Pornography

Today’s Rant is going to talk about my second favorite topic…pornography. Heeeeyyyyy, how you doin’?!

If you believe in the Bible, you accept the fact that Eve enticed Adam to bite the apple from the Tree of Knowledge. And with this bite, came the realization of sexuality. If you believe in a more scientific standpoint, then you agree that animals, including humans, have a natural instinct to procreate. So what is wrong with pornography and the incentive of its actions?

Religious faiths would say it encourages pre-marital and extra-marital sex. I say, if they stop making sex taboo and secretive and accept this knowledge bestowed upon us from the beginning of humankind, than maybe less people will cheat on their spouses. (Maybe not, but it was worth mentioning) Think about this, if Adam had not taken a bite of that apple, then we wouldn’t be here to discuss it. Unless of course we were all blessed with the Holy Spirit’s divine intervention and had our mother’s bear us through ‘immaculate conception’.

Another argument against pornography comes from a mostly lesbian and asexual female collaboration. Their viewpoint is that pornography encourages violence against women as well as rape. “Pornography does not simply create a climate in which sex and violence are interchangeable; it widens the range of behavior considered acceptable from men in heterosexual intercourse-behavior which reiteratively strips women of their autonomy, dignity and sexual potential, including the potential of loving and being loved by women in mutuality and integrity.” (Adrienne Rich, Compulsory Heterosexuality and Lesbian Existence, 1980)*

And who partakes in this climate? Women! If this is true, then women need to point the fingers at themselves. If a female porn star lets someone else degrade them for money, for others to view, shouldn’t they take any responsibility? Well you could pull a ‘Linda Lovelace’ and say how you were ‘forced’ to partake in these actions.

“The most pernicious message relayed by pornography is that women are natural sexual prey to men and love it, that sexuality and violence are congruent, and that for women sex is essentially masochistic, humiliation pleasurable, physical abuse erotic.” (Rich) I agree that there is pornography that is all these things…and even worse, but is it right to categorize all pornography? What about soft pornography or scenes in a movie where the two performers are ‘making love’? Where is the line between so called ‘normal’ sexual interaction between a man and a woman ok and where does it turn into a power struggle?

For some, there is not ‘normal’ sexual interaction between a man and a woman. “All sex, even consensual sex between a married couple, is an act of violence perpetrated against a women.” (Catherine MacKinnon, author of Professing Feminism: Cautionary Tales from the Strange World of Women’s Studies) Yet ironically, most porn stars, both male and female will tell you that their roles are powerful by creating a sexual desire. But feminist writers like Marilyn Frye, suggest a double bind in how society actual views women’s sexuality. “If she is heterosexually active, a woman is open to censure and punishment for being loose, unprincipled or a whore…On the other hand, if she refrains from heterosexual activity, she is fairly constantly harassed by men who try to persuade her into it and pressure her to “relax”…threatened with labels like “frigid”.” (Frye, “Oppression” The Politics of Reality) While I do agree with Frye that this mentality does still exist in our society it is not a universal viewpoint by all men. For many modern men, pleasuring a woman is the goal in their sexual exploits. The power is no longer solely about his orgasism but about hers.

“…All heterosexual intercourse is rape because women, as a group, are not strong enough to give meaningful consent.” (MacKinnon, p.129) To label all pornography as vial and insulting to women would be a misnomer. To label all heterosexual intercourse as an act of violence IS vial and insulting. For example, I do not find anything insulting to women about Chippendales and I have been there a few times to aptly state from experience. The women there seem to feel very “strongly” about giving “meaningful consent.”

*If you are wondering how I knew about Rich’s work, this was actually part of the syllabus for an introductory course in Philosophy. Some introduction!

Separation of Church and State Part 3

Today we look into part three of the Separation of Church and State debate by asking the question…do current standards impose on one’s religious practice?

A press release sent by Georgia Governor Sonny Perdue’s office on the afternoon of December 2nd, announced plans for a “holiday tree” lighting ceremony at the governor’s mansion. Thirty minutes later, a second release went out reading: “It is, in fact, a Christmas tree.” Religious conservatives have objected to the use of the term “holiday tree,” saying it seeks to minimize the Christian origins of Christmas. (The Daytona Beach News-Journal, 12/4/2005) I am not religious, nor conservative, and yet I agree that changing a “Christmas Tree” to a “Holiday Tree” is politically INcorrect. Christmas is a religious holiday, not an American holiday like Thanksgiving. Unfortunately it has become such a commercialized holiday that many non-Christians celebrate Christmas in one form or another.

