Amis (none / 0) (#59)
    by T Reginald Gibbons on Sun Mar 31st, 2002 at 07:17:52 PM PST
    ...is hardly a femi-nazi. Maybe you should read the linked article. Pay particular attention to effects the porn industry has on the lives of its participants, and remember next time you're wanking off to the sodomization of some underpaid sex worker, that girl definitely has herpes, probably has AIDS by now, and is almost certainly heading into poverty with a heroin habit. And you've made a small contribution to her degradation.


    Protect people from their own lack of judgement? (none / 0) (#61)
    by akepa on Mon Apr 1st, 2002 at 08:53:58 AM PST
    Lots of rock musicians take drugs and probably have herpes too from all those groupies. I guess rock music should be banned too. Otherwise we're contributing to some drummer's degradation whenever we listen to the radio.

    Lots of actors in non-porn films also have bad drug habits, and more than a few have died of AIDS. The vast majority of actors are underpaid; the celebrity millionaire superstars are the exception to the rule. Maybe all movies and TV shows should be banned, to spare anyone from having to choose such a degrading career.

    Ultimately, people are responsible for their own decisions, no matter how popular it is today to believe that someone else is always to blame. If actors, musicians, lawyers, politicians, or anyone else choose to have unprotected sex or take drugs, then they alone are responsible for the consequences of such actions.



    Responsibility (none / 0) (#62)
    by T Reginald Gibbons on Mon Apr 1st, 2002 at 07:21:01 PM PST
    You're trying to make the case that we have no responsibility to anyone besides ourselves. I'm sorry, you're wrong. We have a responsibility towards the society we live in. Undermining its morality through drugs, porn and hedonistic attitudes is not a statement of freedom, it's an abnegation of your duty to your fellow man. If your brother falls down, do you ignore his pain? Do you pay to watch?

    People entering Hollywood or rock music come for the slim dream of success. They are aware that the road will be hard and they aren't likely to succeed. They make the choice with their eyes open. Porn does not work on this principle.

    Starlets in the porn industry seldom understand what they're getting into. Nobody tells them about the herpes problem until they have it. Nobody tells them that they will end up doing progressively more degrading things as their career prospects get slimmer.

    Porn is a sickening industry. It's products are repulsive (gonzo porn, by the way, is the rule, not the exception nowadays). It destroys its participants and feeds on human misery. It teaches men that women should be treated almost like animals, and it teaches men to expect sexual responses from women that are completely unrealistic. By watching it, you are participating in one of the most pervasive, sexist and immoral problems of modern society.

    Of course, with moral relativism and "personal responsibility" we've perfected a system of that lets us rationalise anything on the grounds that it's too hard to refrain from sin, and besides, we have no duty towards other people. If a guy wants to kiss your ass for a few quarters, the fact that you're paying him to do it doesn't reflect at all poorly upon you.


     
    Bonus post (none / 0) (#63)
    by T Reginald Gibbons on Mon Apr 1st, 2002 at 07:24:02 PM PST
    You aren't actually paying rock stars to degrade themselves. This statement is not true of the porn industry, and it is why porn watchers should be considered direct participants in the debasement that the porn industry creates.


     

    All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective companies. Comments are owned by the Poster. The Rest ® 2001, 2002, 2003 Adequacy.org. The Adequacy.org name, logo, symbol, and taglines "News for Grown-Ups", "Most Controversial Site on the Internet", "Linux Zealot", and "He just loves Open Source Software", and the RGB color value: D7D7D7 are trademarks of Adequacy.org. No part of this site may be republished or reproduced in whatever form without prior written permission by Adequacy.org and, if and when applicable, prior written permission by the contributing author(s), artist(s), or user(s). Any inquiries are directed to legal@adequacy.org.