Date: Thu, 28 Jun 2001 07:41:27 -0500
Reply-To: John Rodgers <jhrodgers@CHARTER.NET>
Sender: Vanagon Mailing List <vanagon@gerry.vanagon.com>
From: John Rodgers <jhrodgers@CHARTER.NET>
Subject: Re: VW pornno- Long? No, Endless.
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Rico, your're right on , Bro!!
John Rodgers
88 GL Driver
Rico Sapolich wrote:
>
> In a message dated 6/17/01 10:12:29 AM, hksawyer@CATT.COM writes:
>
> << At 01:16 AM 6/17/01 -0400, Rico Sapolich wrote:
> >In a message dated 6/16/01 11:30:30 PM, badassbus@HOTMAIL.COM writes:
> >
> ><< Can't believe these guys stole my idea for Vanagon porn >>
> >
> >badassbus,
> >
> >Apparently you suffer a dearth of ideas. But, you make up for it by being
> >one hell of an asshole.
> >
> >Rich
>
> Rich, come on man, we are mostly adults here! . . .
> The "drive" for reproduction the strongest force
> on the planet at times, right up there with the primal instinct
> survival. . . . From your inflamed response, you
> were extremely offended. . . .
>
> Did I have fair warning? . . .
>
> . . .What would happen to the discussions if there is a chill to the freedom
> of speech that we enjoy on the list? . . .
> HK >>
>
> *****! ! ! ! ! ! BEWARE: THE FOLLOWING CONTAINS COURSE AND COMMON LANGUAGE
> WHICH MAY LEAVE INDELIBLE SEXUAL IMAGES ON YOUR IMAGINATION. IT IS VULGAR,
> SHAMELESS AND, PERHAPS, POINTLESS ! ! ! ! ! *****
>
> HK and Others:
>
> Where or where do I begin this much belated response to more e-mail's than I
> honestly had the stamina to read? Once the fuse was lit, I left town only to
> return to a mailbox bloated by the subject of porn. The glut of mail has
> provoked me to examine certain of my attitudes, something I avoid when it
> comes to art, food, music or . . . sex. I would much rather let the primal
> chord be plucked, then revel in its resonance.
>
> More than one suggested I am merely a prude. Hardly so. Ever since I was 11
> years old, when Linda Giles sat across the aisle from me in Mrs. Curran's
> classroom and allowed me to peer up her skirt while wondering what delights
> lay ensconced in her white panties, I have been a prisoner of sex. When I
> was 15, I had an 18 year old girlfriend who drove a Bugeye Sprite and who put
> me onto the scent of a woman; I have been rabidly following the trail ever
> since. During my college years, I took a long stroll on the wild side with a
> string of go-go dancers, today, they are called strippers. They came in all
> flavors and each one, as all women, had something unique to offer. But, one
> stood far above the rest as the most sexually motivated creature I have ever
> known. She was a fiery mix of Puerto Rican, Japanese and Irish and we had
> only two things in common: an appreciation of raw rhythm and blues and
> bumping uglies. On those merits she persuaded me to quit my summer job and
> to travel with her to almost every dive in the Northeast. By the time I
> returned to reality, any demureness I may have harbored was permanently
> extricated from my persona. As you can see, I am far from being a tightass
> regarding exhibitions of human sexuality.
>
> So, why DID I chastise badassbus? With one reservation, it was not so much
> the subject matter as it was the effrontery to my sense of scale. There is a
> proper time and a correct place for everything and this forum provided
> neither for badassbus. Beyond the impropriety of it all, there is nothing
> clever, enticing nor particularly unique about a couple of teenie boppers
> getting their backs blown out in VW bus. What could be more banal?
>
> The thing that did bother me, and still does, is that the porn selected was
> tinged by pedophilia, as is the bulk of the straight porn on the internet.
> What, dear lord, is it with the almost de riguer shaved pussy? A hairless
> mons pubis is what one sees when one changes a sweet female baby's diaper.
> Or, when a 3-year-old removes her accidentally wetted training pants and
> continues to romp around the front yard. With all her reproductive system
> hidden safely inside of her developing womb, a female child has to be one of
> God's most asexual creations! Yet, these sleazebag internet porno kings are
> foisting this perversion on young minds as if it is desirable or even normal.
>
> When a man as intellectually evolved as Andrew Wiles is a father, HK, I have
> to agree with you that the desire to procreate is whipping us all down the
> path of life. If this is the case, using it to excuse badassbus's temerity
> is rather tenuous because the only appropriate subject of porn for most of us
> should be, in turn, a woman fully ripened for the task at hand. One with a
> slight layer of body fat to carry her through the rigors of a pregnancy, a
> fully developed pelvic girdle to bear children without undue trauma, full and
> supple breasts for her babies to suckle and, the most visible indication that
> all systems are go, pubic hair. Hell, sounds like a Modigliani or, arguably
> the hottest babe of all time, Marilyn Monroe. So, badassbus, if you want to
> offend to a lesser degree, offer some porn of a woman, not a child who has
> just figured out the reason for that deep orifice amidships and whose parents
> are indulgent enough to pay for a boob job.
>
> The inadequate warning did not make this posting any more appropriate.
> Compared to what we expect to find here, the connection to Vanagons is very
> thin and I, for one, assumed it was some sort of innocuous joke. Since this
> is not a courtroom, allowances have to be made for assumptions. If you say
> someone who has been around the block should have known better merely from
> the subject line, consider this: I have been searching for a precision Rivett
> lathe. One of my searches returned a site whose window was entitled "TOOL
> PORN". Far from displaying teenage girls doing unnatural things with Snap-On
> rachets, it showed machine tools a couple of guys had rescued from the
> scrapyards of New England and requested others to share their own dirty,
> i.e., greasy, snapshots. With this mindset, I clicked on badassbus's link.
>
> Surely, my ramblings have tested everyone's patience, so, I won't go into why
> I think the 1st Amendment should not protect pornographers.
>
> An Arab friend once told me that when a person in his country accidentally
> sees someone in a compromising situation, such as catching a glimpse of a
> bather through a bathroom window, the shame is not on the one seen but on the
> viewer for looking. With that in mind, I share the shame the posting caused.
>
> Rich
| 
