Shared porn (safe for work readers)

[Fritz]

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/showcase/chi-0303150129mar15.story

Shared porn

Felicia Haynes
Published March 15, 2003

Chicago -- While on the way home from work recently, I decided to go grocery shopping. My 10-year-old son decided he wanted to tag along. We did our shopping, checked out and headed home. While sitting at a red light waiting to make a right-hand turn, I noticed that the car in front of me had monitors mounted inside the car on both the left and right sides for the viewing pleasure of back-seat riders. I'm sure the driver had one mounted somewhere in the front for his viewing pleasure.

While stuck behind this jerk waiting to make my turn, my son and I were subjected to the pornographic movie the driver decided to watch while driving. Here we are, waiting for the light to turn green, and in front of us is a porn movie. There was absolutely nothing I could do to keep my son from seeing this filth.

I was angry, disgusted, outraged. I'm a parent who uses the parental codes on the cable box; I rarely allow my son to watch movies with a rating higher than PG. I change the channel if a program is laced with profanity. I don't want to hear it, and I don't want my son inundated with hearing it. Yet here we sat in our own car, being forced to watch lewd sex acts. I wanted to cry. I wanted to scream. But all I could do was sit and wait--wait for the light to turn green. It was the longest red light I have ever endured.

In today's society, people are forced to endure lots of things they don't like. I'm forced to listen to teenagers use profanity in public; they have no respect for an adult's presence. I'm forced to listen to my co-workers swear at the office; they curse at everything from the coffeemaker to the copier, not to mention at each other. I'm forced to listen to loud, obscene music blasting from the car next to me. I'm forced to breathe secondhand smoke.

Being forced to watch pornography, however, for me was the straw that broke the camel's back, hence this letter.

While government officials are trying to pass laws for cell phone users, let's take into consideration the rude and ignorant drivers with television monitors in their cars watching programming intended for adults only.

Can anything be done? The one thing that comes to my mind is requiring anyone having these viewing devices installed in their vehicles to also get tinted windows. Just because they want to watch porn doesn't mean they have the right to subject others to such filth.

I can hear someone now: "Hey, people have rights! Who do you think you are?"

I agree; people do have rights. And being a person, I fall into the category of someone who has rights. I have a right to complain. I have a right to seek a safe, moral environment for my child. I know that I cannot protect him from everything that is wrong with society. But I wouldn't be a good parent if I didn't try.

[CamEdwards]

I see Kodos got that A/V upgrade in his vehicle.

[Fritz]

Originally posted by CamEdwards
I see Kodos got that A/V upgrade in his vehicle.

who knew you could put a TV on a moped?

[Ksyrup]

I'd be outraged if I was the driver, that someone was watching my porn and not paying me for the privilege!

[CamEdwards]

I've seen your porn, Ksyrup... and I demand a refund.

It's like watching Silent Bob get it on with Jay.

[Ksyrup]

Originally posted by CamEdwards
I've seen your porn, Ksyrup... and I demand a refund.

It's like watching Silent Bob get it on with Jay.


Well, when I say "my" porn, I'm talking about the stuff I download and watch, not my own personal collection. Kinda like when you go home and listen to real talk shows instead of your own.






:cool:

[CamEdwards]

ouch. :)

Actually, I don't listen to talk radio when I'm not at work. I'd hate for my show to become a clone of someone else's show.

[Ksyrup]

Originally posted by CamEdwards
I'd hate for my show to become a clone of someone else's show.

Interesting. I hadn't thought of something like that, but I guess I could see it happen. Kinda like musicians who don't listen to anyone else's music while they are writing and recording.

[andy m]

Originally posted by Fritz
[url]I was angry, disgusted, outraged. I'm a parent who uses the parental codes on the cable box; I rarely allow my son to watch movies with a rating higher than PG. I change the channel if a program is laced with profanity. I don't want to hear it, and I don't want my son inundated with hearing it. Yet here we sat in our own car, being forced to watch lewd sex acts.

what she doesn't realise is that in a couple of years time, the moment she goes out her son is going to be digging out his dad's blue movie dvd's and cracking off a swift one.

daft old cow.

[Ben E Lou]

Originally posted by Fritz
I'm forced to breathe secondhand smoke.Not to threadjack, but I just HAVE to bring this up. The county in which I live just enacted a ban on ALL smoking in restaurants. It went into effect about a month ago. It makes a HUGE difference in little joints like Waffle House, where typically the smokers used to out-number the non-smokers.

[Ksyrup]

Florida' statewide ban goes into effect in July, I think. Doesn't effect bars, but it does apply to restaurants. I, for one, can't wait. I wear contacts and the smoke seriously effs with my eyes, even if I'm nowhere near the smoking section. At the end of a meal, my eyes are red and watering.

