A Porn-Tastic Christmas

CMR ^ | matthew archbold

[NYer]

So I took the kids out to the mall to shop for Mom two days before Christmas. I want them to know that Christmas is not just about receiving but giving as well.

Now let me ask a weird hypothetical. If I showed up at the Mall wearing only briefs and say my wife showed up in a minuscule bra and panties we'd likely be dragged from the premises and arrested. And rightly so, especially if you've seen me in briefs. But no matter what, it's bad, right? So why is it OK for some of these stores to have huge window displays of essentially naked people. I mean, are these store owners out of their minds. Walking by Abercrombie or Victoria's Secret is essentially a walking tour of porn for children. Hey kids step on up and peer inside the sick twisted mind of adulthood where we view others as vessels of flesh waiting to be boarded and devoured.

It's lunacy.

So as we're passing a bunch of sex-soaked stories, I do my best to distract the kids from the window display. I start singing a loud Christmas carol and they all become embarrassed by me and try to stop me from singing anymore. So for anybody who saw the fat bearded dad singing in front of a ten foot porn window display with children laughing and climbing all over him, it was me.

But here's the thing. I know my kids saw it. They didn't mention it. But I know they see it. They see it. They internalize it. They think that window display represents the realm of adulthood. They intuit that adults desire 8-pack abs and 38 D breasts. And kids want to be adults.

Here's the truth. If a man was caught showing pictures of topless women in pink underwear holding their breasts or men in wet briefs, they'd be arrested. But when a store does it, it's capitalism.

So a few hours later I'm making the call I never thought I'd make in my life. I call the mall two days before Christmas to complain about the lewd window displays. The funny thing is that while I'm on hold I'm feeling like I'm the crazy one. I'm feeling like "I can't believe I've become the guy who complains about lewd window displays." I didn't think I'd ever use the word 'lewd' never mind call to complain about aforementioned lewdness. I'm feeling like I have to convince this guy on the phone that I'm not one of these crazy religious Jerry Falwell types. But then it hits me. I'm the sane one. Those displays are crazy to have in front of children. So instead of getting into a morality type conversation with the guy I just decide to speak his language. "I'm just calling to let you know that my family which comes to the mall often will not come back unless you guys stop allowing pornographic window displays."

So I make the call and I'm feeling proud of myself. And I walk back into the room where the children are watching The Polar Express on ABC Family. And then comes a commercial about some show about a fifteen year old girl who is pregnant. "Fifteen!?" says my nine year old.

"How can you have a baby if you're not married," asks my six year old.

They all look at me. "Hey guys Polar Express is back on!" And thanks to my amazing powers of distraction I muddled through yet another awkward moment. But I know my kids. Nothing escapes them. Questions build. They never fade away.

And we wonder why are children are ending up sexualized. It's simple. Somewhere between the Merry-go-Round and the pretzels they're seeing and interpreting the adult world. They're unprotected out there. The adults want too much to be like children and the children want to be adults. It's time for adults to start acting like adults.

[dascallie]

Yeah, great... except think a little harder.

Morality has as it’s genesis, “survival”, which is imminently LOGICAL...which is why all of this sexualizing of the innocents has dire implications for the ongoing sustainability of cooperative, civilized existence as we know it.

So, go slow with “moral superiority” stuff, that is a very shallow, stereotypical assessment. Do your philosophical due diligence, all timeless dynamics have at their core a ‘reason to be’.

They ( eg, “morals”) have endured because they have worked to galvanize the survival of the host system.

[little jeremiah]

Apparently superior morals are wrong; so you like inferior morals?

What exactly DO you believe in? I’ve been quite clear about what I believe in.

[swarthyguy]

Despite the glibness, I do not disagree with you about the rampant sexuality in commerce, particularly as we are seeing it trending towards younger and younger children.

[dascallie]

LOLLOLOL!

[netmilsmom]

>>Europe is in decline, so lets emulate it! It’s really unbelievable. <<

LOL! Oh yeah, that’s the ticket!

