Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Politics for Pros- moderated -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Brumar89 who wrote (182067)	10/9/2006 1:36:51 PM
From: Rambi	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 794302

I haven't seen any claims that the Dems do better at protecting young people; I do see a certain smug schadenfreude. Part of the problem is that when you set yourself up as the party of morality and family values, as the Reps have definitely done, you are very vulnerable when a member fails to live up to that standard. The Dems have been accused by the Reps for years of being without morals or ethics; you can't really blame them for a certain satisfaction. I personally couldn't stand the Monologues, so am not really motivated to defend it, but I fail to see the validity of using it politically in this case, which is how a couple of posters have tried to frame it-- as if it were some sort of official liberal platform that showed their decadence and view on child seduction rather than one feminist's artistic representation of different views of sexuality. Are you saying that no good Republican saw the play and applauded it? Or that no Liberal didn't find that particular scene abhorrent? I shouldn't think so. There are plenty of feminist conservatives. That's as silly as trying to make Foley the poster boy of the Rep party. As for pornography- that's a really interesting question. I grew up with Sally Munger Mann, who is now a very well-known photographer, made famous in no small part for her very sensual photographs of children, including her own. They are beautiful pictures, but they sure caused an uproar. I saw her again her at a party years ago when we were visiting Lexingon, and we were talking about her views. I would in no way consider her a a pornographer, but I am sure many do. She photographs children as she sees them, naturally and with great enotional depth, and believes that it's the adults who interpret them as being sexual. She would in no way encourage adult acting out on children. (She was nursing a baby at the time, and I think I was changing diapers on mine-- not a very titillating environment). So when you say artistic depictions of child sexuality, I don't know if that's what you mean. A pornographer is intentionally catering to and eliciting the basest response. But how do you judge what is pornography? By the response it elicits? Isn't that a bit like saying a rape victim in a short skirt asked for it? Still, you can find some pretty offended reactions to Sally's work. I think you have to take that one incident in VM as part of a whole, and I don't think that applauding the play were necessarily approving of every emotion or idea in it. And even if it is protrayed positively, as a theatrical piece, it serves to open up a discussion. It isn't a reality- as Foley is. But even as reality, FOley is still only a small part of a whole. (a small icky part who has been cut off). I find using it for a condemnation of the whole party reprehensible. ANd THAT"S why I prefer to see the Repblicans avoid as much as possible too much defensiveness.