Conference back40::soapbox

>This store  appears to be more than a store that just happens to rent
>x-rated videos.  It seems to have a complete building dedicated to
>the x-rated business.

It appears to be a store with a trailer attached to it that contains the
adult videos, and which you need to show ID before allowed to enter.

Lots of video stores have a separate room for adult material; Big deal.


Doug.

    Well, it is a dedicated structure.  Trailers serve as buildings in lots
    of locales.  At the risk of speculating incorrectly from the latest
    information, it sounds like this is more like a garden variety mom and
    pop video store where you can get everything from Forrest Gump to
    Forrest Hump.  If this in fact is the case, I agree, no big deal.  It's
    too bad the team was disbanded over this.  

    
    
>>    	Why did they wait four years to protest?

>Earlier games were played with uniforms with no name.  The objection
>was raised when the name appeared on the uniforms.
    
 	So, the video store sponsered the team and the parents knew this,
    and the parents knew that the video store rented adult videos, and as
    long as the store's name didn't appear on the uniforms, it was OK with
    the parents?
    	The store's money is good, but not their name!
    
    ed

the 4 yr wait might have something to do with league ages; it's highly possible 
that the the offended parents kid's weren't old enough to play on that league
1,2,3 or 4 yrs ago.  NTM it's just another group of religous zealots looking for
attention and redemption.

ogre.

    .14012
    
    > NTM it's just another group of religous zealots...
    
    You really ought to get that brush trimmed some - it's way too broad. 
    I'm not a religious zealot, but I have a strong aversion to porn in
    general and, more specifically, associating children with it in any
    way.  I'd have been among those who objected.
    
    No, I don't read Playboy, not even for the articles.

    Simple. Each year there are new players on the team. The parents of the
    new players apparently didn't know who supplied the money to provide
    uniforms for that team. Undoubtedly it never occurred to these parents
    to inquire; all they knew was that _they_ didn't have to pick up the
    tab and that was good enough reason not to worry about it.
    
    It seems this group of parents doesn't like for people they've made
    moral pronouncements about to perform socially redeeming acts.

    So Dick, would you have protested if your child was sponsored by a
    convenience store or a mom and pop newsstand that sold "dirty" 
    magazines?  If not, what's the difference?   

re ed:
    
> 	So, the video store sponsered the team and the parents knew this,

The parents, according to the article, didn't know that the store was
the sponsor until the uniforms showed up.

A judge ordered the other parents to let these children play in uniforms
without the store logo.

The other parents disbanded the team.

Shame on them.

/john

    
      Sponsors ?  There shouldn't be any sponsors in Little League.
     We didn't have any when I played shortstop in 1954...
    
      bb

>The other parents disbanded the team.

>Shame on them.
    
    Shame on the people who wanted to use the money but refused to follow
    league rules.

    We had sponsors when I played in 1954; my team was sponsored by
    Northern Auto, the city's GM dealer.
    
    I don't know whether I'd object to a mom'n'pop store.  Probably not.  I
    guess I still don't understand whether this video store was widely
    known as "Psst!  Want to see some feelthy movies?" place or a casual
    "we happen to have some softcore movies" place.

> Well, it is a dedicated structure.

 It was the emphasis I disagreed with. Calling it a
 segregated structure would more accurately define its purpose;
 to separate the adult material from the rest of the general merchandise,
 which it should be.

 Doug.

 

    Children's organized sports only have problems when parents get
    involved.

    
    
    .54
    
    	> 	So, the video store sponsered the team and the parents knew this,

>The parents, according to the article, didn't know that the store was
>the sponsor until the uniforms showed up.

    
    Shame on the parents for not knowing who their children are associated
    with.
    
>A judge ordered the other parents to let these children play in uniforms
>without the store logo.

    
    	Shame on the judge for interferring with the rules of
    little-league.
    
>The other parents disbanded the team.

>Shame on them.
    
 		Yes.
    
    ed

     <<< Note 859.51 by SMURF::BINDER "Errabit quicquid errare potest." >>>

<    .14012
    
<    > NTM it's just another group of religous zealots...
    
<    You really ought to get that brush trimmed some - it's way too broad. 
<    I'm not a religious zealot, but I have a strong aversion to porn in
<    general and, more specifically, associating children with it in any
<    way.  I'd have been among those who objected.
<    
<    No, I don't read Playboy, not even for the articles.

like others have asked: do you have a strong aversion to buying you gas or 
candy bar at the local convenience store which also sells adult literature 
right behind the counter in plain view? what if they sponsored? do your kids buy
candy from that store?

i believe it was said that is was a general video rental and _not_ strictly an 
adult video rental [which means what? where do you draw the line of what is 
suitable for only adults to watch?] store.

everyone should always know who is sponsoring the local teams; one doesn't just 
walk blindly into community orgs and say: "gee, my kid wants to play ball! where
do i sign up?" there's a lot more to it than that.  these same parents that 
complained prolly also don't know that one team has to win and the other 'come 
in second' [lose for the rest of the non-pc crowd] and that some little tykes 
hearts may be broken when they do come in second: "gee, i thought it was just a 
game of fun and no one kept score?"

btw: what _is_ porn?

ogre.

