The founders did not exclude religion from government by accident. This Christo-fascist loon is a good example of why they made their decision. Few people disgust me more than those who claim their religion entitles them to a say in other people's personal choices. What is the state's interests here? Why invent a law just to create criminals who aren't hurting anyone?
State? Who said anything about the State? This guy wants to save souls and use his position to let everyone know what he thinks. The idea of using his time as legislator to pass laws for the State never enters his head.
This sort of I'm-a-big-baby-listen-to-my-issues attitude is almost worse than the conservativism he promotes. He's treating being an elected official like it's his TikTok moment, rather than doing work for his constituents.
Do you remember the guy under Bush that wanted to cover all the nakendness at the DOJ? Too many boobies!!
"No longer will the attorney general be photographed in front of two partially nude statues in the Great Hall of the Department of Justice.
The department spent $8,000 on blue drapes that hide the two giant, aluminum art deco statues. For aesthetic reasons the drapes were occasionally hung in front of the statues before formal events. The department used to rent the drapes, but has now purchased them and left them hanging.
Justice Department spokeswoman Barbara Comstock said the decision to install the curtains was made by Attorney General John Ashcroft's aide who handles advance work. "It was done for TV aesthetics," she said.
ABC News reported that Ashcroft ordered the statues covered because he didn't like being photographed in front of them."
Comstock? There's some irony. Or maybe just bad genes. (No idea if actually related to the 20th(?) century postmaster general on a crusade against 'obscenity')
He got a fig leaf pretty early on after installation. Lost now. And he's not circumcised - a Jewish king not circumcised! My daughters busied themselves photographing his butt half the time* we saw him. [eyeroll].
Nothing creeps me out more than a Rethuglican peeking up my skirts.
The Christo-fascists prove, time and again, THEY are the perverts, cheating with their churches, their wives, minors . . . They can’t control themselves! Mike Johnson spies on his kid, yet claims to have NO bank account or mortgage--it that doesn’t scream Dirty Fraud and Pornster, I don’t know what does! They are ruled by a rapist; they count the likes of Jism Jordan and Matt Gaetz-minors as one of their own. GIVE ME A BREAK!!!
On a Congressman's salary, he can't claim he can't afford a bank account, and the only other reason I know of to avoid it is to hide your money or at least how you spend it. Which would imply Suspicious Behavior or Paranoia, neither a good quality in a leader.
He’s among the type of folks that threw a shit fit when an art class saw, either in a textbook or in person at a museum I don’t remember but I think Hemant did an article on it, a classical nude statue.
I don't remember in which publication I saw this statue for the first time but the author of the text with it wondered if the sculptor trolled the church.
Text a photo of "David" to him. He will burst into flames, just like his superstition did to millions of witches, heretics and any others it did not like.
This is a much older, more common problem than Trump. His MAGA movement introduced a lot of new elements into the GOP platform. Puritanism is not one of them.
“Puritanism: The haunting fear that someone, somewhere, may be happy.”
― H.L. Mencken, A Mencken Chrestomathy
Yes, Puritanism is alive and well, and metastasising through the entirety of the GOP.
Since we repeatedly see that the most censorious prigs and prudes so often turn out to be among the most licentious libertines, Mr. Deevers' fellow Republican pretenders of piety will realize that they would be among the first victims of his insane laws, so they'll nod and say "Yes, yes, so true," but his bills will die in committee. But still we can all wait in gleeful anticipation of his own personal "Ted Haggard moment," when he's caught with his pants actually down.
As deplorable as this legislation is, as bad as the promotion of his personal religious nonsense is, as ignorant and misguided (way too polite for this crap) as this is, I guarantee you they will find a way to make exceptions for unsolicited dïck pics like they do for all sorts of other sexual harassment of women.
Pornography isn’t the problem. People seeking pleasure through visual means is not a problem. The problem is the people (mainly, but not limited to men) who take advantage of vulnerable people for their own gain. Some porn is problematic because the women involved were not consenting to much of what they were forced to do, Debbie didn’t do Dallas, Dallas raped Debbie. There are more and more pornography producers that are on the up and up, including the women in decisions regarding what they’re going to do, paying them well for their contributions and just being reasonable. Onlyfans has decent policies protecting the artists, for now.
Then there’s the perverts who push for more racy content, that aren’t satisfied with consensual encounters or adult actors, and that’s where the big money is. So there will always be the producers of immoral content and policies, because we will always have the sickos looking at actual infants as targets, or folks like Andrew Taint who tells us openly that he prefers his partners to be unwilling. Deevers cannot legislate that away. There’s things that we can make illegal to protect the victims, but outlawing porn or even intimate images is not it.
