NationStates Jolt Archive

A bunch of Christian teens in Florida have decided to protest against anatomically correct Christmas ornaments being sold in Spencer gift shops. Now the law in Florida states that porn cannot be displayed openly where children shop, but is a snowman with a penis or breasts really porn?

Anyhoo, the link contains a video clip of the teens singing about "Pornaments".

http://www.wftv.com/irresistible/10496001/detail.html

that elf will haunt me for years to come...

In other news, brainwashed children carried out the wishes of grasping adults for the supposed benefit of a select few.

Too bad I can't get those here. It'd be fun having them on the tree... it might even be worth buying a tree ;)

Well, if they're anatomically correct, they fall under the rubric of porn...Spencer's isn't known for selling things because they're art. They sell crass or kitschy stuff. If it represents a sexual reference, it shouldn't be sold where minors can see it -- that's not my morality, that's the law, and while I may not agree, the protestors (who are likely not protesting becuase they are in favor of the law but because militant Christians never seem to feel righteous unless they can demonstrate their faith...vociferously and in front of cameras) have a point.

A bunch of Christian teens in Florida have decided to protest against anatomically correct Christmas ornaments being sold in Spencer gift shops. Now the law in Florida states that porn cannot be displayed openly where children shop, but is a snowman with a penis or breasts really porn?

Anyhoo, the link contains a video clip of the teens singing about "Pornaments".

http://www.wftv.com/irresistible/10496001/detail.html

Ooh, Jack Thompson's involved!

Those teenagers need more hormones.

Ooh, Jack Thompson's involved!

Who's this Jack Thompson guy?

Who's this Jack Thompson guy?

He's the guy who routinely lashes out at the GTA games with frivolous lawsuits.

http://koti.mbnet.fi/~foo/wtf.jpg

A bunch of Christian teens in Florida have decided to protest against anatomically correct Christmas ornaments being sold in Spencer gift shops. Now the law in Florida states that porn cannot be displayed openly where children shop, but is a snowman with a penis or breasts really porn?

Anyhoo, the link contains a video clip of the teens singing about "Pornaments".

http://www.wftv.com/irresistible/10496001/detail.html

"A 5-year-old can buy it for his brother or sister and it's just absolutely ridiculous," Wilder said.
Because I know I regularly see 5 year olds browsing Spencer's. It's fucking Spencer's - it's Hot Topic for perverts and weirdos.

Once again Christians have to go and ruin it for everybody, you know one day i would like to read the news or go somewhere and not hear about Christians, just once. Thats all.

Because I know I regularly see 5 year olds browsing Spencer's. It's fucking Spencer's - it's Hot Topic for perverts and weirdos.

I don't know about that. When I was a little kid we had one in the local mall. I used to go inside to browse every time I visited the mall and I'm no pervert or weirdo.

I don't know about that. When I was a little kid we had one in the local mall. I used to go inside to browse every time I visited the mall and I'm no pervert or weirdo.

I can't stand to be in there - the air is so thick with crappy pop-culture and weird shit, I can barely breathe.

I find all the retarded signs amusing.
"Christ Church Anglicans don't support pornaments."
No shit? Maybe you should start making "Christ Church Anglicans oppose Satan and all his doings." so it is clear for everyone.

"Spencer's does not speak for me."
Really? I assumed they spoke for Spencer's but thanks for reminding me you have your own voice and opinion... while you protest with a church group and a crackpot lawyer.

In other news, brainwashed children carried out the wishes of grasping adults for the supposed benefit of a select few.

so... you agree to have pornographic Material on display, to be sold to anyone reguardless of age?


oh and it's not just teens.
Thompson, a lawyer in Miami, is pushing to have all Pornaments removed from store shelves in the Sunshine State. He said it's against the law to keep pornographic material out in the open in a store where children shop.

if laws are being violated, perhaps Mr Thompson should file a lawsuit...

Did you check out the balding weirdo who's been left in charge of programming these kids? I'd be more concerned about him than some lumps of painted plastic on a store shelf.

Spencer's has got to be loving this. You know they're going to sell out of them now, thanks to the publicity. Hell, I'm not even putting up a tree, but if there's a protest against them down here, I'll buy one just to piss off the protesters.

Well they have a point in that they shouldn't be where kids can see them; at least not in a store. And if you're perverted enough to buy them if you have young children well, then, chances are that they've already been subjected to that kind of stuff anyway. Those are the kind of little kids that go around shouting 'F*** Off!' in the supermarket.

But I'm sure that there have been plenty of raunchy decorations made before. And they'll continue to be made because there's a market for them.

On of the pictures shown a guy holdiong up a sign that 'Christmas should be about Christ'. They do realise that Christmas has long been a time for a break and scoffing your face? It'll continue to be riddled with worldly selfishness with or without 'pornaments'. I honestly thought that those decorations would be worse. I mean, santa, snowmen, elves and reindeer have nothing to do with the real Christmas message anyway. Now if they had Jesus, Mary and Joseph-type decorations that would be a tad more offensive...

so... you agree to have pornographic Material on display, to be sold to anyone reguardless of age?


oh and it's not just teens.


if laws are being violated, perhaps Mr Thompson should file a lawsuit...

Calling it porn is a stretch at the best, ludicrous at worst.

Because I know I regularly see 5 year olds browsing Spencer's. It's fucking Spencer's - it's Hot Topic for perverts and weirdos.do they card everyone going in? do they prevent minors from entering their store and making such perchases? if they want to sell such things, then perhaps they should just turn it into an Adult Accesories store.

Once again Christians have to go and ruin it for everybody, you know one day i would like to read the news or go somewhere and not hear about Christians, just once. Thats all. ... a store puts out pornographic material in an outlet that does NOT restrict access by minors and you blame the Christians?

Did it occur to these gormless children that the reason each and every one of them is on this planet and available to waves signs about is because their parents possess and made use of said "pornographic" organs? :fluffle:

Honestly. Can somebody explain to me this bizarre Xtian revulsion with the human body? Do they peel off their human skins at night or something?

do they card everyone going in? do they prevent minors from entering their store and making such perchases? if they want to sell such things, then perhaps they should just turn it into an Adult Accesories store.
I've never heard of this Spencer's place so I won't comment.

... a store puts out pornographic material in an outlet that does NOT restrict access by minors and you blame the Christians?

If they really thought there was a law being broken then why didn't they just call the cops and get their good friend Jack Thompson to sue the store? Having a protest is thus far just making them look silly.

Calling it porn is a stretch at the best, ludicrous at worst.

figures in posistions where they are doing the deed isn't pornography? What do you call em then?

http://www.wftv.com/2006/1208/10496005_320X240.jpg

http://www.wftv.com/2006/1208/10496047_320X240.jpg

http://www.wftv.com/2006/1208/10496039_320X240.jpg

Did it occur to these gormless children that the reason each and every one of them is on this planet and available to waves signs about is because their parents possess and made use of said "pornographic" organs? :fluffle:

Honestly. Can somebody explain to me this bizarre Xtian revulsion with the human body? Do they peel off their human skins at night or something?

They're all cabbages in disguise *nods*

... a store puts out pornographic material in an outlet that does NOT restrict access by minors and you blame the Christians?

These are novelty items, not copies of 'Behind the Green Door'. Curb your humourless indignation.

These are novelty items, not copies of 'Behind the Green Door'. Curb your humourless indignation.

explain the difference between naked figures in sexual posistions, a blow up doll, and a porn movie?

If they really thought there was a law being broken then why didn't they just call the cops and get their good friend Jack Thompson to sue the store? Having a protest is thus far just making them look silly.That's what I said, they should just file a lawsuit.

That's what I said, they should just file a lawsuit.

Ah, OK. We agree then. Huzzah. :fluffle:

If they oppose these pornaments, why the fuck are they going into Spencer's anyway? All their shit is like this. Maybe if the good Christians wern't going into Spencer's and looking at all their drug, sex, and toilet humor inspired products, they wouldn't have seen the pornaments.


PS. The Snowman's face is classic.

These are novelty items, not copies of 'Behind the Green Door'. Curb your humourless indignation.

One of the classics. Nice example.

do they card everyone going in? do they prevent minors from entering their store and making such perchases? if they want to sell such things, then perhaps they should just turn it into an Adult Accesories store.
If they do that then so does every tourist store and gas station in the great state of Florida. Sexually inspired novelty products do not equate to Adult Accessories. If you think they do, I think you are naive.

explain the difference between naked figures in sexual posistions, a blow up doll, and a porn movie?

You're missing my point. Why are you differentiating? If I want to walk into Spencers and pick up a 6-pack of tube socks, a spool of CDRs and a copy of The Green Door (haven't seen it in years) then what business is it of yours anyway?

My question still stands. Why does the human body and its natural functions illicit such revulsion? You might as well get worked up over eating in public.

explain the difference between naked figures in sexual posistions, a blow up doll, and a porn movie?

One is a humourous, seasonal representation of human sexuality cast in plastic and intended as a somewhat saucy tree ornament; the following is a sexual surrogate or fetish item; the last is (usually) a poorly-written narrative, laced with sexually explicit scenes, acted out by well-endowed performers for the sexual gratification of a viewing audience.

Does that explanation help, dear - or would licensing genitalia make you feel any better?

A bunch of Christian teens in Florida have decided to protest against anatomically correct Christmas ornaments being sold in Spencer gift shops. Now the law in Florida states that porn cannot be displayed openly where children shop, but is a snowman with a penis or breasts really porn?

Anyhoo, the link contains a video clip of the teens singing about "Pornaments".

http://www.wftv.com/irresistible/10496001/detail.html

The 'orniments' are certainly in poor taste, and if I was a store owner I wouldn't stock them. The florida courts should decide the matter if someone feels so strongly as to bring suit against the store owners that are displaying the offending items.

These teens need to get a life. They would have been better off protesting Paris Hiltons new movie. Now that movie is a piece of shit that needs to be banned.

*shudders*

In what world could this be considered porn?Link (http://www.spencersonline.com/index.cfm/fuseaction/search.results2/searchString/*pornament/)

Tacky tasteless rubbish, yes. But not porn. To think that it is indicates some type of deep seated mental trauma most likely.

These teens need to get a life. They would have been better off protesting Paris Hiltons new movie. Now that movie is a piece of shit that needs to be banned.

*shudders*

New movie? I heard a rumor that has to be fake that she's going to play Mother Teresa. She's all wrong for the part. I just can't picture mother Teresa doing this.

http://i13.tinypic.com/447xeyo.jpg

To think that it is indicates some type of deep seated mental trauma most likely.

...Which is pretty much what I'd expect of some balding 30+ weirdo with a video camera who's been left in charge of a bevy of pubescent children, all hailing from repressed homes.

