Fairness and Censorship as Liberal Sledgehammers

Economic recovery: sit on your hands.
Magazines with racy titles: We need legislation! I will admit I probably don't look at this the same way as you do. I was raised on an Army base in Western Europe and lack that American (and really Southern) sense that the human body is disgusting and sexual intimacy is gross. Once there was a soap commercial with a naked lady in it and my father stormed to the neighbors and demanded "What is this trash on your tv" to which our neighbor responded "Do Americans shower with their clothes on?" I would say the onus is on you as the parent to either decide to explain to your children about the icky things in the check out line, or as you seem to be a free market advocate, shop somewhere else. The Market will out. In your defense, as a native of New Jersey myself, that state could turn anyone bitter; I think I just got out in time. Keep bringing the crazy darling.

I would have to say that perhaps our disconnect on this issue has been misjudged on your part. I don't find anything icky or disgusting about the human body, nor do most conservative Christians as evidenced by the plethora of books on having great sex (I recommend Dr. Leman's Sheet Music)and the polls that show married protestants rate their sex lives as better than singles do.

As for yur definition of 'intimacy' which connotes an emotional as well as physical closeness, Cosmo is not selling intimacy. They are selling young teens on the idea that the best way to be glamorous and accepted is to give great head to any guy who wants it. In an era of rampant stds it is counterintuitive to claim it is the right of such magazines to be in the face of shoppers and their children.

As usual you made no actual attempt to take issue with my assertion which was that it is NOT censorship to move a freely available item from here to there. Rather you argure that your sensibilities are more important than mine, an argument you deny me.

I don't advocate that WE sit on our hands in the face of economic strife, I advocate that the federal government sit on their hands while localities tend best to the problems they are faced with as they are better capable of judging local needs. I advocate similarly that the federal govt sit on their hands when a local community judges that they would prefer their children not be exposed to soft-core porn in the checkout lines.

I am consistent. You are not as evidenced by your belief that your sexual comfort level should rule the day while mine should be dispensed with.

Thanks all the same for reading and thank you as well for your comments, which ARE consistent in that they keep me thinking! I will keep bringing my crazy and you bring yours. We'll have a crazy party ;)

Oh dear, I don't deny you your sensibilities, I was just framing my point of view. I recognize that you might find any number of things repulsive that I might not. Some of your examples were just out there though. What the freaks at Folsom do (I'm not talking about the normal gay people, I'm talking about the weirdos) doesn't bother me because that event is in a specific area, on a specific day (maybe days, not up to date on my gayness) where freaky stuff is going to happen. Let's do this; you lighten up on the oddballs doing oddball things in oddball places, and I keep my blood pressure below boiling every time some whack job preacher talks about abstinence only sex education or the world being 3000 years old. And as for Protestants having better sex, I don't know but in my experience Catholic girls are the adventurous ones. I hope that made you blush!

Folsom Street doesn't even make me blush. Believing that certain issues are unhealthy for children to deal with (including the children who were photographed with their parents at the FS Fair)doesn't make me naive.