So, to come back around, this doesn’t do anything to address the real issues surrounding porn, rape culture, child molestation, sexual harassment, or any other criminal behavior it only criminalizes benign normal activities. Which only enables and encourages the bad shit.
I think the thought of banning porn and sexting in the age of the internet and the dark web and encrypted apps is so far behind the times as to be ridiculous.
How are they going to enforce a sexting ban? Making people's texts public?
Not to mention that these weirdos think ANY depiction of nudity or body parts that" should be covered and aren't" should be banned. I mean, we've seen what these people are doing to books in schools and public libraries.
And as you said, does nothing to address the REAL problems.
What I remember. A man should have married his cousin and instead married a sort of witch/prophetess. He went back and forth between the two women and his cousin died from despair. The witch punished him by castrating him. The last scene with him show him weeping on his cousin's corpse.
That 'bounty law' out of Texas is going to come back to haunt us many, many more times I think.
Seems to me that Deevers is trying to address something only he truly considers to be a problem. I really don't think he's thought this one through, either, because he's going after an industry that has enough money to fight for years this if they truly feel the need, and without doubt the state will run out of money first. Considering who usually views porn, I strongly suspect this bill has less support than Deevers might at first think, as well.* To my thinking, if Deevers actually wanted a solution to pornography he'd be looking to create helpful materials that direct those feeling they need help to resources they can use, but this? This appears to be little more than a showboat attempt to claim "hey, I tried" later on; I'm not sure Deevers has any expectation this bill of his will pass, and it works for him if it doesn't. This sort of behavior is one of the biggest issues I currently have with the Republican party, too: they're not in government to actually create, interpret, or enforce good laws, they're in it for the attention. Color me unimpressed.
To the US Constitution, which you swore an oath to support and defend? You failed that epically. But then again, most Christian politicos on the red side of the aisle do.
This isn't a serious law. He's just doing the tiktok challenge of "Tell me that you have batshit crazy dick picks floating around the internet, without telling that you have batshit crazy dick picks floating around the internet.
It's only a matter of time before his browsing history is revealed.
And boy will it reveal every erotic and disgusting content, including child porn!
Jesus-based S&M, golden showers, scat...
The more pious they are, the kinkier they are.
"𝐼 𝑎𝑚 𝑗𝑢𝑠𝑡 𝑡𝑟𝑦𝑖𝑛𝑔 𝑡𝑜 𝑏𝑒 𝑓𝑎𝑖𝑡ℎ𝑓𝑢𝑙"
Faithful to what?
Turn the other cheek? Nope.
Forgiveness for all sins? Nope.
Do unto others as you would have them do unto you? Nope.
Small government? Nope.
Personal freedom? Nope.
Dude clearly believes in none of those things.
Faithful that his minions don't se that he lies to them I guess.
He's faithful to the process of publicly appearing to be faithful.
Full commitment there.
The founders did not exclude religion from government by accident. This Christo-fascist loon is a good example of why they made their decision. Few people disgust me more than those who claim their religion entitles them to a say in other people's personal choices. What is the state's interests here? Why invent a law just to create criminals who aren't hurting anyone?
https://scontent-ord5-2.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t39.30808-6/421694689_10161000925592403_745096237444116596_n.jpg?stp=dst-jpg_s960x960&_nc_cat=107&ccb=1-7&_nc_sid=dd5e9f&_nc_ohc=_PTSwuiy2OUAX9DZppR&_nc_ht=scontent-ord5-2.xx&oh=00_AfAQrZB9nHYzMR4c4oeggIgQ-AFz0JL6Q81wIZ01LcFpYQ&oe=65BDFE21
𝑊ℎ𝑎𝑡 𝑖𝑠 𝑡ℎ𝑒 𝑠𝑡𝑎𝑡𝑒'𝑠 𝑖𝑛𝑡𝑒𝑟𝑒𝑠𝑡𝑠 ℎ𝑒𝑟𝑒?
State? Who said anything about the State? This guy wants to save souls and use his position to let everyone know what he thinks. The idea of using his time as legislator to pass laws for the State never enters his head.
This sort of I'm-a-big-baby-listen-to-my-issues attitude is almost worse than the conservativism he promotes. He's treating being an elected official like it's his TikTok moment, rather than doing work for his constituents.
Shareholders in for profit prisons?
For-profit prisons are an abomination in a democracy.
"...the relevant portions define “unlawful pornography” as any visual depiction or image of sex..."
Visual depictions are what's prohibited? Sounds like a really good way to get horny teenagers reading erotica.
Imagine banning the statue of David...
Just a loincloth. Chiseled in.
Do you remember the guy under Bush that wanted to cover all the nakendness at the DOJ? Too many boobies!!
