Tuesday, March 17, 2009

Why I Wouldn’t Want My Son to Get Off on Watching Women Eat Feces

Last week, I wrote a blog post called “Two Girls, One Cup, and Your Kids”. In that post, I had the audacity to suggest that the Two Girls, One Cup video (and others like it) might not be the best possible material for our middle-schoolers to be viewing. I’d learned, quite by accident, that a lot of young kids in my area had been viewing this video, and was pretty sure that their parents had no idea. My primary concern was that these kids—some of them as young as 11—were as-yet unformed in their sexuality and just exploring and beginning to understand their own interests and inclinations.

The varied response was very interesting: a clinical psychologist talked about how early exposure to this kind of thing could have a lifelong impact on how a girl viewed her own sexuality and what she thought was expected of her; parents talked about the internet protections they had in place; and a surprising number of people suggested that I was a totalitarian right-wing lunatic who wanted to repress everyone’s sexuality and possibly kill them. One gentleman, whose knowledge of history is apparently a bit shaky, suggested that I probably thought homosexuals should be “gassed like the Jews”—I guess he wasn’t aware that homosexuals were also on Hitler’s hit list.

The general gist of the outraged comments I received was that a person’s sexuality was his own business and it said something negative about me if I didn’t think it was just fine if our kids were influenced by things like Two Girls, One Cup and grew up thinking that women eating feces and vomit was hot. Let me cop right off to the fact that I don’t think those particular “tastes” are “normal”. In no way shape or form am I going to try to tell you that I think that’s a choice that’s “just as valid as any other” or any such thing. I do, however, believe that what consenting adults do in private—assuming that it’s truly consensual—is their own business.

Apparently, some folks felt that my desire not to have our children’s sexual development influenced by this sort of material was inconsistent with the idea that what adults do in private is their business.

Children. Adults.

Get the difference?

Seems like not, so here’s the thing: you may find it hard to understand why, if I wouldn’t condemn an adult for doing something, I’d want to help a child avoid going down that same path. Frankly, that’s just stupid. It’s every adult’s own business, for instance, whether or not he smokes—but we don’t encourage our children to start smoking. And while those of you in the “you probably want to burn people with sex lives at stake” camp are probably fairly popping out of your chairs right now yelling that we ALL KNOW that smoking is bad for you, and you can’t compare that to someone’s sexual choices…

Nonsense.

Here are just a few of the reasons that I wouldn’t want my son (or anyone else’s) to be influenced by something like Two Girls, One Cup and decide that it was really hot when chicks ate feces and vomited:

1. Eating feces is a serious health hazard. I’d hate for my son (or anyone’s) to be in the position of needing to jeopardize someone else’s health and well-being to satisfy his sexual desires.

2. This kind of activity can be damaging to a woman’s self-esteem and even mental health. Argue away, but it’s a well-documented fact, and I would hate to see someone I loved responsible for that.

3. Most of the population doesn’t participate in this sort of activity; I’ve had at least one comment that suggested I should speak for myself and this was a puritanical view, but it’s a simple fact. Most people don’t eat shit for sexual gratification. That means that a boy who does develop these proclivities is limiting his relationship possibilities or setting himself up for conflict in his relationships, perhaps for the rest of his life.

The other argument I received was that kids just weren’t going to see this as sexual. Right. An adolescent boy watching two naked chicks make out—possibly seeing such a thing for the first time—would never associate that with sex, right? And the vulgarity of the feces consumption would ensure that he was far too grossed out to have any kind of physiological response to those naked chicks making out. Right. And sexuality isn’t influenced by our early sexual reactions AT ALL. Right?

Come on.

2 comments:

timethief said...

Well said. IMHO this is detestable and potentially damaging video. I applaud you for having the courage to say so.

Da Man said...

