Another one bites the dust?

[apple_pathways]

Had a lovely day today: I spent it thrift store shopping for my Halloween costume. At the salvation army in Redford, I found a wedding dress that would be ABSOLUTELY PERFECT for dressing as a Calvierri girl from Doctor Who. It was of a thick, satiny ivory fabric with a swirling french pattern, long sleeves, and a very full gathered skirt with long train. There were a few too many sequins on the bodice, but overall, they were tasteful and would have blended in perfectly. The best thing: it FIT me! Perfectly! The one problem? It was $70.00. I'm sure that's a very good deal for a wedding gown, but it's a little pricey for a Halloween costume.



What I ended up buying instead is a long black and white formal gown, the kind one might wear to prom or to be a bridesmaid. It was only $15.00, and just a little bit too big; it only needs a few tucks in the bodice, and it should fit perfectly. My plan is to be some sort of Zombie Miss America. Stay tuned for pictures.

Now here comes the dilemma:



When I was researching thrift stores in the area, I came across the Salvation Army's website. I've always known that they're a christian organization. Normally, as a rule, I avoid religious charities, because studies have shown that they're less efficient at getting the money to the populations they serve than secular charities and, depending on the religion, I often don't agree with a lot of the doctrine their programs espouse. I try my best to be consistent in making a moral stand, to the point where I have to tell my ten year-old next-door neighbor that I can't buy his popcorn because of the Boy Scouts of America's policy of excluding homosexuals from their ranks. (The Girls Scouts of America are a completely separate organization and have no such policy, so I am free to enjoy their cookies guilt-free. Well...almost.)

In the past, I've made exceptions for organizations like Purple Heart and the Salvation Army because they're good at what they do and are a staple of American charities. Who could argue with the good work they do? Well, now I can.

I was at the Salvation Army's website, and under "Programs that Help" the very first one that's listed is Anti-Pornography. Check this out:

The Salvation Army firmly believes that sexuality is a gift of a loving Creator. It deplores pornography as a distortion of God's design for human happiness and well being. Pornography is a harmful scourge on society, endangering and degrading the physical, psychological, moral, and spiritual welfare of all persons. Thus, the following pages are offered to provide critical information about pornography's devastating effects, equip people with the means to protect themselves and their families from pornography's reach, and to extend hope to those struggling
with pornography addiction.

Good. Holy. GOD! (Pardon my French.)

As someone who *ahem* writes pornography, I am offended.

Yes, there is bad pornography. What is bad pornography? Pornography that exploits its subjects and takes advantage of the disadvantaged (including children). Some pornography is nothing more than rape on camera.

Is pornography harmful to those who view it? Possibly. (And I say that very tentatively.) It's true that some people become addicted to pornography. However, not everything that is addictive is illegal. (Cigarette, anyone? says the former smoker.)

Pornography has been linked to all kinds of horrible, nasty crimes: there are studies that discuss its influence on sexual violence, attitudes toward women, and all kinds of things good feminists should get all up-in-arms about. However, nothing more than a "link" has ever been proven to exist.

Why? It's not because scientists haven't tried. They have. They just couldn't find any men who didn't view pornography in order to study them. So if EVERYONE views pornography (at least every man; I don't know what studies have been done on women who view pornography), then why aren't we all rapists and killers? Food for thought.

For me, it's about freedom of thought and expression. I'm very big on that. In a major way. One of the few doctrines or dogmas I've ever been able to get behind.

So what does everyone else think? Should I be boycotting The Salvation Army? (If my RL friends were reading this, they'd be rolling their eyes right now: "Who isn't on the list?" a friend once asked me.) Is pornography a "scourge on society?" Should I just shut up now?

I welcome your input.

Comments

[copper-season.livejournal.com]

I didn't know about the Salvation Army's Anti-Pornography section. Hmmm. I boycotted them a long time ago because, at least here in Vegas, the SA did not distribute donations out to the community like they were supposed to and kept a large majority of the money for themselves. Now I donate to other charities like Shade Tree which is a shelter for abused women and children, the SPCA, and to breast cancer research.

Sorry for the rambling. LOL. But yeah, I'd boycott them. I love to read a good porn story and I don't think that porn, the non-degrading kind, is a scourge of society. In fact, I enjoy watching good porn with my spouse. LOL.

