Quote of the day1 min read

Humor
21 May, 2007
18

“The Clinton administration was the best years for the adult industry…”

– Porn star Jenna Jameson

Why is it that I can’t stop laughing about that?

Tags: Humor

18 Responses

Comments18
Pingbacks0

Cineaste says:
21 May, 2007 at 12:19 AM
I agree with Jenna, "When Republicans are in office, the problem is, a lot of times they try to put their crosshairs on the adult industry, to make a point."
I think the Democrats realize that sex is a genie that can't be put back into the bottle, though Republicans try and fail. I don't understand why they would even want to. Live and let live.
Log in to Reply
Stewart says:
21 May, 2007 at 1:41 AM
Shame on liberals for not making it harder for legal, constitutionally-protected businesses to operate. Thankfully we can rely on conservatives to continually increase the size of our government in an attempt to curtail such activities. The upshot is, of course, that tax requirements go up, and while the goal of their programs remain entirely unaccomplished.
Quoth Miss Jameson: "It's sad, when there are so many different things that are going on in the world: war, and people are dying of genocide."
Maybe we could declare a "War on Fornication".
Log in to Reply
Aaron says:
21 May, 2007 at 4:06 AM
I wasn't trying to go into the issue of pornography, but apparently this touched a nerve.
I just thought it was funny, "shame on" me for having a horrible conservative sense of humor.
Log in to Reply
Cineaste says:
21 May, 2007 at 4:24 AM
"I just thought it was funny, "shame on" me for having a horrible conservative sense of humor."
Okay, I can't make heads or tails (pun intended) of this statement. Why do you think our comments are an attack on you? Jenna makes a lot of sense on this topic. Do you disagree or agree with her?
Log in to Reply
Cineaste says:
21 May, 2007 at 4:28 AM
I forgot…
"I wasn't trying to go into the issue of pornography…"
Then why Aaron would you quote Jenna Jameson in the first place and prefix her name with "Porn star" in the second? That's a bit disingenuous.
Log in to Reply
Aaron says:
21 May, 2007 at 5:05 AM
I don't think they are an attack on me per se, just more serious that I was going for with this.
I, of course, disagree with her, except for possibly her sentiment that Democrats are more inviting of the pornography industry. (Well that may be her whole point, but I disagree with Stewart's take on it. Clear as mud?)
As to why I quoted her and her employment, I just found it hilarious, somewhat telling and spot on for someone in the sex industry to claim the glory days of her industry were during the administration of a president with his own sexual issues.
Log in to Reply
Cineaste says:
21 May, 2007 at 5:44 AM
"Clear as mud?"
Yes. But, I'd like to know where you actually disagree with her. I think this could make for a more interesting discussion than you intended, if you want to participate. :)
Log in to Reply
Aaron says:
21 May, 2007 at 6:03 AM
Perhaps tomorrow, for today the 5 o'clock bell tolls for me.
Log in to Reply
Keith Johnson says:
21 May, 2007 at 8:10 AM
Hi Aaron:
As a guy who voted for Clinton (twice) and don't regret it at all, I agree with you that the quote was funny. About the Dems being more "inviting of" the porn industry: I dunno but when it comes to sleezy sex on TV I'd have to give it up to Republican Rupert Murdock who broadcast "Temptation Island". Sexual exploitation isn't the purview of one party or the other–it's what you'd expect from the capitalist system in a fallen world.
your friend
keith
Log in to Reply
Aaron says:
21 May, 2007 at 10:47 PM
Keith, I agree on that. I do not pretend that Republicans are by any stretch of the imagination less "sleezy" than Democrats. You are right that Fox puts out some of the worst (and best *24*) shows.
But as Cineaste and Stewart's reactions make evident, liberals tend to be in favor of less restriction on the pornography industry, while conservative would favor more restriction. Often liberal does not equal Democrat, nor conservative Republican. You also have some who are liberal or conservative and hold differing views that the norm.
However on the whole, as a general rule I think it is safe to say that liberals favor less restriction on the pornography industry and conservatives favor more.
Log in to Reply
Cineaste says:
21 May, 2007 at 11:33 PM
"The Clinton administration was the best years for the adult industry…"
"When Republicans are in office, the problem is, a lot of times they try to put their crosshairs on the adult industry, to make a point."
"It's sad, when there are so many different things that are going on in the world: war, and people are dying of genocide."
– Porn star Jenna Jameson
Aaron, Keith although I know you don't agree with what Jenna does for a living, do you agree with what she said above? I agree with what she said. Following her rational, for conservatives who have issues with porn, I'd suggest that they simply don't watch it. My theory is, by regulating porn, social conservatives make it into "forbidden fruit" which makes it all the more tempting. Look at prohibition and marijuana. Like I said before, sex (drugs and rock n' roll) is a genie you can't put back into the bottle.