Some states now have two statutory offenses. The first is the traditional offense, variously called driving under the influence of alcohol (DUI), driving while intoxicated/impaired (DWI) or operating while intoxicated/impaired (OWI). The second and more recent is the so-called illegal per se offense of driving with a blood-alcohol concentration (BAC) of 0.08% (previously 0.10%) or higher. The first offense requires proof of intoxication, although evidence of BAC is admissible as rebuttably presumptive evidence of that intoxication; the second requires only proof of BAC at the time of being in physical control of a motor vehicle. An accused may be convicted of both offenses, but may only be punished for one.
It is also a criminal offense in all states to drive a vehicle while under the influence of drugs DUID, or under the combined influence of alcohol and drugs; the drugs themselves need not be illegal, but can be prescription or even over-the-counter. In some states, the effects of some herbal remedies (such as Kava Kava extract) fall into this category. This offense requires evidence of impairment as a result of the drugs or drugs and alcohol, although some states have passed laws making driving with the mere presence of certain drugs a criminal offense. A number of states have expanded upon DUI laws to make operating a motor vehicle while impaired a punishable offense, which includes sleep deprived driving, among other things.

Some states also include a lesser charge of driving with a BAC of 0.05%; other states limit this offense to drivers under the age of 21. All states also now have zero tolerance laws: the license of anyone under 21 driving with a BAC of .01% or higher (.02% in some states) will be suspended.

The blood-alcohol limit for commercial drivers is 0.04%. Commercial drivers are also subject to stricter punishments for exceeding the blood-alcohol limit.

Pilots of aircraft may not fly less than eight hours after consuming alcohol, while under the impairing influence of alcohol or any other drug, or while showing a blood alcohol concentration equal to or greater than 0.04 grams per decilitre of blood.

The various versions of "driving under the influence" generally constitute a misdemeanor (punishable by up to one year in jail). However, the offense may be elevated to a felony (punishable by a longer term in state prison) if the incident caused serious injury (felony DUI), death (vehicular manslaughter or vehicular homicide), or extensive property damage (a state specified dollar amount) or if the defendant has a designated number of prior DUI convictions within a given time period (commonly, 3 prior convictions within 7 years). California, which is being followed by a growing number of states, now charges second-degree murder where the legal state of mind of malice exists -- that is, where the defendant exhibited a reckless indifference to the lives of others.


Administrative License Suspension
Drivers stopped for drunk driving who refuse to take the sobriety test or whose test results exceed the legal limit of Blood Alcohol Concentration (BAC) may have their driver's license confiscated on the spot, and their suspension begins immediately (Florida.
This is a common misconception. Florida Law clearly states
316.1932 Any person who accepts the privilege extended by the laws of this state of operating a motor vehicle within this state is, by so operating such vehicle, deemed to have given his or her consent to submit to an approved chemical test or physical test including, but not limited to, an infrared light test of his or her breath for the purpose of determining the alcoholic content of his or her blood or breath if the person is lawfully arrested for any offense allegedly committed while the person was driving or was in actual physical control of a motor vehicle while under the influence of alcoholic beverages. The chemical or physical breath test must be incidental to a lawful arrest and administered at the request of a law enforcement officer who has reasonable cause to believe such person was driving or was in actual physical control of the motor vehicle within this state while under the influence of alcoholic beverages

Law enforcement officers conduct Field Sobriety Tests (FSTs), including the use of portable breath analyzers (PBAs) for the purposes of determining if probable cause exists for an arrest. Until an arrest has been made, a motorist is under no obligation to perform any test. Most states consider such a pre-arrest refusal inadmissible in court.
Depending on previous offenses or refusals, licenses may be automatically suspended for a period of 90 days to five years, or permanently revoked for multiple DWI convictions (Connecticut.
As of 2005, only nine states did not have ALS laws: Kentucky, Michigan, Montana, New Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Dakota and Tennessee.
An SR-22 is an official documentation required to redeem a suspended drivers license and get a car registered at the local Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV). A SR22 Filing is a form issued by an insurance company which removes a suspension order placed by the DMV's office on an individual's driving privilege. The most common reason for an SR22 filing is an arrest for Driving Under Intoxication (DUI) or Driving While Intoxicated (DWI). The filing provides a guarantee to the state that an insurance company has issued at least minimum liability coverage for the person making that filing and that the insurance company will notify the DMV should the insurance ever lapse for any reason