[apple-pathways.livejournal.com]

Rambling? Please! Ramble on! I invite discussion--I could just as easily listen to myself spout off about this topic during my morning shower, but LJ gives me the opportunity to compose my ideas and read thoughtful input from others.

I've never heard anything about improprieties from the Salvation Army before, but I wouldn't be surprised. It's heartbreaking to think how many charities fall short when it comes to serving the people they were formed to help out. Human greed, bah!

Normally, I stick to my usual list of charities when I'm making cash donations. (It's hard not to add more, though; once you donate to one charity, you find yourself on the mailing list of a dozen more!) But when it comes to thrift stores like Goodwill and the Salvation Army, I don't, strictly speaking, visit them with charity in mind: I want cheap clothes for myself. And when it comes to a bargain, it's hard to keep me away.

So yeah, it looks I'll have to boycott from now on. It's a shame, really: I still really want that wedding dress!

[copper-season.livejournal.com]

Yeah, the whole thing just made me sick when the news hit. Another charity, the United Way was also misappropriating donations and it was either the head guy or a few mid-level people that were stealing a lot of money from people who really needed it.

I know that there are places that go by Christian values but they don't intrude too much in people's lives. Which I give a big thumb's up to. LOL. And I do know that there are people who are addicted to sex sites or to porn and it affects not only them, but their family and their whole lives and that is sad. That is when I think that having services available is worth it.

I'm sorry about your dress. :( I bet it was awesome.

[apple-pathways.livejournal.com]

And I do know that there are people who are addicted to sex sites or to porn and it affects not only them, but their family and their whole lives and that is sad. That is when I think that having services available is worth it.

Oh, absolutely! Any sort of addiction deserves treatment. If this were all they were providing, I'd be fine, it's the whole "porn is evil, and NOBODY GETS TO SEE IT" that bugs me.

I know that there are places that go by Christian values but they don't intrude too much in people's lives.

Absolutely, and I do know this! My heart is always warmed by people who use their religion as inspiration to devote their lives to others. (I have a lot of relatives in this category.) But I don't really have time to research every charity out there, so I tend to just avoid religious charities as a rule until I know more about them. I usually just stick with a few good causes that (to the best of my knowledge) are responsible and reliable.

The dress WAS awesome! But I do not a castoff wedding dress I will only wear once or twice as a costume, I don't! (I'm going to be telling myself that all night when I dream about it...)

[copper-season.livejournal.com]

I avoid religious based charities as well unless I can really research what they're about. Like you said though, it's not feasible to research all of them out there and it's sad when those people who are in need do not get the funds or the services they needed.

I've dreamed of having a traditional wedding... maybe someday we can renew our vows and I can wear the dress. LOL.

[planejane.livejournal.com]

Have you seen this website? http://sexisnottheenemy.tumblr.com

It's a celebration of sex, sexuality and love. I think it speaks for itself, and you know how I feel about pornography. I agree with everything you said, which doesn't further debate, but I hope makes you feel more solid in your decision.

In light of what you've said, I'll no longer be donating to the SA. I can donate directly to The Lighthouse in Pontiac, and there are other charities that take your unwanted clothes etc.

[apple-pathways.livejournal.com]

Ooh! I have bookmarked that tumblr, and I know I'll have great fun going over it in great detail. It's nice to know there are people out there who still remember that sex is fun, and adults can enjoy it in various ways (including through pornography) without warping their minds.

Now I want to change my research topic from "Has the internet made people kinkier?" to something about women's use of pornography. I wonder what studies have been done? They all seem to be about male use of pornography and the possible link to sexual violence.

I'm going to have to do some research on the Purple Heart charity. That's who my parents usually donate old clothes to. I hope I don't find out they have some weird vendetta against "that devil music Rock & Roll!" or something...

[ladylovelace.livejournal.com]

I hate to butt in (lies), but if you're doing research on the internet making people kinkier, would you like some genuine Victorian kink to go with it?

Unless you're trying to prove that it has, that is. Because Victorians? Way kinky.

/interruption, with apologies for not thinking of this earlier.

[apple-pathways.livejournal.com]

Butt away! I will always bow to your authority when it comes to Victorian porn.

My paper is, in fact, aiming to (well, not "prove" but rather "suggest") that easy access to internet porn has made us kinkier: not in the tone and content of our pornography, but rather in the actual sexual behavior of Mr. and Ms. John Q. Public. For instance, do more people practice BDSM? Have the rates of fetishes gone up? Etc.