New movie? I heard a rumor that has to be fake that she's going to play Mother Teresa. She's all wrong for the part. I just can't picture mother Teresa doing this.

http://i13.tinypic.com/447xeyo.jpg

Good grief, she's ugly. No ass, either.

If they oppose these pornaments, why the fuck are they going into Spencer's anyway? All their shit is like this. Maybe if the good Christians wern't going into Spencer's and looking at all their drug, sex, and toilet humor inspired products, they wouldn't have seen the pornaments.


PS. The Snowman's face is classic.Check out their website, they got em without the censorship mosiac... and a better angle on Frosty's face.

One of the classics. Nice example.... I preferre 3 a.m. and Eruption myself.

If they do that then so does every tourist store and gas station in the great state of Florida. Sexually inspired novelty products do not equate to Adult Accessories. If you think they do, I think you are naive.there is a difference between Sexually Inspired Novelty products and Sexually oriented novelty products.



One is a humourous, seasonal representation of human sexuality cast in plastic and intended as a somewhat saucy tree ornament; the following is a sexual surrogate or fetish item; the last is (usually) a poorly-written narrative, laced with sexually explicit scenes, acted out by well-endowed performers for the sexual gratification of a viewing audience.

Does that explanation help, dear - or would licensing genitalia make you feel any better?
so as long as it's HUMOROUS it doesn't matter what age laws it breaks? Good thing you don't make the laws where you live Dobbs.

I've been to their website and their store, I've no problem with their other products, since they are kept in a seperate area, but these ornaments do cross the line.

Good grief, she's ugly. No ass, either.

Still a whole hell of a lot better than Mother Teresa.

New movie? I heard a rumor that has to be fake that she's going to play Mother Teresa. She's all wrong for the part. I just can't picture mother Teresa doing this.

http://i13.tinypic.com/447xeyo.jpg

It is "Pledge This". I'm not sure how long it has been out but it hasn't been that long. Regardless the film is an utter crapfest.

So agreed, then. Tacky, tasteless, but not really porn. I maintain that A) if the law covers such tasteless crap, it should be applied and B) protests are just the uberChristian minority's way of showing everyone how righteous they are...in direct contradiction to the Bible they looooove so much.

Still a whole hell of a lot better than Mother Teresa.

*shudder* Without a doubt.

figures in posistions where they are doing the deed isn't pornography? What do you call em then?

Comedy. Get off your censorious high horse.

Good thing you don't make the laws where you live Dobbs.

Why - because repressed Christians wouldn't get the chance to dictate to what extent the rest of us aren't allowed to enjoy healthy sexuality, or humourous representations thereof?

there is a difference between Sexually Inspired Novelty products and Sexually oriented novelty products.
Yes there is, and if you can't figure out which categories these go in, I can't hlep you because it's pretty damn obvious.



so as long as it's HUMOROUS it doesn't matter what age laws it breaks? Good thing you don't make the laws where you live Dobbs.

I've been to their website and their store, I've no problem with their other products, since they are kept in a seperate area, but these ornaments do cross the line.
Sure, if you have never been in Spencer's. I repeat, all their crap is like this. And regardless, if this is qualified porn, every single tourist trap shop and gas station in Florida has some 'splainin' to do.

Good thing you don't make the laws where you live Dobbs.
Yeah, you sick depraved bastard, Dobbs. Not considering uncovered, toy breasts to be a ghastly corruption on society and not believing people shouldn't have the discretion to decide for themselves to go into and look at things in a novelty store known for it's drug, sex, and toilet humor items.

Comedy. Get off your censorious high horse.
so pornographic COMEDIES should be ok to sell in Blockbuster then?

Considering that all the "Acting" is comedic anyway... :rolleyes:
Why - because repressed Christians wouldn't get the chance to dictate to what extent the rest of us aren't allowed to enjoy healthy sexuality, or humourous representations thereof?
LOL I just love the double standards here. Sexual acts shouldn't be done to minors, but it's ok to show them items portraying sex.

so pornographic COMEDIES should be ok to sell in Blockbuster then?

Considering that all the "Acting" is comedic anyway... :rolleyes:

I think most video stores already have an "adult" section for porno.

so as long as it's HUMOROUS it doesn't matter what age laws it breaks? Good thing you don't make the laws where you live Dobbs.



Better still that you don't make the laws where we live.

so pornographic COMEDIES should be ok to sell in Blockbuster then?

Considering that all the "Acting" is comedic anyway... :rolleyes:

I know I'd laugh at a porno where the guy had a red and white striped dick.

so pornographic COMEDIES should be ok to sell in Blockbuster then?

Considering that all the "Acting" is comedic anyway... :rolleyes:
1) They do sell them in Blockbuster, Movie Gallery, FYE, and anywhere else specializing in movies. (and the porno section is always found near or next to the anime section I might add)

2) That has nothing to do with the point at hand.

Better still that you don't make the laws where we live.

Ahhh, but I too, AM glad I don't make the laws. ;)

1) They do sell them in Blockbuster, Movie Gallery, FYE, and anywhere else specializing in movies. (and the porno section is always found near or next to the anime section I might add)

2) That has nothing to do with the point at hand.Really... Never saw any XXX rated stuff at our blockbusters. that's very interesting.

I think most video stores already have an "adult" section for porno.

and I bet you they are marked and seperated from the rest of their stock.

so pornographic COMEDIES should be ok to sell in Blockbuster then?

Considering that all the "Acting" is comedic anyway... :rolleyes:

You're deliberately being obtuse here, Junii. Porn involves live humans involved in visible sexual activity. And if Blockbuster wants to sell them, they can go ahead, as long as they follow all applicable laws, which include age restricted areas in the store.

But this ain't porn. It's not even simulated porn. It's cartoon characters in slightly naughty (and I hesitate to even use that word) situations, for fuck's sake. And it doesn't matter how long or how loudly you bleat about it, that's not going to change.

and I bet you they are marked and seperated from the rest of their stock.

Much in the same way they might have Comedy separate from documentaries.

*snip*

LOL I just love the double standards here. Sexual acts shouldn't be done to minors, but it's ok to show them items portraying sex.

Yup. Perhaps then, when they reach the proper age and mindset, they won't have the conflicting messages of sexuality and repression fucking up their minds.

Much like minors shouldn't be drinking, but what ads are most prevalent all day Sunday and Monday night during football telecasts (full of violence and allusions to violence)? Beer -- and have you noticed that liquor ads have made a comeback?

Son, you're standing the the way of the freight train of capitalism with the strawman of morality. You'll make a nice squishy thud when you collide.

Yup. Perhaps then, when they reach the proper age and mindset, they won't have the conflicting messages of sexuality and repression fucking up their minds.So let's remove the rating system for movies and the restrictions they impose. also, let's remove the age of consent and allow anything that a child consents to be legal. after all, experience is the best message and teacher.

Much like minors shouldn't be drinking, but what ads are most prevalent all day Sunday and Monday night during football telecasts (full of violence and allusions to violence)? Beer -- and have you noticed that liquor ads have made a comeback?Liquor adds never went away. and the argument about Alcohol Adds targeting children is an ongoing debate in some areas. also, you need to be carded to buy alcohol, porn shops don't allow minors into their store, much less purchasing items from them, is spencer carding people?

Son, you're standing the the way of the freight train of capitalism with the strawman of morality. You'll make a nice squishy thud when you collide.and you're saying it ok to break laws just for the sake of Capitalism. At least I'm standing up for something and not bending over and taking it with a smile like others.

Much in the same way they might have Comedy separate from documentaries.

I think you'll find more than just a dividing card seperating adult movies from the rest of the store.

You're deliberately being obtuse here, Junii. Porn involves live humans involved in visible sexual activity. And if Blockbuster wants to sell them, they can go ahead, as long as they follow all applicable laws, which include age restricted areas in the store.

But this ain't porn. It's not even simulated porn. It's cartoon characters in slightly naughty (and I hesitate to even use that word) situations, for fuck's sake. And it doesn't matter how long or how loudly you bleat about it, that's not going to change.

Adult Animation. That's not featuring Live Humans.
Adult Comics. They too are not live humans.

both can be argued that they are simulated porn because they do not require live persons to act out.

Does that make it "OK" in your eyes Nazz?

LOL I just love the double standards here. Sexual acts shouldn't be done to minors, but it's ok to show them items portraying sex.

You Xtians are just too kinky for my blood. Purposefully mystifying (and therefore fetishizing) biological functions with the express intent of influencing impressionable children is, to my heathen mind anyway, morally unconscionable.

Really... Never saw any XXX rated stuff at our blockbusters. that's very interesting.

I don't suppose they would sell XXX at Blockbuster on Tightwad Ln.

I vote next time you go, tell them to point you to the anime section then look around for videos with obviously obscured covers.

If Jack Thompson's against it, then I'm for it. Hooray for stupid ornaments.

So let's remove the rating system for movies and the restrictions they impose. also, let's remove the age of consent and allow anything that a child consents to be legal. after all, experience is the best message and teacher.

Yeah. 'Cause that's what I said. :rolleyes:

The ornaments are no worse than your kid seeing two dogs going at it. What do you tell kids when that happens? They're dogs, for cryin' out loud, just like the "pornaments" are plastic figurines and not people.

Liquor adds never went away.

Okay, now you're just being obtuse -- liquor ads on TELEVISION had been banned for something like 25 years or so before being allowed back on in the last 5-8 years.

and the argument about Alcohol Adds targeting children is an ongoing debate in some areas. also, you need to be carded to buy alcohol, porn shops don't allow minors into their store, much less purchasing items from them, is spencer carding people?

It doesn't matter if the ads TARGET children. The "pornaments" aren't being marketed to children, either. Beer ads get seen by kids, period, and they often feature slapstick elements that would appeal to any kid. The "pornaments" aren't being marketed to children. Responsible parents wouldn't allow their kids into Spencer's if they didn't want them to be exposed (pardon the pun) to crass and naughty depictions of..well, damn near everything. I think the store is tasteless and haven't been in there since I was a kid and thought the fart book was funny. Any misconceptions about sex I MIGHT have seen in the store were quickly cleared up by my parents when I mentioned what I saw. Parenting is the answer here, not protests.

and you're saying it ok to break laws just for the sake of Capitalism. At least I'm standing up for something and not bending over and taking it with a smile like others.

I'm not saying that, our government does -- regularly. And you keep saying "break the law" when it hasn't even been established that the product in question is illegal. You're knee-jerking off, and it's really rude to do that in public.

If Jack Thompson's against it, then I'm for it. Hooray for stupid ornaments.

I lol'd. Hooray indeed.

