|
|
| Author |
Message |
| 25 new of 159 responses total. |
chelsea
|
|
response 125 of 159:
| 
Apr 27 11:24 UTC 1996 |
I do the same with obscene telephone calls. They always end up
hanging up on me.
|
popcorn
|
|
response 126 of 159:
|
Apr 28 13:40 UTC 1996 |
This response has been erased.
|
beeswing
|
|
response 127 of 159:
|
Apr 28 18:01 UTC 1996 |
Once I got an obscene caller... it was likely a teenage boy. I asked him
where he got off talking to women that way. I mean, I am someone's sister,
daughter, granddaughter, niece... HUMAN!! He was like "uhhhh" and hung up.
I'll have to try laughing though...
|
aruba
|
|
response 128 of 159:
|
Apr 28 18:33 UTC 1996 |
(Valerie, a "snuff film" is a film of someone actually being killed.)
|
chelsea
|
|
response 129 of 159:
|
Apr 28 18:38 UTC 1996 |
Oh, but I don't laugh at them. This is how it goes - whatever the
caller does I simply echo it, mimicking the style. You know how
uncomfortable that gets when someone does that to you? How quickly
you want the game to end? Well, works the same way here. Very
effective.
He whispers, "Ooooh, suck my cock." I whisper, "Ooooh, suck my cock."
Silence for a moment.
He groans, "I want my big prick in your tight pussy". I groan, "I want my
big prick in your tight pussy."
Silence again.
He pants, "What a hot cunt." I pant, "What a hot cunt".
Silence.
More silence.
Click.
In my younger more dramatic days I used to go the caller one better,
grossing him out in turn. But when I realized I could be so
much better at grossing him out than he was at grossing me out, well,
it got mostly tedious, so I went to the above system. I don't get a
whole lot of these calls now but when I do this mimicry works like a
charm.
|
chelsea
|
|
response 130 of 159:
|
Apr 28 18:40 UTC 1996 |
Aruba slipped in. #129 was in response to Valerie's #126.
|
clees
|
|
response 131 of 159:
|
Apr 29 06:50 UTC 1996 |
Here's another one:
Once I had the message of my answering machine consisting
of two things:
1. very heavy breathinhg and ending with
Ha, tit for tat you dirty ole' man! Ha!
|
md
|
|
response 132 of 159:
|
Apr 29 14:05 UTC 1996 |
Joan Rivers says when she gets an obscene call, she says,
"Listen, hang on while I get my cigarettes."
|
popcorn
|
|
response 133 of 159:
|
Apr 30 04:33 UTC 1996 |
This response has been erased.
|
mcpoz
|
|
response 134 of 159:
|
May 1 00:45 UTC 1996 |
I didn't see that movie, but I don't think very many, if any, such movies are
pornographic.
|
clees
|
|
response 135 of 159:
|
May 8 16:01 UTC 1996 |
The definition is a very personal thing.
Things will shift in time.
For instance: our own Dutch reli-tv channel now broadcasts
tv-series that were considered vile, sinfull etc. in the sixties.
Which shows the stuff can be called corny indeed.
|
raven
|
|
response 136 of 159:
|
Oct 20 22:43 UTC 1996 |
I guess to put my two cents in I have to say that what a society
calls pornography changes over time. When Ulyses by James Joyce came
out it was considered obscene, the same with the writing of Anais Nin,
Henry Miller and Allen Ginsburg. I think society has no right to control
the ideas or images a person consumes as long as the production of those
ideas or images does not involve coercion. I am an avid reader of what
would now be called erotica Nin, & Miller come to mind. I will admit
that I find the lyracism & sensuality of these writers exciting. What
is wrong with that? It does not change my view of women one iota, I
treat women with the same respect as men in all my dealings. What I think
is going on with people who want to control pornography is they want to
control the sensuality and sexuality of people that *they* find disturbing.
To me trying to control the sensuality and fantasy life of another person
is obscene. Controling behavior ofcourse is another matter altogether,
I think rapistsand sexual harrasers should be subjected to the harshest
penalties possible. I think people should strive to use non-sexist language in
their proffesional dealings with other people & that men should educate
thmselves about sexism as behavior and the damaging effects it has on women. It
seems if people could differentiate between behavior and art (and I'm saying so
called pornography is art) then a lot of the controversy could be avoided.
|
clees
|
|
response 137 of 159:
|
Oct 21 06:01 UTC 1996 |
You have never seen a porno movie?
That kind of porno is degrading.
Conversation doesn't usually take more than three minutes before
switching over to business, and conversation at business
doesn't really go further than suck my ***, yes and now clean it
up for me (#$#"":||?').
This pisses me off, and makes me very angry, and certainly I do not
consider it art. This is exploitation, no matter if the actresses like
to play in them. If one would be a little familiar with
damage done in youth of children, and the effects it has on adult
behavior, than this is exploitation. It's not art. It is
solely made for profit.
Prohibitation? Dunno.
Art is the expression an artist makes without the sole purpose of
selling a lot (ok, there are exceptions) and what the artist means
to say goto to be said. This might in some eyes be called pornographic,
but like you I would call it sensual, erotic and so on.
Having an opinion on pornography doesn't nessesarily mean I denie
erotics in all its ways, and least of all my personal life.