   
         Youth baseball team disbands after spat over X-rated sponsor
      
   LILLIAN, Ala. (May 8, 1997 08:37 a.m. EDT) -- The Lillian Barracudas
   are no more, ripped apart in a dispute between a shop owner and
   parents who didn't want their children serving as "human billboards"
   for a store that rents X-rated videotapes.
   
   Like other Dixie Youth Baseball teams, the Barracudas wore uniforms
   sporting their sponsor's name -- C & J Video. Some unhappy parents,
   including the team's manager, filed a civil rights lawsuit.
   
   The team, for boys under 12, was dissolved Wednesday to settle the
   legal fight.
   
   "A 10-year-old can't buy an X-rated video. Why should a 10-year-old
   advertise an X-rated video?" said Barracudas manager Calvin Bartl, a
   youth pastor at the evangelical Alliance Church in nearby Elberta who
   had a son and nephew on the team.
   
   "Standing up for what you believe is pretty hard, but sometimes it's
   worth it," said his nephew, 11-year-old pitcher Nathaniel Bartl.
   
   C & J Video owner David Bryan, who also had a son on the team, had
   sponsored the Barracudas for four years and said his rights to free
   enterprise were trampled.
   
   The lawsuit, filed by Bartl and the parents of three other players,
   defended their "sincerely held religious beliefs," including refusing
   to let their sons wear jerseys advertising the store.
   
   To settle the suit, lawyers worked out an agreement to disband the
   Barracudas and send the 16 players to five other teams.
   
   "Play ball," Circuit Judge Lyn Stuart said.
   
   The store, the only video rental place in town, is on a busy corner in
   this unincorporated community near Pensacola, Fla. Customers must show
   identification to enter a X-rated video section -- a trailer connected
   to the back of the store.
   
   Bartl and other parents said they didn't realize the video store was
   the sponsor until after the team played its first game in early April.
   The jerseys weren't ready until a couple of games into the season.
   
   The benches cleared after the Lillian Sports Association refused to
   allow the four boys whose parents objected to wear jerseys without any
   sponsor name. League rules say all team members must wear identical
   uniforms.
   
   Even boys whose parents didn't object to the uniforms stopped coming
   to games, scared away by the publicity. Bartl usually lacked enough
   players to field a team.
   
   The Rev. Frank Clay, pastor of the Alliance Church and father of
   another Barracuda, said the flap would have disappeared had the sports
   association allowed protesting players to wear no-name jerseys.
   
   "Instead of having a little sensitivity, they just dug heels in," he
   said.
   
   By GARRY MITCHELL, The Associated Press 

   (you can never have too many of these reports)

.62 _is_ twenty minutes more up to date than .40.

    I now await all the reports of disbandings around the country: teams
    sponsored by supermarkets with attached liquor sections, bookshops with
    attached magazine sections, sporting good outlets with attached gun
    sections, pet stores carrying live hamsters, any shop associated with
    gambling (i.e. lottery tickets etc.), any sponsor associated with
    addictive drugs and or potemtially destructive devices (i.e. candies,
    gasoline, chainsaws) etc. 

    Candies are destructive devices?

	chocolate-covered cherry bombs

	I have to admit.... this is pathetic. God forbid if Blockbuster should
ever sponsor a team. I wonder if any of the parents who bitched about this ever
rented a video from the store? 



Glen

  .67  ba-da-bing, ba-da-boom

    Blockbuster does not rent adult videos or if they do it's extremely
    discrete.  They are a "family" video store.  

    
    re: .69
    
    oh - my - god
    
    {thud}

    I was being facetious - but sugar is addictive, possibly leads to
    obesity, damage to blood vessels and adult onset diabetes; definitely
    destructive to teeth.
    
    My point (seeing I have to spell it out) is that there are lots of
    things in the world more damaging and objectionable than X-rated movies.  
    If C&J got rid of the trailer out back and rented only the normal violence
    stuff out front then everybody would be happy - yes?

    
      I have my baseball picture from 1954.  My uniform was a replica
     of the major league baseball Phillies.  It was provided by the
     Little League headquarters, which dictated uniform rules.  There
     are no sponsors names on major league baseball uniforms, or for that
     matter, on any major league sport.  It's a hokey modernism.  However,
     the "Barracudas" are not part of Little League, apparently, but some
     Dixie League which I never heard of.
    
      bb

    |I was being facetious 

    Please don't do that here. It confuses us.

