As predicted, bestiality goes mainstream

http://www.jewishworldreview.com

-- SOMETIMES I surprise even myself.

Listeners to my radio show will remember that last year I was ranting about a study published in a reputable American Psychological Association journal which concluded that child molestation was not always harmful to children and, in some cases, might even be beneficial. Well, a lot of professionals and politicians jumped on that one, and that so-called research has earned the ignominy it deserved.

However, in the course of my on-air musings about the state we are in as a country, where morality is the butt of jokes and credible professional journals publish studies that advance the cause of pedophiles, I laughingly said, "What's next? Bestiality as innocent fun?"

Brace yourselves. Showing up in two leading fashion magazines this winter is a multi-page advertising spread for a couturier that pairs the obligatorily skinny woman in provocative poses with an enormous dog in a studded leather collar. Lest the not-so-subliminal message in this advertising campaign be lost, there are pages of "playful" encounters between them.

The first shows the model, clad in a dress slit up to her posterior, bending over the dog and putting a leather mask over his head --- the mask and the spiked collar being well-recognized accoutrements of sadomasochism.

Turning the page, we find this girl and her dog in a rather compromising position -- she, on her haunches; the dog on its hind legs, draped over her back. She is clutching the dog's fore legs, which are wrapped around her shoulders -- one paw tucked inside her open jacket, under which she is nude. The model's eyes are closed, and she has a blissful look on face.

It's harder to read the dog's face, even though he has changed his leather hood for a spiked muzzle.

The last photo shows the woman seated, bent double over her knees and holding onto her ankles.

Since very little dress is showing, I guess this ad is selling her shoes, which are definitely suitable for kinky sex, complete with spike heels, ankle straps and rhinestones. The dog obviously likes them, too, as he is licking her feet. The model's expression is ecstatic, if not downright orgiastic.

So, here we are. The leading women's fashion magazines have accepted these ads that sell clothes by not-so-subtly depicting bestiality and sadomasochism. Do they really believe their readers would find this appealing? How many women do you know that long to have sex with their dogs?

As a nation, we have become so desensitized to the immoral and the reprehensible that ads like these can run in not one, but at least two (that I know of) national women's magazines. And run without any public commentary by other media. No published criticism of these ads or the magazines that ran them has reached my eyes and ears.

But I did get a letter from a woman in Minnesota, along with a copy of a letter she sent to one of the magazines, calling the editors to task.

She wrote: "I do not expect your company to be responsible for all that is wrong in the world, but it is not beyond your power to exclude immoral advertisements in order to take a stand against this horrible kind of behavior. Your magazine reaches millions of people, and to print this ad was to condone the behavior. You should be ashamed."

And isn't that just the point? What has happened to shame? It seems to have gone away along with other honorable concepts such as right and wrong, moral and immoral, acceptable and unacceptable. And our society has literally lost itself without these guiding principles.

But if society is going to be "found," it's going to be by people like Jennifer, who wrote to the magazine and canceled her subscription. I hope she rallied others to do so, as well. Remember that free speech cuts both ways. The First Amendment protects us all, so you can exercise your right of free speech by speaking up, by fighting for righteousness.

-- Frolicking with Fido (@ .), April 03, 2000

Answers

"Disensitized" is the keyword here. What do you expect from a society where every man relishes porno, and women are afraid to speak up against it lest they're thought of as "undesirable"?

Bestiality is extreme, and I'm really curious to know which "leading" woman mag published such ads. Perhaps I'm not reading the "leading" kind, because I haven't come up against anything so remotely gory. You bet I'd be writing to my subscriptions if I saw anything like that, as well as giving them my cancellation.

-- Chris (!@#$@pond.com), April 03, 2000.

Uhhh..... Chris,

"Disensitized" is the keyword here. What do you expect from a society where every man relishes porno, and women are afraid to speak up against it lest they're thought of as "undesirable"?

Getting into stereo-types here?... I've know quite a few women that "relished porno" as much as "every man", and they were very secure in Thier sexuality, not repressed, not feeling taken advantage of, just looked at it as part of a normal life... I found them much more "real" than an up-tight prud that got all pushed out of shape by something they could ignore.

I'm not meaning to flame here... just different strokes for different folks :-)

-- Netghost (ng@no.yr), April 03, 2000.

Personally, I think this one ranks right up there with those tubbie toys being touted as homosexual influences. Then again, I've always liked those shoes with the ankle-straps. They're in style again, you say?

-- Anita (notgiving@anymore.thingee), April 03, 2000.

First, I fail to see the connection between this article and Ken Decker.

Second, I can't find any reference to this article at the Jewish World Daily web site.

Third, what exactly was the magazine the author refers to and who is the author of this article?

Or, are you just kicking over the anthills.........?

-- Jim Cooke (JJCooke@yahoo.com), April 03, 2000.

Whoaaaaa! Slow down there Chris!

"What do you expect from a society where every man relishes porno"

"Every" man relishes porno??? That's an awful big brush you have there! There ain't nothin like the real thing baby, and I'm not interested in paper pictures.

-- Hawk (flyin@high.again), April 03, 2000.

I have an open mind too Anita, but I refuse to play PC with things like this. When do one draw the line, eh? I like ankle straps too and anything that'll enhence my sexyness for the right occasion, but hey, I'm not out to cruise dogs.

Netghost, have you ever asked a porn star, man or woman, how they really love what they're doing after a while? Oh yes, some women love it for a while, and they love the money. And most men can't even get it up for the camera. (How do I know this? I read porn star interviews.) Sex is for mating and loving emotions, not for meat grinders.

Hawk, I don't just mean looking up at mags and watching videos, I mean wanting to do with their women what they've come used to see and learn from those porn media. IMO, it debases women and sex in general.

I've had this discussion on the old board before (and the thread was deleted btw), and I know i'll take flack for it from many people. Somehow because I think porn is debasing I'm told I'm a prude. I'm anything but prude (I'm french, might give you an idea.) There are limits to everything, and I draw mine at porn, as opposed to sensuality. It's a whole different attitude.

-- Chris (!@#$@pond.com), April 03, 2000.

This is "a" or a clone (not that it really matters). You see, "a" thinks we invented debauchery here in the late 20th century America. To him, the world was a Norman Rockwell painting until those damn radical 60s.

Yes, I know. This attitude requires a staggering ignorance of history and an incredibly narrow view of culture. Since "a" has not read de Sade, he thinks the Penthouse forum is breaking news. He thinks "Caligula" is a fragrance for men and that the orgy was invented at Studio 54 (by Democrats and Feminists and (gasp) Lesbians).

Using the insinunation of bestiality to sell shoes is hardly the high water mark of moral decay. Nor is modern day America, in toto. Oh, we have a cheap, coarse culture, but we eliminated most of the really naughty behaviors... like human sacrifice, slavery and despotism. Since we rooted in a puritanical ethos, the sexual stuff still ties people in knots. Because we are a capitalist society, businesses will continue to use sexuality to sell everything and strappy shoes.

Personally, I can stand being offended. It's the price we pay for a free society... and a bargain when you consider the price others have paid in earlier societies. Inquisition, anyone?

-- Ken Decker (kcdecker@worldnet.att.net), April 04, 2000.

Oh, and to answer the original question... since there has been man and beasts, there has been bestiality. Would you like some anthropological references?

-- Ken Decker (kcdecker@worldnet.att.net), April 04, 2000.

Chris:

I haven't seen the pictures described. My guess is that the author of this article, who purports to having a radio show and purports to have already discussed pedophilia thereon let his/her imagination go a little wild when looking at some fashion magazines. My imagination has never gotten much farther than "Oh, yeah...where would I wear THAT?" when looking at some of the pictures in fashion magazines, which is why I don't buy them.

High fashion mags have ALWAYS posed women provocatively, sometimes next to a tiger or some other exotic animal. I've never known men to even scan high fashion mags, and the women who scan them concentrate on the SHOES!

-- Anita (notgiving@anymore.thingee), April 04, 2000.

Chris,

If I remember correctly, Vanity Fair ran these ads.

-- flora (***@__._), April 04, 2000.

Chris,

Netghost, have you ever asked a porn star, man or woman, how they really love what they're doing after a while? Oh yes, some women love it for a while, and they love the money. And most men can't even get it up for the camera. (How do I know this? I read porn star interviews.) Sex is for mating and loving emotions, not for meat grinders.

Neither I, nor any of my past Lady friends have been "porn stars"... what's your point?

I find it interesting that you read "porn star interviews"... who cares? That is the biz they are in... I don't care if they can't get it up, or if she doesn't get off... neither does my Lady.

It was her idea, but then, in my experiance, it almost always is... Guess I'm attraced to women that are free with themselves and sure of their sexuallity.... and sure of what they want...

The "meat grinder".... ME :-)

-- Netghost (ng@no.yr), April 04, 2000.

anita,

Your last name is Marcos, isn't it?

-- (foot@fetish.thingie), April 04, 2000.

LOL. Thanks for the laugh, foot-fetish person. I could count the shoes I own on one hand. Was the first name of that Marcos lady really Anita? [I don't remember her name...only that she had LOTS of shoes.]

