Dog Brothers Public Forum
Return To Homepage
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
September 23, 2014, 01:34:34 AM

Login with username, password and session length
Search:     Advanced search
Welcome to the Dog Brothers Public Forum.
82574 Posts in 2250 Topics by 1062 Members
Latest Member: seawolfpack5
* Home Help Search Login Register
+  Dog Brothers Public Forum
|-+  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities
| |-+  Politics & Religion
| | |-+  Gender, Gay, Lesbian
« previous next »
Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 ... 11 Print
Author Topic: Gender, Gay, Lesbian  (Read 97145 times)
rachelg
Guest
« Reply #150 on: October 29, 2008, 08:02:39 PM »



http://www.feministe.us/blog/archives/2008/10/29/strip-club-holds-sarah-palin-lookalike-contest/



.....this story about a Sarah Palin lookalike contest held at Vegas strip club (oh, sorry, “gentleman’s club”). Lots of bikinis, sexualized use of guns and sexism abound.

The saddest thing is that it’s not the most offensive display of sexualized misogyny that has been directed a Palin. The sex doll came close, but I’d say that award goes “Naylin’ Paylin,” the Larry Flint pornographic film starring yet another Palin lookalike, the existence of which all of us should have seen coming.

There are two problems with both the porn film and this strip club contest, and neither one of them is about porn and stripping in general. The first issue is consent. Sarah Palin did not consent to having her image used in this way. Portraying her sexually like this without her consent is a violation — and contrary to what many people apparently think, existing as a woman in public is not the same as consenting to use of your body as public property. This isn’t satire or parody; it’s just sexist and degrading.

Which brings us to the next issue. The entire reason that anyone gets to hide behind the parody and “all in good fun” arguments is precisely because portraying Sarah Palin sexually is intended to be mocking towards her. It’s taking a powerful woman and working to make her non-threatening by turning her into a sexual object. And it’s the very opposite side of the coin as calling Hillary Clinton ugly and denying her sexuality. Both reinforce the ideas that women exist to sexually pleasure men, and that sexuality is the only power we have (or should be allowed). Whether revoking or affirming that “power,” the result is an attempt to render the woman inferior and powerless.

We still live in a world where women seemingly cannot be seen as sexual and at the same time be taken seriously. We still live in a world where sexuality itself is seen as degrading to women. That is the purpose of these types of exercises — to debase Palin by reminding everyone that she (presumably) has a vagina and is therefore only good for fucking. I truly believe that if sex was not still viewed as inherently degrading to women, we wouldn’t be seeing these sorts of displays at all.

The goal is to mock Palin’s intelligence not by engaging with her foolish beliefs and ignorant rhetoric, but by pointing and saying “look, boobs!” or “I’d sure like to hit that!” And making her non-threatening isn’t only dangerous politically when Palin is in fact in a position to potentially do a lot of harm; attempting to make her non-threatening in this way is dangerous to all women who hold power, who want to be taken seriously, and who dream of being able to be proud of their sexuality and brains all at the same time. An acknowledgment of female sexuality shouldn’t be seen as mocking — these portrayals of Palin only reinforce the idea that it is.

This is degrading to Sarah Palin, particularly as a woman, both because it ignores the right of consent and because the very intention is for it to be degrading. It’s in no way a celebration of sexuality (since in order for it to be, it would by definition have to be consensual), but a ridicule. And in the end, all women are the butt of the joke.

Logged
JDN
Power User
***
Posts: 2004


« Reply #151 on: October 29, 2008, 09:37:47 PM »

Odd, I am the one to respond to you.  Usually (nearly always) I agree with you and I have very high respect for your opinion.

First, I am not defending the lookalike contest at he "gentlemen's club" nor am I defending the "Naylin Paylin" film by Flint.
But, that's politics in America.  I am not saying it's right, but...    And what does "without her consent is a violation" mean?
She is in the public figure, therefore consent is not needed.  I live in LA; the local "stars" know the law.

Also, (sorry) I disagree, "calling calling Hillary ugly and denying her sexuality" in my opinion does not "reinforce the ideas that women
(solely) exist to sexually pleasure men, and that sexuality is the only power we (women) have".  I forget which forum post, but Crafty
and GM both admired Margaret Thatcher.  I do too.  Truly an outstanding woman; brilliant, innovative, etc.  But, a sex pot she was not.
Yet, many men would and did vote for her.  And in my opinion England should be grateful for her rule.

Also, I doubt if Ms. Tzipi Livini became Prime Minister solely on her looks or sexuality.  Rather, it is simply her ability.  To be fair,
I don't know Israel politics (You have forgotten more than I know), but my impression is that politics are tough in Israel; she survived
and won - and it is not a beauty contest.  Just raw ability. 

Palin problem (in my opinion) is that she is all show, but no substance and no brains.  Most on this forum don't like Hillary, but I don't
think anyone has called her stupid and uneducated; she's tough and smart. Yet the job of VP is one heart beat away from being President (and McCain is old
plus he had cancer) so why Palin?  It's insulting and pandering.  Plus we don't have a parliamentary system; Palin will be President if McCain is medically incapable. 

Bottom line, nothing wrong with Palin, she's just not qualified to be President.  Good humor/satire in my opinion often has a basis for fact.  Palin as a public
figure deserves the adoration of the far right Christian coalition and deserves the ridicule of men/women who demand excellence.  The good with the bad.  And
she seems to play up to and seek both sides.


Logged
G M
Power User
***
Posts: 12042


« Reply #152 on: October 30, 2008, 09:05:19 AM »

Liberals love to play the "If you don't agree with my liberal position, you must be stupid" game. Remember how stupid Reagan was supposed to be, while Teddy Kennedy was a real intellect. Palin is the new target of this game.

As far as Larry Flynt goes, it's to be expected. No one is more sexist, racist, classist and elitist than the left, who officially hate that sort of thing, thus give themselves full permission to engage in it to attack their opponents. Don't believe me? Just look at the things said about Colin Powell and Condoleeza Rice by the left  as an example.
Logged
G M
Power User
***
Posts: 12042


« Reply #153 on: October 30, 2008, 09:10:02 AM »

http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2008/03/pastor_wright_insulted_condole.html

March 20, 2008
Pastor Wright insulted Condoleeza Rice
Ed Lasky
Pastor Jeremiah Wright insulted, in a vile, sexist and racist manner, the Secretary of State. From ABC News’ The Blotter:


In April 2003, Rev. Wright told his congregation that "the United States government has failed the vast majority of our citizens of African descent."
"For every one Oprah, a billionaire, you've got five million blacks who are out of work," he said. "For every one Colin Powell, a millionaire, you've got 10 million blacks who cannot read. For every one Condoskeeza [sic] Rice, you've got one million in prison. For every one Tiger Woods, who needs to get beat, at the Masters, with his cap-blazing hips, playing on a course that discriminates against women. For every one Tiger Woods, we got 10,000 black kids who will never see a golf course."

Do you know what that means? Our friends at Urban Dictionary do:

whore, slut..

Dr. Rice is has achieved the highest position yet for an African-American woman in government, yet Barack Obama’s uncle-like mentor calls her a whore, a slut.

What happened to hope?
 
Pastor Wright seems to have a serious problem with African-Americans who make it: Tiger Woods, Colin Powell, Oprah (his former congregant), etc. I am surprised he did not throw Bill Cosby in there.

Yet Barack Obama’s success seems fine with him. I wonder why?

Hat tip: NRO' Media Blog

**This is where Obama got up and left this church because of such things being preached from the pulpit. Oh wait, he didn't, did he?**
Logged
G M
Power User
***
Posts: 12042


« Reply #154 on: October 30, 2008, 09:20:26 AM »

Below is some of the stuff hurled at Michelle Malkin:


http://michellemalkin.com/2008/09/15/race-traitor-card-playing-e-mail-of-the-day/

Race traitor card-playing e-mail of the day
By Michelle Malkin  •  September 15, 2008 04:25 PM

A race-obsessed journalist who works for Pacifica Radio tells me how I’m supposed to think, act, and write. “Don’t forget you’re brown,” she scolds.
Oh, thanks for reminding me, sister. I know you and “your people” won’t let me forget that skin color is supposed to dictate ideology. I’ve been hearing it for 20 years.
from Leilani Albano
to   writemalkin@gmail.com
date   Mon, Sep 15, 2008 at 4:06 PM
subject   don’t forget you’re brown
mailed-by   yahoo.com
signed-by   yahoo.com
i’ve read your stories throughout the years.
and i have to say, from one pinay journalist to another, you embarrass me and you embarrass our people.
i’m sorry the US media has used you, larry elders and other conservative drones of color to bolster their quota numbers.
what we need are more conscious journalists of color, not just another mainstream token acting as a cheerleader for the conservative right.
hopefully someday, you will find genuine connections with others and see how much damage you have done with your recklessly crafted pieces.
-leilani albano, kpfk radio los angeles

http://michellemalkin.com/2006/05/20/do-you-think-this-is-funny/

Do you think this is funny?
By Michelle Malkin  •  May 20, 2006 11:23 AM

Pat yourselves on the backs, you tolerant liberal bastards.
***
This is hardly
the first
time
liberals
have
made Asian whore ping-pong ball jokes about me.
But Wonkette has now mainstreamed it. And I’m sick of it. Are you proud of yourselves? Do you get a bonus from Nick Denton for scraping the bottom of the barrel?
***
The writer at Wonkette responsible for sliming me is Alex Pareene, who posted the supposed instant message conversation between himself and an “operative.” Here is his blog.


Here’s a bit about him from a recent profile, in which he is effusively praised by his hip, edgy bosses:
“I’m not nearly as good of a writer as Ana Marie Cox, so we’re just going to have to live with that,” he said. “But I think what catches people’s attention is that I’m a 20-year-old who writes like an old man. I have a sort of frame of reference that’s about 50 years behind the times. I basically have encyclopedic knowledge about very arcane information. And also, I’m very effective at cursing.”
Gawker’s former managing editor Choire Sicha discovered Pareene in the spring of 2004 when Gawker asked their readers to suggest what kind of skits Paris Hilton should be in when she hosted “Saturday Night Live.” Both Gawker and Wonkette are owned by Gawker Media.
“I randomly sent them off a suggestion, and Choire Sicha, their managing editor, wrote me back and said, ‘You’re really funny. Are you a writer? Should I have heard of you? Let’s find a way to use you,’ ” Pareene said. “I was originally sort of a guest editor on Gawker.com. There were two weeks in the summer when they were between editors so they brought me in to fill in.”
Sicha said he has never met Pareene in person, but thinks Pareene’s talent is undeniable.