Typically does Little League send out corporate droids to take 
care of soliciting sponsorship, or is it taken care of by the
coach/subset of parents?  (I haven't seen anything in this string
on exactly whose decision it was to accept this sponsor in the
first place.)

IMO the video store seems middle-of-the-road.  I'd object if it
seemed that the store's main focus (and predominant inventory) was
X-and-worse rated, and/or if it had a raunchy name (Bump, Grind &
Rewind?)  ;'> 

Leslie
[Posted by WWW Notes gateway]

    Why is this story of interest?
    
    A group of parents decide they don't want their kids advertising for a 
    porno store. When they fail to reach a compromise, the team is
    disbanded and the kids are reassigned to other teams.
    
    So what.

    it wasn't a porno store, it was a church that sells wine in the
    basement, wasn't it?

    .72
    
    > lots of
    > things in the world more damaging and objectionable than X-rated movies.
    
    Objectionable to whom?  I don't find sex dirty or objectionable, but I
    do object to movies like "Debbie Does Dallas" and its ilk.  IMHO, many
    or most such films have great potential to warp the way children view
    sex, in ways that I consider inappropriate and unhealthy, without
    possessing any of that much-heralded "redeeming social value."  I'd
    rather let my kids watch the recent PBS version of "Moll Flanders,"
    which shows baps and simulated sex but which has literary value, than
    let them watch movies whose sole theme is getting laid as explicitly -
    and often violently - as the producers can figure out how to film the
    act.  Although I guess, if it came right down to the question, I do
    consider "Debbie Does Dallas" marginally less harmful than some of the
    recent Hollyweird filmic celebrations of explicit mindless violence.

    
    i object to the dull note title.
    

More damaging and objectionable than X-rated movies?

Glue sniffing, land mines, suicide bombings.  I wonder if Hamas sponsors
any Little League teams.

They were showing x-rated movies to the little league ?

    
    much better.  agagagagag.
    

    Oh, I hate alliteration.

Hmm. My son's team is sponsored by a rental car company. Will 
have to check to see if they rent those furrin cars....

    
    more better.
    
    								-mr. bill

it isn't a "porno" shop, it just happens to have a special section that rents
material, that has been deemed questionable by the majority of society, to those
people who can prove they are of legal age.

and how could they not know who the sponsor was? did they not ask questions? did
they not talk to their kid's coach? did they not have any idea at all [after all
they've been sponsoring for 4 yrs!!!]? did they wait until their kids finally 
got on the team to piss'n moan?

fwiw: i don't condone a lot of what i deem subjectionable material, but i do see
no problem with "don't tell, don't ask" unless, of course, you wish to share.

ogre.

    
    talk about a tempest in a teapot.  my god.
    

    Well, it was someone's God at anyrate that started this at least in
    name.  

    Pornography-Provided Patronage Perturbs Puny Players' Parents
    

    
    Porno Pop Erected from Game
    

    
    er, Ejected.
    

    Buncha bunt runts punt...er, maybe not.

    You sure it wasn't ejaculated?

    don't go there, Glenn

    Bolin? Have you tried spelling bolour with a K?

    Don't want your kids sponsored by something obscene
    Take it to court and then break up the team

    Bings Bollege Bamebridge.

  porno pop pugnaciously pruned...

  bb

    
    all these p's trouble me.

    It's that watery beer, I tell you.

    
    colin, you of all people i expected to not criticise my beer drinking
    habits. daryll, glenn, and doc have already lambasted me for drinking
    "cheap rotgut". I'm deeply offended. 

	I don't know what all the fuss is about. I mean, kids play with erector
sets, right?

    
    Sleazy Sponsor's Shirts Split Sandlotters!
    
    								-mr. bill

    .101
    
    It's the mob mentality, we can't help it.  Besides, Shawn's off so
    you have to do double duty as whipping boy.

    randy rentals rile rugrats' righteous relatives

    hicks nix dix flix

    
    -2.  bravo.
    
    <golf clap>

  frisky flicks father fans fundy flames, finds fewer fielders

  bb

>        <<< Note 859.108 by GAAS::BRAUCHER "And nothing else matters" >>>

	aagag.  tres bien fait.

    Bawdy Backers Bedevil Baseball Babe's Brood

>it isn't a "porno" shop, it just happens to have a special section that rents
>material, that has been deemed questionable by the majority of society, to 
                                                    ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
That is VERY questionable in my mind.  

   tawdry tapes tee totals tots' team

    
    .112
    
    we have a winnah!
    

