Another one bites the dust?
Oct. 15th, 2010 07:09 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
apple_pathwaysHad 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.
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.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2010-10-16 01:54 am (UTC)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.
no subject
Date: 2010-10-16 02:06 am (UTC)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...
no subject
Date: 2010-10-16 08:47 am (UTC)Unless you're trying to prove that it has, that is. Because Victorians? Way kinky.
/interruption, with apologies for not thinking of this earlier.
no subject
Date: 2010-10-16 05:43 pm (UTC)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!
no subject
Date: 2010-10-16 05:53 pm (UTC)That said, my reasoning could be way off. At least you've got an interesting paper to write!