The next point this brings to fruition is the question of company’s giving everyone off for a religious holiday. I will probably kick myself for saying this, but I do not think any company should give off for a religious holiday, including Christmas. However, company’s should give more available days off that people can use as floating holidays so whatever their religion, they can take those days off without penalty. Although a company’s employee base may be predominantly one religion, and therefore most people will not be working there on a particular day, employees who do not observe that day should not be penalized by having to take that day off and not a day that they do observe or having to use their personal/vacation time in its place.

Being conscience and considerate of all people’s views and beliefs is key. “If you want to be free, there is but one way; it is to guarantee an equally full measure of liberty to all your neighbors. There is no other”-Carl Schurz (1829-1906)

Separation of Church and State...next argument!

Continuing off of the last rant about Separation of Church and State...Today’s Rant will focus on the debate between historical preservation and current standards. With numerous lawsuits arguing the validity of the word “God” in our government, let us look at the history of this addition.

The motto ‘In God We Trust’ was placed on certain United States coins largely because of the increased religious sentiment existing during the Civil War. Secretary of the Treasury Salmon P. Chase received many appeals from devout persons throughout the country, urging that the United States recognize the ‘Deity’ on United States coins. From Treasury Department records, it appears that the first such appeal came in a letter dated November 13, 1861. As a result, Secretary Chase instructed James Pollock, Director of the Mint at Philadelphia, to prepare a motto, in a letter dated November 20, 1861:

Dear Sir: No nation can be strong except in the strength of God, or safe except in His defense. The trust of our people in God should be declared on our national coins.
But the motto disappeared from the five-cent coin in 1883, and did not reappear until production of the Jefferson nickel began in 1938. Since 1938, all United States coins bear the inscription.

It wasn’t until July 11, 1955 when President Dwight D. Eisenhower signed Public Law 140 making it mandatory that all coinage and paper currency display the motto "In God We Trust." The following year, Public Law 851 was enacted and signed, which officially replaced the national motto "E Pluribus Unum" with "In God We Trust’. All of this occurred at the height of cold war tension, when political divisions between the Soviet and western block was simplistically portrayed as a confrontation between Judeo-Christian civilization and the "godless" menace of communism. On June 14, 1954, Congress unanimously ordered the inclusion of the words "Under God" into the nation's Pledge of Allegiance. By this time, other laws mandating public religiosity had also been enacted, including a statute for all federal justices and judges to swear an oath concluding with "So help me God." All paper currency issued after October 1, 1957 included the ‘In God We Trust’ motto. (http://www.atheists.org/flash.line/igwt1.htm) So “God” was not always on US Currency and NOT the national motto!

Even if you agree that America was founded on Christian beliefs, that doesn’t mean our laws and ideals should still follow those beliefs but rather change and progress into a more universal standard to encompass the current diversity, should items like money, and government buildings with religious statements on them change? Shockingly enough, I say no. The idea is not to take down what is already part of history (even if that history does not tread as far back as we thought), but to build up new history around us…a history that reflects 2005. Unfortunately, my ‘2005 Utopia’ is not my ideal society. With ‘our’ President recently saying, “You are either with us or against us,”(commenting on the war in Iraq) being a prime example of the limited and one-track mindset our nation still follows. I choose rather to embrace those lovely shades of gray where diversity lies.

The Church and Homosexuality

Opening the newspaper has always been a depressing task for me each morning. This morning's (11/1/05) The News-Journal (a local Florida paper) has a small article on page 3, reading "Panel pulls lesbian minister's credentials."

Rev. Irene "Beth" Stroud was defrocked on Monday by the highest court within the United Methodist Church. The court found that she violated the denomination's ban on "self-avowed, practicing homosexual" clergy. Accordingly, this "lifestyle" is incompatible with Christian teachings.

I find it ironic that a religion based on a man who was excepting of a prostitute and was trying to teach people to love one another without prejudice, now condemns those who do not conform to their standards.

Hypocrisy runs rampant here and in most religions. People go to church on Sundays to pray for their sins, which are supposedly forgiven, and come Monday morning, they are beating their kids, cheating on their spouses and 'coveting thy neighbors' possessions (i.e., "Keeping up with the Jones'"). People shroud themselves in the protection a religion claims to offer but forget the basic fundamentals of being a good, moral person each day of their life.