   .113  is that your way of saying, "knock it off!"? ;>

    
    well, di, someone had to say it. sounded better coming from oph,
    softens the blow so to speak.

    
    .114
    
    no!  i just really liked the 'tee totals' part!!
    
    

>    softens the blow so to speak.

	so to speak?

    
    sort of speak?  however that saying goes. you know what i meant
    you're wicked smaht.

    
    wickit smaht.  /hth
    

<  <<< Note 859.111 by RUSURE::MELVIN "Ten Zero, Eleven Zero Zero by Zero 2" >>>
<
<>it isn't a "porno" shop, it just happens to have a special section that rents
<>material, that has been deemed questionable by the majority of society, to 
<                                                    ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
<That is VERY questionable in my mind.  

let's see: you don't think most people reject to watching up close in your face
spewing and spraying? you don't think most people reject to watching urination 
and defaction onto the bodies of others? you don't think most people reject to 
watching people and animals fornicating? you don't think most people reject to 
watching the violent act of forced sex [rape] on another human? you don't think 
most people reject to watching cattleprod on gential torture, etc?

granted, most people would prolly view if given the chance, but those same 
people would gag and all and could care less if that type of material was never 
again available, n'est ce pas?

so, i think the majoriety of society has deemed a lot of "adult entertainment" 
videos/media questionable.  i don't have hard facts, just what i've heard 
amongst my friends/family/associates. hey, i've looked at [not read the 
articles] playboy etal and i really don't see why a beautiful body can't just be
that instead of showing the photog's expertise of viewing mt everest from the 
grand canyon.

ogre.

sorry to sway from the original topic...

    Uh oh....Jack's back.

  lewd logo lops lineup ?

  bb

    
    enough!!!  it's getting old quick.

                 <<< Note 859.120 by HOTLNE::BURT "rude people rule" >>>
    
    >let's see: you don't think most people reject to watching up close in
    >your face
    >spewing and spraying? you don't think most people reject to watching
    >urination
    >and defaction onto the bodies of others? you don't think most people
    >reject to
    >watching people and animals fornicating? you don't think most people
    >reject to
    >watching the violent act of forced sex [rape] on another human? you
    >don't think
    >most people reject to watching cattleprod on gential torture, etc?
    
	Where exactly do you rent your tapes?
                                     

    Shag'nfrighten Videos.

                     <<< Note 859.124 by LUNER::WALLACE >>>
                         -< experience tells me...... >-

                 <<< Note 859.120 by HOTLNE::BURT "rude people rule" >>>
    
    >let's see: you don't think most people reject to watching up close in
    >your face
.....

granted _most_ video rental outlets that have an "adult entertainment" section,
don't have beastiality tapes, but the regular aforementioned spew and spray runs
rampant in most "adult" videos, s&m contains a lot of the others and on the 
general public viewing floor, many "R" and "NC17" tapes are found advertising 
and depicting just about anyhting else one would want to view.  I mentioned 
nothing that is considered underground material, its all right there in your 
video store [with the general exception being blockbuster video, however- they
are anti-constitutional and support the favored such anti-const. groups; all in
mho and from what literature has been provided by the "nutter" net groups.
[oops! slaming coming from make up a fact friday crowd!]

ogre.

    Translation?

    a guy who likes to be called ogre, who thinks rude people rule, is
    slamming porn.

    Is this the planet Bizarro?

>let's see: you don't think most people reject to watching up close in your face
>spewing and spraying? 

There seems to be enough adult entertainment business that appears to show that
people do watch it (voluntarily).

>you don't think most people reject to watching urination 
>and defaction onto the bodies of others? 

Is THAT a common theme in a large number of adult videos?  I think not.

>you don't think most people reject to 
>watching people and animals fornicating? 

Is THAT a common theme in a large number of adult videos?  I think not.

>you don't think most people reject to 
>watching the violent act of forced sex [rape] on another human? 

And what percentage of adult videos do you assume THIS occurs in?  And if
it is occuring as you stated, why aren't the tapes being used as evidence
in a criminal trial for rape?

>you don't think 
>most people reject to watching cattleprod on gential torture, etc?

Probably less objectionable than opening up SOAPBOX at times :-).



The news article mentions pornography but does not mention any of the list you 
gave.  Considering the WIDE range of definitions of pornography around, it
would be nice to hear specifics as opposed to some grand generalization.
Won't you agree?  

>granted, most people would prolly view if given the chance, 

This sort of contradicts the 'most people don't want them' line, huh?

    
    .129
    
    how can you equate Soapbox with cattle prodding of the genitalia?
    soapbox is far more painful.

    My thoughts echo  RESURE::MELVIN's in this matter.
    

>                     <<< Note 859.131 by LUNER::WALLACE >>>
>                             -< what he/she said >-
>
>    My thoughts echo  RESURE::MELVIN's in this matter.