I haven't looked at a high-fashion mag in several years. My dentist doesn't subscribe, and my doctor calls us in so quickly that there's no time. When I DID, however, they tended to show fashions that I've never seen IRL, even on the streets of Paris. Their purpose is to set trends. Nobody really wears a totally transparent outfit to work, but the high fashion mags will show someone walking the streets in such a thing, carrying a briefcase as though they're on their way to the office. Where's the emphasis? Well, dress-makers will look at the level of hemline. Is it higher or lower than last year? They'll even look at the design. Is it baggy or form-fitting? The people who make the clothes that ordinary people buy off the racks will LOOK at these mags for the trends and make decisions that the rest of us must live with based on the trend-of-the-year. The transparency caught their eye, much like the dog caught the eye of the author in question.

I WOULD like to have another pair of shoes with the ankle-strap, but they've not been sold for several years. Spike heels, however, are for short people, but if ankle-straps are shown in a fashion mag, SOMEBODY is going to start selling shoes with a more comfortable heel that has the ankle-strap as well.

Remember the movie, "The bad seed?" "Give me those shoes!!!!"

-- Anita (notgiving@anymore.thingee), April 04, 2000.

Imelda Marcos is her name.

-- (anita @is wrong.again), April 04, 2000.

You know...I did run across these ads in a magazine I was leafing through when I was at the salon. I remember pointing them out to my stylist. Yes they were extremely raunchy, certainly more than would be expected in a fashion magazine. Even I, in all my seething sexuality (wink) was taken aback. The ads were for Emanuel Ungaro, for shoes I think. I've been searching the WWW for a link to the ads, but no luck so far. I will keep trying though. =o)

-- cin (cinlooo@aol.corn), April 04, 2000.

decker,

"Nor is modern day America, in toto."

lol

-- : ) (lol@thedog.ref), April 04, 2000.

This guy walks into a bar in Arkansas and orders a white wine.

Everybody sitting around the bar looks up, surprised, and the bartender looks around and says: "You ain't from around here, are ya... where ya from, boy?"

The guy says, "I'm from Iowa."

The bartender asks, "What th' hell you do in Iowa?"

The guy responds, "I'm a taxidermist."

The bartender asks, "A taxidermist... now just what th' hell is a taxidermist?"

The guy says "I mount animals."

The bartender grins and shouts out to the whole bar, "It's OK boys, he's one of us!"

-- tee hee (enjoy@funny.one), April 04, 2000.

I grew up in the Western half of the US. I'm a 28 year-old female college graduate who was raised by fairly strict parents. I worked my way through college (graduating with high honors) in five years by working at various jobs, including retail, food service, nude model for the art school (paid $30 an hour)and one summer, as a phone sex girl.

The summer I was a phone sex operator, I lived in Reno, NV. Reno has a lot of that sort of business. I lived with relatives who were aware of what I was doing. I had started working at a casino, but I found myself tempted to gamble, not a good thing when you're going through college on a shoe-string budget. I left the casino and took a job working from 12 AM to 8 AM in an office near the airport. There were anywhere from one to four girls working each night. I was paid $15 an hour to have explicit phone sex with the customers. There was a lot of dead time when the phone wouldn't ring for hours, during which I caught up on my reading and gettig ready for fall term.

I was good at my job because I enjoyed what I was doing, for the most part. It made me feel sexy most of the time, and the money was great for me. Sometimes, a customer would come on who wanted to degrade us, but it was easy to remember that THEY were the ones paying $5.99 a minute to tell us we were whores.

There were several women who worked for this place who had been at various cathouses in Nevada. One of them had been fired from the Mustang because she was dating a regular customer, two others wanted to start families (I don't remember where they worked), and another two had family problems that made them leave prostitution. One woman, the day shift supervisor, had been a madam at the Midnight Bunny Ranch (a particularly notorious naughty house). She would sometimes come in two hours early so I could tape record her stories. The next year, those tapes helped me produce an A+ paper on sex and human relations for a Soc class. This woman was very upfront about enjoying what she did and how she had rarely met any woman "in the life" who felt ashamed or degraded by their work.

There was an enourmous sense of camaraderie among the girls. We called ourselves "phone whores", and we provided moral (or immoral) support to each other, and helped out in many ways. The last night I worked, the girls from the nightshift threw me a going away party, during which the owner awarded me a $500 bonus she called the (name of company) scholarship.

I loved my time in the sex industry, and wouldn't change it for the world. I still keep in touch with some of those women. I'm not ashamed of it, and I don't regret it for a moment.

-- Productive Member of Society (Iwant@privacy.please.cm), April 04, 2000.

Cin, I don't subscribe to Vanity Fair, but I'm not much surprised that they would run such an ad, they like to shock. Remember Demi-Moor stark naked on the cover, except for a body painted suit on her? That was very artful and beautiful IMO, but it shocked many people. I'm disappointed (even outraged) that they plunged to such low depth with this ad though.

Perhaps I should take the time to explain my position on porn in more depth.

For what I view porn is doing to America (and other western countries), I'll use an analogy with food. Porn being fast food (McDonald being one of the worse whores), and sensuality/sex being healthy home cooking (some are gourmet cooks.)

The barrage of advertisements we get in the media for fast food far exceed any advertisement/promotion for the healthier home cooking habits, and as a result American's eating habits have deteriorated into an unhealthy one (obesity and all the diseases that it causes such as diabetes, heart problems etc.) The porn culture is a cheapening and unhealthy culture of sex, encouraged by mass marketting. I'll not get into what debauchery does to health here.

Ken Decker is abosolutely right that debauchery and bestiality have always been around, but what is different today is that unlike the debauch of Marquis De Sade that stayed pretty much private within his own circle at the time, today we have the details of Marquis Clinton's sexual antics broadcasted in every developed countrie's living rooms on prime time.

In my first post I pointed out "desensitized" as the key word, and it is the main point I'm trying to make. Young teenager girls leafing through Vanity Fair are exposed to subliminal messages of bestiality in a shoe advertisement as being cool. If such rich and beautiful looking women do it they might think, it must not be so bad. Young boys and girls are thus constently bombarded with subliminal sex messages of all kinds in the media and entertainments, and porn is a huge money making industry (if somewhat underground) using those media.

Being french-canadian now living in the states for many years, I know both American and Canadian as well as French, attitude toward sex, and there is a big difference. As Ken pointed out, America coming from a puritan background officially is prude; censorship of breasts on national tv for example. Sex education in schools being a controversial debate, breast feeding in public etc. etc. All these things are healthy parts of sexuality which are not censored in canada and france, and not controversial. Porn isn't even as much a business in those countries as it is here, exactly because of this attitude. So here in America you have an official outward prudeness, with an unhealthy underground sex attitude thriving.

"Productive Member", thanks for sharing your experiences with the phone sex industry. You serve as an example of someone "desensitized", but you also show guilt and shame, since even though you claim not to be ashamed of your past job, you hide under an alias asking for privacy. I'm a nurse by profession and really not ashamed of it, no matter the inuendoes I get from people into porn culture. But really, my beef isn't with the kinds of fantasies people have about sex, and using the phone or pictures to fantasize, but with the mass marketting , and thus mass moral and health degradation. And the cheapening of the woman's mind and body (and the man as well.) It's a matter of standards and self-respect.

Now bestiality has broken new grounds in leading fashion magazines as being cool. What next? Necromancy?

-- Chris (!@#$@pond.com), April 04, 2000.

Chris-

You said, "You serve as an example of someone "desensitized", but you also show guilt and shame, since even though you claim not to be ashamed of your past job, you hide under an alias asking for privacy."

I'd like to point out that you yourself use a "nom de web", which by your logic, means that you're ashamed of what you've done.

I have been very public about my work as a phone sex operator. I have written a couple of essays which will be published in an anthology of writings by women in the sex industry under my actual name. Unfortunately, I have received a great deal of hate mail for this, which is why I'm reluctant to use my actual name and e-mail address. I'd like to point out that you yourself use a "nom de web", which by your logic, means that you're ashamed of what you've done.

It is my belief that nothing I say to you will convince you that I am anything other than what you make me out to be, i.e., a victim. So here I am. My name is Ruth Parker, and I worked for a company called Kiss and Tell communications in Reno, NV. As an adult, I am living in Portland, OR. I refuse to give you my phone number, address, or any other identifying information because I feel it might compromise my safety. If you wish to discuss this further, please continue to use this space.

-- Ruth Parker, AKA Productive Citizen (ruth_parker@yahoo.com), April 04, 2000.

Uh Ruth,

I think Chris used her own e-mail for a long time, until she received too much garbage.

Chris,

I still remember the notoroius 'prostitution' thread on the old forum & wouldn't dare think of you as a prude.

-- flora (***@__._), April 04, 2000.

"Ken Decker is abosolutely right that debauchery and bestiality have always been around, but what is different today is that unlike the debauch of Marquis De Sade that stayed pretty much private within his own circle at the time, today we have the details of Marquis Clinton's sexual antics broadcasted in every developed countrie's living rooms on prime time."

The Marquis de Sade was a very famous, and controversial, writer of his age who wrote extensive, detailed discussions of his sexual conquests. Check out Justine for one. Another classic example of French pornography is "The Story of O", by Anonymous. "The Story of O" is notable because of its graphic description of humiliation and sexual torture in addition to more traditional sex acts.

"In my first post I pointed out "desensitized" as the key word, and it is the main point I'm trying to make. Young teenager girls leafing through Vanity Fair are exposed to subliminal messages of bestiality in a shoe advertisement as being cool. If such rich and beautiful looking women do it they might think, it must not be so bad."