[swarthyguy]

>>self-centred little brats

HOW DARE YA? Those little buggers have feelings, y’know.

That comment will land you in Anger Management and Remedial Therapy sessions in the near future.

[little jeremiah]

I agree that many children (don’t know about most, as I am a hermit) are self-centered little barbarians - that’s why they need careful training to become actual human beings. But a cesspool me me me culture sure makes it hard for parents who want to raise them properly.

[little jeremiah]

Heck, I’ve seen little girls about 5 years old dressed up in black lace skirts with pointy hems, black gloves and tight tank tops walking down the street with mothers who look - well, let’s say like mother, like daughter.

I have a friend with two girls aged 6 and 8, and she has a very difficult time buying clothes. THe pants are skin tight, waist down by the crotch, and no modest or girly type skirts or dresses. She is going to start sewing. She doesn’t want them to dress like Pilgirms with wimples but just children type garments. There have been many threads about this topic. It’s almost impossible to buy girl childrens’ clothes that don’t reek of slut-hood.

[netmilsmom]

Walmart has great clothes.
One must watch the labels and buy a size up, but they are great and are even marked “Longer length”.

My daughters are 11 and 8. My older one has the height of her father and is taller than me. Finding her appropriate clothes was next to impossible until I resolved to buy from Walmart.

[AntiKev]

What do I believe in?

I believe in being the best you can at whatever you do. I believe in being your best self. And I believe in live and let live.

At the end of the day, I believe that as long as you aren’t doing harm to others, then it’s all good. A picture of a girl in a bra and panties doesn’t hurt anyone, even an 11 year old. If you really think so, I’d have to wonder if you’ve ever been to a beach with your kids.

[little jeremiah]

The best you can be - means nothing. Everyone is trying to be the best they can be. Depends on what you mean by “best”.

Live and let live - that means tolerance. Should everyone tolerate everything? Got any lines drawn? How about your side tolerating my side?

Pictures of girls in underwear is not what we are talking about.

And the beach I used to take my kids to, when they were young in the 80s, has been taken over by homosexuals performing sodomy.

[little jeremiah]

My friend does get some at Walmart, as far as I know, but also shops a lot at thrift stores as her hub doesn’t make a huge salary, they have three kids, and she home schools.

[netmilsmom]

Oooo! She could try Ebay too! Modest fashions to be found there!

[AntiKev]

The best you can be - means nothing. Everyone is trying to be the best they can be. Depends on what you mean by “best”.

best –adjective, superl. of good with better as compar. 1. of the highest quality, excellence, or standing: the best work; the best students.

Pretty simple. If something is worth doing, it's worth doing well.

Live and let live - that means tolerance. Should everyone tolerate everything? Got any lines drawn? How about your side tolerating my side?

If it doesn't directly affect you, then who cares? Who cares if the guy down the street smokes pot every day after work. As long as he's not going to get in his car and fall asleep and run over some people. Who cares?

If some woman wants to dress seductively and let someone take pictures of her. Who cares? It's her demon to live with, not mine, not your's.

I believe in laissez-faire. Not just economically.

I don't need to control other's behavior. And guess what...I can't, neither can you. We can only control our own behavior. End of story.

[trisham]

Thanks. I always appreciate a thoughtful response.

[onedoug]

Hear! Hear!

[mkjessup]

You got as much thought as was proportional to your own post to me.

[trisham]

You know, I've read your posts occasionally on other forums. I have thought that you are an intelligent person. I'm disappointed in what I have seen here.

For some reason, it appears that those who are defending morality are to be chastised, while those who defend immorality are to be ignored.

Why is that?

[netmilsmom]

This is from another thread Kev. Instead of AM you could easily slip in AK

To: SeekAndFind

B-CHAN: Thousands of years of Western civilization preferring male-female bonding leading to marriage and family is a good thing, and Anna feels that it’s a bad thing. Is that totally fair? Or am I putting words in your mouth?