Him is a he.

-Joe

    >>Him is a he.
    
    >>-Joe
    
Noted

+  <<< Note 859.129 by RUSURE::MELVIN "Ten Zero, Eleven Zero Zero by Zero 2" >>>
+
+
+>let's see: you don't think most people reject to watching up close in your face
+>spewing and spraying? 
+
+There seems to be enough adult entertainment business that appears to show that
+people do watch it (voluntarily).

	can you confirm they watch it voluntarily?

+>you don't think most people reject to watching urination 
+>and defaction onto the bodies of others? 
+
+Is THAT a common theme in a large number of adult videos?  I think not.

	i'd say approx 10-15% in the "adult" room are some for of s&m which 
	shows it all 

+>you don't think most people reject to 
+>watching people and animals fornicating? 
+
+Is THAT a common theme in a large number of adult videos?  I think not.

	like i said, not in the video store, but trust me: you can buy quite
	of few donkey/dog etc movies.

+>you don't think most people reject to 
+>watching the violent act of forced sex [rape] on another human? 
+
+And what percentage of adult videos do you assume THIS occurs in?  And if
+it is occuring as you stated, why aren't the tapes being used as evidence
+in a criminal trial for rape?

	now i didn't say it was real rape, but MANY "R" and "NC17" and even 
	"PG13" movies "show" a rape, duh.

+>you don't think 
+>most people reject to watching cattleprod on gential torture, etc?
+
+Probably less objectionable than opening up SOAPBOX at times :-).

	seen in more than one military/terrorist theme movie; granted they don't
	show the prod actually tingling the testicles, but with pants down and 
	prod aimed in the generally direction and amp meter showing the 
	increase and the guy flopping around gives one the general idea of 
	what torture is involved! guess what?! that's in a "R" movie! not even 
	in the "adult" section.


+The news article mentions pornography but does not mention any of the list you 
+gave.  Considering the WIDE range of definitions of pornography around, it
+would be nice to hear specifics as opposed to some grand generalization.
+Won't you agree?  

	so, why aren't these parents as upset over the quality of the "R" rated
	material being rented? granted, the article didn't specify if it was
	only what _most_ people classify as porn that they objected to.

+>granted, most people would prolly view if given the chance, 
+
+This sort of contradicts the 'most people don't want them' line, huh?

	not at all, we're all curious and naive in one way or another; i'd
	nearly guarrantee that almost anyone would stop and watch some women
	doing the family pet or watching some guy getting fried frickasee,
	but would turn in disgust and never have a desire to see that again;
	in some cases once is enough.

ogre.

+        <<< Note 859.128 by POLAR::RICHARDSON "got any spare change?" >>>
+
+    a guy who likes to be called ogre, who thinks rude people rule, is
+    slamming porn.+
+
+    Is this the planet Bizarro?

	i ain't slamming porn, i'm actually a pig; i like to watch....

ogre.

    Okay, it's Kirby, right?  Lunchbox?  C'mon who is it?  

    
    it's definitely not lunchbox.
    

    >can you confirm they watch it voluntarily?
    
    No! they all get tied to a chair and are made to watch. Unfortunately,
    they enjoyed that as well!  :)

    they were probably naked as jay birds too.

    I was under the impression that this was not a totally x rated movie
    store. It sold x rated with other movies. And the parents are hooting
    over that as the issue. 

    Naw, too many feathers.

    
    george, you are under the correct impression.
    

    No way!!!  :)

    There isn't a video store in the entire country that doesnt have an
    adult corner. Less you go to the 'Christian Video's' or such. Such a
    sham...

    .143 Waaaaay dude!!:)
    

>    There isn't a video store in the entire country that doesnt have an
>    adult corner. Less you go to the 'Christian Video's' or such. Such a
>    sham...



 Hmm...is Londonderry NH part of this country?  There are 2 that I know of
 that do NOT (thankfully) rent porn.


 And what is wrong with these parents taking a stand for their kids?



 Jim

    >And what is wrong with these parents taking a stand for their kids? 
    
    Maybe the kids didn't give a damn and just wanted to play baseball.

> Hmm...is Londonderry NH part of this country?  There are 2 that I know of
> that do NOT (thankfully) rent porn.

 Why thankfully? Was anyone forcing this stuff on the unsuspecting 
 citizenry?

> And what is wrong with these parents taking a stand for their kids?

  Taking a stand for your kid is one thing. That isn't what the parents did
  in this case. They took a stand becuase their own sensibilities were offended
  dispite the affects it might have on the kids.

  Now, perhaps they were trying to teach their children a lesson
  in morality but what they ended up doing is teach them how adults
  can act like children, how to bring the legal system into every little
  disagreement, how not to solve problems, and how to be destructive they
  can be in the process.