Discriminating against anyone for their "lifestyle" choices cuts at the very heart of the basic teachings of Jesus and I would imagine he would be ashamed of the state of the world today. Here is a woman who has faith in a religion that does not have faith in her. Religion is supposed to bring people together, not shun them.

Note: Religion has many positive aspects but no one person is better than another. People should know that our differences are what define us.

Food and Immunity

Today's rant focuses partially on one my favorite topics…food. With the flu season on our heels, I would like to offer some parallels between what we ingest and the consistent transformation of the flu virus.

With the latest dietary guidelines calling for three servings of low-fat or nonfat dairy a day, the average family with two kids now consumes more than 85 gallons of milk a year. (Organic Style, October 2005) What the government does not tell you, nor enforces the removal of, is that most milk is filled with carcinogens and antibodies.

Dioxins, an industrial by-product and a known carcinogen, are ingested by cows when they eat contaminated grass. Milk that is conventionally produced often comes from cows that are raised under disturbing farm conditions: They may graze on pastures that have been treated with pesticides, herbicides and sewage sludge. When the cattle are not let outside, they feed on dried grass and hay, grains (which may be genetically modified), and fish meal (which may contain PCBs and mercury). Cows on conventional farms are often given antibiotics-even when they are healthy-to prevent them from getting sick. (Organic Style, October 2005)

In some "factory farm," thousands of cows are crammed inside barns to allow easy access for milking. Their milk production can be forced beyond normal capacity through injections of a synthetic growth hormone called rbST. Studies show that these cows are more susceptible to diseases because their natural life cycle is being distorted. (Organic Style, October 2005)

Sounds like our natural life cycle is also being distorted. When you eat something, anything, which comes from a plant or animal that has been tampered with by the superior intelligence of humans, that item you consumed becomes a part of you on a molecular level. If cows ingest hormones, antibodies and carcinogens, and you eat or drink anything from that cow; you are ingesting those same hormones, antibodies and carcinogens.

On top of this, look in almost anyone's medicine cabinet and you will find a stash of brownish-orange prescription bottles lining the shelves (I know I am not the only one who does this). Time after time we self-medicate and in many instances, over-medicate. Rather than let your immune system do its job, you do it for it and pop a pill. There are certain instances when you do need to seek external medicine. An example is an allergic reaction, which happens due to an irritant that sends your system into overdrive and you need a histamine blocker to prevent your immune system from causing you harm.

The Flu virus, however, is not one of these incidents. Each year millions of people line up at local flu vaccine clinics to receive their annual shot of...(drum roll, please)...the flu virus. That shot you take is actually a strand or strands of either dead or weakened flu virus(es). With this in mind, your immune system sends out antibodies in response, and the belief is that that will keep you safe from the flu till next year.

What most do not take into account is during this time, and prior to it, we have been filling our bodies with antibiotics through our food. "Although the milk supply is tested before it reaches consumers to make sure it does not contain antibiotics, the overuse of these medications might contribute to a rise of drug-resistant bacteria, making some disease more difficult to treat." (Organic Style, October 2005) Exactly and that is one of the main reasons the flu virus mutates year after year. It certainly would appear that the flu virus is more intelligent than humans. We keep trying to vaccinate and ward off all these viruses and bacteria, but this forces them to mutate over and over.

Let's look at this from a basic mathematical standpoint: if you have a virus, for example, you treat it by taking antibiotics (which is similar to a vaccine only one does the actual work for your immune system) to try to kill it. In the process, some of the virus may not be eradicated and those antibodies have now forced the virus to mutate (sounds like a very Darwinian theory). Now you might have some of the original virus and the mutated form to try and kill next time around. So what do we do, create another medication or vaccine against the two, and in turn, the second mutates again and maybe even the original strand creates another new strand, and now you have three or more. Seeing a pattern? Yes, in many cases we are fighting a losing battle. Bacteria as been around since the birth of the earth (from whatever theory you believe) and they will be around long after us.


Please note that the reason there is only one source referenced is from reading an article in the magazine that began the wheels in my brain to churn. There is certainly a wealth of information available to both support and refute these statements. All I ever ask is for people to read, consider and try to become more informed.