You Xtians are just too kinky for my blood. Purposefully mystifying (and therefore fetishizing) biological functions with the express intent of influencing impressionable children is, to my heathen mind anyway, morally unconscionable.

ahh... another call of "Xtians"
the generic argument card when one runs out of arguments.

and since, in your words, "the express intent of influencing impressionable children is, to my heathen mind anyway, morally unconscionable." then you are admitting then to remove the age of consent and all age restricting laws. Drinking, Binding contracts, sex... after all, they do the same thing also.

so all those cases of adults having sex with minors are all wrong in your eyes.

You Xtians are just too kinky for my blood. Purposefully mystifying (and therefore fetishizing) biological functions with the express intent of influencing impressionable children is, to my heathen mind anyway, morally unconscionable.

Ah yes, but THEIR interpretation of God's will. Odd, that.

ahh... another call of "Xtians"
the generic argument card when one runs out of arguments.

and since, in your words, "the express intent of influencing impressionable children is, to my heathen mind anyway, morally unconscionable." then you are admitting then to remove the age of consent and all age restricting laws. Drinking, Binding contracts, sex... after all, they do the same thing also.

so all those cases of adults having sex with minors are all wrong in your eyes.

Reductio ad absurdum. You get no more arguments from me until you learn how. Go to your room.

ahh... another call of "Xtians"
the generic argument card when one runs out of arguments.

and since, in your words, "the express intent of influencing impressionable children is, to my heathen mind anyway, morally unconscionable." then you are admitting then to remove the age of consent and all age restricting laws. Drinking, Binding contracts, sex... after all, they do the same thing also.

so all those cases of adults having sex with minors are all wrong in your eyes.

So you, conversely, are arguing that children must be kept totally ignorant of sex, alcohol, smoking, voting, and anything else there's an age limit on until they reach the age of consent(or the appropriate age if it's lower than the age of consent).

Doesn't it suck when people tell you what your opinion is rather than ask you what it is?

I don't suppose they would sell XXX at Blockbuster on Tightwad Ln.

I vote next time you go, tell them to point you to the anime section then look around for videos with obviously obscured covers.

I was there last night. None of the Blockbusters in our state have XXX movies. they don't even have an adult section on their website.

we have other video stores that carry them, but not Blockbusters.

Oh and for the record, most Video stores put the anime NEXT to the Family films and cartoons.

So you, conversely, are arguing that children must be kept totally ignorant of sex, alcohol, smoking, voting, and anything else there's an age limit on until they reach the age of consent(or the appropriate age is it's lower than the age of consent).

Doesn't it suck when people tell you what your opinion is rather than ask you what it is?

LOL, you equate the Age Restrictions with keeping them Ignorant? try again please.

Reductio ad absurdum. You get no more arguments from me until you learn how. Go to your room.

considering most of your agruments only show YOUR double standards... Fine with me, except I'm already in my room, feel free to leave.

LOL, you equate the Age Restrictions with keeping them Ignorant? try again please.

LOL, you equate not keeping them ignorant with removing all age restrictions. Try again please.

ahh... another call of "Xtians"
the generic argument card when one runs out of arguments.

and since, in your words, "the express intent of influencing impressionable children is, to my heathen mind anyway, morally unconscionable." then you are admitting then to remove the age of consent and all age restricting laws. Drinking, Binding contracts, sex... after all, they do the same thing also.

so all those cases of adults having sex with minors are all wrong in your eyes.

It is to laugh.

And by the way, I do happen to believe in changing certain laws as applicable to children/adolescents - but nothing saucy, mind you. I believe strongly that children should be introduced to alcohol at a much younger age - say 12 or 13 - and that driver's permits should not be issued to anyone younger than 21.

LOL, you equate the Age Restrictions with keeping them Ignorant? try again please.

LEARN HOW TO DEBATE PROPERLY.

Seriously, you baffle the mind. I've never seen so many strawmen.

Oh and for the record, most Video stores put the anime NEXT to the Family films and cartoons.

Well you have obviously never been to Alabama. In FYE, the anime is literally right next to the porn. In Blockbusters and Movie Gallery, the anime is literally one isle down from porn.

I was there last night. None of the Blockbusters in our state have XXX movies. they don't even have an adult section on their website.
http://www.blockbuster.com/online/catalog/listDetails?listRef=sexuality
What do I win?

Go back today, go to the anime section, if you arn't purposefully ignorant (which since it took me longer to find out how to search for movies than it did to find porn on the site, I don't put past you), it should take you all of 30 seconds to find porn.

LOL, you equate not keeping them ignorant with removing all age restrictions. Try again please.

wrong, Ignorance can be fought in more ways than allowing things to be made accssable to minors. (specifically kids, not just talking about teens.)

Sex Education is one way. you don't need to take a child to an Adult bookstore to teach them about sex, you don't need to show them adult movies to learn about sex.

there are those here saying those ornaments are fine because they are humorous, the fact is, it's not fine because of the content. that's why movies have the Rating system as well as the fact that there are Age Protection laws in effect.

now if Spencer kept those seperate where they are not promenantly displayed, or restricted access to their store to say... 14 and up... then I won't be arguing for they are at least taking some responsible action. but they are not.

Some day, someone needs to go through every Spencer's in the country with a flamethrower, anyway.

A visit to Spencer's:
What's this? Michael Jackson? How wacky! And, what do I spy now, could it be? But, yes, Old People having sex!? Comedy gold, I say. Oh, and there's a fat guy and he's having sex, too!? And now there's elves having sex? I must make purchase their entire stock of these novelty ornamentations in addition to this most marvelous flatulence generating machine.

That ruins Christmas for me, thanks, Spencers Gifts

now if Spencer kept those seperate where they are not promenantly displayed, or restricted access to their store to say... 14 and up... then I won't be arguing for they are at least taking some responsible action. but they are not.

Nothing in Spencer's is prominently displayed, the windows are always clogged up with weird shit and the store is dark. Maybe you should go to the tourist stores in Florida. One targeted at traveling families. The sexy postcards are prominently displayed and the stripping woman pens are right there on the counter next to Disney figurines.

http://www.blockbuster.com/online/catalog/listDetails?listRef=sexuality
What do I win?

Go back today, go to the anime section, if you arn't purposefully ignorant (which since it took me longer to find out how to search for movies than it did to find porn on the site, I don't put past you), it should take you all of 30 seconds to find porn.

Reading GLASSES, those are not XXX movies.

some are documentaries, exercise vids, and some border (if not are) soft porn which, if you seen them, are slightly worse than an R-Rated film (X rated if you will.)

which are those that show actual sex (penetration)?

Nothing in Spencer's is prominently displayed, the windows are always clogged up with weird shit and the store is dark. Maybe you should go to the tourist stores in Florida. One targeted at traveling families. The sexy postcards are prominently displayed and the stripping woman pens are right there on the counter next to Disney figurines.

so you agree with me then.

so you agree with me then.
On which of your absurd conclusions? I made no statement of my opinion but one of fact.

Reading GLASSES, those are not XXX movies.

some are documentaries, exercise vids, and some border (if not are) soft porn which, if you seen them, are slightly worse than an R-Rated film (X rated if you will.)

which are those that show actual sex (penetration)?
I don't know, I havn't watched them. How do you know those arn't the porn movies in Movie Gallery/Blockbuster? They have covers on them to purposefully obscure the content.

wrong, Ignorance can be fought in more ways than allowing things to be made accssable to minors. (specifically kids, not just talking about teens.)

Sex Education is one way. you don't need to take a child to an Adult bookstore to teach them about sex, you don't need to show them adult movies to learn about sex.

Oh?
Purposefully mystifying (and therefore fetishizing) biological functions with the express intent of influencing impressionable children is, to my heathen mind anyway, morally unconscionable.
So we can reasonably assume that demystifying biolgical functions would be good, in Dobbs' opinion. Education would be good for that. You'd agree with that, right Junii?
and since, in your words, "the express intent of influencing impressionable children is, to my heathen mind anyway, morally unconscionable." then you are admitting then to remove the age of consent and all age restricting laws. Drinking, Binding contracts, sex... after all, they do the same thing also.
Sorry, what? I thought "Ignorance can be fought in more ways than allowing things to be made accssable[sic] to minors."? Why are you trying to suggest that Dobbs is in favour of removing all age restrictions when it looks more like he too is in favour of Sex Education?

Well you have obviously never been to Alabama. In FYE, the anime is literally right next to the porn. In Blockbusters and Movie Gallery, the anime is literally one isle down from porn.

Yes, I haven't been to Alabama. so I will conceede that I didn't know that your blockbuster carries XXX movies.

I'm also happy that they don't put the Anime next to the childrens movies.
*recalls 5 year old girl wanting to rent Devilman.... and the parents saying yes...*

The "ornaments" are deliberately offensive to Christians and the entire concept of Christmas. Props to the protestors.

LEARN HOW TO DEBATE PROPERLY.

Seriously, you baffle the mind. I've never seen so many strawmen.

Man I'm glad I'm not the only one who's noticed this. Lately it's seemed like Junii's got a freaking factory and is running a clearance sale on strawmen.

Oh?

So we can reasonably assume that demystifying biolgical functions would be good, in Dobbs' opinion. Education would be good for that. You'd agree with that, right?you can demystify it without exposing them to porn.
Sorry, what? I thought "Ignorance can be fought in more ways than allowing things to be made accssable[sic] to minors."? Why are you trying to suggest that Dobbs is in favour of removing all age restrictions when it looks more like he too is in favour of Sex Education?because Dobs is saying it's ok because it's supposed to be humourous.
One is a humourous, seasonal representation of human sexuality cast in plastic and intended as a somewhat saucy tree ornament; the following is a sexual surrogate or fetish item; the last is (usually) a poorly-written narrative, laced with sexually explicit scenes, acted out by well-endowed performers for the sexual gratification of a viewing audience.

Does that explanation help, dear - or would licensing genitalia make you feel any better?

The "ornaments" are deliberately offensive to Christians and the entire concept of Christmas. Props to the protestors.

Why? Seems to me that they're deliberately offensive to tight-assed humorless SOBs, but not all Christians are like that, and not all tight-assed humorless SOBs are Christian. There may be some overlap, however.

The "ornaments" are deliberately offensive to Christians and the entire concept of Christmas. Props to the protestors.

The entire concept of Christmas is to have a celebration on the same day as the pagans to try and convert them. The whole "birth of christ" stuff is just the fisrt thing they could think of celebrating.

LEARN HOW TO DEBATE PROPERLY.

Seriously, you baffle the mind. I've never seen so many strawmen.

really, so I ask you, what makes those ornaments OK to be available to Minors and not a XXX movie or a Blow up doll?

there are those here saying those ornaments are fine because they are humorous, the fact is, it's not fine because of the content.