  Pure stupidity.

  The bright side is the store owner couldn't ask for better visibility and
  is likely enjoying an increase in business of adult movie rentals. 

  Meanwhile, I'm sure all the kids curiosities about this stuff has been peaked.

  Doug.

re:<<< Note 859.61 by HOTLNE::BURT "rude people rule" >>>
    
>these same parents that complained prolly also don't know that one team has
    >to win and the other 'come 
>in second' [lose for the rest of the non-pc crowd]
    
    So, is 'losing' better than 'coming in second'?
    
    Is it supposed to be more inspirational to say losing? Makes you want
    to 'crush' the competition next time out eh?
    
    Not that I'm defending extremism but I think the fine line doesn't
    retain its 'finesse' when it's ignored.
    
    Both terms are legitimate. Don't put 2nd down.
    

>> Hmm...is Londonderry NH part of this country?  There are 2 that I know of
>> that do NOT (thankfully) rent porn.

 >Why thankfully? Was anyone forcing this stuff on the unsuspecting 
 >citizenry?


 Of course not..however, I chose to patronize establishments that do not
 rent X rated films when ever possible as I happen to be one who at one
 time became a frequent renter of that stuff, and I prefer to avoid
 the temptation, thank you..though it is getting tougher and tougher to
 avoid this society's obsession with sex..one has only to stand in line
 at a grocery store and read the covers of magazines displayed therein..but
 I digress.



>

Speaking of obsession with sex...

There's a story in the nooz about this guy who became so obsessed with
sex that (according to the prosecutor) he took out a 1.5 million dollar
life insurance policy on his wife, and then killed her in order to be
able to continue his spree with high-priced prostitutes.

/john

"Temptation"??  You crack me up.

That's like refusing to come to work every day because there are 
some sweet-looking colleagues worthy of your "attention", but 
you'd rather avoid the temptation altogether.

I go into several places that rent X-rated movies.  And although 
it's extremely tough to avoid the "temptation", I just sort of don't 
rent them.  But maybe I'm the exception or something.

    So, you purchase them?

    
    Come on Slab, the guy gave us an honest answer. And it was
    refreshingly non-superior too.
    
    He also makes a good point about all the sex thrust upon
    the general public whether they want to be exposed to
    it or not.
    
    It really isn't necessary.
    
    Doug.

>"Temptation"??  You crack me up.


Hey, that's what I'm hear for..to give you a chuckle every now and then.

>That's like refusing to come to work every day because there are 
>some sweet-looking colleagues worthy of your "attention", but 
>you'd rather avoid the temptation altogether.


not exactly..



>I go into several places that rent X-rated movies.  And although 
>it's extremely tough to avoid the "temptation", I just sort of don't 
>rent them.  But maybe I'm the exception or something.


 Well, Lah-dee freaking dah!  That's wonderful.  Perhaps you haven't
 reached a point (and maybe you won't) where you realize that perhaps
 your attachment to such entertainment has become a bit too much of
 a habit as I (and others) have done.  I would prefer NOT to have to
 deal with it, and I believe that is my right.  Note I did not say
 that I never go into stores that rent the stuff..but I do avoid them
 if I can, much like I avoid stores that sell porn in other media.

 

RE: .153

Attractive co-workers?  No, most offer very reasonable hourly 
rates.


RE: .155

No, I guess I never did get to that point, so it's tough to imagine 
that anyone could develop an addiction to them.

    It shouldn't be so tough to imagine, it's a very big business.

   <<< Note 859.146 by CSLALL::HENDERSON "Give the world a smile each day" >>>

> And what is wrong with these parents taking a stand for their kids?

Jim,
	What's wrong is that the parents were perfectly willing to take
	the money from the video store so that their kids could play
	baseball, they just were not willing to let the store advertise
	the fact that were were supplying the money.

	All these parents have taught their kids is the meaning of 
	hypocrisy.

Jim

 Well I *do* have a problem with that..

    RE: George several back.....
    
    Blockbuster does not have an adult section neither does American Video
    (or whatever it's called) in Acton.  I would hazard a guess that most
    small video rental places do though.  
    
    I think Doug summed it up nicely.  The lessons to be taken from this
    are less than virtuous IMO.  

