We are a commune of inquiring, skeptical, politically centrist, capitalist, anglophile, traditionalist New England Yankee humans, humanoids, and animals with many interests beyond and above politics. Each of us has had a high-school education (or GED), but all had ADD so didn't pay attention very well, especially the dogs. Each one of us does "try my best to be just like I am," and none of us enjoys working for others, including for Maggie, from whom we receive neither a nickel nor a dime. Freedom from nags, cranks, government, do-gooders, control-freaks and idiots is all that we ask for.
Our Recent Essays Behind the Front Page
Tuesday, April 15. 2008
If there is an epidemic of drooling pedophile lechers hanging around the beaches, it's news to me, but maybe Maine is different:
Our editor wants a comment about this insanity in which, as Van Helsing puts it, "the government wishes to regulate your eyeball movements."
People are sexual beings. We are many other things too, but that's one thing that we are. We have been given a strong dose of it, and it isn't seasonal like most animals. Is human sexuality "appropriate"? No, often it is not. Nor is human aggressiveness, nor is human fantasy in general.
That's why we learn to keep fantasy in fantasyland, and to keep our behavior in the real world, where the real consequences happen.
One thing that bothers me about the neo-puritanism of the radical feminists is the disingenuous blurring of sexuality with aggression (the wording of the Maine law is a perfect example of the perverse blurring).
At the risk of sounding perhaps too non-traditional for Maggie's, unconscious and sometimes conscious erotic fantasies know no bounds of gender, age, morality, law, or social appropriateness. Everybody knows this and everybody has experienced this, on some level. Socio-cultural taboos, conscience, mental mechanisms like repression, laws, consequences, judgement, the balance of normal impulses, and conventions prevent most of us from behaving like monkeys. Not to mention the fact that we have other interesting or necessary things to do.
However, people who sexually prey on kids are not so much sick as they are simple criminals. Unlike the ancient Greeks, and for better or worse, we have laws about these things.
Break a law, become a crim. It's your choice. But this Maine law, designed to make it easier to prosecute "peepers" as felons satirizes itself. Obviously, the potential for abuse by paranoid Moms is part of the issue here. How does anyone discriminate a peeper from a looker? Everybody likes to look at cute kids, and that is what the neo-puritans can't tolerate.
Is "looking" an action? Not in my book. If it were, I'd be on death row for all of the visual daggers I have thrown.
Related: The pub ogling crisis in the UK
Photo: Would the feminists permit this famous and utterly innocent ad today?
Display comments as (Linear | Threaded)
they had better take all the mirrors off of bathroom walls, you might see a naked person getting out of the shower.
What if you leer at yourself?
Blinders for males would be appropriate, hell just poke out their eyes.
Better yet, perfect the process of turning eggs into sperm and you can get rid of all men via gas chambers. That solves the problem in totality.
Besides, if women just wore clothing that covered up all their naughty bits, basically every thing besides the eyes, and sometimes those should have a veil too, there wouldn't be any problems with leering. Any woman caught enticing men to peep at them should be dealt with, perhaps by burying the naughty bits and throwing rocks at their exposed heads?
At the very least just keep the men and women separate. There's a nice island called Australia which can hold all the worlds men while the babes get their Gaia on.
Are you sure you do not break the child porn laws with that Coppertone ad?
heh. Just wear mirror sunglasses all the time if you're ogling babes. Good luck trying to prove in court where your eyes were peeping.
This kind of stuff just increases paranoia and eventually shuts down the enjoyment of being part of anything.
I second that opinion. My college students are wondering what the mirrored shades are for in a night class.
A very typical interventionist government response, which will create unintended consequences if it becomes law. The observers of the pedophiles accurately picked up that something was wrong with the look. I work with these folks, it is possible much of the time. The automatic response is to try and consequate the behavior, but it can be only vaguely described when one tries to make a general rule. A sane person immediately thinks "well, we'll have to try something else, then." Not a progressive. Though the definition of a wrong look is like a screw that is cross-threaded, they are determined to drive it in anyway.
I repent of part of my comment. Government-types in general, not just progressives, think that way.
Right-o! I've known lots of prosecutor types call themselves 'conservative', which is code for everyone who gets caught peeping needs to be in jail.
Now I have to think about the word peeping.
I've done some peeping.
The Thought Police I mean the Eye Police would like your adddress.
If it makes you feel better... I did once peep in through the bathroom window and caught my step-sister stuffing toilet paper in her bra. It scarred me so bad I never did it again... peeping that is. I was very young.
But seriously, this is a stupid law. Meta already worked a way round it. And besides, it will only make the deviants more careful... not stop them.
Both you and the BD attempt to lure me into peeping admissions, but I resist. Eric Hoffer Also said . . . .
"Self-righteousness is a loud din raised to drown the voice of guilt within us."
The Peeper speaks for himself.
You're a handy man with the good quote Irish... but nah, I'm not trying to trip you up. Unless really called for I try to keep my din to a whisper. I've better things to worry about.
Damn, Hoss. You got some peepalicious scenery at your blog.
Reckon I should read it from time to time?
After I left here, concerned, of course, about my moral welfare, I serendipitously peeped into this:
There are no chaste minds. Minds copulate wherever they meet.
Then, of course, is this:
Not suitable for pet chickens.
O.K. Lets say I consider myself a normal man, neither saint nor devil.
And I read that this town, on this beach, will brand any man deemed to be lasciviously looking at young (or very young) women with a felony conviction. Then I recall the first time I saw a girl in a string bikini and was unable to stop staring (jaw dropped also as I recall). I think to myself,"Better not ever visit that beach, or that town".
