dnelson@joevax.UUCP (Dorothy Nelson) (09/17/86)
In article <1487@mtx5a.UUCP> mat@mtx5a.UUCP (m.terribile) writes: >In article <15487@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU> somebody writes: >> and I loathe any interference by the state with something as personal as the >> emotions, including sexual arousal, engendered by whatever art one >> freely decides to experience. And my intuition is that a society which >> regards sexual arousal as less desirable than horror or fear, and >> forbids works which evoke the former while protecting those which evoke >> the latter two, is *sick*. > >What about a society that holds these things as so personal and private >that the community has the right to say that people shall not gratuitously >manipulate the feelings and physical reactions of others? > MARK!!! GOOD GOD, MARK, WHAT ARE YOU *SAYING*? No, wait. You're right. There are all these people who obviously don't know any better, and we have to protect them (poor wuzzums). Good Lord, you're *so* right. Look at all these people being shamelessly stimulated in the adrenal gland at amusement parks. And people pay *money* to be thus gratuitously manipulated-- they *must* be brain dead, so the state *must* step in to save their souls... Thanks for making me see the light. > > from Mole End Mark Terribile --cosmique muffin (dorothy) SWManipulator seeks Large Law Book (for use as Meese-seeking projectile)
dnelson@joevax.UUCP (Dorothy Nelson) (09/22/86)
In article <1487@mtx5a.UUCP> mat@mtx5a.UUCP (m.terribile) writes: > >But I do like your style -- it echoes that of another poster seen on certain >other groups, an author with whom I have locked horns a few times (his >choice!), an author who makes humor and deciBel level substitute for clear >thought about facts and feelings. It's brilliant, in a Primitive sort of >way. I'm amused by its presumption ;^} >(no, I don't practice being condescending -- it's natural talent ...;-) >-- > Really? ...Gosh. And I thought you did it with mirrors. Oh... you couldn't have... that implies a shiny chrome vibrator, don't it? B-) Anyhow, this is *MY* last word on the subject. If *any* government officials come to my door to take away my copy of "Lustful Weasels and the Lubrication Sisters Do Planet Penis" they will become warmly acquainted with my Bic Pocket Napalm Dispenser(tm). "Nuf said." > from Mole End Mark Terribile --cosmique muffin (dorothy) "Her turgid tentacles waved madly about my thromboscis, which was already throbbing with the heady scent of Jovian carrot dung. Suddenly, though I was holding back with every ounce of pervissimitude I possessed, my bulging ganavston exploded into a bright, bright green-- her photoreceptors greedily capturing every ray." _Bounty on Beta Seven_ (Andromeda Press) Book banned, author executed
barry@mit-eddie.MIT.EDU (Mikki Barry) (09/24/86)
In article <1487@mtx5a.UUCP> mat@mtx5a.UUCP (m.terribile) writes: >>But I do like your style -- it echoes that of another poster seen on certain >>other groups, an author with whom I have locked horns a few times (his >>choice!), an author who makes humor and deciBel level substitute for clear >>thought about facts and feelings. It's brilliant, in a Primitive sort of >>way. I'm amused by its presumption ;^} >>(no, I don't practice being condescending -- it's natural talent ...;-) And who could Mark possibly be referring to? Does he eat cheeseburgers? >Really? ...Gosh. And I thought you did it with mirrors. >Oh... you couldn't have... that implies a shiny chrome vibrator, don't it? B-) Chrome, Dorothy? I thought it was bronzed. In fact, I thought it used to belong to a certain individual on the net who implies that the government should control our "prurient interests" because it is obvious that *we* can't. But he doesn't believe that other "manipulators of emotion", for example, preachers on the 700 club who show pictures of starving kids and ask for money, nor anti-abortion people who show pictures of chopped up fetuses should be regulated in this way. Even though those preachers bankrupt little old ladies, and those pictures incite people to throw bombs at health clinics that may be performing abortions. Forgive me for bringing up abortion in this group. It is not my intention to debate this issue. I am just bringing up an example of "manipulative" behavior. >Anyhow, this is *MY* last word on the subject. If *any* government officials >come to my door to take away my copy of "Lustful Weasels and the Lubrication >Sisters Do Planet Penis" they will become warmly acquainted with my >Bic Pocket Napalm Dispenser(tm). >"Nuf said." I'm afraid it is not enough said. Nor will it be until people stop trying to run our lives for us. Mikki Barry p.s. Where can I get that book?!?!?
mat@mtx5a.UUCP (m.terribile) (09/25/86)
> >What about a society that holds these things as so personal and private > >that the community has the right to say that people shall not gratuitously > >manipulate the feelings and physical reactions of others? > > > No, wait. You're right. There are all these people who obviously don't > know any better, and we have to protect them (poor wuzzums). Good Lord, > you're *so* right. Look at all these people being shamelessly stimulated > in the adrenal gland at amusement parks. And people pay *money* to > be thus gratuitously manipulated... > --cosmique muffin (dorothy) > SWManipulator seeks Large Law Book (for use as Meese-seeking projectile) We are not talking about amusement park thrills. We are talking about the deepest, most pervasive, and least understood part of the human psyche, as well as that segment of human behavior that is subject to apparently arbitrary but also apparently vital regulation in every human culture, in every religious system, and in the laws developed by every state (including the English Common Law). But I do like your style -- it echoes that of another poster seen on certain other groups, an author with whom I have locked horns a few times (his choice!), an author who makes humor and deciBel level substitute for clear thought about facts and feelings. It's brilliant, in a Primitive sort of way. I'm amused by its presumption ;^} (no, I don't practice being condescending -- it's natural talent ...;-) -- from Mole End Mark Terribile (scrape .. dig ) mtx5b!mat (Please mail to mtx5b!mat, NOT mtx5a! mat, or to mtx5a!mtx5b!mat) (mtx5b!mole-end!mat will also reach me) ,.. .,, ,,, ..,***_*.