I'm saying they're innocuous - whether they're humourous is within the pervue of the consumer to decide. Hiding tiny plastic figurines from the sight of children is, from my viewpoint, a concerted and unhealthy effort to render taboo something innate to our shared existence as human beings.

I'd sooner have a emotionally well-balanced populace with tackily-decorated trees than a society of sexual/psychological cripples policing their neighbours' choice of seasonal ornamentation for the sake of keeping tiny plastic willies a big evil dark secret.

really, so I ask you, what makes those ornaments OK to be available to Minors and not a XXX movie or a Blow up doll?
Holy false equivalencies Batman! :rolleyes:

You know, Junii, you can post the same remark a thousand times, but it still won't get any more intelligent.

thats sick. Selling pornagraphic material as a Christmas deceration is one of the worst things ive ever heard of. Especially since kids can get 'em.

Man I'm glad I'm not the only one who's noticed this. Lately it's seemed like Junii's got a freaking factory and is running a clearance sale on strawmen.

well, some people did say it was snowing there... so some kindling would do them good. :p


But seriously, nazz, what makes those ornaments allowable (in your mind) to be sold to minors and not a XXX movie or book?

Holy false equivalencies Batman! :rolleyes:

You know, Junii, you can post the same remark a thousand times, but it still won't get any more intelligent.

and you can keep NOT answering the question. I don't mind either.

I mean seriously! as if pornography isnt sin enough. They're gonna sell it for the holiday where we celebrate the birth of Jesus?

thats sick. Selling pornagraphic material as a Christmas deceration is one of the worst things ive ever heard of. Especially since kids can get 'em.

So either you haven't heard of much or you consider things like mass rape, genocide, child sexual abuse, terrorism, and the refusal of medical insurance companies to cover the cost of expensive treatments that can save their client's lives to be all that bad.

I mean seriously! as if pornography isnt sin enough. They're gonna sell it for the holiday where we celebrate the birth of Jesus?

You know, some of us celebrate it as a cultural holliday, not as the birth of Jesus. Some of us also have no problem with pornography.

Some day, someone needs to go through every Spencer's in the country with a flamethrower, anyway.

A visit to Spencer's:
What's this? Michael Jackson? How wacky! And, what do I spy now, could it be? But, yes, Old People having sex!? Comedy gold, I say. Oh, and there's a fat guy and he's having sex, too!? And now there's elves having sex? I must make purchase their entire stock of these novelty ornamentations in addition to this most marvelous flatulence generating machine.

Truest thing said in this entire thread.

I mean seriously! as if pornography isnt sin enough. They're gonna sell it for the holiday where we celebrate the birth of Jesus?

The holiday co-opted for that purpose, you mean.

See the voice-bubble in 2). Reference 'Saturnalia' on Wikipedia for further details.

http://www.workingforchange.com/webgraphics/WFC/TMW120606.jpg

I'm saying they're innocuous - whether they're humourous is within the pervue of the consumer to decide. Hiding tiny plastic figurines from the sight of children is, from my viewpoint, a concerted and unhealthy effort to render taboo something innate to our shared existence as human beings.like hiding violence and sexual acts in movies with a rating system? like withholding the experience until a certain age is reached? the point is, yes, I never said that the ornaments were not humourous, but they are not Innocuous because someone did take offense. Due to the nature of the Humor, some action should've been taken by the store, say restricting sale of it to minors, or even keeping them in an area where minors (specifically, pre-teen and younger) can't access them readily.

The entire concept of Christmas is to have a celebration on the same day as the pagans to try and convert them. The whole "birth of christ" stuff is just the fisrt thing they could think of celebrating.

And all these years I thought ignorance of history was a unique characteristic of the American public education system. Thanks for proving me wrong on that point.

like hiding violence and sexual acts in movies with a rating system? like withholding the experience until a certain age is reached? the point is, yes, I never said that the ornaments were not humourous, but they are not Innocuous because someone did take offense. Due to the nature of the Humor, some action should've been taken by the store, say restricting sale of it to minors, or even keeping them in an area where minors (specifically, pre-teen and younger) can't access them readily.

Can you point to where it says that these pornaments are being sold to minors?

thats sick. Selling pornagraphic material as a Christmas deceration is one of the worst things ive ever heard of. Especially since kids can get 'em.

If you let your kid go into Spencer's, any consequence is entirely your fault.

like hiding violence and sexual acts in movies with a rating system? like withholding the experience until a certain age is reached? the point is, yes, I never said that the ornaments were not humourous, but they are not Innocuous because someone did take offense. Due to the nature of the Humor, some action should've been taken by the store, say restricting sale of it to minors, or even keeping them in an area where minors (specifically, pre-teen and younger) can't access them readily.

In order to do what? To satisfy the self-loathing nature of an emotionally-crippled, humourless component of society? Why not make it easier on the rest of the population-at-large and relocate to Amish country?

And all these years I thought ignorance of history was a unique characteristic of the American public education system. Thanks for proving me wrong on that point.

Glad to be of assistance.

like hiding violence and sexual acts in movies with a rating system? like withholding the experience until a certain age is reached? the point is, yes, I never said that the ornaments were not humourous, but they are not Innocuous because someone did take offense.
An Anglican Sunday School group and Jack Thompson. I've made my point.

Junii, you're making a false association here. Porn is intended to arouse. These are not. These are intended to amuse. They are not porn in any way, shape, or form.

Moreover, you need to understand that there is a difference between showing a naked body and corrupting people. Children will not be harmed by the ornaments in anyway, unlike if they were shown real porn. It is a sign of a very supressed mind that you could make the equation between the two.

And all these years I thought ignorance of history was a unique characteristic of the American public education system. Thanks for proving me wrong on that point.

Then no doubt you'll be celebrating the season correctly, with a weeks' worth of feasting and orgies in order to herald the return of the sun. Good on you - traditionalism is where it's at!

Then no doubt you'll be celebrating the season correctly, with a weeks' worth of feasting and orgies in order to herald the return of the sun. Good on you - traditionalism is where it's at!

That's how I like to celebrate....well, anything. Feasting and orgies FTW.

And all these years I thought ignorance of history was a unique characteristic of the American public education system. Thanks for proving me wrong on that point.

Sorry buddy, but it's true. Jesus "was born" (if you beleive he was) in the spring by most calculations. Christmas was celebrated on the 25th of December because it overlapped Saturnalia, and kept plebian worshippers from abandoning Christianity.

really, so I ask you, what makes those ornaments OK to be available to Minors and not a XXX movie or a Blow up doll?

Because they're not XXX movies or blow up dolls.

I mean seriously! as if pornography isnt sin enough. They're gonna sell it for the holiday where we celebrate the birth of Jesus?By replacing him with a caricature of Saint Nicholas (whose name we don't even get right)?

Can you point to where it says that these pornaments are being sold to minors?
"A 5-year-old can buy it for his brother or sister and it's just absolutely ridiculous," Wilder said.

Thompson, a lawyer in Miami, is pushing to have all Pornaments removed from store shelves in the Sunshine State. He said it's against the law to keep pornographic material out in the open in a store where children shop.


In order to do what? To satisfy the self-loathing nature of an emotionally-crippled, humourless component of society? Why not make it easier on the rest of the population-at-large and relocate to Amish country?Just because someone CAN doesn't mean they Shouldn't. by doing those simple steps, then that removes the BIG argument that the church has. that the items are readily accessable to minors. Remove that, and it becomes like any other Extremist rant.

okay, so I went to the Spencer's website, and found the ornaments in question....

I think that they are porny. (if that's a word)

not so much the elf with a sock on his penis, or the lady that's topless, those are tasteless, but the one with the woman giving the snowman.......uh......yeah, that's a little over the line I think, but like it's been said, anyone who is stupid enough to go into the Spencer's pretty much deserves what they get.

As far as the actual law, not really sure as to the language but this might be a problem.

And all these years I thought ignorance of history was a unique characteristic of the American public education system. Thanks for proving me wrong on that point.You're not aware then that December 25th is the Roman Winter Solstice?

Just because someone CAN doesn't mean they Shouldn't. by doing those simple steps, then that removes the BIG argument that the church has. that the items are readily accessable to minors. Remove that, and it becomes like any other Extremist rant.

They can according to Pastor Clint Wilder, who does not represent Spencer's. Try again.

Oh, and other quote proves nothing. Thompson quoting a law does not mean Spencer's sell pornaments to minors.

Junii, you're making a false association here. Porn is intended to arouse. These are not. These are intended to amuse. They are not porn in any way, shape, or form.

Moreover, you need to understand that there is a difference between showing a naked body and corrupting people. Children will not be harmed by the ornaments in anyway, unlike if they were shown real porn. It is a sign of a very supressed mind that you could make the equation between the two.

you know, I've seen several wind up dolls that you wind em up and they actually perform the act. it's funny (I did laugh at em) and they cover a wide range of posistions as well as partners (including Solo) just because they were ment not to arouse, but to amuse doesn't make it less pornographic in nature.

and remember, I never said that showing a naked body corrupts, but then, the sight of Lady Frosty getting it from behind, really isn't just a naked body.

and please answer me this. What is REAL PORN to you?

Just because someone CAN doesn't mean they Shouldn't. by doing those simple steps, then that removes the BIG argument that the church has. that the items are readily accessable to minors. Remove that, and it becomes like any other Extremist rant.

False argument. Can does not equal does. And this is another one of parents not wanting to parent. If you let your kid go into Spencer's, any result is on your head, not Spencer's. Who is saying these things are being sold to minors? Only speculative tightwads.

EDIT: Actually, this isn't even about parents. This is a Sunday School group starting shit in alliance Jack Thompson. Teenagers are complaining. If these good Christian teens didn't want to be exposed to depravity, they would keep their self-righteous asses out of Spencer'.

you know, I've seen several wind up dolls that you wind em up and they actually perform the act. it's funny (I did laugh at em) and they cover a wide range of posistions as well as partners (including Solo) just because they were ment not to arouse, but to amuse doesn't make it less pornographic in nature.

Considering that pornography is material designed to arouse, it kinda does.

They can according to Pastor Clint Wilder, who does not represent Spencer's. Try again.
really, so this argument by Wilder...
"A 5-year-old can buy it for his brother or sister and it's just absolutely ridiculous," Wilder said.

wouldn't have been said if they were making some effort to keep them out of pre-teen hands?

he wouldn't be able to say that (or spencers could then honestly refute that) and it turns back to a typical extremist rant.

Who is saying these things are being sold to minors? Only speculative tightwads.
If it weren't for preteen boys who are amused by this kind of stuff, Spencer's would have long gone out of business.