Eh... no. Subliminal messages have largely been discredited, but even if they hadn't been, there is still a very powerful tabooo against bestiality in this culture, just as there is against incest and other practices. Let me draw you a less evisceral analogy. Some women in our country are trying to present heavy women as glamorous, sexy and attractive. Lane Bryant and August Max cater exclusively to large women. Many major designers and manufacturers are also catering to larger women, and portraying them in their advertising. Liz Claiborne, Donna Karan, Dana Buchman, Versache, and others come to mind. Several fashion magazines carry ads for large women and offer advice on how to dress if your figure is closer to a 22 than a 6. Large model Emme hosts a very popular show on E Entertainment, called "Fashion Emergency". Several magazines have recently begun publishing that also cater and glamorize large women ("Mode Magazine", who's name means "fashion", comes to mind).

By your logic, teenage girls should be stuffing themselves silly to fit in with this fashion trend.

-- Ruth Parker AKA Productive Citizen (ruth_parker@yahoo.com), April 04, 2000.

Ruth, you misunderstood what I meant by your anonymity in your earlier post, or perhaps I just wasn't clear myself. We're all relatively anonymous, wether we use real names and email addresses. I've used this signature and my real email address since I've come on this forum in June '98, and a great many people already know my email address and correspond with me privately. I was instantly recognized for who I am, but you weren't.

I'm sorry if I offended you, but your own standards and morals have already been well established with you, as mine with me, and so debating them would be taking this issue to a personal level and cause for animosity. I'm was not judging your own personal actions, but simply using your post as an example to highlight my point (and if you had remained anonymous it would have been fine with me.)

I don't mean to judge or lecture anyone on this board about their sex habits and morals/values, I'm only trying to explain my own view on porn, and why I think the original post is outrageous, to me.

-- Chris (catsy@pond.com), April 04, 2000.

*Warning* I'm going to paste a couple of paragraphs from a link posted on the 'Battle for your mind' thread that I think might tie in with what you were driving at regarding these ads, Chris.

"Three distinct and progressive states of transmarginal inhibition were identified by Pavlov, The first is the Equivalent phase, in which the brain gives the same response to both strong and weak stimuli. Second is the Paradoxical phase, in which the brain responds more actively to weak stimuli than to strong. Third is the Ultra- Paradoxical phase, in which conditioned responses and behavior patterns turn from positive to negative or from negative to positive.

With the progressions through each phase, the degree of conversion becomes more effective and complete. The ways to achieve conversion are many and varied, but the usual first step in religious or political brainwashing is to work on the emotions of an individual or group until they reach an abnormal level of anger, fear, excitement or nervous tension.

The progressive result of this mental condition is to impair judgment and increase suggestibility. The more this condition can be maintained or intensified, the more it compounds. Once catharsis or the first brain phase is reached, the complete mental takeover becomes easier. Existing mental programming can be replaced with new patterns of thinking and behavior."

-- flora (***@__._), April 04, 2000.

I must not be living right. All of the women I know treat their dogs like family pets and wear either running shoes or flat sandals. Furthermore, I've never seen any magazines with ads like that. Then again, maybe I should read magazines that cover subjects other than computers or ham radio? As for porno, I tried to go to a XXX movie once, but I couldn't find a parking place downtown. Then I tried renting a porno flick at West Coast Video, but the cashier, an old friend, talked me into renting "Aliens," instead. So, I guess I'm back to watching women do their "tan maintenance" thing and reading threads like this on the Internet.

-- (kb8um8@yahoo.com), April 04, 2000.

I got one of those hotmail addresses this morning, so must now remember to type it in rather than my notgiving thingee.

I'll have to skim this magazine at the store next time I go. I DID find some examples of Emanuel Ungaro's shoes [and the fashions that go with them] on the internet. The shoes are WAY too tall and flashy for me, but we'll probably see variations eventually.

The original article, BTW, was written by Dr. Laura.

I'd like to hear more about the phone sex industry. I'd always thought the women who answered the phones were bored housewives and had pictures in my mind of older women in curlers and face cream, talking on the phone while they painted their toenails. Of course the late-night T.V. ads always show glamorous young women to lure them in.

I have a hard time thinking teenagers will pick up a subtle hint that bestiality is desirable by seeing some models posing provocatively with dogs. I think fast food became popular because it saved time.

I guess I have a different concept of morality than many in the U.S. My folks are from Norway. In Norway, children splash naked in public fountains. My kids played in the pool and sandbox naked when they were young in their own backyard behind a fence. The next-door neighbor took it upon himself to step up, look over the fence and ask them "Don't you have swimsuits to put on?" My theory is "If you don't like it, don't look at it." I have no intention of imposing my standards on someone else and I don't want others imposing their standards on ME.

-- Anita (Anita_S3@hotmail.com), April 04, 2000.

Lol kb8, lurk and learn ;-)

Flora, thanks for the Pavlov exerpt, which helps explain disensitization and conditioning, it is what I mean what is happening with porn and sex in America, but can you help me explain this in layman's terms so those who haven't studied psychology can understand it?

Anita, we're way beyond babies splashing naked in fountains and playing naked in sand boxes, here. (Mine ran naked as well, and so have some of my neighbor's here in the states.) I understand that your parents coming from Norway would find the naked body natural and taught you that, and that's part of my point with the unhealthyness of America's official prudeness. But what I'm debating is bestiality coming mainstream, which is NOT healthy sexual behavior, for either the mind or the body.

You said "I have no intention of imposing my standards on someone else and I don't want others imposing their standards on ME." I have no intentions of imposing either, but I do have the aim of teaching what I know, and what I view, as either healthy or not, I'm a nurse after all.

-- Chris (!@#$@pond.com), April 04, 2000.

For me this is off topic (but fascinating). I have to agree with Anita on being interested in the phone sex thing (grin). I could never understand how they all made money. Thumbing through almost any mens magazines will show hundreds of ads for such services. I realize the expenses are minimum but I wouldnt have thought that there would be enough people (men) with enough money and enough interest to make them all successful. Ive read about some of the various psychic hotlines going out of business due to lack of customers and Ruth has stated that she had many hours of dead time.

Re pornography. I think one can make the case that Playboy isnt pornographic. But I think that you can make the case that it isnt art either. And thats the problem. Most people think art is OK, but pornography isnt. Most of what appears in the mass media such as Playboy, Vogue, etc. is neither art nor pornography. Of course sometimes art means just being old. I went to Turkey and Egypt last summer. The guides would take great delight in showing the (very) explicit depictions of sex on various pieces of pottery and frescos. I have no doubt that modern photos of such goings on would be labeled by many people as porno, where the pottery and frescos are art.

There is a famous mythological story of Zeus taking on the guise of a swan to seduce a woman. There is also a famous painting of the scene. Porno or art? And if you really want to stretch what about fairytales such as Beauty and the Beast? What nasty subliminal messages has Walt Disney been pushing all these years? Horrors!

If anyone is really interested you should go back and look at what Dr. Laura said about the study having to do with Child Molestation and what the original report ACTUALLY said. I think youll see she put her own spin on the reports conclusions. Then draw you own.

-- The Engineer (spcengineer@yahoo.com), April 04, 2000.

If I'm not mistaken the photographer was Helmut Newton. He's quite famous in the industry and has had a long career built on somewhat shocking images.

About a month or so ago I heard an Italian discussing these ads. His take was on the symbolism of 'if you wear these shoes, you will turn your man into an animal'.

Sex sells. This campaign got people's attention, sort of a 'say what you want, just spell the name' right factor is working here. Personally, I found last year's Calvin Klein series depicting adolescents in their underwear, photographed in bad lighting in seedy locations more disturbing. Very kiddie porn-like, and the outcry afterwards had an impact. Of course it also probably contributed to a wider audience as well.

Chris makes a valid point about conditioning. I don't think many young girls read Vanity Fair, but perhaps it ran in Vogue as well.

Brittney Spears video where she takes a turn as a parochial schoolgirl singing "Hit me baby one more time" ad nauseum has probably had more of a corrosive effect on impressionable minds.

We are visual creatures, it's one reason I enjoy reading the forum. We have some content without the distractions - except for a powdered butt once in awhile, mudwrestling, or Porky in cellblock D.

We have been conditioned to respond to certain objects in certain ways. We're talking high heels here!

Engineer,

Thanks for the thought. Dr. Laura & spin, hmmm. No kidding. Didn't she have some nudie pix plastered all over the net last year? Sorry, I think what she does would be malpractice, 'cept for the fact her degree isn't in what she purports to practice anyway.

-- flora (***@__._), April 04, 2000.

Engeneer, discussing whether Playboy et al is porno or not, and encient "art" as being porno or not is somewhat detracting from the main issue as put forward by the original post IMO, since what is considered beautiful art by one individual can be considered as ugly by someone else. Art is too much of a vague umbrella, and meaning different things to different people. But you bringing up Beauty and the Beast is a good point, and my take on this is that the subliminal message (or moral of the story), isn't bestiality, but that even monstrous/ugly people can beautiful minds/souls/whatever. As in "beauty is skin deep". That's the message I got from that story as a kid anyway, and I believe that's what my own kids got out of it too. The Elephant Man was another movie with the same message, but this was an adult movie. He was called the Elephant Man because of a disfiguring desease he had (which didn't really make him look like an elephant imo), but he was a beautiful gentleman inside.