[Fritz]

threadjack all you want Skydog.


I am a non-smoker, but I do not like the "anti-smoking" laws. A private business should be able to decide if it wants smoking or not.

[Ksyrup]

Originally posted by Fritz
threadjack all you want Skydog.


I am a non-smoker, but I do not like the "anti-smoking" laws. A private business should be able to decide if it wants smoking or not.


While I generally support the position of a hands-off government, I can't agree on this issue. I realize that going to a particular restaurant is a "choice," but in reality, it isn't, since virtually every restaurant permits smoking. It's just enough of an annoyance that people are willing to put up with it in the absence of any ability to do anything about it - sort of like going to Disney World for the privilege of pay $5 for a bottle of water that costs $.50 outside (that should be next on the legislative agenda!). And the idea of deciding where to eat based on the potential accumulation of years of second-hand smoke that may kill you, isn't really part of the deliberative process.

Maybe I'm different because I know it bothers me - even when I'm in my car and the guy in front of me is smoking with his window down, I get watery eyes - but I think in this case, it's a matter of whose rights should take precedence. I don't see this as a private business vs. government issue, I see this as a private citizens vs. private citizens issue. And in the case of Florida, I'm glad we made the decision we did, economic consequences notwithstanding.

[McSweeny]

a big part of my totally agrees with Fritz on this one. Though i understand the argument that people like Ksyrup make is a valid one. I suppose it's just because smoking does not bother me(yes i am a non-smoker). I just hate to see the government deciding whether or not smoking can take place in a club or a bar or whatever....

[Anrhydeddu]

But yet some would have no problems with the government intruding on many other parts of our lives, as well as regulating and mandating things that they have no constitutional authority to do so (which probably applies to about 50% of what they budget). It's curious to desire selected governmental intrusion, esp when it comes to private property.

[KWhit]

In today's society, people are forced to endure lots of things they don't like. I'm forced to listen to teenagers use profanity in public; they have no respect for an adult's presence. I'm forced to listen to my co-workers swear at the office; they curse at everything from the coffeemaker to the copier, not to mention at each other.


Fuckin' Nazi.

[Kodos]

Originally posted by Fritz
who knew you could put a TV on a moped?

It's more of a motorized tricycle than a moped.

[EagleFan]

I have a question for the woman who wrote the article. Why didn't she use that time as a perfect setup to talk to her son about that kind of thing. That's part of the problem today. everyone wants to 'protect' their kids from everything instead of teaching them about stuff and helping them learn how to handle situations. Like parents who ignore the subject of drugs for a childs entire life and then are surprised to find that their son has a bad drug habit. They wonder why he never learned that doing drugs was wrong.

[Anrhydeddu]

Not just drugs and porn but how about encouraging all parents to talk to their kids about using profanity in public and respecting an adult's presence? But then again, if those are your values, some will call you names.

[Thadaleus]

Am I the only one who found it odd that this lady was so bent over this scenario?

I drive an hour to work each day, dozens of stop lights.. rural, city, in-between.. and I have NEVER seen a vehicle with a television in it, much less one playing porn.

I'd be willing to bet that this lady would NEVER see such a thing again, unless it was the same individual, who lives in the same town that she does, or drives the same roads she does.

And typically, aren't ceiling mounted monitors fairly small? And attached to Minivans with tinted back windows? Or attached in the high ceiling area of a conversion van?

Honestly, has anyone else seen a vehicle with TWO televisions, large enough to view well, close enough to view well, and through a back window large enough to view well?

Stupid housewife with too much time on her hands.

Thad

[Draft Dodger]

well, I had no idea porn in cars was so prevelant.

I was just reading an article the other day about how Tennessee was working to ban showing porn in vehicles (at least that other people could see). I remember thinking - is this really so prevelant that we need a law? I guess I have my answer.

[Draft Dodger]

as for smoking -

my city banned smoking in restaurants about 2 years ago, and it is the GREATEST thing ever. honestly, I didn't realize how much 2nd hand smoke I was being exposed to before it all went away.

I'm all about smoker's being allowed to have the right to kill themselves slowly and painfully and there probably was a time I would have thought the no smoking ban was intrusive on their rights, but my eyes have been opened.

[Fritz]

tvs in cars:

I see them frequently on drive from Hampton Roads to DC. I find them distracting at night.

[Draft Dodger]

Originally posted by Fritz
tvs in cars:

I see them frequently on drive from Hampton Roads to DC. I find them distracting at night.

I don't think I've seen one TV in a moving car, but, then I'm from NH, where most of the cars are sitting on cinder blocks anyway.