I have an opinion when people are being used for the benifit of
others.
Do you know what that Guy Mark Dutroux has done to very young girls?
Used them as personal slaves for his own pleasure, and the pleasure
of friends, moviemakers after having them kidnapped.
He kept them locked up in acellar.
One time he had two girls imprisoned while he spent some
time in jail. They starved to death.
|
raven
|
|
response 138 of 159:
|
Oct 22 17:53 UTC 1996 |
Your last paragraph discuss behavior which is ofcourse disgusting
and should be punished. The only porn I have ever seen was some soft porn
on cable T.V. in Canada on my high school senior trip. I don't remember
it very well but I don't remember being eith offended or turned on but
that was years ago. I would not want to see art that is degrading to
women that has no appeal to me. However, I'm not sure it should be banned
because that just drives it underground. We do *need* to educate people
that tying sexuality to actual violence (as opposed to role playing) hurts
people and must be stoped.
A big problem with people who want to stop porn in the U.S. is
that it's tied up with the Christian right who wants to stop all
depictions of sexuality (they would all be labled porn). They would ban
Anais Nin, Heny Miller, Allen Ginsburg, all movies showing nudity, or
people sleeping together. Never again, I say, I wasn't born yet in the
fifties but from the films I see of that era and before repression, is not
a healthy way to live our lives. What to do about hard core degrading
porn is a hard question, I'm uncomfortable with seeing it banned for free
speech reasons (I am a writer and free speech is important to me), I do
however see where it is a problem for women. The only solution I can
think of is somethings like the critical reading people do if they read
Mein Kemph. Obviously we don't agree with the thought, but it's important
to see where it comes from. Repression and denial are as bad degredation
IMO.
|
robh
|
|
response 139 of 159:
|
Oct 22 19:14 UTC 1996 |
According to my uncle, who has lived in Ontario for nearly ten years now,
their porn laws are a bit different than ours. Nobody is allowed to
actually show the "area of penetration" at all, and any magazines
imported from the US have to have little black dots placed over said
areas to be allowed into the country. (Whenever I think we're the most
puritanical country in the world, I think of Canada. >8)
|
clees
|
|
response 140 of 159:
|
Oct 23 06:51 UTC 1996 |
Certainly not the Netherlands.
We have got a bad reputation when it comes to this.
Why, we even have an official union for prostitutes.
But hard core stuff with animals, children and the lot are banned
and will stay this way.
I am so angry because of that guy Dutroux in Belgium, which
is only two hundred kms away.
|
robh
|
|
response 141 of 159:
|
Oct 24 06:42 UTC 1996 |
You may have to fill us in, I've never heard of Dutroux.
|
mta
|
|
response 142 of 159:
|
Oct 24 17:56 UTC 1996 |
Nor have I -- except the brief mention in the previous response.
|
popcorn
|
|
response 143 of 159:
|
Oct 24 19:24 UTC 1996 |
This response has been erased.
|
clees
|
|
response 144 of 159:
|
Oct 25 06:32 UTC 1996 |
Yeah, and presumably these are not the only ones.
Later they managed to rescue two children (girls) and that got things
going.
Apparently the police force knew that something was going on the
houses of Mark Dutroux because since he was living
on welfare, how then could he own seven or eight houses?
Not only that, there seems to be such a ring with connections
right up to the very top of the Belgian justice system, and
the police force. And now they believe that some politicians are involved as
well, and not only that, in the eighties there was a gang called the Gang of
Neivel that killed almost thirty people at various raids. They were never
caught. And some politicians were killed as well (murdered) never solved. The
people suspect some highly, and widely spread movement (if you want to call it
such) with connections throughout the justice and governmental system. Now
Belgian society is outraged and had a week of strikes and protestralleys all
over Belgium. It is believed that the government better do something or there
might be serious trouble.
We, in Europe are all angry, and just as well wish to see this
Dutroux hang. On the other hand, is the one that can who is
involved, so mayhap he is gonna get killed before he can squeel.
|
ntsreeji
|
|
response 145 of 159:
|
Apr 23 15:17 UTC 1997 |
I feel men should be a given an upper hand. Because U know Adam was created
by GOD first and then only the women folks.
|
ntsreeji
|
|
response 146 of 159:
|
Apr 23 15:21 UTC 1997 |
I am ready for a compromise. instead of a upper hand a lower leg is also
admissible.
|
mta
|
|
response 147 of 159:
|
Apr 24 03:56 UTC 1997 |
<giggle> You're funny. But you know, this god of yours may have made
women second because man was the practice model.
Personally i don't believe either -- I think men and women developed as
a bipolar unit for mostly biological (perhaps minorly spiritual reasons)
Either way, there are two possible interpretations of the biblical
account.
>I feel men should be a given an upper hand. Because U know Adam was created
>by GOD first and then only the women folks.
|
birdlady
|
|
response 148 of 159:
|
Apr 24 19:06 UTC 1997 |
Yes, ntsreeji, but without the "women folks", Adam never could have reproduced,
and the human race would not have survived. (This is, of course, purely
hypothetical since most people know I'm not Christian.) ;-)
|
otter
|
|
response 149 of 159:
|
Apr 27 13:55 UTC 1997 |
More than two, Misti, if you count in Lilith. 8^}
|