One day you are listening to the radio and you hear sermons, Bible studies and Christian music, the next day the same station is playing “Sexual Healing” with groans in the background.
In what sounds like an impossible switch, KFYE, FM 106.3, in Kingsburg, CA changed from a Christian format to “Porn Radio.
The new format, featuring strictly sex saturated songs, is promoted as “all sex radio, all the time.”
The format is the brainchild of Jerry Clifton, CEO of the Scottsdale, Ariz.-based Pro-active Communications-Fresno, LLC. The company also owns two radio stations in Spokane, Wash. Neither has the Porn Radio format.
In fact, “it is the first in the country,” Clifton said.
Clifton wouldn’t say where he got the idea.
I wonder why he wouldn’t say.
You know it’s quality radio when they have a slogan like this:
We are the only radio station with a stripper pole as a broadcast antenna.
I'm just not sure what you're objecting to here Aaron. I hate having Christian radio on my dial; isn't this putting something on your dial for you to hate? What's the problem?
I think it's probably a good marketing scheme. I mean, it's not really porn, although a lot of modern "music", esp. rap, should be classified as unfit for children (and adults).
Popular music has always been primarily about the lust of the flesh, the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life (except country music ;). It's what the world is mostly about.
I'm not gonna get upset about this, though it is just another sign of the decline in public and private morality.
Hilarious Seeker.
1. How on Earth is rap music unfit for adults?
2. You can't possibly be serious about country music. Never mind the fact that its propagandist crap, or the fact that its artists are singing other people's songs, or the fact that the artists aren't living the lives that they're claiming, or the fact that it just generally sucks. How can you defend people like Hank Williams Jr., who is both a racist and a person who celebrates getting really drunk, and really stoned? Don't act like country music is uplifiting.
3. Finally, what's wrong with allowing the people who enjoy sex (and we know you're not one of them, because you're a good Christian) have a radio station. Should all radio be uplifting gospel crap that makes you happy? What about the rest of us who, you know, enjoy ourselves differently? For Christ's sake, if there's already one Christian station on the dial, who in the hell needs another one? They're all the same anyway. "Lift me up/Oh Jesus/I took a virginity pledge/even though I probably lied about it/Christians rule/Be a Christian/La la la." You don't need every station to accomplish one goal.
4. Sameness is bad. I know you believe otherwise, but the world would be a boring place if everybody was a conservative, a Christian, and stodgy to boot.
"Porn radio"? Sounds like one of Howard's satirical skits.
Anyway, most of radio sucks. I, personally, consider the news more offensive than porn.
How on Earth is rap music unfit for adults?
Not rap as a form of music, but the often misogynistic (sp?), violent, and other negative values pimped in much rap music (like pimping ;) is really bad for kids, bad for society, just like pornography.
I'm not saying we should ban it, but content labels are great, and public discussion of the impact and value of the content of popular music, not to mention the content that reeks of such harmful and antisocial values, should be encouraged.
You can't possibly be serious about country music.
You're right, I wasn't serious, though there is are strong Christian and patriotic themes in country music, arguably more prevalent than the gospel and patriotic themes in rap. But you are right, of course, singing about the pleasures of adultery and wine are no better, except that they aren't usually openly violent like rap.
In fact, I'd say that the violence and misogyeny in rap make it a good music form for (militant) Islam.
Should all radio be uplifting gospel crap that makes you happy?
Nope. Nor the artful gospel music that I prefer to the crap.
But when the content is openly antisocial, it should be regulated or shut down. For example, do we encourage our kids to listen to songs about killing cops? How about killing women, Christians, Jews, Muslims, homosexuals, or atheists? At what point will you stand up and say "enough!"? THERE IS NO UNLIMITED RIGHT TO FREE SPEECH. While we should be "conservative" in our approach (allowing as much freedom as possible), are you ok with songs about "killing fags"?
In most cases, I'd say people have the right to free speech, but citizens have the right to put social and economic pressure, not to mention lawsuits, on those that want to crap into our culture with such stuff.
Sameness is bad. I know you believe otherwise
I know YOU think I think that, but that's just your prejudicial, judgmental, self-serving stereotype. So cut it out.