“He’s definitely one of the brightest comic talents I’ve ever come across,” Sicha said. “What he’s got is wiles — preternaturally, for someone his age. He’s creepy-talented, really — kind of spooky. Maybe he’s a hoax perpetrated by a 40-year-old housewife.”
The summer after he dropped out, Pareene began a stint as a guest editor for Gawker. But this time, he would actually get paid for his blogging — something he considers fairly remarkable.
“I still can’t believe I’m getting paid for it,” he said with a chuckle.
Gawker’s current managing editor, Lockhart Steele, said Pareene’s use of language and the way he “cocks his eyebrow at the media” caught his attention.
“We’re looking for someone who can have a little fun at the media’s expense,” Steele said. “Different blogs are enjoyable for different reasons and Alex has his own personality as a writer. You know when you like it, and when you go back to it, you ask yourself what brings you back and for Alex, I think it’s his quality of writing.”
***

Greg Tinti on double standards.
Dan Riehl spots underlying irony.
***
From the Gawker Media “Terms of Use” page, which shows that commenters are held to a higher standard than Gawker Media sites’ editors and racist smear merchants:
Comments Terms of Use
The comments sections on GM Sites are accessible to users by invitation only (such invitations coming either from Gawker Media editors directly or by referral from existing comment users). GM’s comment user registration system has been designed so that, if the user so chooses, they can remain completely anonymous, even to us.
In order to make our comments useful and interesting, the following guidelines have been established for comment users:
* Do not post abusive, obscene, threatening, harassing, defamatory, libelous, offensive or sexually explicit material.
Logged
JDN
Power User
***
Posts: 2004


« Reply #155 on: October 30, 2008, 10:30:14 AM »

I think if you look carefully you see that the racist and sexual slurs and used on both sides of the aisle.  Liberals participate; it is wrong.  But I think conservatives in particular
are prone to use racial and sexual slurs.  I think it is a reflection of their own inadequacy. 
Logged
G M
Power User
***
Posts: 12042


« Reply #156 on: October 30, 2008, 10:38:50 AM »

Really? Please cite some examples JDN.
Logged
G M
Power User
***
Posts: 12042


« Reply #157 on: October 30, 2008, 10:48:12 AM »

The Four Stages of Conservative Female Abuse
by Michelle Malkin
Creators Syndicate
Copyright 2008

There’s something about outspoken conservative women that drives the Left mad. It’s a peculiar pathology I’ve reported on for more than 15 years, both as a witness and a target. Thus, the onset of Palin Derangement Syndrome in the media, Democrat circles, and the cesspools of the blogosphere came as no surprise. They just can’t help themselves.
Liberals hold a special animus for constituencies they deem traitors. Minorities who identify as social and economic conservatives have left the plantation and sold out their people. Women who put an “R” by their name have abandoned their ovaries and betrayed their gender. As Republican officeholders and conservative public figures who are women have grown in number and visibility, the progression of Conservative Female Abuse has worsened. The astonishing vitriol and virulent hatred directed at GOP Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin is the most severe manifestation to date.
The first stage of Conservative Female Abuse by the Left is infantilization. Right-wing women can’t possibly believe what they believe about the sanctity of life, self-defense, free markets, or foreign policy. They must be submissive little dolls of the White Male Hierarchy. Or, as a far Left (is there any other kind of Left in San Francisco?) San Francisco Chronicle columnist wrote of First Lady Laura Bush, they must be put in their place as “docile doormats” with no brains of their own. True to form, no sooner had John McCain announced Gov. Palin as his veep pick than jeers of “Palin = neocon puppet” sprouted across the Internet.
The second stage of CFA is sexualization. A conservative woman is not merely a sellout. She is an intellectual prostitute. Unable or unwilling to argue with them on the merits, detractors resort to mocking the physical appearance of their ideological opponents in skirts and denigrating them with vulgar epithets. MSNBC hosts insulted former GOP presidential candidate Fred Thompson’s accomplished wife and mother of two, Jeri Thompson, as working the stripper pole. Newspaper cartoonists Ted Rall, Pat Oliphant, and Jeff Danziger caricatured Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice as a mammy, thick-lipped parrot, and Bush “House Nigga” armed with “hair straightener.” New York Times columnist Maureen Dowd derided former GOP Florida secretary of state Katherine Harris for applying “her makeup with a trowel.”
True to form, Dowd was first out of the box to snicker at Gov. Palin’s beauty pageant past, ridicule her “beehive and sexy shoes,” and compare her path to the vice presidential nomination as a “hokey chick flick.” Joe Biden backhandedly praised her as “good looking.” And left-wing bloggers worked overtime on lurid photoshops of Palin as a bikini model and porn star. At the Democratic Underground, a highly trafficked liberal website raising money for Barack Obama, members held a contest to come up with nicknames and posters to slime GOP Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin — and then to “spread [them] all over the ‘net.” Among the “nicer” entries: “Cruella,” “Gidget,” “Governor Jesus Camp,” “VPILF,” “Fertilla the Huntress,” “Iditabroad,” and “KILLER PYSCHO FUNDIE BITCH FROM HELL!!”
The third stage of CFA is demonization. When the Left tires of hurling whore insults, it turns conservative women in the public eye into nefarious creatures. Bill Maher called Laura Bush “Hitler’s dog.” George Carlin attacked Barbara Bush as “the Silver douchebag.” A Huffington Post website member wrote of Nancy Reagan: “Like her evil husband, she has lived far too long. Here’s hoping the hag suffers for several weeks, then croaks in the tub.” Another added: “I feel no pity for the bitch who took delight in watching thousands die of a horrible disease and watching the poor having to eat out of dumpsters because of her husband’s political beliefs.”
True to form, rumors of Palin being a crypto-Nazi surfaced on the Internet and the fringe media. And liberal critics used her gun-rights record to smear her as bloodthirsty.
And the final stage of CFA is dehumanization. Conservative women aren’t real women according to the liberal feminist establishment’s definition. Remember when Gloria Steinem called Texas Republican Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison a “female impersonator?” Or when curdled NOW leader Patricia Ireland instructed Democrats to vote only for “authentic” female political candidates? Or when Al Gore’s fashion consultant Naomi Wolf described the foreign-policy analysis of Jeane Kirkpatrick as being “uninflected by the experiences of the female body?”
Echoing the bottom-feeders in the liberal blogosphere, mainstream journalists and Obama water-carriers now question Palin’s commitment to motherhood and even challenged her pre-natal care decisions in an effort to destroy her. Forget about questioning their patriotism. I question their sanity.
Logged
JDN
Power User
***
Posts: 2004


« Reply #158 on: October 30, 2008, 12:24:42 PM »

Really? Please cite some examples JDN.

Ahhh just for example, as Rachel indirectly pointed out, the right calling Hillary a "bitch" a "lesbian" and ugly doesn't sound
very professional to me.  And the slurs get a lot worse...
Logged
G M
Power User
***
Posts: 12042


« Reply #159 on: October 30, 2008, 07:03:37 PM »

Any slurs that compare to what has been aimed at Condoleeza Rice, or Michelle Malkin?
Logged
JDN
Power User
***
Posts: 2004


« Reply #160 on: October 30, 2008, 08:39:18 PM »

Oh you mean the "self described political conservative" radio announcer named Lenihan who called Dr. Condoleezza Rice a "coon" on the air?  I think he got fired...
And rightfully so.

As for Michelle Malkin, I haven't read much, but do I really care what people say about a reporter/blogger who has zero credibility?  Read her stuff; the woman is a racist and zealot.
I think she brings the attacks upon herself.  She needs/wants the notoriety.  It keeps her name in the news, otherwise she would have been forgotten a long time ago.
Logged
G M
Power User
***
Posts: 12042


« Reply #161 on: October 30, 2008, 09:04:51 PM »

I've never heard of "Lenihan.

What has Michelle Malkin said that would qualify her as racist?
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 31263


« Reply #162 on: October 31, 2008, 10:33:03 AM »

"the right calling Hillary a "bitch" a "lesbian" and ugly doesn't sound
very professional to me.  And the slurs get a lot worse..."

Truth is a defense  evil
Logged
G M
Power User
***
Posts: 12042


« Reply #163 on: October 31, 2008, 12:10:26 PM »

JDN,

Still waiting for you to back up your claim that Michelle Malkin is a racist.
Logged
JDN
Power User
***
Posts: 2004


« Reply #164 on: October 31, 2008, 12:39:09 PM »

GM just Google "Michelle AND Malkin AND racist".  The reasons and groups calling her a racist are too long to list including
even Asian groups among whom Michelle is a member.  But then as I said before, I doubt if anyone really believes her.
She is a sensationalist craving attention and notoriety.  Is she a racist; or is she just saying and writing those things to provoke
people and gain attention to herself?  Either way, I have zero respect for her.  Nor do most people.  As Crafty posted,
"Truth is a defense".  And I think she truly seeks the attacks otherwise absolutely no one would pay attention to her.
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 31263


« Reply #165 on: October 31, 2008, 02:30:38 PM »

Just a quick yip from Argentina:

JDN, please save us the time of wading through the flotsam that such a Google search would generate and give us a few examples of what YOU regard as good examples.

Yip!
Marc
Logged
JDN
Power User
***
Posts: 2004


« Reply #166 on: October 31, 2008, 05:26:12 PM »

So many examples to choose from, but time is short;

Maybe her blatant support for white supremacy extremists?
or
Maybe her comments that the Japanese/AMERICAN population should have been locked up during WWII
or
Maybe the hypocrisy of her position of being against "anchor babies" (change the constitution?) yet she was born
here while her parents were in the US on a Visa?  Good grief, she is an anchor baby a jackpot baby!
or
Her blatant and hypocritical dislike of immigrants.  Even Lou Dobbs (whom I actually respect), a conservative and anti immigrationist
is careful not to use race as a basis for his arguments.  Malkin seems to put race and her racist attitudes at the forefront.
or
Her unabashed dislike for all blacks.
or
Her support for racial profiling
or
Comments by even other Philippina's that "Michelle Malkin is selling out her own people."
or
How Asian women in general seem to despise her - Asian calling Asian a racist.  Now that's really not good.

Good grief, the list goes on and on.  I mean it's hard to find a group that doesn't think she is racist.
She's an Asian shock jockey looking for headlines to make a buck.  That's fine, this is America,
but that doesn't mean I have to respect her nor does it mean I have to forgive her racist remarks.  Nor does most of America.

And as I said, the list is so long, I thought it might be easier for GM to do a Google Search rather than me to begin
spoon feeding it to him.

I'll defend Rice. I will even defend Palin.  But Michelle Malkin?  She get's what she deserves...  She has made her own bed.
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 31263


« Reply #167 on: October 31, 2008, 08:16:28 PM »

I was hoping for some citations, some quotes, things of that sort , , ,
Logged
JDN
Power User
***
Posts: 2004


« Reply #168 on: October 31, 2008, 08:30:57 PM »

Sorry, I don't really think she is worth the effort; she is nobody and fading fast. On numerous topics/positions I referred to above
she is a blatant racist.  Her positions are indefensible.  It blocks out any logic or reasoning otherwise she may have.
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 31263


« Reply #169 on: October 31, 2008, 08:40:36 PM »

Ah, but is it worth it not to hear GM and me razzing that you made a charge that you can´t back up?+
.
« Last Edit: November 01, 2008, 05:16:12 AM by Crafty_Dog » Logged
G M
Power User
***
Posts: 12042


« Reply #170 on: October 31, 2008, 10:24:16 PM »

So many examples to choose from, but time is short;

Maybe her blatant support for white supremacy extremists?