You fail.

really, so this argument by Wilder...


wouldn't have been said if they were making some effort to keep them out of pre-teen hands?

he wouldn't be able to say that (or spencers could then honestly refute that) and it turns back to a typical extremist rant.

Wilder is complaining that minors can buy these pornaments so, despite the fact he doesn't represent Spencer's, that means minors can buy them. Because the good Pastor Wilder is never wrong. :rolleyes:

Just because someone CAN doesn't mean they Shouldn't. by doing those simple steps, then that removes the BIG argument that the church has. that the items are readily accessable to minors. Remove that, and it becomes like any other Extremist rant.

What sort of parent is going to let their 5 year old kid shop in a Spencers?

Unless, of course, you actually want the state to do the parenting for the good people of Florida.

really, so this argument by Wilder...
wouldn't have been said if they were making some effort to keep them out of pre-teen hands?
Wow, you have said some bullshit things, but this is the cherry on the top. Because the items could possibly be sold to kids, possibly mind you, that means they are selling them to kids because.. *drumroll* a pastor objecting to their existence said that they could be sold to kids. Yeah, it's not like he could possibly be using hyperbole and implication to make a point. I guess he took his 5 year old to Spencer's, forcibly, and made him buy one of these things.

he wouldn't be able to say that (or spencers could then honestly refute that) and it turns back to a typical extremist rant.
Wow, just wow. I don't even have a comeback for the level of bullshit.

If it weren't for preteen boys who are amused by this kind of stuff, Spencer's would have long gone out of business.
More speculative bullshit! Hurrah! I can factually assure you that it isn't just preteen boys amused by toilet and sex inspired humor.

I thought I would just point out a few things.

As mentioned before, most of the products Spencer's sells are like that. Just a 5 second look at their front page revealed a pole dancing kit. Plenty of their clothing feature stick figures in sexual positions and profane language. Then this just begs the question of why are they only protesting the pornaments?

Most likely because it involves Christmas. It is worth noting here that, as someone earlier stated, Santa Claus, elves, trees, and even the date Christmas is held on, are not truly Christian in origin. Most of Christmas comes from either pagan Germanic tribes of the era of the Roman Empire or pre-Christian Rome. I can't cite the verses as evidence, but Biblical scholars tend to believe the birth of Christ was during the Spring or Summer rather than the Winter. December 25th was originally a pagan holiday that Romans celebrated and the date was simply conveinent for the Romans.

But back to the pornaments. I'll be assuming we can agree that the main reason for the protest is that they take on Christmas. The fact that the group identifies themselves as Christian lends itself to this conclusion. That or they just like advertising their faith.

Though it certainly is harder to defend the elf and Mrs. North Pole ornaments I would argue that the ornaments are largely satirical (as in I won't bother trying to justify the elf or Mrs. North Pole). Freedom of speech laws tend to protect satirical material and that the snowman ornaments, and certainly the reindeer ornament, fall into that category. I believe the protests themselves justify classifying them as such. They mock American, specifically Christian, sentiment when it comes to Christmas. Instead of a time of innocence and purity they turn it into something raunchy as a means of satire.

Besides, if someone is going to consider a snowman with equipment pornography and try to masturbate to it, there is probably a bigger issue involved.

I guess I just want to briefly say something specifically about the reindeer ornament. Discovery Channel, Animal Planet, and National Geographic.

Keep in mind I'm not trying to say that any of the pornaments aren't offensive, crass, or morally correct, just that in the eyes of the law it would be very easy to refer to some of them as satire. I doubt the elf or Mrs. North Pole could hold up though.

What sort of parent is going to let their 5 year old kid shop in a Spencers?

Unless, of course, you actually want the state to do the parenting for the good people of Florida.

you know I am pretty tempted to send my 5 year old into Spencer's when we are at the mall this afternoon to see if she can buy one.......although it would be pretty pointless since we don't live in Florida.

really, so this argument by Wilder...


wouldn't have been said if they were making some effort to keep them out of pre-teen hands?

Or maybe he said it, without having any actual knowledge whether they do or not, in order to make it seem more outrageous for the people he knew would read the article. They have a term for that.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soundbite

Oh hang on a moment - is this the same Jack Thompson who was making wild claims that the Sims was some sort of pedophiliac dayplanner or something?

The man's a nutter. An utter nutter. How much did it cost him to bribe the news people to cover his "story", I wonder.

False argument. Can does not equal does. And this is another one of parents not wanting to parent. If you let your kid go into Spencer's, any result is on your head, not Spencer's. Who is saying these things are being sold to minors? Only speculative tightwads.

while I would admit that it is speculation that they are allowing children to buy it, it's also speculation that they are not.

What sort of parent is going to let their 5 year old kid shop in a Spencers?

Unless, of course, you actually want the state to do the parenting for the good people of Florida.
Of course, who else would teach kids what is wrong? The parents obviously arn't up to it.

and you can keep NOT answering the question. I don't mind either.

Some questions are so stupid that they don't deserve an answer. This is one of those questions.

while I would admit that it is speculation that they are allowing children to buy it, it's also speculation that they are not.

One is a positive assertion that has to be proven by the asserter for it to not be bullshit. Guess which position that is.

you know I am pretty tempted to send my 5 year old into Spencer's when we are at the mall this afternoon to see if she can buy one.......although it would be pretty pointless since we don't live in Florida.

Still, it'd be interesting. Although Oklahoman society strikes me as rather more socially conservative, so she might not get one there, when she might get one in Florida.

Still, it'd be interesting. Although Oklahoman society strikes me as rather more socially conservative, so she might not get one there, when she might get one in Florida.

I don't know.......it might be interesting to see if she could buy one.

you know I am pretty tempted to send my 5 year old into Spencer's when we are at the mall this afternoon to see if she can buy one.......although it would be pretty pointless since we don't live in Florida.

Well chances are all the Spencer's stores have the same rules, franchises are like that. So perhaps not totally pointless.

Well chances are all the Spencer's stores have the same rules, franchises are like that. So perhaps not totally pointless.

if the store isn't uber-crowded when we are at the mall today I will let her go in and try.

you know, I've seen several wind up dolls that you wind em up and they actually perform the act. it's funny (I did laugh at em) and they cover a wide range of posistions as well as partners (including Solo) just because they were ment not to arouse, but to amuse doesn't make it less pornographic in nature.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xXSSM7uYFn0

Does that make Tickle Me Elmo and Bouncing Tigger porn? Seems to me that by your definition, it is.

if the store isn't uber-crowded when we are at the mall today I will let her go in and try.

*gasps*

I'll half-expect JuNii to notify Child Protective Services...

Oh hang on a moment - is this the same Jack Thompson who was making wild claims that the Sims was some sort of pedophiliac dayplanner or something?

The man's a nutter. An utter nutter. How much did it cost him to bribe the news people to cover his "story", I wonder.

http://www.ctrlaltdel-online.com/comics/20050808.jpg

*gasps*

I'll half-expect JuNii to notify Child Protective Services...

meh, she walked in while I was looking at them on the website, she assumed non-sexual things about them.

I don't think it's a problem.

*gasps*

I'll half-expect JuNii to notify Child Protective Services...

And the Christchurch Anglicans.

to amuse doesn't make it less pornographic in nature.

I wonder whether you also feel that to amuse doesn't make it less pornographic than nature, as well. Does the casual sighting of coupling wildlife cause undue discomfort amongst you and your circle of acquaintances?

We're afraid of seeing pee-pees and boobies.
Why? Why I say? WHY?!

We're afraid of seeing pee-pees and boobies.
Why? Why I say? WHY?!

did you see the rest of the ornaments?

the ones with couples?

Or maybe he said it, without having any actual knowledge whether they do or not, in order to make it seem more outrageous for the people he knew would read the article. They have a term for that.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soundbitethen Spencers would (or should) refute that. maybe they will. I never said "No Comment" meant they are. I did ask if they were carding customers? (carding them doesn't mean just to enter the store, it can be to restrict certain types of purchases.[and I mean it in this way.]) and no one said yea or nay.

Wow, you have said some bullshit things, but this is the cherry on the top. Because the items could possibly be sold to kids, possibly mind you, that means they are selling them to kids because.. *drumroll* a pastor objecting to their existence said that they could be sold to kids. Yeah, it's not like he could possibly be using hyperbole and implication to make a point. I guess he took his 5 year old to Spencer's, forcibly, and made him buy one of these things.funny that Spencer's hasn't refuted that claim... yet.

If it weren't for preteen boys who are amused by this kind of stuff, Spencer's would have long gone out of business. More speculative bullshit! Hurrah! I can factually assure you that it isn't just preteen boys amused by toilet and sex inspired humor.?? who's quote is that? I didn't type that?

Wilder is complaining that minors can buy these pornaments so, despite the fact he doesn't represent Spencer's, that means minors can buy them. Because the good Pastor Wilder is never wrong. :rolleyes:and because he's a Pastor, so that makes him always wrong. :rolleyes:

Considering that pornography is material designed to arouse, it kinda does.and you are an expert as to what arouses people? some people get aroused on some pretty unusual things. ;)

On and those Wind Up toys were not meant for Arousal, they were in the same vein as these ornaments.

We're afraid of seeing pee-pees and boobies.
Why? Why I say? WHY?!

Because if you ever see genitals except your own you'll go straight to hell. And the "except your own" bit is iffy at best.

http://www.local6.com/news/10439600/detail.html

just thought this might help Junii some.

Store workers said that there were no restrictions on who can purchase the pornaments in the store.

and because he's a Pastor, so that makes him always wrong. :rolleyes:

That's good enough for me. :D

[QUOTE=JuNii;12060753]you know, I've seen several wind up dolls that you wind em up and they actually perform the act. it's funny (I did laugh at em) and they cover a wide range of posistions as well as partners (including Solo) just because they were ment not to arouse, but to amuse doesn't make it less pornographic in nature.[QUOTE]

Is David's Mars Disarmed pornographical? What of Ruben's The Three Graces?

Both paintings depict nude women, one of them even shows Venus seducing Mars, but they aren't porn. Clearly there is some line between showing sex and actually being pornagraphical, and comic intention is one of them.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xXSSM7uYFn0

Does that make Tickle Me Elmo and Bouncing Tigger porn? Seems to me that by your definition, it is.
gee... Wind up dolls going though the motion of sex brings up images of Bouncing Tigger and Tickle Me Elmo.... :eek: *Slowy backs away from Nazz*

Would it be any different if the ornaments, rather than tackily expressing healthy human sexuality instead depicted human sexuality in earnest, humourless terms - i.e., a repressed sexuality, straightlaced, buttoned-down and strictly for the purposes of Godly procreation only?

