« Bit stupid | Index | The Meanest Mac in History »

April 30, 2007, by Léon Krijnen



Very interesting discussion on Wired, a multi media success in the US. Wired is a magazine, a website, a blog, Wired is paper, digital and mobile content, Wired is much more than is used to be, a magazine about computers,Internet, technology. For instance; an article about sex, Is 'Internet Normal' the New 'Sex Normal'?

A lot of my fellow countrymen over here in The Netherlands not only think, but they know for sure that most Americans are very puritanical people. Like our Christian Historic party, that's against most forms of too visible parts, of too much body. Dutch people don't see that one can also see The United States as fifty different countries, with a lot of different people, cultures and idea's.

Translation in Dutch at @ BN/DeStem

Wired is most read in California, and New York; Wired is from progressive America.

The big question in the column, part of the Friday series 'Sex Drive' was if Regina Lynn, and the producers and listeners to a Playboy radio interview we would allow their children to be in a class with a teacher if they knew that teacher was into heavy BDSM, including cutting or "hanging by his skin."

Lynn said yes: the teacher shouldn't discuss his sex life with students; a teacher is not a student's friend or peer. But having a sex life, whether it is 100 percent vanilla or kinkier than even I want to think about, is every adults right.

Host Tiffany Granath and her producers were more cautious. They said if they didn't share the teacher's proclivities and weren't in the same scene, the only way they would learn about his behavior is if he wasn't discreet enough. And in that case, the kids could find out. And that would apparently be bad.

An interesting stalemate, bogging down into a discussion about what's normal and what not. Inevitable in every discussion where (child)porn is not allowed, because in every case somebody has to define if rules or regulations are exceeded.

(According to bestselling American author and Pulitzer Prize-winning humorist Dave Barry: The big problem with pornography is defining it. You can't just say it's pictures of people naked. For example, you have these primitive African tribes that exist by chasing the wildebeest on foot, and they have to go around largely naked, because, as the old tribal saying goes: "N'wam k'honi soit qui mali," which means, "If you think you can catch a wildebeest in this climate and wear clothes at the same time, then I have some beach front property in the desert region of Northern Mali that you may be interested in."So it's not considered pornographic when National Geographic publishes color photographs of these people hunting the wildebeest naked, or pounding one rock onto another rock for some primitive reason naked, or whatever. But if National Geographic were to publish an article entitled "The Girls of the California Junior College System Hunt the Wildebeest Naked," some people would call it pornography. But others would not. And still others, such as the Spectacularly Rev. Jerry Falwell, would get upset about seeing the wildebeest naked.)

Like Dutch Christian Historic Union Leader André Rouvoet and his party members, who think that a nice and clean girl in a golden Hönkemuller bikini is out of bounds, while most Dutch passers by don't even bother to look at the billboard in question.

One step further is another billboard, on which a bit more fatal girl is ready to throw her black bra in your face. I don't mind this one too, but I'm asking myself where and when I will reach my personal turning point

When the voluptuous trend in these adds keeps rising, the time will come that I agree with Rouvoet. That uncomfortable thought worries me the most.

Posted: April 30, 2007 12:44 PM (629 words).   

Comment over here or on my Facebook wall . . .