**Really? What white supremacy extremists were these? What did she say or do to support them?**
or
Maybe her comments that the Japanese/AMERICAN population should have been locked up during WWII

**To be precise, she wrote a book defending FDR's policy in WWII. Which party did FDR belong to again?**
or
Maybe the hypocrisy of her position of being against "anchor babies" (change the constitution?) yet she was born
here while her parents were in the US on a Visa?  Good grief, she is an anchor baby a jackpot baby!

**There is a difference between people who are here legally having children vs. illegal aliens having "anchor babies".**
or
Her blatant and hypocritical dislike of immigrants.  Even Lou Dobbs (whom I actually respect), a conservative and anti immigrationist
is careful not to use race as a basis for his arguments.  Malkin seems to put race and her racist attitudes at the forefront.

**Please cite an example.**

or
Her unabashed dislike for all blacks.

**Please cite an example of this.**

or
Her support for racial profiling

**You mean that the TSA searching an 80 yr. old grandmother of Norwegian ancestry while a 20-something male from Saudi Arabia moves unimpeded to his flight strikes you as good policy? **

or
Comments by even other Philippina's that "Michelle Malkin is selling out her own people."

**If Michelle Malkin is an American citizen, then who are her "own people? Are you saying that ethnic loyalty should trump national loyalty? Who determines what a minority should and shouldn't think?**

or
How Asian women in general seem to despise her - Asian calling Asian a racist.  Now that's really not good.

**Really? Have your heard any asian women express this opinion to you directly?**

Good grief, the list goes on and on.  I mean it's hard to find a group that doesn't think she is racist.
She's an Asian shock jockey looking for headlines to make a buck.  That's fine, this is America,
but that doesn't mean I have to respect her nor does it mean I have to forgive her racist remarks.  Nor does most of America.

And as I said, the list is so long, I thought it might be easier for GM to do a Google Search rather than me to begin
spoon feeding it to him.

**I just googled "Obama" and "antichrist" and got 885,000 hits. Does that make it true?** (This was SARCASM, I do not think Obama is the antichrist, got it JDN?)

I'll defend Rice. I will even defend Palin.  But Michelle Malkin?  She get's what she deserves...  She has made her own bed.
Logged
JDN
Power User
***
Posts: 2004


« Reply #171 on: October 31, 2008, 10:25:02 PM »

Ah, but is it worth it not to hear GM and my razzing that you made a charge that you can´t back up?+
.

Worth more than gold, I admit,  grin  but just check it out; I made the key points above. And she is
not worth fighting or wasting time over.  And I acknowledged that I like and respect Lou Dobbs; isn't that
enough of a bone for you wolves?  And if I cut and pasted quote after quote, article after article, well, then GM could say
I am no different than him.  And that would be no fun.   evil
Logged
G M
Power User
***
Posts: 12042


« Reply #172 on: October 31, 2008, 10:44:19 PM »

Just googled "Lou Dobbs" and "racist" and got 406,000 hits.  I haven't seen much of his show, but I doubt very much that he is. Funny enough, I'm not aware of any difference between his stance on illegal aliens and Michelle Malkin's. So please explain what the key difference is, JDN.
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 31263


« Reply #173 on: November 01, 2008, 05:24:01 AM »

"I made the key points above. And she is not worth fighting or wasting time over.  And I acknowledged that I like and respect Lou Dobbs; isn't that enough of a bone for you wolves? "

Umm , , , no  cheesy

T0 make a POINT, you would have to back up your ASSERTIONS, assertions of things which are quite ugly btw, which you simply have not done.  While I agree she can enjoy playing the provocateur (so what?) I enjoy reading MM most of the time find her to be someone who goes after liberal lunacies and specious liberal thinking.  So before I throw her under the bus  wink as a racist bigot it is going to take more than what you´ve produced so far.
Logged
JDN
Power User
***
Posts: 2004


« Reply #174 on: November 01, 2008, 10:47:22 AM »

"I made the key points above. And she is not worth fighting or wasting time over.  And I acknowledged that I like and respect Lou Dobbs; isn't that enough of a bone for you wolves? "

Umm , , , no  cheesy

T0 make a POINT, you would have to back up your ASSERTIONS, assertions of things which are quite ugly btw, which you simply have not done.  While I agree she can enjoy playing the provocateur (so what?) I enjoy reading MM most of the time find her to be someone who goes after liberal lunacies and specious liberal thinking.  So before I throw her under the bus  wink as a racist bigot it is going to take more than what you´ve produced so far.

Gee GM constantly "backs up points" with cut and paste that have no basis of fact or relevancy... but lots of quantity...

And please do continue reading MM if she provides entertainment - there is no need to toss her under the bus; however
I just suggest that you read her with a jaundiced eye, but entertainment is important.   smiley

You seem tenacious regarding MM?  A nobody; a vociferous and particularly obnoxious blogger, albeit entertaining.  It seems odd;
you usually go for substance.  But this time    sad


White Supremacy - Numerous articles exist on Malkin and her affiliation with VDARE.com


Named for Virginia Dare, the first white person born in the New World, the site has been named by the anti-racist Southern Poverty Law Center as a hate group. And for good reason: the site is dedicated to pushing the kind of pseudo-science the Nazis could have only dreamed of using to support their racial fantasies. Forget phrenology: VDARE spends its time touting books that purport to prove that the average IQ of sub-Saharan Africans is 67, below the accepted standard criteria for a diagnosis of mental retardation.

The Anti-Defamation League notes that the author of the review, J. Philippe Rushton, has been less than subtle about his racism. "During [a] 1996 conference... Rushton lectured at length about the sexual differences among various races, arguing that blacks, while possessing smaller brains, reproduce at a faster rate due to the larger size of their sex organs. 'Not to reinforce stereotypes,' he has said elsewhere, 'but it's a trade-off: more brain or more penis, you can't have everything.' ... He has also stated that Nazi Germany's military prowess was due in part to the purity of their gene pool."

Malkin's ties to the site are legion: it regularly prints her column, while she employs one of its writers, Juan Mann, as the principal writer of her "Immigration Blog" and lists the site on her blogroll. And it's not as if Malkin isn't well aware of the criticism, both of the site and her ties to it. . .in a post on her blog in September 2004, she noted that "my friend Peter Brimelow (founder of VDARE) observes that some people apparently think linking to VDARE is tantamount to a hate crime." What do you know. . .for once, he's right.



Or in 2002 MM wrote that interment of thousands of Japanese Americans was "wrong and abhorrent."  Yet, in 2004 she wrote a book defending and saying it was great to put thousands upon thousands of innocent and loyal Japanese/Americans in these prison camps.  Odd, my mother's family (German) was never rounded up.  And yes, GM it was FDR a democrat who did that.  So?  In most elections I have voted Republican; does it matter which party commits a racist act?  It is still wrong.



And I love the hypocrisy of her immigration policy.  MM is suggesting "babies born to illegal immigrants, tourists, and temporary workers be ineligible for US citizenship".  Yet her parents never had a Green Card.  They came here on a temporary work visa, very quickly delivered MM and then they all claimed US Citizenship rather than go home to their native country.  Why go back when I can get all those rights that go with it?  Or was that planned before they arrived?  She is an anchor baby just like those Mexicans she loves to hate.  Seems a bit inconsistent to me.

She is a sensationalist with no substance; a shock jockey.   Worse, she is a racist and a hypocrite.

Sorry, but I am done with Micelle Malkin; I have no interest in her.  Continue to watch/read her for entertainment purposes, but for serious journalism I would find someone else.  But no reason to dump her under a bus as I understand even O'Reily dumped her off his show. 
 


Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 31263


« Reply #175 on: November 01, 2008, 03:41:25 PM »

OMG!  Substance! 

I did not know that about her.  Do you have a URL for what you would regard as a particularly sound description/discussion of MM and VDARE?
Logged
G M
Power User
***
Posts: 12042


« Reply #176 on: November 01, 2008, 09:01:57 PM »

"I made the key points above. And she is not worth fighting or wasting time over.  And I acknowledged that I like and respect Lou Dobbs; isn't that enough of a bone for you wolves? "

Umm , , , no  cheesy

T0 make a POINT, you would have to back up your ASSERTIONS, assertions of things which are quite ugly btw, which you simply have not done.  While I agree she can enjoy playing the provocateur (so what?) I enjoy reading MM most of the time find her to be someone who goes after liberal lunacies and specious liberal thinking.  So before I throw her under the bus  wink as a racist bigot it is going to take more than what you´ve produced so far.

Gee GM constantly "backs up points" with cut and paste that have no basis of fact or relevancy... but lots of quantity...

**They are pretty clear to most.**

And please do continue reading MM if she provides entertainment - there is no need to toss her under the bus; however
I just suggest that you read her with a jaundiced eye, but entertainment is important.   smiley

You seem tenacious regarding MM?  A nobody; a vociferous and particularly obnoxious blogger, albeit entertaining.  It seems odd;
you usually go for substance.  But this time    sad


White Supremacy - Numerous articles exist on Malkin and her affiliation with VDARE.com

**Post one.**


Named for Virginia Dare, the first white person born in the New World, the site has been named by the anti-racist Southern Poverty Law Center as a hate group.

**The SPLC is hardly a fair source on the topic. Anyone who is opposed to illegal immigration gets smeared by them, including Lou Dobbs.**

And for good reason: the site is dedicated to pushing the kind of pseudo-science the Nazis could have only dreamed of using to support their racial fantasies. Forget phrenology: VDARE spends its time touting books that purport to prove that the average IQ of sub-Saharan Africans is 67, below the accepted standard criteria for a diagnosis of mental retardation.

**Please post that article.**

The Anti-Defamation League notes that the author of the review, J. Philippe Rushton, has been less than subtle about his racism. "During [a] 1996 conference... Rushton lectured at length about the sexual differences among various races, arguing that blacks, while possessing smaller brains, reproduce at a faster rate due to the larger size of their sex organs. 'Not to reinforce stereotypes,' he has said elsewhere, 'but it's a trade-off: more brain or more penis, you can't have everything.' ... He has also stated that Nazi Germany's military prowess was due in part to the purity of their gene pool."

**Please post a link to that.**

Malkin's ties to the site are legion: it regularly prints her column, while she employs one of its writers, Juan Mann, as the principal writer of her "Immigration Blog" and lists the site on her blogroll. And it's not as if Malkin isn't well aware of the criticism, both of the site and her ties to it. . .in a post on her blog in September 2004, she noted that "my friend Peter Brimelow (founder of VDARE) observes that some people apparently think linking to VDARE is tantamount to a hate crime." What do you know. . .for once, he's right.



Or in 2002 MM wrote that interment of thousands of Japanese Americans was "wrong and abhorrent."  Yet, in 2004 she wrote a book defending and saying it was great to put thousands upon thousands of innocent and loyal Japanese/Americans in these prison camps.  Odd, my mother's family (German) was never rounded up. 