Certainly, the Victorians were into some kinky shit, but I don't know how many people were actually engaging in the practices they were reading about. I also imagine, due to the physical nature of pornography (actual books, pictures, etc. you can hold in your hand and must be hidden under your mattress) and the relative difficulty of obtaining it (actually having to leave your house), that not as many people (especially women) were consumers of pornography and those who were probably had exposure to a much smaller amount.

After all, today, I can have access to millions of images, words, and videos tailored to incredibly specific tastes in a matter of seconds.

However, I could be wrong! I'm only in the preliminary stages of my research. I may have to change my research question if I can't find the evidence I want for it, or I could find out that I'm totally wrong. I'll keep you posted!

[ladylovelace.livejournal.com]

I'd be very interested to find out what you discover. My initial instinct would be that availability doesn't necessarily suggest anyone acts on these things.

That said, my reasoning could be way off. At least you've got an interesting paper to write!

[middlegirl.livejournal.com]

Oh darn you. The more you talk about the Calvierri girls, the more I want to dress up like one.

As for men who don't view porn, I'm pretty sure I could say without a shadow of a doubt that my dad and my grandfathers don't. They're all men of such honor that I can't see them keeping any secrets of that magnitude from the family. I know that being a Christian and a porn watcher aren't mutually exclusive, and I know that being a pastor (as my maternal grandfather was) doesn't keep a man from getting caught up in that activity. But I also think that the world of pornography is something that Christians should be set apart from, that we should have nothing to do with. The Bible teaches that Christians should be "in the world but not of the world" - we're called to be different. So I do agree with the Salvation Army.

As for sex, I believe that sex is enjoyable (or should be - I'm still a virgin) and meant to be enjoyed, but that it needs to be between a husband and wife, because that's what the Bible teaches. It's sort of like teaching about various forms of birth control, but also that abstinence is the only 100% safe way to avoid disease and pregnancy.

But I also believe that I can't expect a non-Christian to adhere to a Christian's moral standards (how can I expect someone to follow the rules of a God they don't believe exists?), so, despite how relativistic this sounds, if you have to boycott the Salvation Army, that's your call, and I hope you find somewhere else to score some sweet bargains.

And now I have to hit up our thrift stores and look for a ivory satin gown. Again, darn you. :)

[apple-pathways.livejournal.com]

Oh darn you. The more you talk about the Calvierri girls, the more I want to dress up like one.

If you do, I WANT PICTURES!

I'm sure there are men who don't use pornography, the point is they don't exist in great enough numbers in order for science to study them. (I'd like to believe the same of my grandfathers, but I would be very surprised indeed if they had never in their lives partaken of a little porn!)

Personal beliefs are, as always, up to the person him or herself. I can understand why many christian religions would want to discourage their members from it. A lot of porn is just, to put it mildly: not nice. It doesn't depict loving relationships, and it doesn't respect the participants as people, using them instead as objects.

However, that is not all porn. It is possible for (some) christians to adhere to their personal spiritual beliefs, participate in a loving, committed marriage, and enjoy some good, wholesome porn!

And even if it weren't possible, not everyone is christian, as you've observed. The rest of us have a right to make decisions for ourselves. (I understand you're respecting that right, and I appreciate it! I'm just trying to make a wider point here.)

If the Salvation Army were just offering counseling for pornography addiction and information for christians on why pornography might be wrong in the eyes of their faith, I wouldn't have a problem. But they're talking of pornography as a "scourge" that must be eliminated, and I have a problem with that.

There's a few consignment shops in the area I've visited. I would try Goodwill, but there aren't any within 25 miles of me. Good luck in your dress hunt! Once again: PICTURES, PLEASE! (I'm going to be dreaming of that dress.)

[evilhippo.livejournal.com]

I think what really gets me about that pornography nonsense is that I just can't get my brain around what it has to do with anything. I suppose insofar as "there ain't no such thing as a free lunch," I guess I've come to expect there to be some kind of philosophical ultimatum for receiving charity, but at the same time I don't understand why something as specific as Don't Look at Porn; It's Evil should figure in to one's worthiness for charity (or salvation in general, for that matter, but that's my nondenominational general relativity speaking).