mat@mtx5a.UUCP (m.terribile) (09/25/86)
> >(no, I don't practice being condescending -- it's natural talent ...;-) > >-- > Really? ...Gosh. And I thought you did it with mirrors. > Oh... you couldn't have... that implies a shiny chrome vibrator, don't it? B-) > > Anyhow, this is *MY* last word on the subject. If *any* government officials > come to my door to take away my copy of "Lustful Weasels and the Lubrication > Sisters Do Planet Penis" they will become warmly acquainted with my > Bic Pocket Napalm Dispenser(tm). > "Nuf said." You haven't been reading; the Supreme Court ruled that under no case may mere possession of obscene matter be a punishable offense, whether that material is legally obscene or not. On the other hand, your stockpile of 17 000 copies *might* be evidence of intent to distribute ... -- from Mole End Mark Terribile (scrape .. dig ) mtx5b!mat (Please mail to mtx5b!mat, NOT mtx5a! mat, or to mtx5a!mtx5b!mat) (mtx5b!mole-end!mat will also reach me) ,.. .,, ,,, ..,***_*.
mat@mtx5a.UUCP (m.terribile) (09/28/86)
> >>But I do like your style -- it echoes that of another poster seen on certain > >>other groups, an author with whom I have locked horns a few times (his > >>choice!), an author who makes humor and deciBel level substitute for clear > >>thought about facts and feelings. It's brilliant, in a Primitive sort of > >>way. I'm amused by its presumption ;^} ... > > And who could Mark possibly be referring to? Does he eat cheeseburgers? Ok, Mikki, it's unfair to compare Muffin Cosmique with Whoopee Franqueesi the All Dopey and his Prophet ... You're right, and I apologize to both of them. > >Really? ...Gosh. And I thought you did it with mirrors. > >Oh... you couldn't have... that implies a shiny chrome vibrator ...? B-) > Chrome, Dorothy? I thought it was bronzed. Wasn't (and isn't) bronze used as an anti-friction alloy? > In fact, I thought it used to > belong to a certain individual on the net who implies that the government > should control our "prurient interests" because it is obvious that *we* > can't. But he doesn't believe that other "manipulators of emotion", for > example, preachers on the 700 club who show pictures of starving kids and > ask for money, nor anti-abortion people who show pictures of chopped up > fetuses should be regulated in this way. Even though those preachers > bankrupt little old ladies, and those pictures incite people to throw bombs > at health clinics that may be performing abortions. Hmm. If I could prohibit people who don't feed starving kids from showing pictures of starvng kids, I would. You are alleging, I think, that religion is used as a front for a confidence racket. If this is true, I want to see the confidence racket stopped as much as you want to see the religion stopped. By the way, if the money *really is* going to feed hungry children ... let's just say that it was ... what would be ignoble about an old woman with un- grateful heirs turning most of her money over to the care of those children? > Forgive me for bringing up abortion in this group. Which is why I will not belabor the net with the obvious reply. I'm not angry with you. > I'm afraid it is not enough said. Nor will it be until people stop trying > to run our lives for us. Does that include the advertisers who entice you to buy their product? Does it include the people whose notion of ``public decency'' in some way exceeds the notion of ``minimum common morality''? Does it include the offenders whose illness is pandered to and encouraged (even if not *caused*) by certain types of published matter? Lots of people influence your life. Some of them do not have the right to. We are trying to consider which ones do and which ones don't and what means are appropriate for them to use. An aside to another poster: Yes, the Chernobyl point was exaggerated; I admitted it before I even made it! But it does point out some advantages to a conservative approach to things. -- from Mole End Mark Terribile (scrape .. dig ) mtx5b!mat (Please mail to mtx5b!mat, NOT mtx5a! mat, or to mtx5a!mtx5b!mat) (mtx5b!mole-end!mat will also reach me) ,.. .,, ,,, ..,***_*.
barry@mit-eddie.MIT.EDU (Mikki Barry) (09/29/86)
In article <1581@mtx5a.UUCP>, mat@mtx5a.UUCP (m.terribile) writes: >Lots of people influence your life. Some of them do not have the right to. We >are trying to consider which ones do and which ones don't and what means are >appropriate for them to use. This is the entire point of this discussion. I don't want "we" deciding what is appropriate for me. *I* want to do it MYSELF! I don't like porn per-se, but if my husband wants to read it, or the old lady up the street likes it, so what? There have been *NO* conclusive studies that porn is harmful to the general population. Rape and sexual assault existed before porn, and will continue to exist after porn if it is banned. The way to stop these crimes is education of society and elevation of the status of women from less than subordinate to males. Why not work on these things rather than waste your energy challenging our right to choose for ourselves? Mikki Barry HASA --------------------------- "Every law creates a whole new criminal class overnight"