[KWhit]

Originally posted by EagleFan
I have a question for the woman who wrote the article. Why didn't she use that time as a perfect setup to talk to her son about that kind of thing. That's part of the problem today. everyone wants to 'protect' their kids from everything instead of teaching them about stuff and helping them learn how to handle situations. Like parents who ignore the subject of drugs for a childs entire life and then are surprised to find that their son has a bad drug habit. They wonder why he never learned that doing drugs was wrong.

Great post. I completely agree.

And while we're sort of on the topic, why is violence in entertainment tolerated but sex is taboo? Graphic murder is depicted in PG rated movies, but if you show a nipple you immediately get an R.

Why is the US so scared of sex?

[Anrhydeddu]

Shouldn't the question instead be why is violence in entertainment tolerated?

[Fritz]

I think it reasonable to expect to have porn free driving.

[mckerney]

Originally posted by Fritz
I am a non-smoker, but I do not like the "anti-smoking" laws. A private business should be able to decide if it wants smoking or not.

But you do realize that second hand smoke is the #1 killer in America, don't you? :eek:


The need for smoking bans doesn't make much sense to me. People claim when they go to a restraunt they are forced to put up with it. Uh, you're not forced if you decide to go to the fucking restraunt. If it's such a problem, only go to restraunts where they don't allow smoking.

[cuervo72]

Originally posted by Draft Dodger
I don't think I've seen one TV in a moving car, but, then I'm from NH, where most of the cars are sitting on cinder blocks anyway.

I think you'll find quite a few of them in SUV's and minivans as child pacification devices :) My wife wants to get one....might be useful for those drives to visit her parents in Florida.

[Ksyrup]

I know I participated in taking this thread off-topic (for which I am truly sorry), but can we get back to the porn please? :)

This is one of those threads that mimics the "Seinfeld-esque" conversations my friends and I always have. I'm talking about one thing, someone else takes that and goes off on another subject, then another goes completely off subject, and we're all talking to each other like we're all on the same subject. I love it!

[Ksyrup]

Originally posted by mckerney
Uh, you're not forced if you decide to go to the fucking restraunt. If it's such a problem, only go to restraunts where they don't allow smoking.

I addressed this in my original post. You could count on one hand the restaurants that don't permit smoking. In fact, I can't think of any right now. That's an illusory "choice."

[Ksyrup]

Triple dola.

Dammit, there I go off-topic again!

[KWhit]

Originally posted by Fritz
I think it reasonable to expect to have porn free driving.

Of course. I agree with DD, though. I can't imagine this really being a widespread problem!

[Draft Dodger]

Originally posted by mckerney
Uh, you're not forced if you decide to go to the fucking restraunt. If it's such a problem, only go to restraunts where they don't allow smoking.

for that matter, why have laws against killing? people should just visit places where killing other people isn't allowed.

I don't like too many needless laws. I do think we sometimes need laws to help protect ourselves, and this is an example of that.

[Ksyrup]

To me, as someone who has health issues just being in contact with smoke, even outside, these types of laws are just requiring common courtesy to others, in my opinion.

In California, they ban smoking in all (or pretty much all) indoor places. I saw a concert last year in LA, and half way through the show I took a deep breath and realized that I could actually breathe, and that after the show, I didn't smell so badly that I felt like changing before I got into my car. Best concert experience I've ever had.

I'm all for letting people kill themselves however they want to do it. But when it impacts my right to enjoy my life, especially something as fundamental as the air I breathe, I think the government has a right to limit where that activity can occur. And that's just looking at smoking as an annoyance, not even considering the potential health issues associated with breathing it in.

[KWhit]

Originally posted by Draft Dodger
for that matter, why have laws against killing? people should just visit places where killing other people isn't allowed.


I don't think a killing-legal section in a restaurant would have much repeat business.


Originally posted by Draft Dodger
I don't like too many needless laws. I do think we sometimes need laws to help protect ourselves, and this is an example of that.

And where do you draw the line here? By that reasoning, there is a great argument for making cigarettes illegal completely. Not to mention alcohol.

I don't mind the laws disallowing smoking in restaurants, because I hate to smell smoke while I'm eating. But California's laws are too much. You can't smoke in bars. That's one of the reasons many people go to a bar. That's like banning sex with strangers at spring break, man.

[sabotai]

*gasp* triple dola!

Anyway,

Smoking: There is no evidence that causal exposure to second hand smoke in resurants, bars, on the street, etc causes any health risks. I don't like the idea of the government telling a private company what legal activities they can and can not permit in their place of business.

Also, when someone wears a lot of perfume or cologne, my eyes get itchy and watery. I think cologne and perfume in private establishments should be illegal. ;)

Porn in cars, I'm all for it. Let the pr0n play!!