A tiny plastic representation of a woman in the act of childbirth comes to mind... or is there something unsavoury about that, too?

then Spencers would (or should) refute that. maybe they will. I never said "No Comment" meant they are. I did ask if they were carding customers? (carding them doesn't mean just to enter the store, it can be to restrict certain types of purchases.[and I mean it in this way.]) and no one said yea or nay.

funny that Spencer's hasn't refuted that claim... yet.
Could be that Spencer's is revelling in all the free advertising they're getting. I know I would if I ewre in their position.

?? who's quote is that? I didn't type that?
Fiddlebottoms said it.

and because he's a Pastor, so that makes him always wrong. :rolleyes:
Cos that totally follows from what I was saying. Oh my yes. I'm not being sarcastic at all[/obvioussarcasm]

and you are an expert as to what arouses people? some people get aroused on some pretty unusual things. ;)
Which is totally irrelevant because I said "designed to arouse". Whether it does or not isn't the point.

you know, I've seen several wind up dolls that you wind em up and they actually perform the act. it's funny (I did laugh at em) and they cover a wide range of posistions as well as partners (including Solo) just because they were ment not to arouse, but to amuse doesn't make it less pornographic in nature.

Is David's Mars Disarmed pornographical? What of Ruben's The Three Graces?

Both paintings depict nude women, one of them even shows Venus seducing Mars, but they aren't porn. Clearly there is some line between showing sex and actually being pornagraphical, and comic intention is one of them.so you are classifying artwork with nudes in them Pornographic? I didn't.

Because I know I regularly see 5 year olds browsing Spencer's. It's fucking Spencer's - it's Hot Topic for perverts and weirdos.

Oh yeah, Spencer's is big amongst little children. :rolleyes:
I've been in there before. The entire marching band has been in there. It's anatomically correct Christmas ornaments. Seeing anatomically correct ornaments will not kill a 5 year old.

My parents tend to walk around the house naked. I've grown up seeing naked people. I take a shower in the nude. I'm fourteen, I've seen naked people, I'm still alive. :mad:

If anything, those teens probably haven't even hit puberty yet. :rolleyes:

so you are classifying artwork with nudes in them Pornographic? I didn't.

No, I'm not. I'm asking why they shouldn't be. Clearly your argument that merely showing pictures which included sex made something pornagraphic is flawed.

so you are classifying artwork with nudes in them Pornographic? I didn't.

What's the difference between works of art depicting sex and bits of plactic depicting sex?

Because if you ever see genitals except your own you'll go straight to hell. And the "except your own" bit is iffy at best.

That's why I wear a blindfold when I shower.

Could be that Spencer's is revelling in all the free advertising they're getting. I know I would if I ewre in their position. and that's their choice.

Fiddlebottoms said it. thanks... TPH, chould you correct that please?

Which is totally irrelevant because I said "designed to arouse". Whether it does or not isn't the point.
and neither were those wind up dolls. the ones you said were pornographic.

then Spencers would (or should) refute that. maybe they will. I never said "No Comment" meant they are. I did ask if they were carding customers? (carding them doesn't mean just to enter the store, it can be to restrict certain types of purchases.[and I mean it in this way.]) and no one said yea or nay.

funny that Spencer's hasn't refuted that claim... yet.
They shouldn't have to refute bullshit claims.

and because he's a Pastor, so that makes him always wrong. :rolleyes:
Captain Logical-Fallacy to the attack again! You are still asserting because a pastor said something could happens means it has happened and he witnessed it.

That's why I wear a blindfold when I shower.

I wear my pants. *nods*

gee... Wind up dolls going though the motion of sex brings up images of Bouncing Tigger and Tickle Me Elmo.... :eek: *Slowy backs away from Nazz*
Did you watch the video? It's a perfect example of your stupid definition.

Alright, quick question: Is the reindeer fucking the snowman up the ass?

and that's their choice.

thanks... Dobbs, chould you correct that please?


and neither were those wind up dolls. the ones you said were pornographic.

I don't ever saying anything about those wind up dolls. Strange. *goes back to check*

Alright, quick question: Is the reindeer fucking the snowman up the ass?

Nothing says Christmas like Rudolph buggering Frosty.

Alright, quick question: Is the reindeer fucking the snowman up the ass?

there are two snow people doing that........

she looks happy though.

there are two reindeer uh......engaged in activity.

and of course the woman I mentioned who is going down on a snowman.

Alright, quick question: Is the reindeer fucking the snowman up the ass?

Looks like it. Though it could be a snow-woman.

Spencer's has got to be loving this. You know they're going to sell out of them now, thanks to the publicity.

Yep, that's what I was thinking.

If they're smart, they'll send people to join the protests - maybe someone who can pose as an angry Christian teen and make some outrageously silly comment in the media.

If you dont bloody like what they sell, then dont shop there and dont let your kids shop there. Problem solved.

Alright. I figured it out: The snowman ornament is positioned next to the reindeer to make it look like there's some anthropomorphic bestial buggery going on, but in reality it's two different ornaments.

It's like analyzing the Zapruder film...

http://www.local6.com/news/10439600/detail.html

just thought this might help Junii some.Thanks.

so they don't care who buys them, as long as they are sold.

Oh yeah, Spencer's is big amongst little children. :rolleyes:actually with all the neon lights and other flashing things on display... yes, you would be surprised as to how many kids would walk in.

No, I'm not. I'm asking why they shouldn't be. Clearly your argument that merely showing pictures which included sex made something pornagraphic is flawed.did you see those artworks? Rather different than the pornaments. also, if a 5-year old can afford those paintings, then more power to him.

What's the difference between works of art depicting sex and bits of plactic depicting sex?in some people's minds. None.

however even works of art has a line that's not crossed.

thanks... Dobbs, chould you correct that please?

Hunh? Correct what?

I wanna know if I'm gonna get a response to my last post (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=12060852&postcount=155) or not.

however even works of art has a line that's not crossed.

And who gets to define that line? You?

Alright. I figured it out: The snowman ornament is positioned next to the reindeer to make it look like there's some anthropomorphic bestial buggery going on, but in reality it's two different ornaments.

It's like analyzing the Zapruder film...

Go to Spencer's on line site... they show the actual ornaments.

And who gets to define that line? You?

Apparently. Or at least Junii will scold us if we dare offend or disagree.

Captain Logical-Fallacy to the attack again! You are still asserting because a pastor said something could happens means it has happened and he witnessed it.

Gee... read the reply I was answering. then include that post in your Logcial Fallacy attack also.

If you dont bloody like what they sell, then dont shop there and dont let your kids shop there. Problem solved.

Hey, quit being sensible on the Interwebz!

did you see those artworks? Rather different than the pornaments. also, if a 5-year old can afford those paintings, then more power to him.

How? Why?

actually with all the neon lights and other flashing things on display... yes, you would be surprised as to how many kids would walk in.
Again, never been to or even seen a Spencer's.

did you see those artworks? Rather different than the pornaments. also, if a 5-year old can afford those paintings, then more power to him.
So the works of art aren't porn because they're expensive? Because why else would you bring up the cost.

in some people's minds. None.
And in your mind?(which was the question in the first place)

however even works of art has a line that's not crossed.

What is this magical line between art and porn? Is it cost as you alluded above?

Gee... read the reply I was answering. then include that post in your Logcial Fallacy attack also.

You are still asserting that because a pastor said something could happen means that it did and he witnessed it, because the priest said it.

actually with all the neon lights and other flashing things on display... yes, you would be surprised as to how many kids would walk in.
So you state that you have stood around at a Spencer's and seen kids, younger than 10, regularly walk in

Go to Spencer's on line site... they show the actual ornaments.

That's what I was going to do next, but it was the image in the article that intrigued me.

Go to Spencer's on line site... they show the actual ornaments.

None of which show a reindeer and a snowman in the same ornament. There's a Mr. North Pole, a Snowman Sex, a Snowjob, a reindeer sex and a Mrs. North Pole.

You are still asserting that because a pastor said something could happen means that it did and he witnessed it, because the priest said it.
or, there is the source I provided that says that the store has no policy about who is sells them to.


So you state that you have stood around at a Spencer's and seen kids, younger than 10, regularly walk in
Last time I was in the Spencer's the crowd seemed to be about 9-12 year old boys, the only "adults" that I saw worked there, and myself.

of course around here the idiot parents drop kids from aged 8 on up off at the mall to "hang out" while they go down the street and drink.

None of which show a reindeer and a snowman in the same ornament. There's a Mr. North Pole, a Snowman Sex, a Snowjob, a reindeer sex and a Mrs. North Pole.

It's like they put the images together to suggest such a combination.

or, there is the source I provided that says that the store has no policy about who is sells them to.

They seem to be arguing about something before you posted that. Junii quoted a Pastor Wilder as saying 5 year olds were buying it, I sarcastically replied that he was clearly right because he's never wrong, Junii seems to think I thought he was wrong because he's a pastor, though I actually thought he was probably just using hyperbole to get his point across.

Sorry Dobs, missed the post.
Would it be any different if the ornaments, rather than tackily expressing healthy human sexuality instead depicted human sexuality in earnest, humourless terms - i.e., a repressed sexuality, straightlaced, buttoned-down and strictly for the purposes of Godly procreation only?

A tiny plastic representation of a woman in the act of childbirth comes to mind... or is there something unsavoury about that, too?the subject of the ornaments was never the issue with me. the fact that ornaments of that nature are available to minors is.


Considering that pornography is material designed to arouse, it kinda does.

Hunh? Correct what?

I wanna know if I'm gonna get a response to my last post (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=12060852&postcount=155) or not.sorry, the correction comment was for The Pantsless Hero. I corrected the post.


And who gets to define that line? You?Nope, not me. (and I'll admit you can be thankful for that. ;) )

How? Why?do those paintings show penetration?

So the works of art aren't porn because they're expensive? Because why else would you bring up the cost. no Ifreann, the works of art are not porn because of what the artwork depicts. so YES, some artwork is considered porn to me when it shows penetration (or the act of sex.)

My comment about the price is the one of the differences between artwork and those ornaments.


And in your mind?(which was the question in the first place)it depends. it has to show penetration or the act of sex.

You are still asserting that because a pastor said something could happen means that it did and he witnessed it, because the priest said it.and I would assert the same thing if it was a congressman, a Police man, or you.


So you state that you have stood around at a Spencer's and seen kids, younger than 10, regularly walk inyes I've have. most of them are accompanied by their parents.

None of which show a reindeer and a snowman in the same ornament. There's a Mr. North Pole, a Snowman Sex, a Snowjob, a reindeer sex and a Mrs. North Pole.