"No longer will the attorney general be photographed in front of two partially nude statues in the Great Hall of the Department of Justice.
The department spent $8,000 on blue drapes that hide the two giant, aluminum art deco statues. For aesthetic reasons the drapes were occasionally hung in front of the statues before formal events. The department used to rent the drapes, but has now purchased them and left them hanging.
Justice Department spokeswoman Barbara Comstock said the decision to install the curtains was made by Attorney General John Ashcroft's aide who handles advance work. "It was done for TV aesthetics," she said.
ABC News reported that Ashcroft ordered the statues covered because he didn't like being photographed in front of them."
If stone boobs give you funny feelings in your pants, see a psychologist or a Japanese Sex Doll company.
Comstock? There's some irony. Or maybe just bad genes. (No idea if actually related to the 20th(?) century postmaster general on a crusade against 'obscenity')
He got a fig leaf pretty early on after installation. Lost now. And he's not circumcised - a Jewish king not circumcised! My daughters busied themselves photographing his butt half the time* we saw him. [eyeroll].
*Get a reservation, it's easier and quicker
In one episode of "The Simpsons," they put unbuttoned jeans on David.
That has been tried by prudes er, religious people.
Yep. There are a lot of dickless and boobless statues that were ruined by the strait laced conquerors throughout history.
Penthouse Forum subscriptions would skyrocket in OK.
"I never believed this could happen to me..."
You too ??!!??!!
Does that still exist? I thought Penthouse had been supplanted by PornHub.
Nothing creeps me out more than a Rethuglican peeking up my skirts.
The Christo-fascists prove, time and again, THEY are the perverts, cheating with their churches, their wives, minors . . . They can’t control themselves! Mike Johnson spies on his kid, yet claims to have NO bank account or mortgage--it that doesn’t scream Dirty Fraud and Pornster, I don’t know what does! They are ruled by a rapist; they count the likes of Jism Jordan and Matt Gaetz-minors as one of their own. GIVE ME A BREAK!!!
On a Congressman's salary, he can't claim he can't afford a bank account, and the only other reason I know of to avoid it is to hide your money or at least how you spend it. Which would imply Suspicious Behavior or Paranoia, neither a good quality in a leader.
He has to hide his assets in case he wants a younger slav... wife.
Yep, does he really expect us to believe he pays all his bills with money orders?
Bitcoin.
I smell a rat . . . A Church-tax evasion Rat. . .
Should I come and show my browser history to the senator in the hopes he have a cardiac arrest ?
"But it’s a very convenient way to make sure reading the Bible, with its incest and sex crimes, isn’t criminalized.)"
The solution is simple. Sext each others by quoting bible verses or historical art pieces. Bonus point if it's a christian painting or sculpture like this one https://www.google.com/search?q=sainte+therese+d%27avila+statue&tbm=isch&ved=2ahUKEwie8aeEpoWEAxUvUKQEHUKIBsgQ2-cCegQIABAC&oq=sainte+therese+d%27avila+statue&gs_lcp=ChJtb2JpbGUtZ3dzLXdpei1pbWcQAzIECAAQHjIICAAQgAQQogQ6BAgjECc6BggAEAcQHlCeBljhEWDpFGgAcAB4AIABV4gB6gSSAQE4mAEAoAEBwAEB&sclient=mobile-gws-wiz-img&ei=NgS5ZZ7-I6-gkdUPwpCawAw&bih=610&biw=360&client=ms-android-bouygues-fr-rvc3&prmd=ivnbz#imgrc=VqawliWgyngI6M
Best verse to slap on the pix? Ezekiel 23:20.
I am a babble noob.
He’s among the type of folks that threw a shit fit when an art class saw, either in a textbook or in person at a museum I don’t remember but I think Hemant did an article on it, a classical nude statue.
I don't remember in which publication I saw this statue for the first time but the author of the text with it wondered if the sculptor trolled the church.
Text a photo of "David" to him. He will burst into flames, just like his superstition did to millions of witches, heretics and any others it did not like.
It happened in Floriduh last year.
𝐈𝐬 ‘𝐃𝐚𝐯𝐢𝐝' 𝐏𝐨𝐫𝐧? 𝐒𝐞𝐞 𝐟𝐨𝐫 𝐘𝐨𝐮𝐫𝐬𝐞𝐥𝐟, 𝐈𝐭𝐚𝐥𝐢𝐚𝐧𝐬 𝐀𝐬𝐤 𝐅𝐥𝐨𝐫𝐢𝐝𝐚 𝐏𝐚𝐫𝐞𝐧𝐭𝐬
https://www.nbcmiami.com/news/national-international/is-david-porn-see-for-yourself-italians-ask-florida-parents-2/3001610/
As any naturist could tell you, simple nudity does not equate to sexual activity.