[KWhit]

Originally posted by Ksyrup
I'm all for letting people kill themselves however they want to do it. But when it impacts my right to enjoy my life, especially something as fundamental as the air I breathe, I think the government has a right to limit where that activity can occur. And that's just looking at smoking as an annoyance, not even considering the potential health issues associated with breathing it in.

Aha! This is the best argument for these types of laws, IMO. Not much to argue with here.

However, I still think it should be legal for a business owner to allow smoking in a bar. Ideally, the market would create some bars that are smoke free and some that allow it. There is a good business opportunity there. People like Ksyrup would go to the smoke-free bar and I would go to the other one (assuming they'd let me smoke a nice Partagas cigar, that is).

[cthomer5000]

Doesn't this sound like the coolest carpool in history?

[Ksyrup]

I have no problem with allowing smoking in a bar. I mean, that is a primary activity in that kind of establishment. I have to think that banning smoking in a cigar bar, for example, would cause business to slow down a bit! California's laws, like usual, go too far, although I have to admit I loved the smoke-free concert.

As I understand it, Florida's law will permit smoking in stand-alone bars, but not in "bar and grill" settings, like TGIFriday's, for example. Which is great to me, because places like that don't even wall off the smokers, they just have seating right on the other side of the rather large bar area. Just waiting for a table at that place, with its perfectly-placed waiting area connected to the bar, kills me.

[Fritz]

Originally posted by Ksyrup
I addressed this in my original post. You could count on one hand the restaurants that don't permit smoking. In fact, I can't think of any right now. That's an illusory "choice."

Funny, here in Tobaccoland Virginia I can think of several smoke free resutrants.


Originally posted by Ksyrup
But when it impacts my right to enjoy my life, especially something as fundamental as the air I breathe, I think the government has a right to limit where that activity can occur. And that's just looking at smoking as an annoyance, not even considering the potential health issues associated with breathing it in.

This is probably where we will clash:

I just don't see a smoke free private business as an infrigment on your right to enjoy life.

[Ksyrup]

I just went through my "mental inventory" of restaurants in this area, and can only think of one restaurant that does not permit smoking (Golden Corral), and they only stopped the practice as a sign that they agree with the upcoming ban (they went smoke-free the day after the initiative was passed).

A private business is still "public" when it's doors are open. There are certain legal standards which apply to "public" private businesses when someone is injured, for example. So arguing that it is a private business only goes so far. If I'm invited in, it's public. If I have to have amembership or am otherwise not permitted in, then it's truly "private."

[Ksyrup]

Dola. As I think of restaurants, I'm only considering true restaurants, not fast-food places. I don't think McDonalds allows smoking, for example.

[Fritz]

Originally posted by Ksyrup
A private business is still "public" when it's doors are open. There are certain legal standards which apply to "public" private businesses when someone is injured, for example. So arguing that it is a private business only goes so far. If I'm invited in, it's public. If I have to have amembership or am otherwise not permitted in, then it's truly "private."

What you are talking about here is a legal distinction, and one I do not agree with. IMHO this "public" designation is just intrusive govt.

EDIT: I know this is a minority opinion

[Airhog]

yeah mcd's has been smoke free for some time. Some places like olivegarden are built to accomodate both, and at least the olive gardens here, have two seperate dining areas.

Im all for the ban in public buildings.

[Gwalyn]

Reading that woman's article makes me want to park a car in front of her house with a huge cock and a pair of tits painted on it.

[jetpunk2000]

What I want to know is, is there really that big of a need for a tv in a car? I mean talk about a distraction. The gov't is all up in arms about talking on cell phones while driving being distracting(which I completely agree with), but they allow cars to be built with tv's?!?!?!? Some in the front center console no less. How idiotic is that? I know, I know, it keeps the kids quiet, but can't the kids read a book or play a gameboy?

[BFleming]

Originally posted by Gwalyn
Reading that woman's article makes me want to park a car in front of her house with a huge cock and a pair of tits painted on it.

I would settle for just seeing a car with a huge cock and a pair of tits painted on it

[Ksyrup]

I posted an article last week, I think, about PC cars - new technology for getting email and internet access in the car. Talk about distractions!

Funny enough, on the drive home tonight, I stopped at a light behind an Odyssey with a clear view of a TV screen in the van. It was showing cartoons, unfortunately.

[tucker342]

you know that in a couple years this kid is probably going to be doing crack and stuff. As other people mentioned, instead of pretending that stuff doesn't exist, she should take the time to talk to her son about that kind of stuff. I'm no expert, but it seems that would be a lot more affective then just completely issolating the kid.