  We use both Blockbuster and Video Ark, big chains.  If they do so-called
 adult videos, it's news to me.  They do Hollywood.  Their second biggest
 business is certainly video games, which I'm sure dwatfs any market for
 poor quality sex videos.  There is also a substantial business in "How to"
 type videos "how to build a wooden deck"  "Introductory C programming" etc.
 And they do music videos, computer programs, etc.  I've stood in line there
 with lots of folks, and never saw anything X-rated being rented.  My guess
 is they wouldn't bother for such a marginal market.

  bb

The couple of video stores we frequent both have X-rated departments. You
wouldn't know it unless you asked, as they aren't labeled "XXX DEPARTMENT
THIS WAY --->", for obvious reasons. One is a minor chain, one is an
independent. Such flicks are pretty big money makers according to the hired
help.

    
    one of the stores we go to used to have a small adult section.  the
    blockbuster bought it and there was no more adult section.
    
    i don't recall the last time i was in a video store that had an adult
    section...
    
    

    They're selling adult bungalows in kanata. Now I'm troubled as to what
    that exactly means.

what are you people classifying as "adult' sections?!?! x-rated only? what about
the NC-17 movies that state no one 17 or under? R-rated requires parental 
permission and attendance when viewing at a theater and at least permission for 
renting in most places.  

are not R and NC-17 predominantly "adult" entertainment? why are they not 
isolated from all other general family titles? the jackets alone on most leave 
very little to the imagination and the synposes are generally just reduced 
playboy stories.

there are plenty R and NC17 movies out there that will show it all except 
insertions and ejaculations; even those two are becoming common place among 
medical videos that help sexually deficient partners get each other off.

what are "adult" sections? and why is nudity and sex such a bad thing? i'd love 
to live in amsterdam. [<-- yeah, yeah, yeah "so why don't you go and do us a 
favor?"]

ogre.

    I didn't want my kids to watch R and NC-17 movies, either, until they
    were old enough to make the decisions for themselves.  It wasn't the
    sex or language, it was the violence.  As I said before, sex isn't
    dirty - my problem with X-rated movies/videos is that their purpose is
    to exploit sex, often perverted and violent, for its own sake instead
    of laying sex into a story about people, where it makes some sense. 
    I'd far rather my kids see a film like that PBS Fanny Hill I mentioned,
    or the recent series "The Buccaneers," which shows a remarkable amount
    of creamy thigh and buttock, than your typical XXX fare.
    
    Fortunately, it's out of my hands now.  My kids are nearing 30 and are
    married.

    FWIW - the story in question exlpicitly stated x-rated.  Adult
    entertainment has become a PC way of saying x-rated.  

>                     <<< Note 859.163 by GAVEL::JANDROW >>>

    
>    one of the stores we go to used to have a small adult section.  

	That would have been handy during Colonial times.

Titles like "Terror in Tiny Town," no doubt.

   "Little Debbie Does Delaware"

    re: .170
    
    Little Debbie is everywhere. Tastes great!  :)

    
>    Little Debbie is everywhere. Tastes great!  :)

	More fillings!

    
    oh dear

    I was just thinking of a Little Debbie covered with chocolate. Yum!!

    
    This conversation is starting to trouble me.
    

    After reading more then half of the replies to this note, I guess I can
    say that I've been on both sides of the field...
    
    I work at a video store part time and they rent Adult Video's.  I can
    honestly say that MOST of the people who rent those movies are regular
    folks just like us.  Some are teachers, some are city officials.  It is
    funny when someone is 'late' with one of those movies and when the
    spouse is there to rent another movie, we have to tell them what movie
    was late and they act SHOCKED because the Mrs. didn't know the Mr.
    rented it.  Heck, I even have married COUPLES in their late 60's early
    70's go into that mysterious back room :-).
    
    I also have a daughter who played lassie league for 4 years.  A sponser
    has to pay a fee, I believe that a few years ago in my neck of the
    woods, it was $150.00 a year for 3 years, they have to sign an
    agreement/contract.
     
    The first year my daughter played softball, her team
    was sponsored by the coaches employer, the following year, the coach
    left town, and the employer didn't want to be the sponsor anymore, I
    beleive that the league  looked into 'legal' action due to 'breaking
    the contract'.  If the league in this base note 'agreed' to let this
    store be a sponsor, then they are at fault and should have rejected
    this at that time, even when the kids where told what their team name
    would be, that was the time to 'fight' this... not at the first game.
    
    I don't know if it is just me or not, but society has really ruined
    almost EVERYTHING that was 'fun' when we were growing up.  Think about
    it, you can't even 'kiss a girl' in a school yard anymore... all these
    politically correct people.  It is sad, it really is.
    
    KR

    All I can say is "baps oot".
    

.177  > lassie league

The sponsors could only rent soft paw corn?



[Posted by WWW Notes gateway]

Stu!!

Where have you been?

  lemme guess - he's been frantically canvassing for John Major...

  bb

    
    stu!!!! have an ale and donor kabab on me.

>have an ale and donor kabab on me.

That happened to me a few weeks ago in Berlin.  This guy tripped on his 
way from the counter back to his table.  What a mess!