Actually, what bothers me more is their assertion that it's fine to be a homosexual while also claiming that it's their moral duty to remain celibate. So, you can be homosexual, but you have to leave the sex part out of it... It's a pretty baffling standpoint, but the blurb makes a big show of looking like a well-reasoned and considered argument, while the blurb on pornography clearly... isn't. My guess is that few people challenge them on the pornography front, but they've actually had to argue the homosexuality standpoint on a regular basis.

[apple-pathways.livejournal.com]

My favorite part of the blurb is the first line where they say "sexuality is a gift of a loving Creator", as if we're supposed to guess which one. "Ooh, is it Gaia?"

Actually, what bothers me more is their assertion that it's fine to be a homosexual while also claiming that it's their moral duty to remain celibate.

I...did not know this. Wow, I am finding out all kinds of things about the Salvation Army today! And all these years, I've been chastising the little Boy Scouts for excluding gays, and letting the Salvation Army completely off the hook!

I just can't get my brain around what it has to do with anything.

It does kinda come out of nowhere. The phrase "WTF" did make an appearance when I found the link.

And yeah, that's another reason I'm not particularly happy with a lot of religious charities: the whole "believe what we do or no food for you!" aspect is very manipulative and just...well, yucky!

[ladylovelace.livejournal.com]

HOLD THE FUCKING PHONE.

I know for a fact that my local Salvos stores sell paperback romance novels. You know the ones. The ones that are thinly-disguised porn for the female market. Now it's possible that the Australian and American versions of the organisation are completely different, but one imagines that being the same church and all, they'd have mostly the same (apparently very strange) principles.

I can't find anything about it on the Australian website. Actually, I can't find any icky statements, but then they're bastards for overcharging by a long way. For junk.

On the subject at hand, as another producer and consumer of pornography, I would like to have it in writing that I am not a rapist serial killer. Nor have I ever done anything criminal because of or in relation to porn. Not even pirate it. So I'm going to go for the 'sex between consenting adults is a good thing, stop pretending it isn't' viewpoint. But then they do this is movie ratings, too - murder is not as bad as porn, unless the murder is especially gory. And that's dumb.

[apple-pathways.livejournal.com]

You know, I've never looked at books at a Salvation Army. (I can't specifically remember ever having seen any, so maybe my locals don't accept book donations?) But I wouldn't be surprised to see some of them carry romance novels. With an enormous, sprawling organization like the SA, there's bound to be a lot of discrepancy in practices between individual stores.

But then, the Australian organization could operate entirely independently of the US org. I wouldn't be surprised. (And I know what you mean about the overcharging. I don't know who decides how much things should cost, because I bought a brand new, possibly never-been-worn formal dress for $15.00. There were also 20 year-old, out-of-style, ripped and stained dresses that were also $15.00. WTF?)

Oh my, don't get me started on the whole "sex" vs "violence" debate! I will never understand why it's Ok to have all these shows about depraved and violent serial killers abducting and torturing women, but you can't show a naked breast without "warping the minds of children".

[rewindclunkplay.livejournal.com]

I won't lie- I believe in God, I pray, etc etc. but I'm not like, /omg sinning is rongggg/ cus I mean, on top of other things I write slashy porn <3 and it's cus of stunts like these that religion gets such a bad name. like god, RLY? slippery slope much? there are more important and much more DANGEROUS things out there to worry about then PORN. why not help against actual RAPE or DOMESTIC ABUSE as opposed to naked woman moaning? I mean, porn should be consensual (I don't think I spelled that right gwuhhh) and obviously child pornography should have action taken against it but it's my personal belief that God doesn't give a shit if you're fapping at your computer to naked woman with their legs spread as long as you're, you know, A GOOD PERSON.

lol sorry for this tl;dr!

[apple-pathways.livejournal.com]

And that's my point exactly--there's not even a concensus among christians as to what is and is not acceptable with re: to sex and pornography, so how can this organization pretend it's ok for them to decide what the rest of society is allowed to look at?

This is another reason why I hate it when politicians talk about "christians" and "people of faith", not just because they're excluding people without faith, but they're describing a concensus of opinion where no such concensus exists. May we all please be allowed to reason and decide like adults?

/ranting. You are a FANTASTIC person my dear, and you don't need to pretend to be anything other than you are when speaking with me. Your opinions are always valid to me, and I would never discount your point of view because you profess religious faith.