Log in to Reply
Stewart says:
22 May, 2007 at 12:02 AM
My theory is, by regulating porn, social conservatives make it into "forbidden fruit" which makes it all the more tempting. Look at prohibition and marijuana.
I really doubt that prohibition increased the consumption of alcohol, or made it any more 'tempting'. It seems to me that beer/wine/liquor are unquestionably more popular today, as legal, advertised products, than they could ever have been under prohibition. Similarly, the "war on drugs" may be vicious and inept, but I see no reason to think that it's raised the usage of marijuana, or it's demand, in the U.S.
Addictive chemicals and erotica don't really need help from the government to be popular :)
Log in to Reply
Cineaste says:
22 May, 2007 at 12:56 AM
"I really doubt that prohibition increased the consumption of alcohol, or made it any more 'tempting'."
When you are deprived of something you want and are used to having, especially if it's addictive, the temptation is greater when it becomes available, like alcohol.
Log in to Reply
Aaron says:
22 May, 2007 at 2:48 AM
Addictive chemicals and erotica don't really need help from the government to be popular :)
On that we will most definitely agree.
I guess I will have to give my thoughts on the complete issue of pornography, etc. So here goes.
As a Christian, I despise it. I know what it can do to people, especially young men, by perverting their sexual drive, inclining them to have a low view of women as purely sex addicts, creating an unreal sense of feminine beauty, and a host of other psychological issues than can result from porn addictions. While it is not close to being the norm result, several serial killers have claimed their descent began with pornography, which grew to harder and harder material, until they moved to from inactive material to active participation.
I despise what it does to many women. While some like Jameson seem to enjoy their life and job, countless others feel trapped inside an industry that they long to escape from. Many feel used and abused by film makers who serve essentially as pimps – using young attractive women having sex as a means to make money. Because of the twisted sense of beauty many men have from watching pornography (and other media), women are constantly battling low-self esteem trying to live up to the fantasies men have.
This is one issue that feminists and Christians unite on.
Having said that, understanding our form of government, I do not wish to outlaw pornography, but merely provide limits on it to dampen the negative impact it has on society – doing everything possible to limit children's access to it (especially on the internet), make sure that people who do not want to be exposed to it do not have to be, etc. Much of the things are being done already. I would support moving all pornographic material from .com to .xxx domains. That way parents. libraries, etc. can simply block all those domains and not limit legitimate use of the internet.
As a Christian, I also support organizations and individuals that are working to help people within the pornography industry. XXXchurch.com has been ministering to a young woman who wanted out. They helped her get out and worked with her to find a place to live and a new job. That's how Christians should be engaged in ministry, not simply condemning the industry and everyone involved, but actively working to reach people for Christ.
Log in to Reply
Cineaste says:
22 May, 2007 at 3:27 AM
Do you take the same stance with violence on TV, movies, video games, etc? Is that 24 series violent? Sex and violence are 2 sides of the same coin right?
After visiting Europe a few times, I've come to the conclusion that Americans are prude. Americans are not very comfortable with nudity for some reason, at least not as comfortable as the Swedes, French, Dutch, Germans, etc. Porn didn't seem to be hurting their societies. I looked at the laws for different countries for reference. I think porn that involves children and animals should be banned. Anything between consenting adults (18+) should be legal. If it does not meet personal moral standards, don't watch porn.
Log in to Reply
Aaron says:
22 May, 2007 at 4:45 AM
I think violence has to be watched as well. It certainly can play a role, but I don't think the psychological connections are as strong between violence and violent tendencies as it is with pornography and a shift in sexual perception.
While you are right to point out that violence is something to be concerned about as well, I think one big difference is what is actually happening. Violence on movies, TV, video games etc. is not real violence. Sex scenes in mainstream movies are not real sex (at least none that I am aware of). But pornography is "real." That makes a difference in how it has to be evaluated. You don't outlaw a murder scene in a movie, but you do outlaw snuff films. While pornography is not murder, I think the extreme comparison shows that clearly as a society we attempt to evaluate things according to what actually happened.