Seeker,
You know damn well that there's no way that we'd ever agree to standards. You'd want ABC Family Channel as the standard for American television; I'd prefer HBO. Which is why my way is right: I'd allow for everything, even if I didn't like it.
For instance, I think 7th Heaven is one of the worst television shows in the history of the world, both because its totally unrealistic (I've never seen a parent child fight resolved so quickly or peacefully) and because its completely boring. But, if that's your cup of tea, so be it. But that doesn't mean that I shouldn't be able to watch The Wire, a show which very clearly shows that the drug war is both horrible, a waste of time, and ultimately awful for everybody involved. And I shouldn't have to pay to watch The Wire. It ought to be on standard television.
The point is that we all ought to be able to get what we like on television, on the radio, on whatever. You might not like what I like, and I know that I don't like what you like, but we both ought to be able to have our appetites satisfied. You disagree of course. You allow for what you enjoy, but not what I enjoy. This is in part because you're a socialist – you must oppose the free market if you oppose the dissemination of certain forms of music (music that happens to be incredibly popular) – and in part because you just don't believe in the freedom of choice, in the freedom of speech.
You can preach that speech ought to be limited, but who does the limiting. I'd argue me, because then I'd never have to listen to you again, and you argue you, because then you'd never have to listen to me. The answer is neither; we have to tolerate one another. That sucks for both of us, but that's what adults do. They tolerate.
Finally, I like that you can denigrate rap all over the place, but I call gospel crap and you get offended. Once again, you're playing by two sets of rules: those that apply to you (you can say whatever you'd like) and those that apply to the rest of us (we can't say whatever we'd like).
You know damn well that there's no way that we'd ever agree to standards.
That's what bipartisan/multipartisan committees are for. And we already have standards for movies, video games, television (ever heard of the V-chip?) and music. In fact, it is a crime to sell a Mature game to a minor. I'd say that we are already agreeing to some degree. Why not have the same for radio content, esp. since satellite radio is the radio analog of cable, which is, unfortunately, full of the crap that comes along with freedom.
I am all for letting people see their content, but"
– all content should be rated so that parents and adults can decide what they want to listen to and watch
– some content, esp. that considered "mature", i.e. with sexual, violent, or substance abuse content, should be regulated. Hence our rules around movies and games. Radio should be no different.
– some content ought to be illegal, like snuff films and other clearly objectionable material.
The point is that we all ought to be able to get what we like on television, on the radio, on whatever.
I agree, as long as we are giving people the labels that indicate content type so that they can filter it for their children and selves. You see, we agree, you just think I am some fascist like you ;) And some content needs to be regulated to protect children whose parents are not able to protect their kids. I think it's fine that minors can't buy porn, don't you? I think if the musical equivalent of porn (which I don't think this radio station is) should, in concept, be regulated the same as porn. But good luck controlling who listens to broadcasts – you'd have to use encryption and some sort of device ID. And make it illegal to sell or give such devices to children.
You can preach that speech ought to be limited, but who does the limiting.
As I've said, public content should be labeled, maybe self-labeled in many cases. You'll always have "pirate" stations providing illicit or non-labeled content, but law-abiding businesses have a social resonsibility to submit to laws governing content labeling and distribution.
We as a society ought to agree on how to limit speech – for instance, you are not allowed to slander me. Are you ok with that law, or is that someone else making laws to limit your freedom?
Finally, I like that you can denigrate rap all over the place, but I call gospel crap and you get offended.
How was I offended? I merely noted that not all gospel music is crap, and I agreed that I don't like the stuff that is "gospel crap" either. I was agreeing with you, except that you probably think all music with gospel content is crap, which is a really an uninformed opinion at best.
How did I denigrate rap? I didn't condemn rap as a musical style, and was clear that MOST of the rap you hear (not all) is of objectionable *content*. And aren't I right to say that rap has misogynistic and violent content? Even people who LOVE rap have said that. Ok, so it is a value judgement to say that rap spews "crap" into our culture, but that's still true. I am free to criticize it as long as I don't ban it. And I made absolutely no such overtures.
