Fear is the foundation of most governments.
-John Adams
Saturday, January 06, 2007
IT'S ALWAYS THE END OF THE GODDAMNED WORLD
WAGGING FINGERS, EMPTY HEADS
Attention! Young Women Unashamed of Sexuality, Society in Decline . . . Again/Still
Ace of Spades cracks the case of the Good Looking College Cheerleader Lowering Herself to Be Filmed Having Sex. It's a complete mystery. Yes, it's a complete shock and how could this happen and won't someone think of the children and no, I've never heard of digital cameras and Internet distribution.
For you see, in 1885 no young women would ever deign to splay her vagina on the Internet. Mostly because the Internet hadn't been invented yet. This seems to be a clear case where post hoc ergo propter hoc is not a fallacy.
Digital cameras, therefore easily-captured high-resolution easily-copied pornography.
The Internet, therefore pornography on the Internet.
VHS tapes, therefore pornography, poorly-copied and weakly-distributed, on VHS.
Or how about, Polaroids, therefore pornography on Polaroids.
Nevertheless, morals are in decline because now women will deign to splay their vaginas on the Internet.
The update tells us that the cheerleader's pics were probably stolen and placed on the Internet against her will.
Ace of Spades still manages to get in a few digs, saying that it's "risky" to take dirty pics in your own bedroom and also that it's "sleazy."
But hey, totally her decision. The dumb slut.
---
Ace tells us something profound . . . ly stupid:
"Some will say stories like this, and the Texas high school cheerleader scandal, don't indicate anything more than the fact that the media is now giving these stories play. I.e., this has always been going on, now our sensationalist, 24-hour-cycle media is just telling us about it.
"That's nonsense. This has never happened before."
No, that was nonsense.
Never, ever before. We suppose the good Marquis simply made up the character of Juliette out of whole cloth.
---
Interesting, completely unrelated fact: Google search for "cheerleader porn" yields 2,110,000 hits. XXX sites galore.
Who wants to place bets on how many of the young women on those sites were/are cheerleaders, or college girls, or girl-next-door types, or any other conception of "those kinds of girls wouldn't do those things" strawwomen that seem to typify conservative sexuality?
Shriek! This has never happened before!
---
The main argument, in a between-the-lines way, is that "girls" don't do this, shouldn't do this, but here's a link so take a look, and absolutely no mention that the penis in those photographs belongs to a young man who, oddly enough, receives no criticism for his choice.
No, seriously. Monty from the comments:
"Ladies, here's a tip: someday, you might want to get married to a guy you really love. This guy may surf the internet tubes, and may run across that embarassing little video you did a few years ago when you still did "that kind of stuff". (Or your new guy's friends might help him out and just mail him the link or give him the DVD. 'Cause that's what friends do -- crush each other's hopes and dreams, and then laugh about it.) Your beau may not like the fact that his fiancee was famous for giving blowjobs to two guys at once, or dancing naked and drunk on a balcony while a group of guys groped her. I'm just saying. It's not the kind of thing that promotes the trust and matrimonial bond that makes for a long and happy marriage."
Translation: [Condescending opener], if you ever want to be desired by a man you must present the front of being virtuous, a virgin, even, because men are so insecure that they must never think of you being sexual outside of your authority. One day, while doing a harmless search for teen cheerleader pussy (hey, they want to find pictures of cheerleaders with their cats) they encounter you (gasp!) having sex or touching someone else or enjoying yourself without restraint. Once you spoil the whole virgin/whore dynamic then no man will want used goods. Also, none of this applies to men because they can fuck anybody they want and film it and it will only be the woman that is a slut for letting the guy do that to her.
Monty, Monty, Monty. Trust in a marriage should be based upon honesty, which means knowing things about another person that might make you uncomfortable and accepting them nevertheless. Building a marriage based around a whitewash of youthful indiscretions doesn't say anything good about the trust issue, and if the matrimonial bond can't handle a group grope or a few BJ pics, then don't ask her what she did when she was serious with a guy.
---
The comments around the Internet go on and on and on, as they tend to do. Almost every cliche can be found - it's MTV, it's Sex and the City, it's the Sexual Revolution and birth control and women's lib and what it all boils down to is a bunch of men bitching that some young women don't feel ashamed when they have sex and they should feel ashamed. But young men don't have to feel ashamed because they're men. And wasn't it better when that double standard was firmly enshrined in a sexually-repressed society and nobody knew anything about sex?
Here is an insight into the moral conservative brain: The crucial idea is that the surface of a society, some would say the most repressed face, represents the actual society itself.
Therefore, there were no pedophiles in the 1950s because nobody would talk about child molestation and children weren't told anything about sex so it was that much easier to be traumatized by molestation and if you were an adolescent girl you were fighting against even stronger odds because a whole gender was aligned against you and you might be accused of encouraging any kind of sexual abuse. The same way that there was no rape until the women's liberation movement made up all that stuff, even though male-dominated law enforcement agencies would only go after rapists if the suspect was a black man and date rape certainly must be a new invention because how could a nice football captain in 1920 take a local girl out to the haystack and force himself on her knowing that his uncle the sheriff and his father the mayor would take care of any problems and, besides, he could intimidate her into not saying anything anyway.
And women back then certainly didn't have sex before marriage. Or if they did they were discreet. Yes, it was all backroom orgies and swingers parties. Never mind that disseminating pornographic materials would have gotten you arrested - and still can.
Does anybody rememberComstock and his laws? Might suppression and repression and the threat of law and force and social pressure all have mixed together in a sexist, genteel, hypocritical morass.
---
People who take the time to become well-educated in historical social realities, especially about sex, will not be surprised by any of the sexual exploitation news stories because nothing's shocking, everything sexual has been imagined or tried all throughout history (excluding technology-specific kinks).
On the other hand, it's so easy to spot the ignorant. They're the ones shouting about moral decline and how permissiveness is making things worse. The blind spot is the one they carry around with them - they simply can't imagine that there exists sexuality outside of their own narrow experiences.
This isn't just prudishness; It's the Victorian notion that everyone else's sexuality should be regulated within a very small field of acceptable behavior.