*Sigh* I never said they did show a reindeer and a snowman on the same ornament. I said to go to the site to see the actual ornaments.

Nope, not me.

Then who are you to be saying that this is crossing the line? I don't think this crosses the line at all.

They seem to be arguing about something before you posted that. Junii quoted a Pastor Wilder as saying 5 year olds were buying it, I sarcastically replied that he was clearly right because he's never wrong, Junii seems to think I thought he was wrong because he's a pastor, though I actually thought he was probably just using hyperbole to get his point across.

Actually I was being sarcastic because I thought you were about the pastor, but I really did asked if Spencers were checking the age of their customers. ;)

Then who are you to be saying that this is crossing the line? I don't think this crosses the line at all.

by "This" I assume you mean the Ornaments.

Simple, the act being depicted. Three Graces and The Seduction of Mars does not depict a sexual act. some of the Ornaments DO.

*edit: got a response, but didn't catch it due to the high volume of postage on this thread. Way to go, DCD - you make the threads that really flare sometimes... Anyway, I'll leave this post up to provoke some actual discourse on this angle:

Alright then, in light of non-responsiveness I'll just have to assume I'm correct, and that Christians would not object to children being exposed on a casual basis to tiny plastic representations of women in the act of giving birth as Christmas tree decorations, as the sexuality being displayed is purely of a godly, procreative nature - provided of course the depictions are as humourlessly earnest as Jack Thompson, that is.

yes I've have. most of them are accompanied by their parents.

And shouldn't these be the people policing the morality of their children, rather than the state?

do those paintings show penetration?


Not specifically, although there are pieces of art which do.

by "This" I assume you mean the Ornaments.

Simple, the act being depicted. Three Graces and The Seduction of Mars does not depict a sexual act. some of the Ornaments DO.


Um...

We need to talk about the definition of seduction...

or, there is the source I provided that says that the store has no policy about who is sells them to.



Last time I was in the Spencer's the crowd seemed to be about 9-12 year old boys, the only "adults" that I saw worked there, and myself.

of course around here the idiot parents drop kids from aged 8 on up off at the mall to "hang out" while they go down the street and drink.

That's insane. I don't know about the mall you go to but the one over here has a sign warning parents that there is adult humor in the store. I've only seen a few little kids in there but they were always accompanied by parents. I don't go into Spencer's often either, I only did on a few band trips. Does your mall have Aeropostale or Limited Too or something? If there's (pre)teens alone at the mall, they normally hang around there or Claire's or Icing.

But it's not like Spencer's doesn't warn people that there are some "adult" items in the store. It's Spencer's for crying out loud! It's no use protesting it.

by "This" I assume you mean the Ornaments.

Simple, the act being depicted. Three Graces and The Seduction of Mars does not depict a sexual act. some of the Ornaments DO.

You've yet to answer me why you feel you are qualified to make that determination. You say you're not the one to define the "line" that's being "crossed", but here you are defining it as "the act being depicted." What right do you have to declare what is to be considered decent for the rest of us? Where do you get off being that arrogant?

Sorry Dobs, missed the post.
the subject of the ornaments was never the issue with me. the fact that ornaments of that nature are available to minors is.
Fair enough.




Read that post. I don't say that the wind up toys are porn. I say that porn is designed to arouse. Now take into account the fact that you said the toys are for amusement and think really really hard about the whole thing again.

do those paintings show penetration?
Do the pornaments?

no Ifreann, the works of art are not porn because of what the artwork depicts. so YES, some artwork is considered porn to me when it shows penetration (or the act of sex.)
Out of curiousity, would you consider a documentary on some species of animal that showed said animal mating to be pornography?
My comment about the price is the one of the differences between artwork and those ornaments.
As relevant a difference as the types of paint used in each.



and I would assert the same thing if it was a congressman, a Police man, or you.
And we would still tell you that just because a congressman, police officer or generalite says something does not make it true. Though in this case it was true.


yes I've have. most of them are accompanied by their parents.

I didn't post that. And why were you standing in a Spencer's watching who comes and goes? Further, do you expect Spencer's to turn away children accompanied by their parents?

And shouldn't these be the people policing the morality of their children, rather than the state?

Did I say the STATE should? no I didn't.

*Sigh* I never said they did show a reindeer and a snowman on the same ornament. I said to go to the site to see the actual ornaments.

Nor did I say you did. I was just letting those too lazy to check themselves or those who might think the pornaments are nsfw.

Did I say the STATE should? no I didn't.

You want the state to punish Spencer's for allowing children in, it amounts to the same thing.

and I would assert the same thing if it was a congressman, a Police man, or you.


Then you are wrong. On all accounts. I don't care if God said "they can sell this shit to minors," that doesn't mean they have or did and if they have or did, he better God up a video.

lol... its a gadget store. why protest against crappy figures like those.
a gadgetstore without crap is tea without sugar. everyone should know what these kind of stores sells, then they can stay away from the stores if they dont want to take the risk of seing those things.

im a christian, and this doesnt bother me. though there is a thing that bothers me, and thats when selfrightous christians go and protest against this.

but of course, its in USA and i expect all kind of strangeness from over there.

Whoops, Missed this one too.

Yeah. 'Cause that's what I said. :rolleyes:

The ornaments are no worse than your kid seeing two dogs going at it. What do you tell kids when that happens? They're dogs, for cryin' out loud, just like the "pornaments" are plastic figurines and not people.except there is a difference between coming across the act of Two dogs doing it and creating the scene with two dogs going at it.

Okay, now you're just being obtuse -- liquor ads on TELEVISION had been banned for something like 25 years or so before being allowed back on in the last 5-8 years. funny, I remember Liquor adds being on the air for over 10 years ago. infact, the only ads I remember being banned were Smoking ads. Maybe they were banned where you're from...


It doesn't matter if the ads TARGET children. The "pornaments" aren't being marketed to children, either. Beer ads get seen by kids, period, and they often feature slapstick elements that would appeal to any kid. The "pornaments" aren't being marketed to children. Responsible parents wouldn't allow their kids into Spencer's if they didn't want them to be exposed (pardon the pun) to crass and naughty depictions of..well, damn near everything. I think the store is tasteless and haven't been in there since I was a kid and thought the fart book was funny. Any misconceptions about sex I MIGHT have seen in the store were quickly cleared up by my parents when I mentioned what I saw. Parenting is the answer here, not protests.by targetting children, they are expecting it to be sold TO children.

and No, the Pornaments are not being Marketed to Children, but the store appears not to be keeping it out of their hands either.



I'm not saying that, our government does -- regularly. And you keep saying "break the law" when it hasn't even been established that the product in question is illegal. You're knee-jerking off, and it's really rude to do that in public.which is why I said, they should go ahead with the lawsuit.

I don't care if God said "they can sell this shit to minors," that doesn't mean they have or did and if they have or did, he better God up a video.

Yeah, but God would probably cheat, what with the 1337 h4x and all.

http://goatee.net/2002/images/goatee-rooster.pnghttp://www.clock.org/~ambar/cats/jpgs/cory-kitten.gifhttp://it.geocities.com/tonibin/owl/owl.png

Whoops, Missed this one too.

except there is a difference between coming across the act of Two dogs doing it and creating the scene with two dogs going at it.
Any difference worth noting?

except there is a difference between coming across the act of Two dogs doing it and creating the scene with two dogs going at it

There is a difference, if only in your opinion. I don't share your opinion.

http://goatee.net/2002/images/goatee-rooster.pnghttp://www.clock.org/~ambar/cats/jpgs/cory-kitten.gifhttp://it.geocities.com/tonibin/owl/owl.png

I lol'd.

A bunch of Christian teens in Florida have decided to protest against anatomically correct Christmas ornaments being sold in Spencer gift shops. Now the law in Florida states that porn cannot be displayed openly where children shop, but is a snowman with a penis or breasts really porn?

Anyhoo, the link contains a video clip of the teens singing about "Pornaments".

http://www.wftv.com/irresistible/10496001/detail.html

Its Spencers, they should keep their ass out if they dont want to be offended.

Little Assholes.

Yes, I am Christian.

I do forgive them...but mostly because I dont live in Florida.

You're not aware then that December 25th is the Roman Winter Solstice?

I am well aware of that fact. I was referring to the original poster's characterization of the reason for using that date.

Sometimes I wonder if I'm too subtle :D

Don't forget to throw in some gratuitous boobies, kids.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/c/c2/Brown_booby.jpg

http://www.geo.cornell.edu/geology/GalapagosWWW/RedFootandchick.jpg

And look - one of 'em is a pre-pubescent booby! Call Jack Thompson, quick! Google Image is obviously a pedophiliac's play-pen of avian kiddy-porn!

Don't forget to throw in some gratuitous boobies, kids.


Oh wow Mister Dobbs! Those are really big boobies! :p

Read that post. I don't say that the wind up toys are porn. I say that porn is designed to arouse. Now take into account the fact that you said the toys are for amusement and think really really hard about the whole thing again.


Do the pornaments?they show the act of sex.

Out of curiousity, would you consider a documentary on some species of animal that showed said animal mating to be pornography?I would call it Inappropriate unless the filmmakers arrainged for that act to take place by using Pheremones.

As relevant a difference as the types of paint used in each. Except it's easier for a child of 5 to get a pornament than a work of art depicting sex.


And we would still tell you that just because a congressman, police officer or generalite says something does not make it true. Though in this case it was true. I usually give them a benefit of the doubt until it can be proven either way. if the Spencer store in question, did release a statement saying that it's their policy to keep such things away from minors, then I would give Spencer the benefit of the doubt also.


I didn't post that. And why were you standing in a Spencer's watching who comes and goes? Further, do you expect Spencer's to turn away children accompanied by their parents?because sometimes I wait for my family while they're in the mall, and at times I'm waiting infront or near the spencer store.

They should at least try to prevent Adult themed products from being sold to minors.

Oh and sorry, my Cut and Paste didn't take THP's name. Corrected.

You've yet to answer me why you feel you are qualified to make that determination. You say you're not the one to define the "line" that's being "crossed", but here you are defining it as "the act being depicted." What right do you have to declare what is to be considered decent for the rest of us? Where do you get off being that arrogant?I did answer your question.
why are you assuming that I am the one making the rules. did I say that the line I say shouldn't be crossed be adopted by everyone? No.
did I say that those ornaments themselves are wrong? no.
but those ornaments should not be accessable to children.
Methinks you're imagining arguments were there is none.

Um...

We need to talk about the definition of seduction...and I'm talking about the Painting itself...

Not specifically, although there are pieces of art which do.and those I would consider porn.