I'm not sure if it is simply nudity per se that Americans have a problem with, but more the sexualized nudity accompanied with the image of the "perfect" body.
Saying that anything between consenting adults should be legal is nice on the surface, but does not reflect the reality of many individuals in the industry. Far too often girls are brought in several years before they turn 18. They are victimized and exploited by the industry. There has been several high profile female porn stars that have said that they started before they were 18.
If it does not meet personal moral standards, don't watch porn.
I agree that this is a somewhat effective means of dealing with an issue, but we can essentially apply this to any current question. Do you think the issue of global warming should simply be left to "personal moral standards?" No because you feel it is harmful to the nation and world. The same could be argued about pornography.
My only point is the overly-simplistic "don't engage in the activity if you don't like it" is just that – overly simplistic. People feel free to use that on issues that they don't agree with, but shy away from it on issues they feel passionate about. I guess my question is this – does that represent a legitimate way of dealing with with issues and if so does it apply to all issues?
Log in to Reply
Cineaste says:
22 May, 2007 at 6:11 PM
"I don't think the psychological connections are as strong between violence and violent tendencies as it is with pornography and a shift in sexual perception."
This is very debatable. Certainly, a case can be made that violence begets violence more than sex begets violence because it desensitizes us.
"While you are right to point out that violence is something to be concerned about as well, I think one big difference is what is actually happening. Violence on movies, TV, video games etc. is not real violence. Sex scenes in mainstream movies are not real sex (at least none that I am aware of). But pornography is "real." That makes a difference in how it has to be evaluated. You don't outlaw a murder scene in a movie, but you do outlaw snuff films. While pornography is not murder, I think the extreme comparison shows that clearly as a society we attempt to evaluate things according to what actually happened."
I think your example of snuff films is an extreme. If you want proper examples of real violence on mainstream TV and media look no further than the UFC: ultimate fighting challenge, boxing, COPS, and the local news. Also, anyone of any age can turn on their TV and watch those violent shows I mentioned above but not Jenna Jameson in hardcore porn.
"I'm not sure if it is simply nudity per se that Americans have a problem with, but more the sexualized nudity accompanied with the image of the "perfect" body."
This is what happens in the air brushed, perfect image fashion magazines, and I agree it's not healthy. It's not really what I'm talking about though. I am referring to a prudishness Americans have that I observed is absent in Europe. For example, can Americans handle public nude beaches like Europeans can?
"I agree that this is a somewhat effective means of dealing with an issue, but we can essentially apply this to any current question. Do you think the issue of global warming should simply be left to "personal moral standards?""
No, because Global warming and pornography are apples and oranges. Global warming is not an issue of moral taste/decency like pornography is. Global warming is a potential environmental time bomb that can cause untold suffering and destruction on a global scale; it's a moral imperative. Please though, let's just stick to pornography. There are many other posts here where we can discuss GW. I'd prefer to keep this one casual so I can actually enjoy it.
"My only point is the overly-simplistic "don't engage in the activity if you don't like it" is just that – overly simplistic. People feel free to use that on issues that they don't agree with, but shy away from it on issues they feel passionate about. I guess my question is this – does that represent a legitimate way of dealing with with issues and if so does it apply to all issues?"
In regard to issues of moral decency and taste, I do think "don't engage in the activity if you don't like it" is fine. For example, to be truthful, watching "Broke Back Mountain" would make me a bit uncomfortable. But you know what? That's my problem not gay people's. So, I simply didn't see it.
Log in to Reply
Cineaste says:
23 May, 2007 at 10:26 PM
Bump for Aaron. P.S. is there any way you can make the recent comments section longer? Thanks in advance.
Log in to Reply

You must log in to post a comment.

Quote of the day1 min read

18 Responses

Subscribe by Email

Browse by Category

Log In