So the population of normal men going to that beach drops.
Does that make the young women going that beach safer?
And what do the real immoral deviants think about the situation? That the young women of that region are so salacious that the town has to write laws to prevent men from looking at them.?
And if the pervs get to close and those young ladies look around for a guy to step in with a warning glance or rough word, will there be anyone there?
Hahahaha to York, Maine, and all their earnest elected and appointed officials. Don't they have some real challenges, like closing a Marine recruiting office? Don't snicker, I'm serious.
Might I also suggest they adopt the cutting-edge, American feminist-approved, cultural practices of the Middle East and tell the women and female children to cover up or be beaten. Jimmy Carter is available for consultations after he is finished in Damascus and Gaza.
Why would anyone go to a beach in Maine, if not to check out the babes? Certainly not because the water is warm enough for swimming. Ask Al Gore to call me when the temp reaches the 70's. I'll be here in The Magic City, at the nude beach. Hahahahahahaha.
Let's try this, everybody videotape every public appearance of any legislators who vote for this bill. Seek charges every time one of them interacts with a child or kisses a baby. If all of those instances get thrown out of court, then the first person who is charged gets to call the ACLU and plead "unequal protection under the law."
I mean, for goodness sake, the ACLU has to be good for something...
Thanks for the amusing comments from all of you drooling lechers!
Here is the text of the Maine law; original and the new offending amendments.
§256. Visual sexual aggression against child
1. A person is guilty of visual sexual aggression against a child if:
A. For the purpose of arousing or gratifying sexual desire or for the purpose of causing affront or alarm, the actor, having in fact attained 18 years of age, exposes the actor's genitals to another person or causes the other person to expose that person's genitals to the actor and the other person, not the actor's spouse, has not in fact attained 14 years of age. Violation of this paragraph is a Class D crime; [2005, c. 655, §1 (AMD).]
B. For the purpose of arousing or gratifying sexual desire, the actor, having in fact attained 18 years of age, exposes the actor's genitals to another person or causes the other person to expose that person's genitals to the actor and the other person, not the actor's spouse, has not in fact attained 12 years of age. Violation of this paragraph is a Class C crime; [2005, c. 655, §1 (AMD).]
C. For the purpose of arousing or gratifying sexual desire, the actor, having in fact attained 18 years of age, intentionally engages in visual surveillance, aided or unaided by mechanical or electronic equipment, of the uncovered breasts, buttocks, genitals, anus or pubic area of another person in a private place, not the actor's spouse and not having in fact attained 14 years of age, under circumstances in which a reasonable person would expect to be safe from such visual surveillance. Violation of this paragraph is a Class D crime; or [2005, c. 655, §1 (NEW).]
D. For the purpose of arousing or gratifying sexual desire, the actor, having in fact attained 18 years of age, intentionally engages in visual surveillance, aided or unaided by mechanical or electronic equipment, of the uncovered breasts, buttocks, genitals, anus or pubic area of another person in a private place, not the actor's spouse and not having in fact attained 12 years of age, under circumstances in which a reasonable person would expect to be safe from such visual surveillance. Violation of this paragraph is a Class C crime. [2005, c. 655, §1 (NEW).]
As used in this subsection, the term "private place" has the same meaning as in section 511.
[ 2005, c. 655, §1 (AMD) .]
The law or bill seems to be concerned with exposure of private parts of the looker or the looked at. I suppose it intends to cover public dressing rooms where people change in front of each other. But is that not public? Is it not known? So now it wrong to change in a changing room, if there are kids present. I assume the parents brought them in. The parents might even undress them but it is those around who will be charged. Sounds very wrong.
But my biggest concern if the old foot in the door. Is this the problem or is this the first step to something even worse? Recall how when seat belts were first recommended for young children, we were all assured by legislators that this was not a foot in the door. But that is exactly what it turned out to be. Now we all must wear them and can be seriously fined, for our own good and protection, of course, but not good for our welfare and bank accounts. So we lose either way.
So, surveillance, aided or not by mechanical or electrical instruments, becomes the sin or could. And of course, it will be presumed sooner or later than all surveillance is for sexual purposes. What else could it possibly be! Any viewing can or will be assumed to be of the worst intent. This is so scary.
But worst of all, it seems like we are getting so irrational with fear and paranoia that we are nearly to the point of hysteria and gouging out the eyes of men. Women couldnâ€™t possibly be sexual, aggressive, or threatening. I see this as the worst of all hate crimes and it is men who are hated and despised.
Also, we are so terrified by what might be going on in peopleâ€™s minds, as if fantasies, if they exist, are some serious and certain threat. Have we all lost our minds? At this point, I am not so worried about foreign attackers or invaders. It might be an improvement over the basket cases running our own country and state.
In psychology, there is a little thing they call psychosis. It is an extreme distortion of reality or completely lost contract with reality. Itâ€™s a very serious condition. Yet, it would appear as if now most of our leaders are plagued with it. Donâ€™t people know how to vote right anymore?
It reminds me of all the absurd stop signs in Portland now over the last 5 or 10 years roughly. Some very disturbed minds believe we are in eminent danger of traffic fatalities due to running stop signs. I was not aware there was such a great problem in that area.
We are all in need of some serious therapy and head cleaning. No judgment or sense anymore. I donâ€™t know where this bill or law will end but I do believe they will go further with it. They did with seat belts. They did it before and they will do it again.
Be afraid! Be very afraid!!! You are in very serious danger. Those above you ruling over you have completely lost their minds. They are capable of absolutely anything. Donâ€™t doubt it for a minute. Remember that I told you so!