So what's your real beef here? Aaron says that this new station markets itself as "musical porn." As a parent, I take note of such, since I want to protect my children from porn, among other things (<insert objectionable worldviews and behaviors here>). I don't think it is really porn, but it really begs the question – should we be rating and regulating radio like we do other media? I think the reasonable answer is YES.
Let's not give in to the fearmongering, slipperly slope argument that we'll have some McCarthy-esque censorship. We already have a balanced and improving system for other media. That's the sum total. So stop listening to the liberal fear mongers that every talk of morality leads to theocracy. It's tiring.
Seeker,
With all due respect, I cannot watch the sort of television that I enjoy without having to pay extra for it specifically so that we can protect you and your children from whatever offensive thing is on. We've gone the same direction with radio – I can't hear swear words on the radio because some child somewhere might hear it, even though swearing is heard everywhere anyway.
My objection is quite clear: your side is setting all of the standards, and as a result, my access to being limited. What really OUGHT to happen is that parents ought to be responsible for their children, and that adults ought to be expected to change the channel if they don't like what's on.
Finally, whatever this radio station is CLAIMING, playing Marvin Gaye's "Sexual Hearing" hardly constitutes pornography. It's a song about having sex. So what? A child even hearing the word "sexual" is now too much these days?
At the end of the day, I'm most angry about Christians taking and restricting and doing their best to ruin our culture, and then being incensed when they can't take, restrict and ruin even more.
My objection is quite clear: your side is setting all of the standards, and as a result, my access to being limited.
Well, I'm not sure what you mean by "your side", but if you mean the people who have matured past "I want what I want when I want it" into adulthood, then I'm sorry, but you just have to live in the world the adults make. Seriously, you can't expect there to be no such limits on speech. "My side" wants limited government, but not *no* government. Controlling access to dangerous items that could hurt children is called maturity, not fascism.
What really OUGHT to happen is that parents ought to be responsible for their children, and that adults ought to be expected to change the channel if they don't like what's on.
It is not as simple as that. When you daily have to fight to protect your kids from a culture putrefied with selfishness, consumerism, illicit sex, profanity, and every other overindulgence of fleshly desires indulged upon by the immature, immoral, and selfish, after a while, you don't want to just be an isolationist. That's what you seem to be recommending.
Rather, a smart person would want to go out and make society safe for the virtuous and law abiding, while marginalizing those who refuse to live with respect for others, esp. those who want the freedom to be careless around and with the weak and vulnerable.
Government has a responsibility to protect the weak and innocent, and to ensure domestic tranquility, which inlcudes keeping such selfish indulgences in check so that society doesn't turn into a cesspool of whore and crack houses.
I agree that we can go overboard with such regulation, but the fact is, you can still watch whatever you want, even if you have to pay for it. That's a reasonable trade off, in my mind. It lets people be free, but protects the innocent to a large degree – call it an 80/20 approach, if you like. Some people lose 20% of their freedom in order to protect the majority. As long as it doesn't become oppressive, that's what reality demands, imo.
You're confusing a major point here Seeker: those of us who are losing are choice aren't doing so because we pose some sort of genuine threat to the well being of this country. We're losing it because you believe that you're somehow MORE deserving of legal representation than we are.
In other words, your concerns need to be answered, addressed, and dealt with. Mine? They can apparently go straight to hell.
What's really interesting here is that you're the conservative, the one who should believe in a small government that doesn't make personal decisions for its citizenry. I'm the liberal, which some people seem to believe means that I believe in big government. Yet you're the one advocating that the government's responsibility to is to make our decisions for us. You're the one advocating that individuals just aren't capable of being responsible for themselves.
Our culture isn't being "putrified" by artistic expression that you don't like. Our culture is being expanded because of it. If you want to protect your children from it, by all means go ahead. But that doesn't mean you should get to decide for me what is and isn't acceptable. Nor should should I have my access to good television limited just because you're too lazy to raise your kids in the way that you see fit.