That's one way to don a kebab.



[Posted by WWW Notes gateway]

    
    The worst "pornographic" film I ever say was "The last house on the
    left".  It showed simulated rapes/murder/revenge.  R rated, gross film.
    
    This whole topic making a mountain out of nothing. 
    
    /art

    
    makes 
    

>    The worst "pornographic" film I ever say was "The last house on the
>    left".  It showed simulated rapes/murder/revenge.  R rated, gross film.

    That's the only movie I ever walked out of....sat there asking
    'why am I here?'

    
    i walked out of "aliens" when that thing popped
    out of the guy's stomach.
    

  .188  that's too bad - it got sort of artsy and thoughtful 
	after that.

    
    
    	I had a friend walk out of "Robocop" when he stuck the spike
    through the dood's neck. I've never seen anything on the screen that
    would make me turn away or walk out. Of course, being an EMT, I'm
    normally vomitted/crapped on with impunity, so not much bothers me. :)
    
    
    jim

    
    .189   really?  hmmm. 
    

  .191  oh yeah.  lots of riveting dialogue, pathos, creative use
	of shadow, that sort of thing.

    
    i can't tell if you're pulling my leg or not! :-)
    

and dripping ooze. don't forget the dripping ooze.

    
    Yeah, no gratuitous violence in Alien.
    Gratuituous use of strobe lights, however.  (And underware.)
    
    								-mr. bill

  .193  aagagag.  okay, this'll cinch it.  Sigourney is such a fine
	actress.  her treatment of the heroine was, well,
	"awe-inspiring" is the only way i can describe it.

    
    .195
    
    well by that time i had my glasses pushed down so
    things were sorta blurry.  i'll take your word it
    was his chest.
    

    .196  
    
    i'm slipping, i am!  agagagag.
    

RE: .188

That was "Alien", not "Aliens", in case it matters.

And that scene was parodied excellently in "Spaceballs".

    >The worst "pornographic" film I ever say was "The last house on the
    >left".  It showed simulated rapes/murder/revenge.  R rated, gross film.
    
    I can't tell if you thought that it was the worse because of to much porn, 
    not enough porn, to much rapes/murder/revenge, not enough
    rapes/murder/revenge. Please clarify!  :)

                                                
    RE: .190
    
    Blood and guts on the screen don't bother me, but I found the sodomy
    scene in _Pulp Fiction_ pretty disturbing.  "Bring out the GIMP!"
    
    Another movie I saw on HBO depicted a skinhead masturbating to a
    short film of the rape of a young Jewish girl.  It was part of a
    true story about an American journalist who stumbles upon the 
    opportunity to infiltrate a group of skinheads/Nazis in Germany
    in order to flush out and entrap their leaders.  It may have been
    called _The Infiltrator_.  It was a great movie, and that scene
    did have its place in the storyline, but still...{shiver}.  I'd
    say it was more disturbing than the scene in _Pulp Fiction_,
    because it really happened.
    
    Marc

    that scene in Pulp Fiction made me laugh, I was laughing through that
    whole segment. I was the only one in the entire theatre that was
    laughing.
    
    In case there was any doubt that I was sick.

"last house on the left" is a snuff film and those that watched it, watched real 
murders/rapes.

ogre.

    
    	Last House on the Left, " It's only a movie".......

| And that scene was parodied excellently in "Spaceballs".
    
    Doubtful.
    
    								-mr. bill

I liked the Mad magazine take-off on that scene, where Kermit the frog pops
out of the guy...

    .188 Had the flu that reminded me of sceen once...:P 

    Re: .203
    
    >"last house on the left" is a snuff film and those that watched it, watched rea`
    >murders/rapes.
    
    
     01234567890123456789012345678901234567890123456789012345678901234567890123456789
    
    
    :)

>"last house on the left" is a snuff film 

Does it cause mouth cancer?

It wasn't me this time!

    
    last house on the left was gross to me because of the rapes, murders,
    and the revenge scenes, however justified, were still gross to me.
    
    /art

Can you rent this movie from the video store?

They prolly have it at C&J Video.

    RE: Snuff film...... Urban legend.

RE: .205

Ouch!!  "Spaceballs" was a GREAT movie.

RE: alien coming out of stomach


And I bet that really Hurt.

[It took me way too long to come up with this.]

    
    Chest.  It came out of his chest.  TYVM.
    

    
    I was up at NHIS at weekend to watch the Craftsman truck racing series.
    One of the cars in the support race was sponsored by a comany called
    'Erotic Rentals' I wonder if the driver knew what erotic things were
    being rented?
    
    POL :>

    
    	RE: .218
    
    	For sale: vibrator.  80K highway miles.  Good shape.