3 years probation (informal - no probation officer).
3-5 days sheriff work alternative program (picking up trash, cleaning buses, etc.)
First Offender School (12 hrs/ 32 hrs / 45 hrs (3 month or 6 months) depending on blood alcohol levels.
AND Once the DMV receives notice of conviction - 6 Months license suspension (this is in addition to APS action - see The Complication below).
If the DUI charge is reduced to the fine is lower and the course is only 12 hours. BUT If you want a restricted license, the DMV requires a completion certificate for a first offender program. A first offender program is 3 months long (sometimes the county makes it 4 months long). So, here is the catch 22. The court tells you to do a 12 hour program BUT the DMV has NO forms for a 12 month program and ONLY accepts completion forms for a 32 hour program! Get it? If you've got a 'wet-reckless' then you have to complete a 3 month program to get your license from the DMV in California! A DUI lawyer can help you out with this.

This is in addition to the four months immediate DMV suspension that starts 30 days after your DUI stop.

The Complication of a California DUI
These two ACTIONS (court and DMV) are SEPARATE and do not influence one another. Many times someone gets their license back by going to the DMV hearing and then is convicted in the court. When this happens what happens to your license gets ever more 'complicated'. And the reverse is true, people are innocent in the court and yet still have a license suspension with the DMV.

With the conviction in the court you are allowed to get a restricted license AFTER a 30 day hard suspension (after the 30 day temporary license period is over = two months after your DUI stop). This allows you to drive to and from work and in the course of your employment and to and from the DUI class.

The only 'draw back' to the license restriction is that it is restricted for 5 months (they say 6 but the DMV counts the first month of suspension). OR you can ride out the 4 months suspension period and get you license back. BUT, once the court notifies the DMV that you have been convicted of a DUI or a wet reckless and as part of your probation you have been sent to a First Offender Program. The requirement to show proof of completion of the program will be added to the list of items needed Proof of Insurance SR-22 and pay $100) to get your license returned.

According to CA DUI Laws, as of October 2005, upon receiving notice from the court of a California DUI conviction (23152) the DMV is suspending licenses for 6 months This new added compilation is a double suspension the DMV is giving DUI offenders. The first is the four month APS suspension telling DUI offenders they can get a restricted license DMV tells DUI.com that only 20% of DUI offenders statewide actually get this restriction) and then they issue this letter telling the offender they are suspended for 6 months and can get a restricted license on the court conviction. The added complication is this; once a person gets an APS restriction they have to go back in and get another restriction after paying $15.00.

As anyone can see there is a problem with time. If someone gets an APS restriction and then receives a letter from the DMV based on the conviction indicating that they have a 6 month suspension (AFFECTIVE as of the CONVICTION date) they will actually be driving on a suspended license (and if stopped will have their car towed) until they go to the DMV and pay a $15 restriction to get a restricted license reinstated. California DMV Hearings



DUI Attorney Home | DUI Lawyers | DUI Car Insurance | Drunk Driving Articles | Personal Alcohol Breathalyzers | Educational Drunk Driving Videos

Criminal Records | Attorney Advertising | California DUI Attorneys | California DUI Car Insurance | California Drunk Driving Articles & News | All California DUI Lawyers



Los Angeles DUI Attorneys | San Franciso DUI Attorneys | San Diego DUI Attorneys | San Jose DUI Attorneys
San Bernardino DUI Attorneys | Santa Barbara DUI Attorneys

Southern California DUI Lawyers | Northern California DUI Lawyers | Central Valley DUI Attorneys