AM: I don’t think it’s necessarily preferable. I think that people should be able to make their own choices.

B-CHAN: Why?

AM: Because it’s wrong to coerce anyone into behaving a certain way.

B-CHAN: Wrong? As in morally wrong?

AM: Yes.

B-CHAN: Sez who?

AM: Excuse me?

B-CHAN: You said that it’s wrong to coerce someone into behaving a certain way. Sez who? Who says it’s wrong to coerce people?

AM: Well, it’s against freedom.

B-CHAN: So what?

AM: Well, freedom is good, so anything that restricts it is evil.

B-CHAN: Who says freedom is good?

AM: Human nature. People naturally want to be free.

B-CHAN: But I thought that human nature didn’t exist. Didn’t you just say that human nature was, in effect, socially determined?

AM: Well, the desire for freedom isn’t. It’s natural.

B-CHAN: Again, says who?

AM: Says reality, I suppose.

B-CHAN: So freedom is the ultimate value? The standard of goodness?

AM: Yes.

B-CHAN: Sez who?

AM: Look, this is —

B-CHAN: Skip it. Are you saying that people should be totally free to do whatever they want?

AM: As long as they’re not hurting anyone else, or the Earth, yes.

B-CHAN: So it’s wrong to hurt other people? Or the Earth?

AM: Yes.

B-CHAN: Sez who?

AM: This interview is over.

22 posted on Monday, December 29, 2008 6:18:36 PM by B-Chan (Catholic. Monarchist. Texan. Any questions?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies | Report Abuse]

[mkjessup]

For some reason, it appears that those who are defending morality are to be chastised, while those who defend immorality are to be ignored. Why is that?

I do not chastise, nor criticize those who defend morality. Far from it. What I criticize is the mindset that the smut, sleaze and filth that permeates our society is 'unavoidable' and I while it may not be possible to avoid/evade all of it, it is the responsibility of parents to do what they can to limit the exposure of their children to that filth.

If that means not patronizing certain business establishments, theatres, restaurants, whatever, it is the price that should be paid without hesitation. We do not have the luxury of teams of high priced lawyers to file suits over objectionable displays, we do not have advocacy groups ready to step up and call for universal boycotts of businesses that engage in pseudo-pornographic advertising, we basically have the weapons of Prayer, and of voting with our feet and our wallets, which means that we have to act in the best interest of our families, and of our children. If that means being inconvenienced by going further to do our shopping, so be it. We shouldn't hesitate.

Now some seem to think that we should just go to whatever mall, shopping center, stores, etc., that we would normally and just 'accept' the fact that this sleaze is pervasive, and that there isn't anything we can do about it. I reject that.

The introduction of porn into the mainstream of our society (in my humble opinion) started decades ago with the introduction of a seemingly innocuous gift shop called 'Spencer Gifts', where one could buy all sorts of smutty gag items suitable only for a stag party, but they could be bought in the convenient modern atmosphere of a mall, without having to drive into a sleazy area of the city to the adult book stores, stripper bars and novelty shops. It was the introduction of products like that at the major merchant level (i.e., right next door to Sears, Wards, Penney's, etc.) that made it possible for our children and teenagers to be exposed to such stuff in an environment which was perceived at once time as being 'family friendly'. Unfortunately, once such smut is introduced into that family-friendly environment, it was no longer family-friendly. It's like introducing a toxic substance into a sanitized clean room, it doesn't matter how much of that toxic material is brought in, the rest of the room is subsequently contaminated and no longer 'clean'.

This may or may not be exactly what you were looking for, so far as how I view these issues. I don't "ignore" those who defend immorality, but you have to remember that even if you make a good conscience effort to debate (or clean) a filthy pig in the mud, the pig isn't interested in debate, and even if you clean it up for a short while, it will soon return to the mud, and you too, will be covered in mud.

Well, there you go. That's what I think about it.