The trouble with her dismissal is that the only reason behind it is the provincial attitude that sex isn't to be appreciated by anyone other than those directly involved, and even they shouldn't enjoy it too much. Here is a completely legal display of a human interaction that almost everyone happily participates in. In fact, it's so valued that people write and buy books so as to do it better.
My question is: if extra marital sex is so common, (97% of Americans have sex before they marry*) why would anyone see it as wrong? Reasonable people wouldn't, so it's obviously quite normal. And if so many choose to engage in it must be quite desirable.
Secondly, if sex is not only a desirable and normal undertaking why would the filming of it be questionable? It certainly doesn't hurt anyone, which is confirmed by its legality.
So here we have a film of a legal, desirable, and normal act between consenting adults. So far anyone see anything wrong here? I don't. In fact, I don't see any basic difference between this and two people playing a piano-violin duet while being video-taped.
Now let's say there are people who like watching others enjoying themselves in this legal and normal manner. Are they the worse off for it? Evidently not because the law has seen fit to allow it: people are free to watch others having sex without repercussions, as are the participants in the film.
So far then we're talking about a legal, normal, desirable event made for the pleasure of others. Not at all different than making a recording of a Brahms concerto. So where does the onus attached to porn come from; one so strong that it can compel people to take away the right to work of others? It's purely a small-minded, puritanical notion that sex is dirty. Hypocritical in the extreme, but their we have it. This is why the school district could do no better than the vacuous, "[she]had no business teaching children," and why the district's attorney came up with the asinine
My question is: if extra marital sex is so common, (97% of Americans have sex before they marry*) why would anyone see it as wrong? Reasonable people wouldn't, so it's obviously quite normal. And if so many choose to engage in it must be quite desirable.
Secondly, if sex is not only a desirable and normal undertaking why would the filming of it be questionable? It certainly doesn't hurt anyone, which is confirmed by its legality.
So here we have a film of a legal, desirable, and normal act between consenting adults. So far anyone see anything wrong here? I don't. In fact, I don't see any basic difference between this and two people playing a piano-violin duet while being video-taped.
Now let's say there are people who like watching others enjoying themselves in this legal and normal manner. Are they the worse off for it? Evidently not because the law has seen fit to allow it: people are free to watch others having sex without repercussions, as are the participants in the film.
So far then we're talking about a legal, normal, desirable event made for the pleasure of others. Not at all different than making a recording of a Brahms concerto. So where does the onus attached to porn come from; one so strong that it can compel people to take away the right to work of others? It's purely a small-minded, puritanical notion that sex is dirty. Hypocritical in the extreme, but their we have it. This is why the school district could do no better than the vacuous, "[she]had no business teaching children," and why the district's attorney came up with the asinine
“This case is about whether the students of the Oxnard School District are required to incorporate into their learning environment the choice Ms. Halas made to be a porn star,""Incorporate into their learning environment"? Nice double speak.
What has happened Halas is a crime, and I hope she wins her appeal.
Source: http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/current-events/143999-acting-porn-grounds-immediate-dismissal-because-4.html
No comments:
Post a Comment