To put this another way, in my town, the second most basic of cable television contracts comes with (or did come with) numerous Christian television stations. It didn't, however, come with any of the channels that I happen to enjoy. Christian television, as any right thinking person knows, is boring absurdist crap. If you enjoy watching that lady who sits in the gold throne who is on surgery 436 and botox injection 43522, good for you, but there's no reason that should be pumped into my house and the stations that I actually like aren't. But it is, because Christians tend to demand that sort of receivership.
All I'm saying is that if I'm expected to raise my kids in the way that I see fit – which will ideally mean not letting my daughter accidentally stumble onto the revolutionary rambling of Pat Robertson on the 700 Club – you can be expected to do the same for your kid without needing government regulation to help you. Just as the parent who accidentally stumbles onto Marvin Gaye's "Sexual Healing" can just change the channel.
Hey, this is totally unrelated, but can you guys put up a post about ways to regulate blog comments? Because this current form, with the password of jumbled numbers/letters, is awkward at best. Maybe you can go fishing for other ideas?
one who should believe in a small government that doesn't make personal decisions for its citizenry.
Actually, the last half of that sentence does not necessarily follow, and it is ambiguous enough to be easily misunderstood.
Small government doesn't mean that we don't make moral laws that protect the rights of citizens. While government should try to stay out of "personal decisions" that do not affect others, once you are affecting others negatively, you may now be subject to government regulation or censure.
You want to have illicit sex with a consenting adult? No problem, from a legal standpoint. You want to commit infanticide because you don't want to raise a child? Government should step in. You want to smoke cigarettes? Fine, but since tobacco is known to be dangerous, we make it illegal to sell to minors. So that poor 16 year-old doesn't have the freedom to smoke. Neither does the 10 year old. And the merchant doesn't have the freedom to sell to minors.
While I am not for over-regulation, no regulation of items that could endanger the public or children is just not practical.
Yet you're the one advocating that the government's responsibility to is to make our decisions for us. You're the one advocating that individuals just aren't capable of being responsible for themselves.
What choices are being taken from you, by the way, by the evil right cabal? Could you be more specific?
Our culture isn't being "putrified" by artistic expression that you don't like.
Look, all that goes by the name of "art" isn't necessarily really of any artistic value, except that it reflects the messed up world of the artist. While some "artists" may want to flaunt their womanizing, brag about the size of their penis, and their money, these aren't redeeming values at all. Rather, they are purile, juvenile, immature sentiments that mature societies recognize as such.
No one is restricting such "art," we are merely protecting our children and society from recognized, harmful attitudes and behaviors that some "artists" encourage through word and deed. If you can't tell the differnce between a nude and pornography (like some fundamentalists can't, admittedly), then you will miss the point entirely.
It didn't, however, come with any of the channels that I happen to enjoy.
Which stations would that be? Did they leave out the History and C-Span channels? Seriously, which channels did they leave out?
And btw, the cable companies are about supply and demand. If you wanted the East-Indian cooking channel with translation into Swahili, don't blame the Christians in your neighborhood for keeping it off the air just because you hate Christian programming.
All I'm saying is that if I'm expected to raise my kids in the way that I see fit – which will ideally mean not letting my daughter accidentally stumble onto the revolutionary rambling of Pat Robertson on the 700 Club – you can be expected to do the same for your kid without needing government regulation to help you. Just as the parent who accidentally stumbles onto Marvin Gaye's "Sexual Healing" can just change the channel.
I agree with you for less objectionable material. But that doesn't mean that we should ignore such things, legally speaking. Are you OK with RJ Reynolds putting a cigarette machine in the local gradeschool, with a sticker that says "please ask your parents before buying products from this machine?" I am not OK with that.
Because this current form, with the password of jumbled numbers/letters, is awkward at best. Maybe you can go fishing for other ideas?
Yeah, I hate this system, even though I turned it on. I was getting comment spam. This is the basic spam protection that comes with typepad. I am not sure if it is customizable, but it does suck. I like the one that challies.com uses – you just enter one letter. I'll work on it.
Is this radio statio still porn, because I have a friend that works and he in insists that it isn't but I thought it was.
Is this radio statio still porn, because I have a friend that works and he in insists that it isn’t but I thought it was.