Nor did I say you did. I was just letting those too lazy to check themselves or those who might think the pornaments are nsfw.
Sorry. so busy replying to replies... :p

and I'm talking about the Painting itself...

and those I would consider porn.

So... What you're saying is that a woman posing nude for a camera (since clearly there is no sexual act involved) isn't porn, but a painting of a man and a woman getting it on is?

:confused:

I did answer your question.
why are you assuming that I am the one making the rules. did I say that the line I say shouldn't be crossed be adopted by everyone? No.
did I say that those ornaments themselves are wrong? no.
but those ornaments should not be accessable to children.
Methinks you're imagining arguments were there is none.

Do you even know how to debate?

Why should those ornaments not be available to children?

Do you even know how to debate?

Why should those ornaments not be available to children?

Because breasts are evil.

Any difference worth noting? one is natural, the other scripted for the sole purpose to show the act.

Then you are wrong. On all accounts. I don't care if God said "they can sell this shit to minors," that doesn't mean they have or did and if they have or did, he better God up a video.I think Smunkee posted that they commented that they don't monitor who buys those ornaments. so it looks like the pastor is right in that sense.

You want the state to punish Spencer's for allowing children in, it amounts to the same thing.read it again Ifreann no where do I say the employees responsible should be arrested.

So... What you're saying is that a woman posing nude for a camera (since clearly there is no sexual act involved) isn't porn, but a painting of a man and a woman getting it on is?

:confused:

Bascially yes.

Bascially yes.

So children should be allowed to see pictures of a stripper doing her job?

Do you even know how to debate?

Why should those ornaments not be available to children?

tell you what. go buy them and donate them to Toys for Tots or drop them off at any orphanage.

So children should be allowed to see pictures of a stripper doing her job?

you do know the difference between a photograph and a striptease, right?

you do know the difference between a photograph and a striptease, right?

One is a piece of paper with chemicals on it, while the other is a lady removing her clothing to music?

I think Smunkee posted that they commented that they don't monitor who buys those ornaments. so it looks like the pastor is right in that sense.
That is irrelevant because you didn't know about that. You still asserted that he was right just because he was a pastor, and you are still doing it while defending it with knowledge you learned after the fact.

read it again Ifreann no where do I say the employees responsible should be arrested.

Ok, then you want the state to indirectly punish Spencer's.

One is a piece of paper with chemicals on it, while the other is a lady removing her clothing to music?

a striptease is a Seductive dance. a flowing movement that emphasises sex.

an artfully done photograph/sculpture/painting doesn't do that.

Now the thing is that a Striptease (legally) isn't prostitution until it involves physical contact between the dancer and the viewer.

the Fact that children are not allowed to watch a striptease is the same reason why they are not allowed into a film rated R and higher (in respect to the age it allows.)

Like have a food drive for the less fortunate or donate some money to help the millions that don't have clean water and food to eat for the holidays?

That is irrelevant because you didn't know about that. You still asserted that he was right just because he was a pastor, and you are still doing it while defending it with knowledge you learned after the fact.

:rolleyes:
Please say where I said he was right BECAUSE he was a pastor, and I can also show you where someone posted that he was wrong BECAUSE he was a pastror.
:rolleyes:

Ok, then you want the state to indirectly punish Spencer's.

Keep grasping Ifreann... you'll get to the point... eventually. :rolleyes:

a striptease is a Seductive dance. a flowing movement that emphasises sex.

an artfully done photograph/sculpture/painting doesn't do that.

Now the thing is that a Striptease (legally) isn't porn until it involves physical contact between the dancer and the viewer.

the Fact that children are not allowed to watch a striptease is the same reason why they are not allowed into a film rated R and higher (in respect to the age it allows.)

I thought it was prostitution if the stripper/customer touched the customer/stripper(I don't know how it works, I've never been to strip club :()

I thought it was prostitution if the stripper/customer touched the customer/stripper(I don't know how it works, I've never been to strip club :()

yes, you are correct, I mis typed.

:rolleyes:
Please say where I said he was right BECAUSE he was a pastor, and I can also show you where someone posted that he was wrong BECAUSE he was a pastror.
:rolleyes:
Can you? Please do.
Keep grasping Ifreann... you'll get to the point... eventually. :rolleyes:

Sorry if you don't see how having their employees arrested would hurt any business. But keep putting in :rolleyes: s. They're fun :)

:rolleyes:
Please say where I said he was right BECAUSE he was a pastor, and I can also show you where someone posted that he was wrong BECAUSE he was a pastror.
:rolleyes:
You never said it, but you repeatedly defended that position and made statements to lead me to believe that was your position.

And I dare you to show where some one posted he was wrong because he was a pastor.

I find this whole topic disturbing. Why? Because it is just another example of how repressed people are in North America when it comes to sex and sexuality. A legitimate aim, the protection of children, or the prevention of exploitation of minors, gets turned into, over and over again the mantra of 'sex is bad'. Fucking weirdos. I'm buying my daughters dildos when they turn 13.

I find this whole topic disturbing. Why? Because it is just another example of how repressed people are in North America when it comes to sex and sexuality. A legitimate aim, the protection of children, or the prevention of exploitation of minors, gets turned into, over and over again the mantra of 'sex is bad'. Fucking weirdos. I'm buying my daughters dildos when they turn 13.

As =POPE= I infallibly declare you to be the Most Awesome-est Mother Evar*.



*except mine for health and safety reasons

a striptease is a Seductive dance. a flowing movement that emphasises sex.

an artfully done photograph/sculpture/painting doesn't do that.

That would depend entirely on the subject of the artfully done photograph/sculpture/painting in question. I can think of several examples that don't fit your supposition.

Now the thing is that a Striptease (legally) isn't prostitution until it involves physical contact between the dancer and the viewer.

Who said anything about prostitution? Not me.

the Fact that children are not allowed to watch a striptease is the same reason why they are not allowed into a film rated R and higher (in respect to the age it allows.)

I'd think it would have just as much to do with regional liquor licensing practices as with whatever flavour of moral indignation you'd care to ascribe to.

This all just serves to underscore the unwholesome aspects of purposefully and needlessly mystifying and fetishizing the human body - I am far from persuaded that Christian oppression is somehow anything other than oppression. How are we further liberated by making healthy human sexuality into a social taboo?

you do know the difference between a photograph and a striptease, right?

No. Not much of a difference at all. It's all just nudity.

You never said it, but you repeatedly defended that position and made statements to lead me to believe that was your position.

And I dare you to show where some one posted he was wrong because he was a pastor.

nope, that wasn't my posistion.

Can you? Please do. you sure? *shrugs* ok.

Wilder is complaining that minors can buy these pornaments so, despite the fact he doesn't represent Spencer's, that means minors can buy them. Because the good Pastor Wilder is never wrong.
And my reply to that statement...
and because he's a Pastor, so that makes him always wrong.

and in post 188
They seem to be arguing about something before you posted that. Junii quoted a Pastor Wilder as saying 5 year olds were buying it, I sarcastically replied that he was clearly right because he's never wrong, Junii seems to think I thought he was wrong because he's a pastor, though I actually thought he was probably just using hyperbole to get his point across.

and my post.

Actually I was being sarcastic because I thought you were about the pastor, but I really did asked if Spencers were checking the age of their customers. ;)

so in a nutshell, I thought you (Ifreann) were being sarcastic by assuming that I thought the pastor was right because he was a pastor, so I was returning the sarcasm about you assuming the paster was wrong because he was a pastor.

Sorry if you don't see how having their employees arrested would hurt any business. But keep putting in :rolleyes: s. They're fun :)Oh and he looked like he was getting close to the point, but ended up missing by a couple of hundred miles!

tell you what. go buy them and donate them to Toys for Tots or drop them off at any orphanage.

I'll take that as an admission of defeat. You can't tell me why children shouldn't have access to those stupid ornaments besides your belief that they "cross the line." A line you admit is not shared by everyone.

you sure? *shrugs* ok.


And my reply to that statement...


and in post 188


and my post.



so in a nutshell, I thought you (Ifreann) were being sarcastic by assuming that I thought the pastor was right because he was a pastor, so I was returning the sarcasm about you assuming the paster was wrong because he was a pastor.
Eh no, I was just using his title. I never implied that pastor's are always wrong, I implied that Pastor Wilder was.
So it was you that said he's wrong because he was a pastor. Sarcastically, but whatever.

That would depend entirely on the subject of the artfully done photograph/sculpture/painting in question. I can think of several examples that don't fit your supposition.which is why I said Bascially.

Who said anything about prostitution? Not me. true, but my other point about the reason why a child cannot watch a striptease is similar to why that same child cannot watch an rated R and above film without a parent or guardian present?

I'd think it would have just as much to do with regional liquor licensing practices as with whatever flavour of moral indignation you'd care to ascribe to. Movies and Liquor?

This all just serves to underscore the unwholesome aspects of purposefully and needlessly mystifying and fetishizing the human body - I am far from persuaded that Christian oppression is somehow anything other than oppression. How are we further liberated by making healthy human sexuality into a social taboo? Because Society makes the rules. Some societies demand a woman be covered from head to toe in a thick, form hiding cloak. in the past, it was pornographic for a woman to show her knees.

Who knows, maybe one day we'll all be walking around naked and posting jokes about people wearing "clothes"

So if Mr Thompson and those Pastors want to take legal action, let them. let the law figure out who's right and not.

Remember, I've said I've been in spencers and you don't see me ranting about some of their other stuff... just the ornaments and their availability to kids. tho this thread did convince me that perhaps Spencers should take a little (not all) responsiblity as to who they sell what to.

nope, that wasn't my posistion.


then maybe you shouldn't invent and vehemently defend positions you don't hold.

I'll take that as an admission of defeat. You can't tell me why children shouldn't have access to those stupid ornaments besides your belief that they "cross the line." A line you admit is not shared by everyone.

actually it's called an experiment. I want to see if my "line" is also commonly accepted by others.

so go ahead and let's see how big a ruckus it raises. after all, if you truly see nothing wrong with kids recieving or having those ornaments, then you shouldn't hesitate to donate those items.

The worst is that those sorting the gifts just tosses them away and reported on the news.

then maybe you shouldn't invent and vehemently defend positions you don't hold.

what. that such ornaments don't belong in the hands of kids? I do belive that.

but I don't believe someone is automatically "Right" just because of their title, or position.

Those teenagers need more hormones.You mean whoremones?

what. that such ornaments don't belong in the hands of kids? I do belive that.

but I don't believe someone is automatically "Right" just because of their title, or posistion.

Nobody in this thread does. You thought I was saying you did, I was not. Now we can all be happy :)

You mean whoremones?

No I meant hormones. :rolleyes: