Porno for Normos

I'm often amazed at how so much attention is focused on television content in this country. We are so afraid that our children will be negatively influenced by images that fly across the screen. Although I am in total agreement that there is probably too much risque behavior on television, I also think it's more how we view it than anything else. Often the way you look at things really has more profound affect than the thing itself. Take for instance Kirk Franklin. Kirky boy admitted on national television, on OPRAH of all places, that he was addicted to porn. I listened to his story intently because I too am a fan of porn, (notice I didn't say addicted). Kirk struggled because instead of accepting his affinity for naked images of (I hope) women, he allowed himself to be divided. There is no doubt that the naked image of a woman, and even more so of a woman engaging in sexual activity, will have an affect on you if you are a healthy heterosexual male. The problem comes when someone has told you that there is something sinfully wrong about that chemical reaction. Eventually, you become at odds with yourself and you struggle with wanting to indulge, but feeling weak and like a failure.

I remember the first time I discovered porn, and then later masturbation. At the tender age of 12, I immediately declared both ok in my book. I vowed not to let anything or anyone come between my own self gratification. Tell me I would go blind, tell me that the palms of my hands would become hairy, I didn't care-I'd just be a hairy-palmed blind man. In my book, I don't have an addiction to porn. Yes I view it daily, but does that mean I'm addicted? I dare so no. I like it, I view it, there. Let's move on.

Kirk regaled us with tales of driving 40 miles in the middle of the night to throw a porno magazine in a dumpster-driving back home, only to get in his car and drive back to the scene of the dumping to retrieve said magazine. In my most humble opinion, he's not addicted-he's nuts! First of all, if I threw a magazine away, it wouldn't be 40 miles away. Second, if I threw it away, I wouldn't have a problem parting with it. Kirk's problem is he hasn't accepted his (probably excessive, but in no way addictive) desire for porn. Nature takes it's course and some idiomatic religious dogma planted in your head long before you were able to defend yourself kicks in and starts telling you that you're a failure. Telling you that what you're feeling is wrong and that you should stop feelilng that way. There only three people types of males that are not affected by images of naked women: homosexual men, infant males, and old senile males. Any other heterosexual male that see an image of a naked woman and says that they aren't the least bit aroused are liars. Be them priests, rabbis, reverends, or popes-the power of the naked woman's affect on a man cannot be denied.

Is Kirk addicted? No-Kirk Franklin's conflicted. There's a major difference. If it wasn't so forbidden, he wouldn't have the urge to get rid of it. If he could satiate his appetite without guilt, those urges would be less intense. If he could sit in his house, on his couch, with his feet on his coffee table, and look at a porno mag or watch an adult dvd, without having his wife or his peers deem him a sinner, those urges would subside. But the shroud of secrecy-the fear of being caught adds to heightened arousal. The sweaty palms, the rapidly beating heart, the shortness of breath, associated with the provacative images, intensifies the experience. Take away the secrecy and the fear of being caught and I guarantee he'll bore of it. And if he doesn't, so what-let him gawk. Who's he harming? I'm so damn sick of hearing that ridiculous argument that porn exploits women. Oh really? How? If I look at a naked picture of (God forbid) Paris Hilton, does she know I'm looking? How is she affected because I'm looking? Does she get an irritating rash on the parts that I'm looking at just because I'm looking? No. She's probably sitting in her Bentley not even caring that I'm looking at her hideously ugly vagina on the internet (and yes I've seen it).

We continually want to blame the looker and not the poser. How am I exploiting her if she voluntarily posed? But it's the feminist ideological Evil Man who is responsible for EVERYTHING that has happened to women. We are blamed because nature made us attracted to women.

And finally, why is the naked image acceptable if it is considered art? That shit is porno to me. Or porno is art. One or the other. But to me, the line separating the two is so permeable, it exists without my detection.

RCP

Bored To Tears

There isn't much going on at work today. I've made all of my calls to my clients and it's only 9:23 a.m. and I have to be here 'til 5pm. My boss is in China and, although I have a few things to do, if I do them now, I'll really be bored and won't have anything to do for the rest of the day.

I'm listening to KPFK but in 30 minutes they play international music. Although I'm a music lover, banging tambourines from Sri Lanka isn't exactly my idea of listening pleasure. No offense to anyone from Sri Lanka-I love the way you put S before the R without the supportive E vowel. It just rolls off the tongue in a sexy way. Sri.

You know I'm bored when I'm writing complete paragraphs about the word Sri. I would like to add a quote that I thought of the other morning. I don't know if I read it somewhere or not but I believe it's original. Read below:

EVERY OPPORTUNITY TO SPEAK IS AN OPPORTUNITY TO TEACH. EVERY OPPORTUNITY TO LISTEN IS AN OPPORTUNITY TO LEARN.

Again, like I said, there's a possibility I read that somewhere a long time ago, and it's now, like the husk of popcorn wedged between ones tooth and gum, has worked it's way up to my consciousness.

I think it's a rather profound quote. I think that so many of our conversations are just useless babble. I think people are uncomfortable speaking about topics that they aren't well versed in. And when the intellects amongst us begin to speak, we shy away. Most of my conversations are laced with some manner of teaching. I believe it's simply sharing information-but isn't that the same as teaching? It doesn't matter if the information is accurate-the sharing of information is a form of teaching. I will take it a step further and say that one should teach righteously and accurately, but the basics of teaching are neutral. One can learn positive behaviors just as easily a they can learn negative or damaging behaviors. That is why it is extremely critical to this government that they mandate what is taught in public schools. We learn watered down history because if you truly knew how this country was formed, you wouldn't feel so good about yourself. I'm rambling.

Anyway, I'm going back to work.

RCP