And about the phone sex hotlines, and perhaps the psychic hotlines, not seeming to be doing such a good business, my own theory is that perhaps with the advant of the more mainstreamed and popular internet, men (and women) have an alternate cheaper means of fantasizing, and much more "bang" for the buck (excuse the pun), what with videocams and free internet phones. Plus, in basic chat rooms, two men could be playing that game with each other and not knowing the difference.

Also, I haven't read the entire report you pointed out, but what I'm discussing is Dr. Laura's comments on the cut and paste above, standing on their own merits. I don't follow Dr. Laura much at all, but I've occasionaly heard her on the radio. This comment especially strikes a chord with me "As a nation, we have become so desensitized to the immoral and the reprehensible that ads like these can run in not one, but at least two (that I know of) national women's magazines. And run without any public commentary by other media. No published criticism of these ads or the magazines that ran them has reached my eyes and ears." No controversy has reached my ears or eyes either, until now, here on this board. Why not?

Flora, I have a teenage daughter, and believe me some of the teenage magazines are even more controversial than Vanity Fair. Vanity Fair is not geared towards teens and so the teens wouldn't be as much interested as a group. VF seeks to shock the more mature audiences. Sex sells, but also gore (the roadside gawker syndrome.)

-- Chris (!@#$@pond.com), April 04, 2000.

Dr Laura is banging her own drum here.

"What has happened to shame?"

Doesn't it seem kinda hypocritical coming from her, or did her 'exposure' only make her a more sympathetic character?

We are attracted & repulsed by the same old basic archetypes. What is obscene to me is that someone like Dr. Laura as successful as she is in dictating morality.

The 50,000 watt radio station that she hawks her books on & broadcasts her shows from had public commentary on the ads. I wonder how deeply she researched this fact before she wrote "... run without any public commentary by other media. No published criticism of these ads or the magazines that ran them has reached my eyes and ears."

Sorry, guess I'm just shooting the messenger again.

-- flora (***@__._), April 04, 2000.

Flora, like I said I don't follow Dr. Laura and so I don't know her background or credentials. But you said that she had nude pictures of herself posted on the internet last year, and you seem to insinuate that because of that she has no moral, and therefore should not be preaching against ads sugesting beastiality as cool? Perhaps I'm understanding you wrong, but it seems to me you're throwing the baby out with the bath water. Like I said, the naked body is natural and beautiful (anyone reading this thread NOT agree with that?), and if one wants to show it off, I don't see where that is immoral. She wasn't posing frolicking with a dog was she? Really, there IS a huge difference between the philosophy of sensuality and that of porn. One promotes health, the other not.

-- Chris (!@#$@pond.com), April 04, 2000.

I see what you're saying, Chris. My problem is who draws the line? do we get to draw it ourselves, or do we want someone else to do it for us?

I hope to have learned my lesson a bit from the last couple of years in letting opportunists with agendas & emotional appeals make my judgements for me.

Kinda OT - I was tuning the radio dial in the car & came across a religious station's program on pornography. The host made a remarked sincerely that in dealing with this issue, he had to tell his wife that he couldn't have the Victoria's Secret catalogue in the house. {Do you remember a post where you were wrangling Milne & I told you I hoped you had your asbestos Victoria's Secret on? I think you told me you didn't need them & only wore VS for someone who deserved it!}}

I caught your remark about desensitization loud & clear. Don't know exactly what to do about it - talk about throwing the baby out with the bathwater.

Gotta go for a bit. Brian seems to be feeling spunky, maybe he'll make it over to this thread - leave those other guys to baseball stats.

-- flora (***@__._), April 04, 2000.

Chris,

I think you miss the point.

As Flora said someone interpreted the ads as Buy the shoes, turn your man into an animal. Or you can agree with Dr. Lauras take on it. In the same vein some people want the Harry Potter books withdrawn from schools because they think the stories promote witchcraft. Which is why I brought up Beauty and the Beast. You can see it one way, or another. Sometimes it depends more on what you are looking for then what is there.

One can always see what one wants to see. In a certain sense advertisers count on this: Buy a hot car, drink the right cola (or brand of beer), get the beautiful woman. How much influence all of this really has is open to question. I think that assuming a teenage girl seeing the pictures in Vogue will suddenly be open to a suggestion to have sex with the neighbors dog is a bit far fetched.

Sorry, but you also missed my point about the phone sex lines. I was wondering why they seemed to be such a GOOD business, not the other way around. It would seem, as you say, with the Internet and all the other things available they wouldnt be a good business. But they all seem to thrive. Very curious.

Dr. Lauras Ph.D. is, I believe, in Physiology. To give her due she did take courses afterwards in family counseling (or something similar) subjects. Her sister actually does have a degree in Psychology. My understanding is that Dr. Laura doesnt talk to her, or their mother. Any cursory scan of her history shows that she in an enormous hypocrite. And yes there are nude pictures of her on the Internet. And no they arent art or promoting a healthy body. They were taken by her ex boyfriend who was a big radio jock in LA. And who she had an affair with when she needed him to get into radio. Isnt there something about the person being without sin casting the first stone. Dont think she qualifies.

-- The Engineer (spcengineer@yahoo.com), April 04, 2000.

Good points, Engineer.

I suspect a lot of the disagreement in this thread is based on different premises.

First, we had Dr. Laura boldly stating that this ad reflected bestiality going "mainstream." I wouldn't agree with that premise even not having seen the ad. Animals have been included in high- fashion ads for a very long time. Some would agree that the ad was in poor taste, but it could be argued that other ads are similarly in poor taste.

Second, Chris stated that ALL men enjoy pornography, going on to suggest that this encourages these men to require their female partners to live the fantasy, going on to suggest that the women feel in an uncomfortable position for fear of being seen undesirable. Again, we have a premise on which there's an assumption that all agree [all men enjoy pornography], with that premise moving along to further statements and further assumptions.

I certainly can't speak for ALL men, but if I can speak for SOME men, we've already excluded ALL men. SOME men do not enjoy pornography. I live with one, but know others. For SOME men, explicitness is not a turn on. Subtlety is a turn on, and that could explain the popularity of lingerie.

This leads to a definition of pornography. What exactly is included in pornography? There are classifications of pornography just like there are classifications on other forms of media. Is soft porn really considered pornography or is the hard porn classification alone considered? Is it restricted to practices of which one wouldn't personally be interested?

Regarding women being subjected to the fantasies that men saw through pornography, I would think this about as probable as a man visiting a prostitute and then asking his mate to do the same things the prostitute had done. The woman may have wanted to try variations on a theme but hadn't realized her partner was willing. The woman may feel that the variation is of no interest, degrading, etc. If the man insists on the variation despite lack of interest, or if the woman feigns interest where none really exists, the relationship will ultimately suffer. I don't consider this the fault of pornography or the prostitute who suggested the variation. It's simply a sexual incompatibility.

I've seen a small subset of pornographic movies in my time, and seen some of the pornographic magazines. I've been in porn shops both in the states and overseas. The "shops" overseas were more the size of a typical "Toys R Us", and I have no problem confessing that I didn't understand what folks did with half the stuff there. I've never seen a porn movie that included bestiality, nor one that included children. I can see how children are drugged, lured, etc. using sheer power to force them to do things against their will, and I can understand how men can force animals to stand still while they're basically raped, but for the life of me I can't understand how a woman could manage anything beyond mutual masturbation with a male animal.

-- Anita (Anita_S3@hotmail.com), April 05, 2000.

Gadzooks,

Of all threads to repeatedly post on, wouldn't have thought it might be one with a title like this.

Anita,

You bring up some interesting points. First, I'd like to mention that Dr. Laura is carried by the Premiere Radio Network, as are Limbaugh & Bell. Think of the influence on popular thought, viewpoint and debate that these folks have in North America.

Back to the beasts now. It's my understanding that the Romans perfected training exotic large animals to perform, it added to their 'spectacles' and contributed to the fantastic deaths of women affiliated with certain political or religious groups. I've heard that up until fairly recently, female dissidents in Brazil were sometimes torured by being raped by German Shepherds, as it was particularly humiliating.

-- flora (***@__._), April 05, 2000.

Final goofy thought for the morning:

These animals were trained by the use of pelts and scents over the object of intent. Ironically, what do the readers of Vanity Fair look to the ads for? What is their motivation?

Advertisers know more about basic human biology and psychology than most folks would like to admit.

-- flora (***@__._), April 05, 2000.

Flora:

I understand your feelings EXACTLY . [grin] It's certainly difficult to discuss a topic that deals with human sexuality without becoming too graphic, thereby being seen as offensive as whatever the original post of the thread condemned.

Regarding the pelts and scents, it's long been known that pheromones act as a stimulus to other individuals of the same species. Perfumes, colognes, scented lotion, etc. have certainly been marketed with the offering that these scents will attract the opposite sex [of the same species.] Of course one only has to enter an elevator with someone who chose an incompatible perfume and applied massive quantities to realize that this could have quite the opposite effect.

I do believe Desmond Morris even compared lipstick to simulating the red behind of the rhesus monkey [or was it the baboon?], the redness being more prominent when the animals were in heat. Of course even lipstick has its downside. Some men see it as simply something that will "get all over them", and poorly administered, it either moves off the lips to the teeth, providing a smile as attractive as one laden with spinach.

Your historical perspective of bestiality practices using female humans is interesting. The animals must be "trained" using pelts and scents more closely resembling those of their specie. In addition, the female humans must either DESIRE the experience, or be forcibly held in a position the animal understands to BE a sexual offering.

Many years ago, I had a young fox terrier [about a year old.] A neighbor also had a young fox terrier and asked that I allow mine to mate with hers when it came into heat. I agreed and when the time came, we got the two together. I watched the comedy unfold. MY terrier was certainly stimulated by the presence of the female terrier in heat. He mounted her head, he mounted her side, but he just couldn't seem to figure out WHAT to do, and *I* wasn't going to help him along. Not long after that experience, he got sick. I took him to the vet and the vet said, "Has he had any traumatic experiences lately?" I related the failed mating experience and the vet said, "That would do it. He's too young to mate." He recovered and I never agreed to another mating experience for him.

It seems to me, however, that the conclusion one might draw is that bestiality is NOT a simple endeavor. The human must either have a strong desire for the experience, combined with quite a bit of knowledge of what stimulates the animal species involved, OR the human is in a powerless position at the mercy of another with voyeuristic desires combined with the knowledge of the animal species involved. I'm not saying there aren't people out there like this, but I feel confident in saying that they have greater problems than those gained by observing an ad for Emanuel Ungaro's shoes.

-- Anita (Anita_S2@hotmail.com), April 05, 2000.

Hawk,

I'd of NEVER guessed you werent into pics???? tee hee, so how bout phone sex?

Anita, FUNNY story, hope your doggie is ok now.....lol

-- consumer (shh@aol.com), April 05, 2000.

Anita,

I would agree, but would hazard a guess that it turns up subterranean thoughts in all of us.

And in the absense of critical thought or individual responsibility, we have a self righteous moralist ready to run with the ball for us.

-- flora (***@__._), April 05, 2000.

Well guys, I went out today to look for this ad in Vogue and VF, to see for myself just how close to what Dr. Laura reported it suggested, hoping to bring it home and try an experiment on my teenager kids; just showing them the pictures without comments and watch their reactions, then asking what they thought of it. But no such luck, couldn't find the ad in Vogue or VF, nor any other women mags of same type. Nothing out of the ordinary in Vogue or VF, the most osi add being from Dior, two profusely sweaty women in extasy embraces, sugesting lesbians (well at least to me...someone might argue that it suggest they were cold and in the rain, warming each other, but there were no reference to outside landscape or rain falling...and I've never seen two hetero women warming each other this way...)

So, I'll drop the bestiality ad argument until I can see for myself what it really looked like. My point remains that of disentization, and whether it was brought up by Dr. Laura, Dr. Spock or Dr. Who, it doesn't change anything.

Anita, I concede that I made a sweeping stereo-typing statement by saying "all men relish porno", I apologize, I should have said "most men relish porno" or "men in general in the western countries". And I appreciate your distinction between soft-porn and hardcore porn. I would categorize beastiality in the hard-porn category. It could also be argued that if all categories of porn were included, that all sexual men relished "porn" as an umbrella term, from soft-porn to kiddy-porn, to gay porn of all types. The difficulty is in "where to draw the line", as Flora said.

I have answered that quesion for myself, and basicly it follows a simple rule; if it's not healthy or promotes health, I draw the line. On just about anything in life. So, to me, a lot of what is generally accepted as porn in the USA, falls into the unhealthy type. And if an ad goes mainstream suggesting beastiality as being cool, I'll speak out against it.

Engineer, you said: "As Flora said someone interpreted the ads as Buy the shoes, turn your man into an animal. Or you can agree with Dr. Lauras take on it. In the same vein some people want the Harry Potter books withdrawn from schools because they think the stories promote witchcraft. Which is why I brought up Beauty and the Beast. You can see it one way, or another. Sometimes it depends more on what you are looking for then what is there."

I believe that's the photographer for the ad who gave this explanation of what the ad is supposed to suggest. I can't really argue soundly whether Dr. Laura is right, or the photographer is, without seeing the ad myself, Dr. Laura could have a very wild imagination, or she could see concretely and depicted what the photo really was showing. But let me point out to you, in defense of Dr. Laura, that I could take a picture of you masturbating on the toilet and I could simply say that the picture suggests that you were feeling great relief at emptying your bladder. Now please tell me what the "masses" seing this picture would get out of it? (I don't mean to offend you Engeneer, I'm using a very vivid [and perhaps shocking] example to make a point.)

"One can always see what one wants to see. In a certain sense advertisers count on this: Buy a hot car, drink the right cola (or brand of beer), get the beautiful woman. How much influence all of this really has is open to question."

And this is exactly the main point of my argument, that of disensitization and conditioning, as well as mass marketting, with porn (in this case an example of beastiality).

"I think that assuming a teenage girl seeing the pictures in Vogue will suddenly be open to a suggestion to have sex with the neighbors dog is a bit far fetched."

Not if you really understand disensitization and conditioning, and the effects it has on young impressionable minds over time.

-- Chris (!@#$@pond.com), April 05, 2000.

Flora:

Subterranean thoughts, eh? I'd have to say that my thoughts on dogs go as far as "Keep your slimy nose off the glass on the kitchen stove.", "I could kill myself slipping on your drool.", "The couch pillow will NOT mate with you no matter how long you hump it.", and "I invited these friends to the house for MY entertainment, NOT so YOU could sniff their crotches."

I checked out Bart-Cop's site to see if he had anything on this. There was nothing in the latest issue except a topless picture of Dr. Laura. Dang...I never clicked on the pictures of Dr. Laura because I didn't WANT to see them. I went to the next-to-last issue. THERE was a picture of Dr. Laura naked spread-eagle on a bed [with pictures of Bart-Cop's REAL enemies nicely covering the parts not for family viewing.] That issue had some links to other sites that discuss Dr. Laura and her hypocrisies. Dang...more pictures of Dr. Laura.

Because it's an election year and there's so much to dig up on the hypocrisy of politicians who tout family values, Dr. Laura's activities are NOT being kept up-to-date. The older stuff is interesting, but I was hoping SOMEONE would show us the pictures used to sell Emanuel Ungaro's shoes.

-- Anita (Anita_S3@hotmail.com), April 05, 2000.

OK ladies,

I've put a call out to a friend who I think has the issue still laying around her in lair. Give me a little time, she can be a bit squirrelly on even her best days. If she can turn the ads up I'll let you know & get them to you somehow.

-- flora (***@__._), April 06, 2000.

Thanks, Flora. I'd appreciate that. It looks like the job market is opening up again, so I may not be around to see what you present. If I'm not, would you wake me up with an E-mail?

I must say SOMETHING about this thread. I had an interview yesterday afternoon wherein I KNEW technical questions would be asked. I had a choice between studying for that interview or wasting my time typing in my opinions on this thread. [You can see which choice I made. (grin)] At the 11th hour, I logged off, showered, dressed, etc., drove, etc., but I don't really remember being more relaxed in an interview than I was yesterday. They didn't ask one technical question that I couldn't answer.

Fortunately, they didn't ask me how I'd spent my morning. "I spent my morning writing my opinions on bestiality and whether it was going 'mainstream'. You thought perhaps I was baking cookies?" LOL...SUCH a fun thread.

-- Anita (Anita_S3@hotmail.com), April 06, 2000.

Anita:

What kinda shoes were you wearing?

Best of luck!

{Heck, when I get ahold of them I may even send them off to Flint - to see if they pass his 'bad porn' sniff test}

-- flora (***@__._), April 06, 2000.

Chris, said one thing that is profound and absolutely on target. "So here in America you have an official outward prudeness, with an unhealthy underground sex attitude thriving.

As the Aussie said, "Thank God we got the convicts and they got the Pilgrims." I think the puritanical early settlers have left us a lot of sexual hangup baggage to deal with. As far as I'm concerned pornography is fine as long as it's among consenting adults. I personally had just as soon watch the wash slosh, but to each his own.

Some of you may remember the issue of Vanity Fair with the famous Y2K article. The cover had a lush blond, sans clothes, in a fur coat. What consenting adults do is their business. But leave kids and animals out of it.

-- gilda (jess@listbot.com), April 06, 2000.

What consenting adults do is their business. But leave kids and animals out of it.

I try not to ever get into discussions about sex, religion, or politics...but, I agree so wholeheartedly with your last statement, I had to underscore it.

I absolutely agree, gilda. Thanks for the comment.

~*~

-- (Ladylogic@...), April 06, 2000.

gilda,

Is it right that the lush blonde {Charlise Theron, as I recall} is depicted wearing a fur coat?

-- flora (***@__._), April 06, 2000.

Ahh LL, you "try not to ever get into discussions about sex, religion or politics...," heck you're missing the best ones. But glad that you agree with me on this one.

flora, I'm not sure who the model is, but I was WRONG, she isn't wearing the fur coat, she's sitting on it, and then it's kind of draped in front of her important parts--very seductive, but not at all lewd.

-- gilda (jess@listbot.com), April 06, 2000.

gilda,

I thought since you said 'leave kids and animals out of it', you might have strong feelings about animals being exploited for their skins as well.

-- flora (***@__._), April 06, 2000.

Now that you all have covered bestiality pretty well, I have a related question for you. What do you think about S&M, and more specifically about why someone would want to engage in it in the first place? I was rather surprised the other day when a friend told me that he was "experimenting" with it and had gone to a couple of "female dominant" dungeons. Actually I was flabbergasted, but I managed to keep my cool. My understanding is that a lot of people who go to these places are powerful people who control others all the time and wish to experience being dominated themselve in a safe situation. I guess that I should be flattered that the individual knows I won't judge him or betray his confidence, but frankly something like that has never even entered my mind. I have trouble even imagining why someone would want to engage in it. Maybe I'm just too straight since I prefer intimacy with a woman one on one rather than fantising about more risque things. But seriously, what kind of enjoyment does one get from being dominated, or lightly tortured?

-- surprised (surprised@the.dungeon), April 06, 2000.

suprised,

Gee, I don't know - you might want to call Dr. Laura.

-- flora (***@__._), April 06, 2000.

Flora: Sandals with a modified ankle-strap....which means that the strap is right UNDER the ankle-bone, where the REALLY exciting shoes have the strap an inch or two ABOVE the ankle-bone.

I'd like to pursue this desensitization and conditioning for just a minute. I suspect we all agree that the culture in the U.S. is less open to nudity, etc. than some other countries. If we don't agree with that, the rest of this makes no sense. On one of our trips to Europe, we went to Nice, France. While there, we went to the beach. Topless sun-bathing is commonplace amongst French women, and young and elderly women alike lined the beach topless. The locals paid no attention to this toplessness, but an American male actually approached one woman and asked if he may take her picture.

The same situation occurs at nudist colonies in the U.S. The nudists grow desensitized to nudity.

I would agree with Chris that desensitization and conditioning ARE occurring in the U.S. There WAS a time when married couples couldn't be shown on T.V. sharing the same bed. They always had twin beds, if you're old enough to remember. Of course we knew that OUR parents shared a double bed, but T.V. wasn't allowed to show society outside of certain "respectable" norms. My question, however, is whether desensitization and conditioning are necessarily wrong. Is there a reason why the U.S. should hold on to the puritanical standards while our European neighbors are allowed the freedoms we don't have?

-- Anita (Anita_S3@hotmail.com), April 06, 2000.

Glad you asked that question Anita. I think our puritanical standards are ridiculous. In the U.S. one is arrested for appearing nude. Also, we have this foolish idea that one who doesn't have a beautiful figure shouldn't even appear in a bathing suit. If they are fat, or badly shaped, they sometimes become an object of ridicule. In Europe the human body is accepted with all it's flaws.

I'm still wondering what the hell the subliminal message was in the movie, The Lion King. The religious right said it was there, does anyone know what it was?

-- gilda (jess@listbot.com), April 06, 2000.

Surprised:

Although not exactly in the same situation as you, we went to Cancun a few years back with another couple. We stayed at the same hotel, met in the lobby, went dancing, touring, para-sailing, etc. together. One day we went to their room because they weren't ready at the appointed hour. They invited us in to wait while they finished getting ready and we noticed a video camera pointing at their bed. Heh. Quite a discussion ensued on that one. They simply enjoy watching themselves, it seems.

Regarding the S&M, I only know what I see on T.V. Of course I could do a Dr. Laura and suggest that powerful people have a Napoleon complex and they really feel inadequate or something, but I won't. I've never liked men who needed to have power over someone else. Then again, I've never liked women who needed to have power over someone else. Pedophilia and incest are associated with folks who need to have power over others. Wife-beating/husband-beating is another situation wherein one partner needs to feel dominant. I won't say that your friend is doing anything wrong, since he seems to be engaging in this practice with a willing partner, but I would suggest that there's a reason why this practice is deemed desirable.

-- Anita (Anita_S3@hotmail.com), April 06, 2000.

I can hardly wait to see these pictures.

Bestiality is not likely to have even crossed my mind. I'd probably be much more interested in that 18-20-year-old's skin and what vitamins I should be taking to look like that.

On the other hand those pictures sound like a real turn off. The idea of a dog's toenails digging into my chest while he drools down my back is not my idea of romance.

Yup, Anita, I agree. Tele-tubbies all over again. One finds what one is looking for.

-- Pam (jpjgood@penn.com), April 06, 2000.

"My question, however, is whether desensitization and conditioning are necessarily wrong."

Anita, that's a question that requires a complex answer, and damnit I tired of playing psycholist today ;-)

Let me just alude to it a bit and maybe and hopefully someone else will elaborate on my train of thought.

Disensitization and conditioning occur all the time, in small ways and in big ways, and it can be very good, or very bad. I've elaborated on a bad example already, so lets talk about the good examples.

I'll use one that should hit home with you and in synch with this thread; American's have been conditioned to believe and appreciate freespeech, and most of them are disentisized to the feelings of outrageouness that a communist (chineese etc.) might automatly feel at hearing some of the things we hear in the media as a matter of normalcy; Clinton's sex scandal, government foul-ups and dishonest dealings, etc. You get my point. The communist has been 'conditioned' to communism, but can be "rehabilitated" by "disensitization" to American/democratic values. Note that not all communists are totally "brainwashed" (a term for the results of conditioning and disensitization). So, in our american views, we see the communist as brainwashed (a negative term), but ourselves as "enlightened", a positive term, but still equivalent to brainwashed. Note also that not all american's are "enlightened", or even brainwashed for that matter. Catch 22. You unravel it ;-)

-- Chris (!@#$@pond.com), April 06, 2000.

Flora,

Thanks. Maybe that's not a bad idea. I don't normally listen to her unless it's on the car radio and I happen to be driving during her show.

Anita,

Thanks to you, too. Your advice always seems to be useful. Give yourself a couple of gold stars for consistently valuable feedback.

One thing that puzzles me is the guy is not a powerful person and is also not particularly successful with women. He's not a violent person either, in fact he seems more sensitive and emotional than myself and our other male friends. He also appears to be completely heterosexual. It was just an unusual revelation that I am still trying to understand.

-- surprised (surprised@call.drlaura), April 06, 2000.

Chris:

I understand your tiredness of playing psychologist. Your example didn't enlighten me, however. You chose a cultural example that has fewer freedoms than those in the U.S. On that Clinton scandal, BTW, I spent MONTHS responding to E-mail from family in Norway asking me "What is all the fuss about?" In many countries in Europe, you see, the leader of the country is EXPECTED to have a mistress, and openly attends functions with the mistress of the day at his side.

This leads me to another sub-topic, however...that of EXPECTATIONS. I've already touched on this one on the Vermont Law thread where I replied to Gilda regarding the expectations of society regarding the roles of males and females in a relationship. Every once in a while, we need to kick society in the butt to change these expectations. If we didn't, women would still be without the vote, blacks would still be sitting on the back of the bus, etc. [I have no doubt that someone out there thinks that women should STILL be without the vote and that blacks should STILL be sitting on the back of the bus, but I'll move on regardless.]

I wonder how much of THIS thread had/has to do with expectations. If we look again, Dr. Laura said she EXPECTED this bestiality thing to go mainstream. We're disappointed when our expectations aren't met. SOME even find a way to declare that their expectations were met when they actually weren't.

So what are our expectations when it comes to sexuality? My mom expected me to live my life just as she'd lived hers. Her expectations had to be modified. Surprised expected his friend to be satisfied with the same type of relationship that he enjoyed. His expectations had to be modified. *I* expected my friends on the Cancun trip to be satisfied with the same type of relationship that *I* enjoyed. My expectations had to be modified. This strikes me as perfectly normal. I don't see it as being desentisized or anything. Expectations SHOULD change if we want to move forward.

I'll end this with a question for the guys out there. I think Chris mentioned something about pornography causing men to request acts from their mates that put the female in a position wherein she feels undesirable if she has no interest. I disagree that pornography has anything to do with this, but I DID find it curious that for many years men EXPECTED their mates to be virtuous [virgins] when they married, but once married they EXPECTED sexual favors more akin to those associated with prostitutes. Let's take fellatio as an example. For years, fellatio was associated with such condescending terms as "Blow me!", etc. EVERYONE felt that this form of sexual outercourse was taboo. Why else would folks discuss it in such degrading terms? Once married, however, some women who were chosen for their innocence were EXPECTED to turn overnight into a great cook, caretaker, and French whore. How did anyone EXPECT this to happen? I feel much more comfortable with modern standards....what you get today will be what you get tomorrow, unless I change my mind. [grin]

-- Anita (Anita_S3@hotmail.com), April 06, 2000.

I'm throwing this thread back to the top in the hopes that some of the [perhaps] older men on this forum will provide an answer to my question on expectations.

Hawk: You've used this thread as an example that Chris was a prude. Can YOU shed some light on this one?

Netghost: You don't need to know me AT ALL to answer. I certainly don't know YOU, right?

Frank: Here it is....no need to search for it now. Sexual expectations aren't bound by religion and knowledge of the interests of others doesn't make one guilty by association.

Anyone out there old enough, or knowing anyone old enough to shed some light on this one?

-- Anita (Anita_S3@hotmail.com), April 08, 2000.

'nita,

The guys aren't going to get caught dead on this thread.

A couple of days ago, I caught a column in the newspaper about porn going mainstream. I guess Hustler now has a boutique on Melrose in LA { yeah Melrose - of TV fame - but mainly noted for trendy boutiques, and the strip where transvestites market themselves as the sun goes down. Note to Hawk & Chris watching for the prude factor - the next main drag up is for boy toys & chicken hawks, and the next one north of that is for female prostitutes}.

A couple of disparate thoughts fired off in my mind.

1} Why do human beings dress up the female, the most vulnerable sex of the species, in attractive coloration and 'plumage'. In other species the male is usually gussied up to attract a mate, predators, and violence from males of the same species.

2} Why do transvestites usually make the hottest looking 'babes'. Is it because of a focus on sex roles and visual cues?

-- flora (***@__._), April 08, 2000.

"Hawk: You've used this thread as an example that Chris was a prude. Can YOU shed some light on this one?"

Aaaw come on, isn't it obvious? First she says she would cancel her magazine subscriptions if she sees a picture of a model frolicking with a pet dog, because it is borderline sexually suggestive. That is her individual choice, and if she wants to she can cancel her cable tv, internet access, telephone, and just seal herself in her house until she dies. But then she goes on to preach about how this type of advertising is degrading to all women, and that all men relish pornography, and this is destroying our society. The models who are posing don't seem to think they feel degraded, in fact they are paid very well, and happy to do it.

If Chris feels that this is somehow degrading her image of herself as a woman, then she is free to ignore it. If she thinks that someone else is going to judge her differently because of they saw a picture of a completely different woman in a magazine, then she should know that this isn't the kind of person she wants to be with. It doesn't change who she really is.

Limits have already been put in place as to what type of pornography is legal and what is illegal. I hardly think that a model playing with a dog should be considered illegal, and if it is, what's next? Are we going to go back to the days when women have to wear dresses that cover their knees? Or maybe they should all be required to wear chastity belts with a lock and key? The fact is that this type of advertising is protected by freedom of speech. What people do in the privacy of their own homes is also protected, and is not harming anyone who chooses to not get involved. What about the violence that is freely accessible even to teenage children in television, movies, video games, music, and the internet? Have you heard the words to some of the rap music these days? Kids are starting to think it is "cool" to listen to songs about people killing each other, and you're worried about a cute model and a puppy in a magazine? Rather prudish, IMO.

-- Hawk (flyin@high.again), April 08, 2000.

Anita,

In regards to your question about expectations,if I read it right.

Personally,I was allways uncomfortable with the virgin at marriage then a whore afterwards concept.I saw many males exhibit this double standard and thought it to be stupid and ultimately the reason for the end of their relationships.

Most of these men thought it quite allright for them to have many sexual relationships but for a female to do so would make them a whore.I had alot of heated arguments with them about this reasoning.

They could never figure out why I was so disintersted in the "virgins" and in the company of much older women.

This probably doesn't fully answer your question but it does I believe address it on the level of expectations or what I have allways believed it to be,a double standard.

-- capnfun (capnfun1@excite.com), April 08, 2000.

Hawk:

I was interested in an answer to the last question I asked on this thread, but I can understand why my preface to you indicated otherwise.

Capnfun:

Thanks for your explanation. I would agree that a double standard was in place during those times. Your response to "How could anyone expect this?" seems to be that no one SHOULD have expected this, and that the unfulfilled expectation led to the breakup of relationships in which this WAS expected. That's good enough for me, and I appreciate your taking the time on this one.

I have a female friend with whom I've been friends since we were in Brownies together. What age is that? 8 or 9? She married not long after high-school and she and her husband are STILL together. He had some "curiosities" about various sexual techniques and approached her with the thoughts in a very loving manner, not demanding anything, yet ensuring her that between a loving couple many things were acceptable. I remember her discussing this with me once, but I never pursued whether she found the various techniques enjoyable or not....none of my business, ya know.

-- Anita (Anita_S3@hotmail.com), April 08, 2000.

Hawk:

On a re-read of your response, I must say that I agree with much of what you wrote. We DO have laws in place regarding pornography, which could be why I haven't seen any that include children or animals. There will always be a subset of the population interested in whatever pornography is deemed undesirable. Is it called "snuff" pornography where the women are killed at the end? This is at the very far end of the illegal pornography spectrum, but I saw a movie not so long ago wherein the internet was displaying videos that either resulted in death or feigned death.

Just as an aside, wasn't Catherine the Great presumably killed by attempting intercourse with a horse?

Flora:

It IS interesting that women feel more comfortable discussing this topic than men. Are we just more curious, or are we simply more accustomed to discussing sexuality in general? [Notice I don't include the option that women may just be more perverted. (grin)]

-- Anita (Anita_S3@hotmail.com), April 08, 2000.

Sorry Anita, guess I still don't understand what question you were asking if I answered the wrong one.

I am a man, and am perfectly comfortable talking about sex. I recall one thread earlier that was deleted because it had the word "vagina" in it. Lol! Some of the Christians were abhorred! Even though many of us have been raised to feel guilty about our bodies, I find it amazing how many still don't realize that the people who taught us this were wrong, there is nothing to be ashamed of. Humans are starting to understand themselves better as time goes by, but our educational and religous systems seem to be working against us.

-- Hawk (flyin@high.again), April 08, 2000.

No problem, Hawk. I talk a lot [as can be seen by the number of threads in which I engage], but I don't always make myself clear.

As you mentioned, some folks were raised to consider their bodies something of which they should be ashamed. My question falls right into that line of thought. Society in the U.S. [at one time] held up virginity as the desired state for marriage in the female. SOME folks held up virginity as the desired state for marriage in the male as well, but the overwhelming majority glanced sideways when men strayed from this state stating "Boys will be boys", or "Simply sowing the wild oats." Here's the question for which I want an answer, either based on YOUR experience, or those of whom you've engaged in conversation. Feel free to state that the original premise was simply incorrect.

"I'll end this with a question for the guys out there. I think Chris mentioned something about pornography causing men to request acts from their mates that put the female in a position wherein she feels undesirable if she has no interest. I disagree that pornography has anything to do with this, but I DID find it curious that for many years men EXPECTED their mates to be virtuous [virgins] when they married, but once married they EXPECTED sexual favors more akin to those associated with prostitutes. Let's take fellatio as an example. For years, fellatio was associated with such condescending terms as "Blow me!", etc. EVERYONE felt that this form of sexual outercourse was taboo. Why else would folks discuss it in such degrading terms? Once married, however, some women who were chosen for their innocence were EXPECTED to turn overnight into a great cook, caretaker, and French whore. How did anyone EXPECT this to happen?"

-- Anita (Anita_S3@hotmail.com), April 08, 2000.

Anita, you confuse even me (here's something I can agree with Hawk here ;-) )

You did specificly asked Hawk why he thought I was a prude. The rest of your questions were thrown at no one in perticular, inviting any male to respond.

Also, I'm experiencing a disconnect between what you write here, and what you write on the "death" thread. It is difficult for me to reconciliate your morals on this thread, with those you profess having on the death thread, i.e., your reverence and respect for living things. You seem to have no problem in understanding the harm societie's general habits have on the environment, but you seem to have a hard time understanding the harm disrespect and unhealthful habits with sex have on people, or at least relating the two ideas. IMO, morals and ethics should be applied to every facet of life on this earth, not just selective ones.

I'm wondering, (and this is not an acusation, simply wondering) if in your attempts to appear open minded and not prude with sex, you are deliberatly vague and giving off a "it's none of my business" attitude, "do as you wish" with sex. This is how you come across to me, anyway. If on the other hand you really do think that way and view that as wholesome/normal/whatever, then I'm wondering if you take a stance on anything in life? I mean, do you vote (Elections or simple organizations), do give your opinion when asked what should be done about a perticular situation? Who do you think should be teaching moral (hence sexual) values to kids, and healthy sex practices to society in general?

-- Chris (!@#$@pond.com), April 08, 2000.

We posted at the same time Anita. That post above answered my common confusion I had with Hawk.

-- Chris (!@#$@pond.com), April 08, 2000.

Now *I*'m confused, Chris. Do you still need some answers from me on this one, or did my latest to Hawk answer ALL?

-- Anita (Anita_S3@hotmail.com), April 08, 2000.

It doesn't answer all my questions, only the first part, "You did specificly asked Hawk why he thought I was a prude. The rest of your questions were thrown at no one in perticular, inviting any male to respond."

The questions starting with "Also" haven't been answered or addressed from you, for my understanding.

-- Chris (!@#$@pond.com), April 08, 2000.

Anita,

I think you are referring to the way things were perhaps over 30 years ago? I know what you mean, that is the kind of mentality that my parents were raised with, and although they are more aware now, it is a hard thing to change. My feeling on that is basically that during the first half of the 20th century, or even until around the 60's, not much was known about human psychological behaviors, particulary the psychology of sex. Society was very chauvinistic until the equal rights movement, the experimentation with mind-altering drugs during the 60's, and the sort of "free-love" sexual revolution. That period in time seems to have set into motion a renaissance in the field of human psychology, and particularly with respect to the relationships between the sexes.

So I guess what I'm saying is that up until the last 30 or 40 years men ran the world and they liked having women in more of a slave role than an equal. There was a tremendous amount of ignorance and lack of knowledge about sensitivity towards other people. If it hadn't been for people like John Lennon, Jane Fonda, and many others who inspired the revolution for equal rights for women, the chauvinist pigs that run the world would still probably be expecting women to remain virgins, then turn into whores when they're married (some still do).

Chris,

I snooped in on your reply to Anita. Don't know the specifics of what Anita said, but I just wanted to remind you that, at least on this thread, we started out by talking about a magazine ad. Forgive me if you were referring to something else, but I still don't see how this ad can be harmful or "unhealthful".

-- Hawk (flyin@high.again), April 08, 2000.

Thanks, Hawk. Ya done good.

Chris:

I'll do the best I can to explain how I feel, Chris. I don't try to confuse myself with morals. I feel as though I have ETHICS, but I never considered myself to have morals. The dictionary would define ethics to IMPLY morals, but my personal interpretation has more of a religious connotation, and you already know my feelings on THAT.

Continuing along, however, I feel that I DO disrespect disrespect. I would have no problems advising someone in an abusive relationship, whether verbal, physical, or sexual, to move ahead and leave the abuse behind. It's unhealthy both in the physical and mental sense to stay and hope things change. It's unclear to what you refer in "unhealthful habits with sex." Perhaps you could state some specific examples of "unhealthful habits with sex"? At quite a young age, I demonstrated to my children the proper use of a condom, feeling that I didn't know when THEIR loins would kick in, but AIDS and pregnancy were NOT something I wanted them to encounter through ignorance. Later on, when they approached me with desires for sexual activity, I made appointments with a physician who could discuss in more detail the benefits and consequences of contraceptives outside the condom. As I expected, the doctors encouraged condom use above and beyond whatever method of birth control chosen. Had the doctors NOT done this, I would have, but the doctors did.

I DO have a "do as you wish with sex" attitude, as long as the sex is between consenting adults. I draw the line on pedophilia, incest, rape, and any other sex CRIMES, because there's a predator/prey relationship there.

I do take a few stances on things in life, but I save my "big guns" for the "big problems." I DO vote, and have oftentimes shown up at community affairs when I felt an issue presented warranted some input of which I had an opinion. My preference would be for parents to teach kids about sex, but lacking input from parents, I have no problem with schools or Planned Parenthood organizations filling the gap. Again, you haven't yet defined "healthy" sex practices, so I can't comment on that at this time, but I WOULD say that I don't think ANY one person or organization should be teaching morals to society IN GENERAL.

-- Anita (Anita_S3@hotmail.com), April 08, 2000.

(Using cut and paste here too Anita, I have a hard time flipping back and forth to read read/remember what one says and then reply. This cuts down on miscommunication IMO.)

"I'll do the best I can to explain how I feel, Chris. I don't try to confuse myself with morals. I feel as though I have ETHICS, but I never considered myself to have morals. The dictionary would define ethics to IMPLY morals, but my personal interpretation has more of a religious connotation, and you already know my feelings on THAT."

Ok, I accept your explanation of ethics vs moral. It's really a word parsing issue. Morals does have more of a religious connotation than ethics, but I was using both eithics and morals interchangably, in a general sense, and certainly as a pantheist.

" Continuing along, however, I feel that I DO disrespect disrespect. I would have no problems advising someone in an abusive relationship, whether verbal, physical, or sexual, to move ahead and leave the abuse behind. It's unhealthy both in the physical and mental sense to stay and hope things change. It's unclear to what you refer in "unhealthful habits with sex." Perhaps you could state some specific examples of "unhealthful habits with sex"?"

Certainly. As an RN, I had to care for many cases induced by such unhealthful habits. For example, common prostitutes, or street hookers, would come in with veneral diseases, and cervix inflamations, sometimes leading to cancer. Many were also treated for mutilations on their bodies, caused sometimes by pimps, but also by Johns into S&M. Now you could argue that prostitutes are one thing, but the Johns are often family men, holding respectable places in society. I view that as an unhealthful sexual habit on their part, hence unethical. Another totally different example would be that of the not uncommon practice of some men and teens of nearly axfisiating themselves to enhence the orgams. Some don't stop on time and kill themselves. That I would say, is unhealthful too. I could go on and on, and beastiality has it's own medical problems, without talking about psychological or eithical ramifications, but I think you have the gist of what I mean.

"At quite a young age, I demonstrated to my children the proper use of a condom...[snip]"

Yes, this is one very good way to catch kids before they become sexually active and learn of what's safe and healthy, before they learn it on their own in the streets and magazines (porn or mainstream). I am a %100 percent a proponent of parental as well as school sex education for kids and teens. But the rest of the adults who never proper sex education? Most of them learned "on the streets", i.e., porn mags and videos, experimentation on their own and learning from peers, since their parents wouldnt' talk about it, nor the schools, in any meaningful ways past the condom/pregnancy issue.

" I DO have a "do as you wish with sex" attitude, as long as the sex is between consenting adults. I draw the line on pedophilia, incest, rape, and any other sex CRIMES, because there's a predator/prey relationship there."

Good, that's a good start. But do you draw the line when health, physical and mental, is also an issue?

" I do take a few stances on things in life, but I save my "big guns" for the "big problems."

I am with you on this %100 also. I'm in fact using my "big guns" here, for the "big problem" of sex habits detrimental to health of society.

" My preference would be for parents to teach kids about sex, but lacking input from parents, I have no problem with schools or Planned Parenthood organizations filling the gap."

Parents that teach their kids anything meaningful are a big problem in our society in general. Take for example the issue of welfare culture in the ghettos as discussed in the unwed mom threads. That problem is huge and compounded by a lack of ethics and teaching from the parents, perpetuating the problem from generation to generation. Lack of good and sound sexual education for kids from ANY source compounds the problem of veneral and other diseases, AIDs being only one small part of the problem, but getting disproportional recognition because of its own perticular politics, among them the gays (their own grassroots efforts at education and elimination among themselves). Hepatitis being a far more swift killer and spread the same way, has nowhere the recognition AIDs has for example. Also, another unhealthful sexual habit that comes to my mind is that of orgies, spreading all those deseases exponentialy.

"Again, you haven't yet defined "healthy" sex practices, so I can't comment on that at this time, but I WOULD say that I don't think ANY one person or organization should be teaching morals to society IN GENERAL."

Well obviously I disagree with you. And you sort of contradic yourself here, you yourself said you brought your kids to the doctor to teach them about condoms, and don't mind Planned Parenthood doing it also. The medical field is greatly involved in sexual education, and being an RN, I am very outspoken on this issue, hence my participation in this thread, and my argument about the unethical and unhealthy aspect of beastiality. Dr. Laura is perhaps not a medical doctor, but she does have the right ethic concerning pedophilia and beastiality as expressed in her quoted words above. If one understands something about an issue that others don't, shouldn't be one's responsibility to teach and impart and "preach" the issue? Dr. Laura might come off as preaching, but at least she raises the issue to national conciousness. For that, I applaud her.

-- Chris (!@#$@pond.com), April 08, 2000.

Chris:

You put words into my mouth there when you said that I sent my kids to the doctor to learn about condoms. I'd already said that I'd provided the condom information at home. The choice of a contraceptive method, however, was best left to a professional who had performed the appropriate medical tests beforehand. As a nurse, I'm sure you're quite aware that some women shouldn't use birth- control pills, for instance. My awareness of medicine may not be as up-to-date as the medical doctor, so I felt unqualified to simply say "Use the pill." The medical doctor would also feel free to suggest alternative methods of contraception of which I may be unaware.

The condom issue was one I was curious about. If one has teenagers or young adults, one understands that what MOM says isn't always honored, but if mom says something and a medical doctor confirms what mom says, there's more credence applied to mom's original statement.

Your statements about unhealthy sexual practices leave me a bit cold, as I don't know any prostitutes or folks who engage in bestiality. You also kindof mix drug use in there, and that's quite another topic. My oldest daughter lived with a young woman for almost a year who was a topless dancer at a local "men's club." She was quite promiscuous, and one of the reasons my daughter moved back home was because her roommate brought men home who were in the frontroom when my daughter awakened in the morning. Of course there was the "birds of a feather" connotation involved, and my daughter had to express herself in no uncertain terms that she was NOT interested.

I remember a time when the same daughter mentioned above considered waitressing at the "men's club". I discussed this with a woman at work and learned that HER daughter had considered the same thing. I don't really remember the conversation I had with my daughter on this one, but I suspect I did my usual and listened while SHE expressed her feelings. I may have added a "Would YOU feel comfortable in that environment?", but I'm quite sure I didn't present the option as a forbidden fruit. I don't feel folks learn about life through preaching. They learn by expressing their feelings to someone who listens, or by making mistakes. She never pursued the job.

I remember a similar discussion when same daughter wanted a tattoo of a spider in a web put on her upper back. I listened as she described her intent, but only said, "Would you feel comfortable at age 25 or so, attending a formal function wearing a back-less gown wherein you revealed this tattoo that you chose when you were 18?" She never pursued that one either.

I'm not an evangelist, Chris...on ANY topic. If folks want to kill themselves via bestiality, drug overdose, etc., I'll not be the one to stand in their way. My efforts are/were designed to steer my own kids in a direction that will both discourage harmful behavior, yet allow them to feel that THEY made the decision. It seems to have worked, so I have no feelings of remorse in this regard.

-- Anita (Anita_S3@hotmail.com), April 09, 2000.