**And as I pointed out to you before, there were some Germans and Italians interned as well at that time. Also there was at least one incident I know of where ethnic Japanese aided and abbetted a downed Japanese fighter pilot in Hawaii. One of the nazi saboteurs captured and tried by a military tribunal was an American citizen. The FBI crushed the German-American Bund organization after the American entry into WWII. Was internment disproportianate? Probably. Were there legitimate concerns? Yes.**


And yes, GM it was FDR a democrat who did that.  So?  In most elections I have voted Republican; does it matter which party commits a racist act?  It is still wrong.

**Funny enough, J. Edgar Hoover fought FDR's internment plan.**



And I love the hypocrisy of her immigration policy.  MM is suggesting "babies born to illegal immigrants, tourists, and temporary workers be ineligible for US citizenship". 

**Please cite your source for this claim.**

Yet her parents never had a Green Card. 

**Please cite your source for this. Under most every condition, the path to naturalization requires a green card.**

They came here on a temporary work visa, very quickly delivered MM and then they all claimed US Citizenship rather than go home to their native country. 

**I doubt very much this was the scenario, let's see your sources.**


 Why go back when I can get all those rights that go with it?  Or was that planned before they arrived?  She is an anchor baby just like those Mexicans she loves to hate.  Seems a bit inconsistent to me.

**From what is known, her parents entered the US LEGALLY. I don't know anyone that is opposed to illegal immigration that is opposed to LEGAL immigration**

She is a sensationalist with no substance; a shock jockey.   Worse, she is a racist and a hypocrite.

**I have yet to see you post a single bit of proof demonstrating racism from Michelle Malkin. Show me in her own words.**


Sorry, but I am done with Micelle Malkin; I have no interest in her.  Continue to watch/read her for entertainment purposes, but for serious journalism I would find someone else.  But no reason to dump her under a bus as I understand even O'Reily dumped her off his show. 

**As I understand, she quit after O'Reilly wouldn't dump Geraldo after he said he'd spit on her.**
 



Logged
DougMacG
Power User
***
Posts: 5956


« Reply #177 on: November 02, 2008, 08:28:15 PM »

JDN, You made a few points and I don't mean to oversimplify by quoting back:

"Seems a bit inconsistent to me." re. her immigration opnion...

"saying it was great to put thousands upon thousands of innocent and loyal Japanese/Americans in these prison camps." - doesn't sound like a direct quote...

And some guilt by association, some bad people link to her column. Are we holding Barack to that standard?

I have only read some of her columns.  I know she is highly respected by thoughtful conservatives that I respect such as John Hinderacker and Hugh Hewitt.  I know you said you were done with her and I hate to pile on but could you please take one more shot by linking one column of hers with an excerpt at the top that illustrates the point you are alleging - racist, sensationalist, no substance, white supremist, etc.  TIA.  Are these conservatives I mentioned haters of no substance as well??

Logged
JDN
Power User
***
Posts: 2004


« Reply #178 on: November 02, 2008, 10:56:52 PM »

Doug, "I am done" but to answer you question, (I like and respect your opinions) she wrote a book defending/stating that incarcerating the Japanese during WWII was good.
Mind you, this was two years after she said it was "wrong and abhorrent".

As for guilt by association, I disagree (for example, read this forum) people ARE trying to hold Barack to the same standard, "guilt by association" yet in MM's case, her association is ongoing and active
not with someone who was a "bad person" 20+ years ago.

As for the conservatives you mentioned, I am sorry, but I don't know them.  I will check into them; perhaps I could learn something.  Simply being "conservative"; well, there is
nothing wrong with that.

And while I am against illegal immigration, the hypocrisy of MM and her attitude towards immigrants is a bit too much for me.  She is an anchor baby and yet she rants against them   huh
Logged
G M
Power User
***
Posts: 12042


« Reply #179 on: November 02, 2008, 11:39:20 PM »

Being a leftist means never having to say you're sorry. Just accuse someone of  "unabashed dislike for all blacks", then when asked for proof, then declare yourself "done" with the topic.
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 31263


« Reply #180 on: November 03, 2008, 05:32:32 AM »

Sorry to pile on here JDN, but you´ve made quite a list of accusations of some very ugly things and if the evidence is as vast and as clear as you represent here in the the time it has taken you to avoid the challenge to produce evidence, you could have produced the evidence.
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 31263


« Reply #181 on: November 05, 2008, 01:20:50 PM »

Alrighty then, moving right along, , , ,  wink

It appears that here in California we have rolled back the State Supreme Court's effort to impose gay marriage.  If I have it correctly, the initiative that passed is an amendment to the CA Consitution and as such we are safe from further judicial activism.
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 31263


« Reply #182 on: November 06, 2008, 06:11:49 AM »

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/uselection2008/barackobama/3388430/Barack-Obama-may-have-helped-California-Proposition-8-gay-marriage-ban-pass.html
Barack Obama may have helped California Proposition 8 gay marriage ban pass
Gay marriage will be banned in California after voters turning out to back Barack Obama gave their assent to a motion known as Proposition 8.
 
By Matthew Moore
Last Updated: 6:47AM GMT 06 Nov 2008

Around 70 per cent of the African-American voters who overwhelmingly backed Mr Obama also approved Proposition 8, helping pass the controversial ballot measure despite a small majority of whites voting against the ban on same-sex unions. Hispanic and Asian voters were split on the issue.

The state's black turnout jumped to 10 per cent of the electorate, up from 6 per cent in 2004, as voters inspired by Mr Obama flocked to the polls for the first time. The Democratic candidate took the state with 61 per cent of the popular vote.

Although the president-elect opposed the gay marriage ban, it appears his supporters may have helped pass the measure that was vociferously opposed by many white Democrats.

The news is a blow to gay rights campaigners, who had hoped California would be the vanguard for the legalisation of same-sex marriage across the US. More than 18,000 homosexual couples have wed in the state since its supreme court allowed gay marriages earlier this year. The status of those unions is now in doubt.

On the day that Mr Obama swept to power, voters handed a number of defeats to gay campaigners.

Amendments to ban gay marriage were also approved in Arizona and Florida, and Arkansas voters approved a measure banning unmarried couples from serving as adoptive or foster parents

But gay rights campaigners, who spend tens of millions of dollars fighting to oppose Proposition 8, have vowed not to admit to defeat. A petition to dismiss the measure on the grounds that decision of such importance should be taken by state legislatures rather than voters has already been filed to the Supreme Court.


"We pick ourselves up and trudge on," said Kate Kendell, executive director of the National Center for Lesbian Rights. "There has been enormous movement in favour of full equality in eight short years. That is the direction this is heading, and if it's not today or it's not tomorrow, it will be soon."

Logged
JDN
Power User
***
Posts: 2004


« Reply #183 on: November 06, 2008, 11:44:58 PM »

Somehow  the "John" always gets off and the "prostitute" goes to jail.

Spitzer won't be charged in prostitution scandal
STORY HIGHLIGHTS
No evidence that Eliot Spitzer misused public or campaign funds, U.S. attorney says
Spitzer linked to service that authorities say was prostitution ring
Then-N.Y. governor resigned in March
Next Article in Crime »



 
NEW YORK (CNN) -- Former New York Gov. Eliot Spitzer will not be charged in connection with the prostitution scandal that prompted his resignation, the U.S. attorney's office for the Southern District of New York said Thursday.


Eliot Spitzer resigned his post as New York governor in March.

"After a thorough investigation, this office has uncovered no evidence of misuse of public or campaign funds," U.S. Attorney Michael Garcia said in a statement.

The attorney's office also said it found no illicit activity related to Spitzer's withdrawal of funds for, and his payments to, the Emperors Club VIP, which authorities have said was a prostitution ring.

"In light of the policy of the Department of Justice with respect to prostitution offenses and the longstanding practice of this office, as well as Mr. Spitzer's acceptance of responsibility for his conduct, we have concluded that the public interest would not be further advanced by filing criminal charges in this matter," Garcia said.

Spitzer resigned in March after it was revealed that he was among the Emperors Club's patrons -- "Client 9," according to court papers detailing the service's workings. Court documents detailed arrangements for a nearly two-and-a-half hour rendezvous between Client 9 and a high-class prostitute -- identified as "Kristen" -- at the Mayflower hotel in Washington in February.

Spitzer was linked to the Emperors Club when when IRS and FBI officials noticed suspicious transfers of larger sums of money between several of the governor's personal accounts, sources told CNN.

Those sources say red flags were raised when the money ended up in the bank accounts of shell companies linked to the Emperors Club.
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 31263


« Reply #184 on: November 07, 2008, 06:44:41 AM »

California voters on Tuesday approved Proposition 8, which adds to the state constitution the following sentence: "only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California."

While the wording is simple, the situation quickly became complicated. For example, what happens to those same-sex couples who married before the ruling? Legal challenges filed Wednesday raised other questions: Was the referendum process itself lawful? Does the new language conflict with other parts of the state constitution? Separately, should Proposition 8 opponents have filed challenges saying the proposition violated the U.S. Constitution?

David Cruz, a constitutional-law expert at the University of Southern California, has some answers.

WSJ: Please explain the grounds upon which Proposition 8 is being challenged in court.

Mr. Cruz: The lawsuits challenge the procedure by which the referendum was passed. Under California law, there are two categories of changes that can be made to the state constitution: amendments and revisions. Amendments are more minor changes; revisions are larger in effect. This is important because each has its own process for taking effect, essentially different ways they go before the voters. An amendment can go in the form of a ballot initiative, which requires a certain number of signatures to make its way on. Constitutional revisions, however, have to have a two-thirds blessing from each house of the state legislature to make the ballot.

Now, the problem, at least from the point of view of Proposition 8 supporters, is that the legislature had previously indicated a willingness to support same-sex marriage. So the proposition's supporters were unwilling to treat this bill as a revision and send it to the legislature, opting instead to treat it as an amendment. So the Proposition 8 opponents are arguing that this change actually constitutes a revision, not an amendment, and therefore needed to go through the legislature.

WSJ: Were any other issues raised in the suits?

Mr. Cruz: Yes. A same-sex couple that was married before the election made another argument. Remember, the California Supreme Court in May ruled that bans on same-sex marriage were not allowed under the state's constitution. (That ruling prompted Proposition 8.) Now, in that ruling, the Supreme Court essentially said two things: that same-sex couples had a fundamental right to marry and that the underlying law violated the state's equal protection clause.

The suit filed Wednesday argues that while Proposition 8 squarely addressed the marriage half of the Supreme Court's ruling, it didn't address the equal-protection half. In other words, the couple argues that the state constitution is now in conflict with itself -- part of it says that same-sex marriage is flatly illegal, and the Supreme Court has interpreted another part to say that a ban on same-sex marriage violates the state's equal protection clause.

WSJ: And a constitution can't be in conflict with itself?

Mr. Cruz: Right. There's a common principle in constitutional jurisprudence called "harmonization," which says that no part of a constitution can conflict with any other.

WSJ: Provided that the state Supreme Court rejects all these arguments and the constitutional amendment is allowed, you still have this issue as to what happens to the marriages that took place before Proposition 8 was passed, right?

Mr. Cruz: On that question the state Supreme Court would likely look at what the intent of the voters was in passing the law.

WSJ: How would the court determine that? By asking voters?

Mr. Cruz: It would likely look at the language of the proposition itself, in addition to the title, official ballot literature, and to the advertisements that were run during the campaign. Supporters of Proposition 8 point to language on the ballot that explained that voters would be defining marriage as between a man and woman, "regardless of when or where performed." That seems to argue for invalidating the earlier marriages. But the attorney general, Jerry Brown, will likely raise the official title of the proposition, which mentions the elimination of the "right of same-sex couples to marry." Here, there's no mention of the earlier marriages, and it seems to indicate that it's the right to get married going forward that's being taken away.
Logged
rachelg
Guest
« Reply #185 on: November 10, 2008, 08:04:28 PM »

 cry
http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5jQS-ctNhHXKGeh1xFYwBg2PqJ7qwD942VB400

ARACHI, Pakistan (AP) — A Pakistani man says his 17-year-old daughter was mauled by dogs and shot to death in front of him over a land dispute disguised as a so-called "honor killing."

Female senators staged a walkout from the federal parliament Monday to press for action on better protections for women after a national newspaper published details of Tasleem Solangi's death.

"How long will women be buried alive and made to face hungry dogs? Women are not given their rights," opposition lawmaker Semi Siddiqui said.

Ibrahim Solangi, 28, has been in custody ever since Taslim's death in March and is awaiting trial on murder charges, said Pir Mohammad Shah, the police chief of the Khairpur Mirs district in southern Pakistan. Taslim's husband was also her first cousin.

Human rights groups say hundreds of women are killed by male relatives every year in Pakistan for alleged infidelity or other perceived slights to the family name, and activists say many more cases go unreported.

In August, a Pakistani lawmaker drew fierce criticism after describing a case in which five women were allegedly buried alive for trying to choose their husbands as the product of "centuries-old traditions" that he would defend.

As in that case, the allegations surrounding the death of Tasleem Solangi remain unproven.

Speaking to reporters in Karachi on Monday, Taslim's father said he was locked up in his home and forced to watch from a window as dogs chased her and then mauled her when she fell down exhausted. She then was shot, he said.

Gulsher Solangi said the killing was the culmination of a land dispute. He said his nephew had beaten Taslim throughout the five months of their marriage to pressure him to hand over his small farm.

Faced with more threats, Gulsher Solangi said he had fled with his wife and another daughter and abandoned his home.

Zameer Hussain Solangi, the girl's father-in-law, claimed Monday that his son confessed to the killing under police torture and that the allegation regarding the dogs was "baseless."

He said a tribal council later declared the dead woman an adulterer and compensated the husband with her jewelry.

The girl's father claimed that the tribal council, chaired by a local chieftain, declared his daughter an adulterer in May to mask the land-grab and the involvement of others.

Shah, the police chief, said he knew nothing of the alleged land-grab or the dogs and promised to investigate further.

Pakistan's government, now led by the liberal party of slain former Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto, has vowed to improve women's rights in Pakistan. Former President Pervez Musharraf made similar moves, notably watering down rape laws that made it hard for victims to prove their case, despite opposition from hardline Islamic groups.
Logged
Body-by-Guinness
Power User
***
Posts: 2788


« Reply #186 on: November 12, 2008, 09:57:32 AM »

Oh my, so many places this tidbit could be posted. Please note that the original piece links to a video of the primary source.

Female Egyptian Lawyer Promotes Sexual Harassment against Jews
 
by Hana Levi Julian

(IsraelNN.com) A female Egyptian lawyer has recommended that Arab men begin sexually harassing Jewish women as a means of forcing Jews to leave Israel. Egypt, which signed a peace treaty with Israel in 1979, is perceived among Western nations as a moderate Arab nation where secular Arabs are a majority.                                                                                               

In a video clip of the interview which aired on Al Arabiyah television on October 31, 2008, Nagla Al-Imam said, "In my opinion, they are fair game for all Arabs, and there is nothing wrong… this is a new form of resistance."

They [women] are fair game for all Arabs, and there is nothing wrong… this is a new form of resistance.

According to a translation provided by the Middle East Media Research Institute (MEMRI), which released the clip, Al-Imam specified, however, that her "resistance" plan did not include rape.

"No. Sexual harassment… In my view, the [Israeli women] do not have any right to respond. The resistance fighters would not initiate such a thing, because their moral values are much loftier than that. However, if such a thing did happen to them, the [Israeli women] have no right to make any demands, because this would put us on equal terms – leave the land so we won't rape you. These two things are equal," she said.

Al-Imam added that she did not want "young Arab men to be interrogated," but rather, she wanted "these Zionist girls with Israeli citizenship to be expelled from our Arab countries. This is a form of resistance, and a way of rejecting their presence."

http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/128352
Logged
G M
Power User
***
Posts: 12042


« Reply #187 on: November 12, 2008, 10:09:38 AM »

It's my understanding that Israeli pornographic websites are viewed more frequently by arab nation based browsers rather than from Israel.
« Last Edit: November 12, 2008, 01:26:33 PM by G M » Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 31263


« Reply #188 on: November 12, 2008, 11:27:51 AM »

FWIW I'd have put BBG's post in one of the Islam in Action threads.

Anyway, changing the subject completely  smiley

“Coming out” puts adolescents at risk
Encouraging adolescents with same-sex attractions to identify as gay has no scientific or ethical justification.
How should schools treat students who self-identify as homosexual? Today entire school systems in a number of states and counties promote “acceptance”. The demand for acceptance is based on the premise that patterns of sexual attraction – to the other sex or to same sex are determined at birth and unchangeable; therefore, everyone – the affected students themselves, their parents, teachers, and classmates – should be educated and when necessary pressured into accepting same-sex attraction (SSA) as normal and as healthy as the love between a man and a woman in marriage.

There is, however, no evidence to support the claim that SSA is genetically determined and unchangeable. If it were, one would expect that identical twins would always have the same pattern of sexual attraction. A study led by J. Michael Bailey based on the twins registry in Australia found that among male identical twins, when one twin had SSA, in only 11 per cent of the cases so did the other. This research virtually precludes genetic determination.

There is also no evidence to support the claim that SSA is unchangeable. There are numerous reports of people understanding the emotional conflicts that led them to SSA, successfully addressing these weaknesses and then experiencing a new pattern of sexual attraction. A large study of sexuality led by Edward Lauman found the percentage of people self-identifying as homosexual declining over time. Lisa Diamond found that patterns of sexual attraction are particularly unstable among women.

Those who support acceptance might argue that even if SSA is not genetically determined and changeable it would still be better for those experiencing these feelings to “come out” and be accepted as homosexual by the school community. This view ignores the very real risks that accompany coming out, particularly for males.

Vulnerable boys

Over 40 per cent of males who self-identify as homosexual (“gay”) before age 18 have been victims of sexual abuse or sexual assault. (Doll et al, 1992) An even higher percentage has suffered from untreated Gender Identity Disorder. (Zucker, Bradley, 1995) A study of the sexual behavior of 239 homosexually active males, 13 to 21, found that 42 per cent had a history of sexual abuse/assault. (Remafedi, 1994; Osmond, 1994) A study of 425 homosexual males, ages 17 to 22, found that 41.4 per cent reported an occasion of forced sex. (Halkitis, Wilton, Drescher, eds. 2005; Wainberg 2006) Forced sex rarely involves “safe” sex practices. (Kalichman, Rompa 1995)

Sexual child abuse and sexual assault have been linked to long-term psychological problems, including depression, sexual addiction, drug addiction, involvement in prostitution, and suicidal feelings. Some of these young men see their victimization as proof that they were “born” homosexual. Programs directed to acceptance rarely acknowledge or address these problems. When these serious emotional conflicts are not uncovered and treated, these males often act out in ways that are dangerous to themselves and to others. It is important to address this highly prevalent problem in young males with SSA.

At high risk of infection

Even if an adolescent male with SSA was not the victim of sexual abuse and did not experience untreated gender identity disorder GID, engaging in homosexual activity as an adolescent carries a high and truly unacceptable risk.

New statistics from the Centers for Disease Control reveal that the epidemic among young men who have sex with men (MSM) is raging unabated. In August 2008, it was revealed that the CDC had underestimated the number of new cases of HIV by 40 per cent. The report found that while new infections among heterosexuals and injection drug users are falling, new infections continue to increase in younger MSM. In 2006, the number of MSM aged 13-24 diagnosed with HIV/AIDS increased by 18 per cent over the previous year.

A study of sexual risk behaviors of young MSM aged 17-22 found that 22 per cent reported beginning anal sex with men when they were ages 3 to 14; of these 15.2 per cent were already HIV positive. Of those who began sex when they were 15-19, 11.6 per cent were HIV positive, while of those who began sex with men when they were 20-22, only 3.8 per cent were HIV positive. (Lemp, 1994) It is clear that every year a male with SSA delays sexual involvement reduces his risk of HIV.

Vulnerable young men may use the internet to seek out sexual partners. Out magazine, a publication targeted to MSM, ran an article by Michael Gross (2008) on how MSM are using the internet, posting pornographic pictures of themselves, and becoming addicted to the process of cruising on the web. Gross worries about the “health risks” and “psychological dissociation that’s characteristic of online social life.” Men may be looking for love but, Gross suggests, “You might as well train for a marathon by doing sprints in a minefield.”

Once a young man has exposed himself on the internet, whatever he has put up becomes part of the public record forever. The 15-year-old boy who realizes at 20 that his SSA was just a phase of his life related to weaknesses in male confidence will have those pictures follow him for the rest of his life.

HIV/AIDS is not the only disease affecting MSM. The number of sexually transmitted infections (STI) transmitted by homosexual activity is staggering. They include syphilis, gonorrhea, herpes, hepatitis B and C, lymphogranuloma vernereum and human papillomavirus (HPV), which has been linked to genital warts and a number of cancers. (Carter, 2007) HPV is transmitted by skin contact and therefore condoms provide only minimal protection. The much-touted new HPV vaccine protects against only four of the 100 varieties of this disease.

In some areas the increase in syphilis infections has been traced to an increased use of crystal meth and “high risk sexual behavior at resorts or bath houses, or through meetings initiated over the Internet.” (Brian, 2004; Klausner, 2000)

Not only are MSM at high risk for infection with HIV and many other STIs, the problem compounds itself in that infection with another STI makes a man more vulnerable to HIV and an HIV-positive man is more likely to contract another STI. According to a recent study, “HIV positive men who have sex with men are up to 90 times more likely than the general population to develop anal cancer.” (Cranston, Ross, 2007)

Recently, doctors in San Francisco traced outbreaks in San Francisco and Boston of multidrug-resistant staphylococcus aureus (MSRA), the flesh-eating bacteria, to homosexual activity.  It is also possible that a new, yet unidentified disease will find its way into this community. In 1980 before the first case of AIDS was identified, Dr. Selma Dritz, an expert on STI’s, looked at the behaviors of MSM and warned, “There are so many opportunities for transmission that, if something new gets loose here, we’re going to have hell to pay.” (Shilts, Randy, And the Band Played On). Her warning came too late; by 1980 the HIV virus was already spreading among MSM. Tragically, in spite of massive education the high-risk behaviors continue.

As treatment for AIDS has improved and life expectancy has increased, young MSM no longer fear HIV as they should. Many of those who start out planning to use condoms, fail to do so because they are drunk or are high on drugs or don’t want to send a message that they don’t trust their partner. If this is a pattern among adult MSM, it is not surprising that adolescent males who have sex with males ignore warnings.

Does education prevent infection?

A large study on the association of health risk behaviors and sexual orientation among adolescents concluded: “GLB youth who self-identify during high school report disproportionate risk for a variety of health risk and problem behaviors, including suicide, victimization, sexual risk behaviors, and multiple substance abuse use. In addition, these youth are more likely to report engaging in multiple risk behaviors and initiating risk behaviors at an earlier age than their peers.” (Garofalo, 1998)

Homosexual activists forced to explain why persons with SSA are at “elevated” risk for addictions, partner abuse, rampant promiscuity, anxiety, depression and suicidality usually blame the increased problems on the stress of living in a rejecting, “hateful and heterosexist” culture. (Cochran, Mays 2007) They then use these problems to justify pro-homosexual education in schools. However, if this view were true then one would expect to see lower levels of severe psychiatric illnesses in more accepting cultures such as the Netherlands, but this is not the case. (Sandfort, 2006)

The hope that identifying boys with SSA and providing them with HIV prevention education will reduce the risk of STI infections is not supported by the research. According to a review of studies of HIV prevention programs, “the efficacy of health education interventions in reducing sexual risk for HIV infection has not been consistently demonstrated…More education, over long periods of time, cannot be assumed to be effective in inducing behavior changes among chronically high risk males.” (Stall, Coates, Hoff, 1988)

Dr. Philip Alcabes, an epidemiologist, commenting on the latest CDC data to the New York Times said, “t looks like prevention campaigns make even less difference than anyone thought… HIV incidence did not decline as much from the 1980s to the 1990s as we believed despite the dramatic increase in condom promotion and so-called prevention education.”

He quoted an editorial in Lancet, a leading medical journal, that was even blunter: “U.S. efforts to prevent HIV have failed dismally.”

AIDS education, which provides children and adolescents with explicit information about the various forms of sexual behavior that spread the disease, may create curiosity and encourage experimentation among young men. Because AIDS education has also been used as a vehicle for promoting positive attitudes toward homosexuality, while at the same time ignoring the serious health risks associated with SSA, it is possible that the number of young men experimenting with homosexuality will increase.

As support groups in schools for males who think that they might be homosexual are being established, younger boys will be encouraged to "come out." This "coming out" will probably include engaging in sexual activity at an earlier age and more often. These young men may be attracted to the urban homosexual community, traveling to centers of homosexual activity where they are likely to encounter HIV-positive adults interested in engaging in sexual activity with attractive teenagers. This can lead to hustling (receiving money or compensation for sex) which is a high-risk activity.

A brochure, entitled Just the Facts about Sexual Orientation and Youth: A Primer for Principals, Educators, and School Personnel, was sent to school officials by a coalition of groups including the National Education Association. It claimed: “If school environments become more positive for lesbian, gay, and bisexual students, it is likely that their differences in health, mental health, and substance abuse will decrease.” This has not been born out by experience. Nothing could be more positive than the Harvey Milk school in Manhattan, which was set up to provide a safe environment for students with atypical sexual orientations and gender identities, yet in November of 2003, five male students were arrested. They had for some time been intimidating other students, working as prostitutes, blackmailing Johns, stealing from trendy stores, and involved with ecstasy and cocaine. (Cross, 2003)

Given the substantial, well-documented risks involved in engaging in homosexual activity as an adolescent and since a certain percentage of males who experience SSA in adolescence find that these feelings disappear in time, schools should not encourage adolescent males to “come out”, but, instead, offer positive support for addressing the serious emotional problems in these teenagers.

Girls

While adolescent females with SSA do not face the same risk for STIs as males, a significant number of these young women with SSA have been victims of sexual abuse or rape. (Bradford, 1994) SSA is even less stable among young women than among young men with some females finding themselves attracted to men and to women at different times in their lives. Many adolescent girls have crushes on female teachers or coaches. With time and growth in maturity these feelings resolve. Rather than assuming that every young female who ever experiences any SSA is permanently homosexual, schools should encourage young women to try to understand themselves and wait before identifying themselves as homosexual.

Finally, educators, like physicians and mental health professionals, have a serious responsibility to provide informed consent to their students and not advocate a lifestyle which has serious medical and psychiatric illnesses associated with it without warning students about such risks.

Dale O’Leary is a US writer with a special interest in psycho-sexual issues and is the author of two books: One Man, One Woman" and The Gender Agenda. She collaborated on this article with Richard P. Fitzgibbons, M.D., a psychiatrist and Director of Comprehensive Counselling Services in W. Conshohocken, Pennsylvania, and Peter Kleponis, M.S., a psychotherapist also based in Philadelphia.

* A complete version of this paper with footnotes can be found in the Backgrounders section of this website: Same-sex attraction in adolescents

 
Logged
Body-by-Guinness
Power User
***
Posts: 2788


« Reply #189 on: November 14, 2008, 06:41:58 PM »

Saudi cleric favours one-eye veil
A Muslim cleric in Saudi Arabia has called on women to wear a full veil, or niqab, that reveals only one eye.

Sheikh Muhammad al-Habadan said showing both eyes encouraged women to use eye make-up to look seductive.

The question of how much of her face a woman should cover is a controversial topic in many Muslim societies.

The niqab is more common in Saudi Arabia and the Gulf, but women in much of the Muslim Middle East wear a headscarf which covers only their hair.

Sheikh Habadan, an ultra-conservative cleric who is said to have wide influence among religious Saudis, was answering questions on the Muslim satellite channel al-Majd.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/7651231.stm
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 31263


« Reply #190 on: November 19, 2008, 07:32:51 PM »

World Net Daily is not my idea of a very reliable site, but it seems hard to imagine how they could have gotten the essence of this piece wrong.  What this article reports strikes me as profoundly wrong.

(Trivia:  James Dobson once sat next to me on a transcontinental flight)
===========================================================

QUEERLY BELOVED
eHarmony.com to match 'gays'
Dating site promoted by James Dobson bows to lawsuit, creates special service

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted: November 19, 2008
3:30 pm Eastern
By Chelsea Schilling
© 2008 WorldNetDaily


Internet dating service eHarmony has officially agreed to begin matching homosexual couples, beginning next year.


The popular California-based service has been known for focusing on long-term relationships, especially marriage, which has been said to align with founder Clark Warren's early work with Focus on the Family's evangelical Christian base and perspective.

Warren, a psychologist with a divinity degree, has had three of his 10 books on love and dating published by Focus on the Family. It was an appearance on James Dobson's radio program, in 2001, that triggered a response of 90,000 new referrals to the website, starting a climb of registered participants on the site from 4,000 to today's 20 million clients.

As WND reported, the company originally said it was " based on the Christian principles of Focus on the Family author Dr. Neil Clark Warren." It stood firm on its decision to reject homosexuals from its profiling and matching services. Its entire compatibility system is based on research of married heterosexual couples.

In 2005, Warren told USA Today the company's goal is marriage and that same-sex marriage is illegal in most states.

"We don't really want to participate in something that's illegal," he said.

But now the company has been compelled to changed its nationwide policy as part of a New Jersey lawsuit settlement.

On March 14, 2005, Eric McKinley filed a lawsuit against eHarmony, claiming the company discriminated against him when it refused to accept his advertisement for a "gay" partner.

McKinley's complaint triggered a state investigation into the dating service.

(Story continues below)

     


Last week, eHarmony agreed to begin providing an eHarmony-affiliated "Compatible Partners" service to gays and lesbians, with listings labeled "male seeking male" and "female seeking female" by March 31, 2009.

For complying, the New Jersey Division on Civil Rights has dismissed the complaint against eHarmony, and Warren is considered "absolved of liability." Also, the dating site has been ordered to pay the division $50,000 for investigation-related administrative costs and give McKinley $5,000. It has agreed to provide a free one-year membership to its "gay" service to McKinley, plus free six-month memberships to "the first 10,000 users registering for same-sex matching within one year of the initiation on the same-sex matching service," according to the settlement.

A new release by New Jersey's Office of the Attorney General reveals that eHarmony has also agreed to the following terms:

eHarmony, Inc. will post photos of same-sex couples in the "Diversity" section of its website as successful relationships are created using the company's same-sex matching service. In addition, eHarmony, Inc. will include photos of same-sex couples, as well as individual same-sex users, in advertising materials used to promote its same-sex matching services

eHarmony, Inc. will revise anti-discrimination statements placed on company websites, in company handbooks and other company publications to make plain that it does not discriminate on the basis of "sexual orientation"

The company has committed to advertising and public relations/ marketing dedicated to its same-sex matching service and will retain a media consultant experienced in promoting the "fair, accurate and inclusive" representation of gay and lesbian people in the media to determine the most effective way of reaching the gay and lesbian communities.

eHarmony's new logo for homosexual dating service
 


In addition to McKinley's complaint, a California lesbian also filed a lawsuit against the company in May 2007.

Linda Carlson submitted her complaint to Los Angeles Superior Court, alleging discrimination based on sexual orientation. Lawyers have attempted to turn it into a class-action lawsuit on behalf of homosexuals who wanted to use eHarmony's services.

Carlson's lawyer told Reuters the complaint was "about changing the landscape and making a statement out there that gay people, just like heterosexuals, have the right and desire to meet other people with whom they can fall in love."

Antone Johnson, vice president of legal affairs at eHarmony, said the new settlement could compel California complainants to drop their lawsuit.

"We believe that this case is now essentially moot, and we're confident that we will prove that in court," Johnson said. "Now that we're entering the same-sex matching market, we fail to see what the Carlson plaintiffs could achieve through further litigation."

Former U.S. Solicitor General Theodore Olson, outside counsel to the company, said, "Even though we believed that the complaint resulted from an unfair characterization of our business, we ultimately decided it was best to settle this case with the Attorney General since litigation outcomes can be unpredictable. eHarmony looks forward to moving beyond this legal dispute, which has been a burden for the company, and continuing to advance its business model of serving individuals by helping them find successful, long-term relationships."

An attorney for eHarmony told WND legal battles required a great deal of effort and resources from the dating organization.

"The company spent three years defending against this proceeding," he said. "It was a burden in terms of the high costs of litigation and the time and resources management devoted to it."
Logged
SB_Mig
Guest
« Reply #191 on: November 20, 2008, 01:03:24 PM »

Quote
Sheikh Muhammad al-Habadan said showing both eyes encouraged women to use eye make-up to look seductive.

That is hands down one of the most ridiculous things I have ever heard in my life.

Sounds like someone is wound a little tight and in need of a good...uhm...backrub.  wink

I can't imagine living in a society where seeing eye make-up would make you go plain bonkers. Wow...
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 31263


« Reply #192 on: November 20, 2008, 01:16:11 PM »

Agreed!  Indeed one suspects a correlation between this and the beautiful sheep contests which are sometimes held in the mid-east. shocked cheesy

That said, does it not also bother you that a Christian dating service has been bullied into having to offer gay dating service?

Logged
G M
Power User
***
Posts: 12042


« Reply #193 on: November 20, 2008, 03:52:04 PM »

Quote
Sheikh Muhammad al-Habadan said showing both eyes encouraged women to use eye make-up to look seductive.

That is hands down one of the most ridiculous things I have ever heard in my life.

Sounds like someone is wound a little tight and in need of a good...uhm...backrub.  wink

I can't imagine living in a society where seeing eye make-up would make you go plain bonkers. Wow...

Having waded through a ton of islamic religious writing, I can tell you that the islamic world is the most fcuked up culture on the topic of sex, ever. IMHO, Muhammad had some serious psych issues, and as his thoughts are now islamic holy writ, they have become a meta-pathology.
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 31263


« Reply #194 on: November 20, 2008, 04:34:16 PM »

"Having waded through a ton of islamic religious writing, I can tell you that the islamic world is the most fcuked up culture on the topic of sex, ever. IMHO, Muhammad had some serious psych issues, and as his thoughts are now islamic holy writ, they have become a meta-pathology."

For some reason, this provoked me to laugh and laugh ,l , , I suppose the pithiness of it all  cheesy
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 31263


« Reply #195 on: November 24, 2008, 02:05:00 AM »

Jennifer Roback Morse | Friday, 21 November 2008
Same sex marriage and its threat to religious liberty

Tactics used by gay marriage campaigners confirm believers’ worst fears.

As wildfires blazed in California last week, anger at the outcome of the state’s referendum on marriage blazed across the country. After a hard-fought campaign over Proposition 8, which defined marriage as the union of a man and a woman, a clear majority of California voters endorsed it, and the gay marriage lobby was enraged.

Now, as same sex marriage campaigners take the issue back to the courts, it is unclear what the outcome of this battle will be. Will their demands trump the democratic process? It has happened before.

What is clearer than ever is that same sex marriage threatens religious liberty. Disagreement over the extent of that threat played a key role in the debate over Proposition 8. As an independent consultant to the campaign, I must say that the post-election behaviour of the opponents of Prop 8 does not reassure religious believers.

The editor of a new book, Same Sex Marriage and Religious Liberty: Emerging Conflicts, summarizes the general issue this way: “All six contributors (to the book)—religious and secular, left, center and right—agree that same sex marriage is a threat to religious liberty.” The demand for same sex marriage brings in its wake a demand for identical treatment of same sex couples and opposite sex couples. Churches that resist this demand can have their tax exempt status challenged, can be investigated by “human rights commissions,” and can have parts of their operation shut down completely.

The Yes on Prop 8 campaign applied this argument in print and electronic ads. “Churches could lose their tax exempt status,” we said. “People could be sued for their personal beliefs.” The opponents of Prop 8 replied by calling us liars. Their argument was, “No church will lose its tax exempt status for refusing to perform same sex weddings.”

Note the sleight of hand: we made a general statement that churches could lose their tax exempt status, as well as have other legal problems. The opponents of Prop 8 brought up the one issue -- refusing to perform weddings -- which they knew the court had specifically exempted from legal challenge. On this basis, they accused us of misleading the public.

I personally was asked many times whether pastors would be forced to bless same sex unions. I told people the pastors were probably safe for now, but that the trend was not encouraging. The most likely outcome, I consistently said, was that the zone of religious freedom would become steadily more constricted. We cited many cases to support this prediction.

Catholic Charities in Boston shut down its adoption agency, rather than comply with the anti-discrimination requirement for the placement of children. A Knights of Columbus chapter in Canada was sued when it refused to rent out its hall for a same sex wedding reception. A Christian marriage counselor lost her job when she referred a lesbian couple to another therapist, rather than counsel them herself. A Christian photographer was fined by a Human Rights Commission in New Mexico because she refused to take pictures at the commitment ceremony of a lesbian couple.

The No on 8 forces claimed that the cases we brought up had nothing to do with marriage. Gays had used anti-discrimination law in these cases, not marriage law, to sue and otherwise harass churches and religious people. (In fact, marriage was an issue in some of the cases.) In effect the gay lobby argued: “We already have all the legal authority we need to do all sorts of Dreadful Things that You Don’t Like, so vote no on 8.”

Oddly enough, people of faith were not reassured by this message.

But refusal to take the religious liberty argument seriously was not the only way the No on 8 forces showed their hostility to religion. On the Sunday before the election, our opponents ran a truly despicable hate-filled ad against the Mormon church. The ad ran the day before the election, when it was almost impossible to respond to it.

Proposition 8 won the election. Over six million people voted for it for a whole variety of reasons. It is safe to say that the religious liberty argument played a significant role. People waved signs that said, “Proposition 8 = Religious Liberty” and “Proposition 8 = Freedom of Speech.” Even though no one could predict the exact form the legal harassment might take, many voters decided the risk to their own churches was unacceptable.

In the aftermath of the election, the No on Prop 8 forces have taken to the streets, attempting to de-legitimize the election. Their behavior toward religious people amply confirms our worst fears.

The gay lobby targeted the Mormon church. Thousands of protesters surrounded Mormon temples in Los Angeles and in Salt Lake City in an obvious attempt at intimidation. Protestors carry signs saying, “Mormon Scum,” a sentiment that would be widely condemned as bigoted if directed at anyone else. Envelopes with suspicious white powder arrived at the Mormon church in Utah and the Knights of Columbus headquarters in Connecticut.

People have called for the LDS church to lose its tax exempt status. An enterprising reporter found that the LDS spent a grand total of less than $3,000 in an in-kind contribution. The other “Mormon millions” were small contributions by thousands of individual members of the church. Gay activists are scouring the election law, looking for minor violations the church or its members might have made.

This attempt to enlist the government for intimidation actually illustrates the point that concerned us throughout the campaign. If you cross the gay lobby, they will use the legal system to go after you. By passing Prop 8, the voters declined to give the gay lobby any additional legal tools.

The authors of Same Sex Marriage and Religious Liberty were not exaggerating. The drive for same sex marriage really does clash with religious liberty. The nation-wide post-election outburst gives Yes on 8 voters all the evidence they need that they did the right thing.

Jennifer Roback Morse, PhD, is the Founder and President of the Ruth Institute. http://www.ruthinstitute.org/
Logged
G M
Power User
***
Posts: 12042


« Reply #196 on: November 24, 2008, 04:51:36 PM »

As the PRK already has domestic partnerships, why would they need "gay marriage" except to use to power of the state to force their beliefs on others?
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 31263


« Reply #197 on: November 24, 2008, 08:04:49 PM »

We have already seen litigation aimed at forcing the Boy Scouts out of the public sphere e.g. not being able to use city facilities because they don't want to have gay scoutmasters.

Just this weekend I went with my Cub Scout son on a joint camping trip with the Boy Scouts.  Time will come when he is old enough to go on a Boy Scout camping trip.  Frankly, I don't want any of the adult authority figures to be gay and more than I want hetero males taking my daughter on camping trips in the Brownies.

Logged
rachelg
Guest
« Reply #198 on: November 26, 2008, 07:20:10 PM »

This could probably go under privacy issues ---

There should definitly  be some new laws if the current one does not cover it. 
Porn in a flash
A troubling surge in creepy "upskirt" photography has lawmakers in a twist -- and the body parts of women posted all over the Internet.
http://dogbrothers.com/phpBB2/index.php?action=post;topic=490.150;num_replies=197
By Tracy Clark-Flory

Nov. 25, 2008 |

On a warm summer day two years ago, a 16-year-old girl put on a skirt and headed to the SuperTarget in her hometown of Tulsa, Okla. As she shopped the air-conditioned aisles, a man knelt behind her, carefully slid a camera in between her bare legs and snapped a photo of her underwear. Police arrested the 34-year-old man, but the charges were ultimately dropped on the grounds that the girl did not, as required by the state's Peeping Tom law, have "a right to a reasonable expectation of privacy," given the public location. In non-legalese: Wear a skirt in public, and you might just get a camera in the crotch.

Locals were outraged. Most women slipping on a summer dress aren't hoping to star in an amateur -- or, worse yet, professional -- porno, just as most men don't expect strangers to take a snapshot of their package when they wear shorts in public. In response to the ruling, Rep. Pam Peterson, R-Tulsa, introduced a bill making it illegal in Oklahoma to take unauthorized photos of someone's private areas in public; it went into effect earlier this month. For the same reason, nearly half the states have had to enact similar laws.

When it comes to voyeurs who photograph or videotape up a woman's skirt (known as "upskirting") or snap a photo down a woman's shirt ("downblousing"), though, "there are not many practical, legal remedies available to people who find themselves the victim," says Anita Allen, a privacy expert and professor at Penn Law. That's if the woman even realizes she is a victim in the first place, which is unlikely, as the voyeur typically manages to go undetected. If the photo or video is published online -- which, increasingly, it is -- it would be difficult for the subject to ever come across the material. Even if she did, how could she recognize one underwear-clad rear as her own?

Privacy experts say the failure of the law to catch up with technology has allowed for a kind of Wild West online, a frontier of rogue pornographers from all over the world. It's such a craze in Japan that cellphone cameras now come with a shutter sound that alerts bystanders that a photo is being taken; in that country, even the iPhone 3G features an extra-loud anti-upskirt alarm.

A quick search of PhoneBin, an online gallery of photos submitted directly from cellphones, is enough to cause any woman to briefly contemplate hauling off her sundresses to the nearest Salvation Army. Photo after photo -- shot right between a pair of legs or at a distant, low angle -- shows women wearing skirts in public. It's easy enough to imagine how the photographer pulls it off: kneeling to the ground, pretending to tie his shoe, standing a few steps below on the escalator pretending to send a text message. Others are clearly failed attempts. For example, a user comments on a grainy photo of a woman's skirted rear: "Nice arse but you need to get closer to the ground and more upskirt if you want to be taken seriously." Yes, even pervs have strict aesthetic standards.

