These anti-sex crusaders confuse me. They target pornography, but you get the idea they think sex is a dirty, nasty awful thing you should do only to the person you love best, and then only to procreate. In this installment, a group calling itself ROCK is targeting a 40 year old business in Clarksville. It has put up a billboard basically encouraging people to call and complain about an adult theater called Theatair-X which has been in business for 40 years with the only complaints against it being those ginned up by ROCK. The billboard calls go to a number which is then transferred to the Clarksville town hall.
These people are a “solution” in search of a problem. I get some of the anti-pornography sentiment. The hypersexualization in our media, particularly advertising, creates some unrealistic perceptions. But, frankly, I’m more irritated by trashy looking Bratz dolls being sold to little girls than I am about porn. And, in any event, the reactionary anti-sex position of zealots like ROCK are more damaging to kids than the porn industry.
Somewhere in between (probably closer to the porn side than the ROCK side), there is a realistic attitude about sexuality that says that it’s something that can add some real joy to our lives without being used to control us or to sell us stuff.
Right on, buddy. It’s been quite some time since I’ve been to your blog, but I’m glad to see you’re still going!
As the mom of two girls under the age of ten, I can’t begin to tell you how much I hate Bratz. It’s funny, people used to complain about Barbie being a bad example for little girls – I find her to now have a quaint innocence. Have you seen the new Holly Hobbie? Once a quiet, bonnet-wearing character, she’s even been sexed up now. Horrible.
Anyway, sorry for the long comment, but the anti-sex crusaders (which is a great term) drive me bats. The ruckus over an adult bookstore in Unionville (close to my hometown) has long been a point of contention, and I’ve always been of the opinion that the protesters garner that business far more attention with their abundant public outrage. I love the irony.
What we need to do is stop talking about “sex” likes its something bad, and start doing that at a very young age.
The more “mystical” and “complex” sex is made out to be to kids the worse off society is. I’m not saying you should show porn to a 5 year old, but we need to start thinking about it as a natural process, not as some thing done only in red lit rooms in Amsterdam.
Look at other countries around the world who have a more mature attitude toward sex. They just don’t have the same sorts of issues and hang-ups we have here. That’s not to say they don’t still have their fringe elements, but society as a whole has moved past that.
Any time one group decides to try to gain power over another group and dictate how they should act, we are going to have conflicts like these. In other words, everyone needs to just mind their own #@$#@$ business and live their lives.
Only if you’re doing it right…
[Thank you! I’ll be here all week – try the veal!]
Hopefully the 9:00 show is different from the 7:30 show.
Why do you claim that the people affiliated with ROCK are “anti-sex”?
“…the only complaints against it being those ginned up by ROCK”– not true.
I haven’t studied it in detail, but they say they just want the existing relevant laws enforced. If true, that’s a good thing, right? Either enforce the laws or change them.
I’m ambivalent/conflicted about such efforts, but those efforts should be described and treated fairly.
I remember when the Vanessa Williams Miss America/Penthouse brouhaha was still a current event, a buddy of mine used to have fun describing his image of the people offended by it. He thought it was probably a group of middle age-to-elderly women looking at the magazine, clucking over how awful it was, and then demanding that whoever was holding the magazine turn the page so they could see how awful the next page was.
From the article:
I just get the idea from other groups like ROCK that they’re probably anti-sex. But you’re right, for all I know, it’s just images of sex they hate and they are hardcore swingers.
Free Speech… meet Free Market.
I’m baffled that our society has more of a problem with sex (usually a good thing, when consensual etc.) than violence (almost always bad). You can watch CSI at 9 p.m. and see decomposing bodies, severed limbs (reproductions of them anyway), and that’s fine, but if Janet Jackson’s boob is exposed for a half second, look out!
My wife & I went to see “Zack & Miri Make a Porno” a couple weeks ago. Saw V, a movie about torturing people in horrendous ways, was playing in the next theater over. We saw a man taking a boy in to see it who couldn’t have been more than 11. All things being equal, if I HAD to take an 11 year old to an R rated movie (which I’m not going to do), I’d rather take him/her to the raunchy movie than the violent one.