A keyword search for "upskirt" on the photo-sharing site Flickr turns up 36,368 hits. One user has taken 48 candid shots of women's stockinged rears walking up stairs in the Paris Metro subway station. The vast majority of these photos, however, are not upskirts at all, but close-ups of women's body parts taken in public places like the subway, parks and street corners. Some Flickr members specialize in these types of shots, many with a particular area of expertise: breasts, bums, nipple slips, whale tails (the top of a thong peeking over the waist of a woman's pants), camel toes, legs or feet. Amazingly, one user has amassed 1,455 photos of disembodied, hastily framed shots taken with a cellphone camera of various body parts -- feet, breasts, butt and legs -- that could belong to any woman, really. Similar shots can be found on many other popular photo-sharing sites, like Fotki and Photobucket.

Some gather in groups dedicated to all manner of candid photography to salivate over photos and engage in back-and-forths about their craft. In a discussion thread in the group "The Upskirt Arena," members wax poetic about their artistic preferences. The discussion becomes repetitive very quickly. One user writes: "Personally I love the unsuspecting one's [sic], but being a fan of upskirts I enjoy all of them." Another responds: "Yeah the unsuspecting ones are my favourites as well!!!" And another: "Its [sic] all so very sexy getting a flash of that forbidden public zone." Yet another: "I like either unsuspecting ones or accidental ones, not posed ones." And so on, and so on.

Susan Gallagher, a professor of political science at University of Massachusetts Lowell who teaches classes on gender, privacy and politics, points out, "One of the tricks in pornography is that the target is unaware, because then you have power." She says upskirting presents a lesser sexual challenge than, for instance, the "Girls Gone Wild" franchise, that indefatigable chronicler of the spring break rite of boobs and booze. The essential difference here is that candid photographers -- rather than the female subjects, in the case of breast-flashing coeds -- are able to be the sexual aggressor but without actually having to confront a woman.

These candid connoisseurs also swap technical tips (for instance, how to inconspicuously shoot from the hip), legal pointers and advice on how to avoid getting in trouble with the law or having their account deleted for violating Flickr's terms of service, which includes the directive, "Don’t be creepy. You know the guy. Don't be that guy." Director of community Heather Champ says that Flickr generally has a "high-water mark" for what constitutes a violation but adds, "I personally think that upskirting and downblousing are kind of forcibly invading someone's privacy in a way that is very disrespectful."

The question of where to draw a line between artistic street photography and fetishistic candids that reduce a woman to her toe cleavage is like that ever-unreliable definition of pornography: I know it when I see it. John Morris, general counsel for the Center for Democracy & Technology, puts the reality simply: "If you don't want to be photographed walking the street, don't walk down the street -- it's a public street."

There's a vast difference, though, between slipping a camera between a woman's legs and taking a poignant photo of the homeless man sleeping in a doorway; the vast majority of candid shots on mainstream photo sites fall within the latter category. But, then, there are candid shots that don't actually cross a woman's hemline or neckline. A friend of mine had a man obviously take a photo of her ass while she wandered around an art museum in London; a colleague living in New York City has twice had guys whip out a cellphone and blatantly snap a photo of her rack (if it happens again, she swears she's "going to go Kanye West on his ass"). Plenty more common is for women to have a cellphone camera pointed toward them, perhaps at an odd angle, in public and wonder: Wait a sec, are they writing a text message -- or taking a photo of me?

That we are using technology in this way is hardly anything new. "Almost immediately upon the invention of amateur photography there was the detective camera," said professor Gallagher. It could be concealed in your hat or tie, and "the idea of being able to record things without anyone knowing was a craze," she says. The development of technology, and its accessibility, however, is changing our culture: Not only are spy cams available on the cheap, but cameras are now a standard feature on cellphones. The federal Video Voyeurism Prevention Act of 2004 was enacted specifically in response to these high-tech developments, and outlaws virtual peeping that takes place "under circumstances in which the individual has a reasonable expectation of privacy."

Of course, that is just to speak of the noncommercial candid photography that can be found online. A quick Google search turns up 60 pages of links to sites like "Upskirt Hunters," "The Original Candid Upskirt" and "Upskirt Sniper." The latter greets the viewer with a presumably enticing warning: "CAUTION: YOUR GIRLS [sic] PANTIES COULD BE ON THIS SITE!" A series of panty shots are stacked one atop the other, with a woman's panty-clad ass in a gun's cross hairs. Lest the viewers' skepticism ruin the fantasy, the site promises: "These upskirt shots are 100% real. They are NOT STAGED and contain no models or actors at all. Every time we go to the mall, a restaurant or even church we have our camera with us rolling as many upskirts panties as we can get. These girls have no idea they we are filming them and probally [sic] never will."

Locations that smack of the everyday -- like public transportation, parks, malls, gas stations, movie lines and big box stores like WalMart -- are favorites. For the same reason, many sites attempt a photographic narrative that climaxes, so to speak, with the upskirt, like a striptease the woman never knew she was performing: a couple of shots of an everyday woman walking down the street, blissfully unaware, and then -- blam! -- you're this close to giving her a gynecological exam.

Nearly every upskirt site makes a similar promise of unaware and unwilling subjects; the essential erotic charge comes from the stealthy violation of a woman's privacy.

Of course, the intrusion doesn't always go unnoticed. Two years ago, on a scorching hot day in St. Louis, 22-year-old Karen Simoncelli wore a skirt to the local zoo. While checking out the lizard exhibit, she had a reptilian encounter of another kind. A toweringly tall, "weird-looking" man stood uncomfortably close to her, holding the long strap of a camera bag in his hand. She looked down and saw a camera lens pointing up her skirt. He saw her spot the camera and split. But she ran after him, screaming for bystanders to call 911 and hurling obscenities at him, while he made a beeline for the zoo's exit. After catching up with him and throwing her strawberry smoothie on him, he finally handed over the camera. By the time he reached the zoo exit, police were waiting for him.

The next day, Simoncelli, a college student, discovered that police had found footage shot up seven other girls' skirts. She chose not to look at the tape, but the police were able to identify her based only on the underwear she was wearing that day. Ultimately, though, he was released (and now has a warrant out for his arrest for an unrelated incident).

It wasn't just a creepy encounter -- like a lewd comment made on the street -- that she could shake off.  "I had to have my fiancé for about a whole year walk me in and out of our house," she said. "I have had a loaded gun next to my bed ever since. I constantly think someone is following me." She says she'll stare at a small sliver of her bedroom window that isn't covered by the blinds and become convinced that "someone is watching me, someone is looking."

Just as with Simoncelli, 44-year-old Lori Boyd, of South Orange County, Calif., felt a man hovering uncomfortably close while she was on her lunch break at the local mall. She looked down and discovered a camera pointed up her skirt. Only, instead of chasing him through the mall, she froze, unsure of who he was, and whether he might get violent. She "felt violated and weirded out that someone would get off on something like this" but pretended she hadn't noticed it, and then, once the man had disappeared, reported it to the mall police. They said they had received a number of other complaints from women who had had the same experience.

Of course, not all subjects are entirely unwilling participants. Paris Hilton's and Britney Spears' pantyless crusade in front of paparazzi seemed intentional -- if not sober or clearheaded. In some ways, it appeared to be an aggressive acknowledgment of their utter lack of privacy as famous females. Indeed, name a female celebrity -- any female celebrity -- and she has likely starred in an accidental crotch shot. And it's hardly an issue of simply wearing panties and keeping one's knees primly pressed together -- just consider Alexandra Kerry, John Kerry's daughter, who appeared at Cannes wearing a beautiful black dress that, much to her surprise, was rendered see-through by paparazzi flashes. Sites like X17, Perez Hilton, Defamer and Egotastic have made their name (and their money) on these dishy candids.

Then there are the public figures who are knowing, although perhaps not always enthusiastic, participants in the genre -- for instance, female tennis players, who no doubt have come to expect tighty-whitey action shots to show up on fan message boards. It's been suggested that Wimbledon should be redubbed "the birthplace of the upskirt," and at last year's Australian Open, three men were arrested for attempting between-the-legs shots of female fans. Innumerable tributes to tennis panty shots can be found on YouTube, including one titled, "Anna Kournikova -- upskirt compilation." And, last year, artist Dmitry Bulnygin premiered a  nine-minute video filmed up the skirt of an unidentified woman as she played a match, and a  rumor quickly spread that the star was none other than Maria Sharapova. No matter their athletic abilities, female tennis stars have simply had to accept that their crotch's celebrity status could actually rival their own. And, as the Web threatens to turn us all into potential celebrities, we have had to make similar shifts in our own expectations of privacy.

It's such a recognizable phenomenon that artist Richard Kern recently took photographic perversions from the New York City subway to a Manhattan art gallery with an irreverent piece titled "Upskirts," featuring a total of 25 individual panty shots. But the piece lacks the shiver-inducing quality of real candids, because the subjects' legs are spread far enough apart to suggest willful participation --maybe even enthusiastic consent.

On the other side of this online trend are women who are also publishing photos of unwilling subjects -- only their subjects are the men who sexually harass them in public. The Web site HollaBack NYC encourages women to take quick cellphone photos of their harassers and send them in to the site for publication, along with their story about being groped on the subway, yelled at on the street or photographed by a stranger in a sexualized way. The message seems to be having a real effect: In August, a woman discovered a man taking a photo up her skirt with his cellphone as she walked up a set of stairs at a subway station in New York, and she yanked out her cellphone and snapped a photo of him. She sent the snapshot to police, which helped them to find and arrest the man within weeks. He currently faces charges of attempted sexual abuse, harassment and unlawful surveillance.

Upskirting cases are hardly the only recent challenges to our notions of privacy. Recently, three girls featured without permission on the Web site and companion book "Hot Chicks With Douchebags" -- which consists of pictures featuring … yeah, you guessed it -- filed a lawsuit, claiming violation of privacy. Similarly, "Girls Gone Wild" has been hit with a number of lawsuits from women featured in the series. Some have claimed that their privacy was violated, even though they voluntarily bared all in public.

These legal struggles -- as well as states' attempts to punish upskirting, downblousing and other ways of virtually getting inside a stranger's clothes -- seem to be just the start of a gradual cultural reimagining of what it means to be in public or private. As Gallagher put it, "The conventions that guide what is and is not a violation are currently under construction." But, she adds, "Privacy is based on an expectation and, in general, people don't have an expectation of privacy in public."

 

-- By Tracy Clark-Flory
Logged
G M
Power User
***
Posts: 12042


« Reply #199 on: November 26, 2008, 07:38:27 PM »

On a warm summer day two years ago, a 16-year-old girl put on a skirt and headed to the SuperTarget in her hometown of Tulsa, Okla. As she shopped the air-conditioned aisles, a man knelt behind her, carefully slid a camera in between her bare legs and snapped a photo of her underwear. Police arrested the 34-year-old man, but the charges were ultimately dropped on the grounds that the girl did not, as required by the state's Peeping Tom law, have "a right to a reasonable expectation of privacy," given the public location. In non-legalese: Wear a skirt in public, and you might just get a camera in the crotch.

**I'm surprized they didn't try to charge him with a "sexual exploitation of a child" crime. I don't know OK statutes, but given that she is under 18, i'd think there might be something applicable in their state laws.**
Logged
Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 ... 11 Print 
« previous next »
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!