Of course, I can’t speak for what the govt has received in terms of complaints. I can tell you that all sorts of people– from your friend’s amusing (if not accurate) “image” of the “anti-sex” crowd to middle-of-the-road non-church attenders– find the business and its location somewhere between annoying and offensive.
They say they just want the existing relevant laws enforced. If true, that’s a good thing, right? If the laws are being violated, then either enforce the laws or change them.
Problem is, Eric, that its intended “demographic” is transient in nature, not local.
those who rent/purchase the services?
Yes. Attempt at pun, that failed. Most customers are likely just driving by, and don’t live in the vicinity.
Since they are “alleging that illegal activities including ‘sex acts and other acts’ occur” is it safe to assume they have proof of this? Legally obtained, of course since they are wanted to enforce the law…
and what exactly are “other acts?” Eating? Drinking? Removal of one’s coat? Playing “sticky-shoe” with the floor?
I recall the Unionville location is the one where a group has protested for a couple of years now. The leader of that group did a couple of prison terms for rape, sodomy, and murder. Now he thinks everyone suffers from the same character defects that he has, and he’s willing to violate your personal space and take your picture to save you from yourself.
It’s Uniontown– exit 41 on I-65. I think their focus is taking pictures of truckers and reporting it to the company. One of the related “observations” with Theatair-X is that as one drives east on Veterans Parkway, you can see truckers in the back parking lot, advertising their products in tandem with porn. Classy! I remember one with Tombstone Pizza that seemed especially ironic.
The ROCK folk say they just want the existing relevant laws enforced. If true, that’s a good thing, right? If the laws are being violated, then either enforce the laws or change them.
But what “existing and relevant laws”?
No spitting on the sidewalks?
No semis parking along county roads?
No having “relations” (consensual or otherwise) with domesticated farm animals?
In a vacuum, sure, enforce them or repeal them. But, in the real world, you need to prioritize and allocate your resources.
For example, lets say there was a person conducting activity that didn’t hurt anyone but violated a law of some sort. Let’s also say that, for whatever reason, it would be politically difficult to repeal the law; perhaps because politically influential people didn’t like the activity in question for reasons that weren’t strictly rational. Let’s also say that the governmental entity in charge of enforcing the particular law had limited resources and every dollar or minute spent attempting to enforce or litigate against the person not harming anyone was a minute or dollar taken away from activities that would be more beneficial to the public.
Under those purely hypothetical circumstances, I’d say looking the other way was the best practical option, even if repealing the non-rational law made the most sense.
But, as a general rule, active, even enforcement of all laws is ideal because it reduces the pernicious effects of arbitrary, selective enforcement.
Agreed. But we still shouldn’t give someone a hard time because they publicly ask for relevant laws to be enforced.
Well, not just for asking for laws to be enforced. But, if they aren’t asking for laws to be enforced merely in a general way, we can pick on their choice of particular laws for enforcement if we disagree with those choices.
The Uniontown people were taking pictures of all patrons. That and screaming and generally harrassing. I know because that’s the treatment I got when I stopped in while driving a personal vehicle, mostly out of curiousity after reading a news report about it. That was a couple of years ago. Maybe they’re more well-behaved now.
My general observation about that place was that there didn’t appear to be a town in sight. Just a bunch of fields and an interstate, if I recall correctly.
This is kinda related to anti-sex crusaders in general, in specific of the no-premarital-sex kind: a study came out just recently that showed that 95% of Americans have pre-marital sex. And have been for decades. So why are we spending money on abstinence-only education in our schools? For 5% of the students?
95% of those no-pre-marital sex crusaders have had premarital sex (or 81% of you use the other number from the study).
Ironic, to say the least.
An update:
One of the local TV stations is doing a two-part series on what happens “in there” and why the town council allows the laws to be flogged.
Part 2 is tonight. Here’s a link to part 1:
http://www.wave3.com/global/video/flash/popupplayer.asp?ClipID1=3753846&h1=WAVE%203%20investigates%20Theatair%20X%20-%20Part%201&vt1=v&at1=News&d1=344667&LaunchPageAdTag=Search%20Results&activePane=info&rnd=1912494