Did you ever read Captain Cassidy's blog ? Her adventure in a Japan public bath was something.
There's almost a titty showing in the sculpture "A Divine Spear of Love"!! The name alone is PORNAGRAPHY!!
I love this idea.
MAGA really is obsessed with other people’s sex lives. It’s really sick!🤢
This is a much older, more common problem than Trump. His MAGA movement introduced a lot of new elements into the GOP platform. Puritanism is not one of them.
In 2024, Hester Prynne is a Republican housewife from Ohio and wears a big "M" for MAGA on her chest to cover her fake boobs.
“Puritanism: The haunting fear that someone, somewhere, may be happy.”
― H.L. Mencken, A Mencken Chrestomathy
Yes, Puritanism is alive and well, and metastasising through the entirety of the GOP.
Since we repeatedly see that the most censorious prigs and prudes so often turn out to be among the most licentious libertines, Mr. Deevers' fellow Republican pretenders of piety will realize that they would be among the first victims of his insane laws, so they'll nod and say "Yes, yes, so true," but his bills will die in committee. But still we can all wait in gleeful anticipation of his own personal "Ted Haggard moment," when he's caught with his pants actually down.
Ted Haggard is Completely Heterosexual!
He just has a wide stance.
I thought that was Larry Hogan 😂
The airport bathroom guy? Larry Craig. :)
Yep, my bad!!
Remember George Reckers, the anti-gay activist who rented a boy to "lift his luggage" while traveling?
> "lift his luggage"
There's an outfit around here that says they'll haul my junk. I'm not quite sure what business they're in. 😉
"Lift his luggage." Is that what they're calling it these days?
So am I. It's just a funny quirk that I've been looking at pictures of naked men online since I got access to the internet over 3 decades ago.
As deplorable as this legislation is, as bad as the promotion of his personal religious nonsense is, as ignorant and misguided (way too polite for this crap) as this is, I guarantee you they will find a way to make exceptions for unsolicited dïck pics like they do for all sorts of other sexual harassment of women.
Pornography isn’t the problem. People seeking pleasure through visual means is not a problem. The problem is the people (mainly, but not limited to men) who take advantage of vulnerable people for their own gain. Some porn is problematic because the women involved were not consenting to much of what they were forced to do, Debbie didn’t do Dallas, Dallas raped Debbie. There are more and more pornography producers that are on the up and up, including the women in decisions regarding what they’re going to do, paying them well for their contributions and just being reasonable. Onlyfans has decent policies protecting the artists, for now.
Then there’s the perverts who push for more racy content, that aren’t satisfied with consensual encounters or adult actors, and that’s where the big money is. So there will always be the producers of immoral content and policies, because we will always have the sickos looking at actual infants as targets, or folks like Andrew Taint who tells us openly that he prefers his partners to be unwilling. Deevers cannot legislate that away. There’s things that we can make illegal to protect the victims, but outlawing porn or even intimate images is not it.
So, to come back around, this doesn’t do anything to address the real issues surrounding porn, rape culture, child molestation, sexual harassment, or any other criminal behavior it only criminalizes benign normal activities. Which only enables and encourages the bad shit.
I think the thought of banning porn and sexting in the age of the internet and the dark web and encrypted apps is so far behind the times as to be ridiculous.
How are they going to enforce a sexting ban? Making people's texts public?
Not to mention that these weirdos think ANY depiction of nudity or body parts that" should be covered and aren't" should be banned. I mean, we've seen what these people are doing to books in schools and public libraries.
And as you said, does nothing to address the REAL problems.
"define “unlawful pornography” as any visual depiction or image of sex"
That's just for humans, right? Other animals doing it is still ok? (Asking for a friend.)
Why don't they just come out and say "We want to ban fun!"
Who do they think they are? The NFL (No Fun League) (and just in case, National Football League)?
They need to change their names. Puritans, for example.
Islam is already about that. Check it out:
𝐴𝑛 𝐼𝑠𝑙𝑎𝑚𝑖𝑐 𝑟𝑒𝑔𝑖𝑚𝑒 𝑚𝑢𝑠𝑡 𝑏𝑒 𝑠𝑒𝑟𝑖𝑜𝑢𝑠 𝑖𝑛 𝑒𝑣𝑒𝑟𝑦 𝑓𝑖𝑒𝑙𝑑. 𝑇ℎ𝑒𝑟𝑒 𝑎𝑟𝑒 𝑛𝑜 𝑗𝑜𝑘𝑒𝑠 𝑖𝑛 𝐼𝑠𝑙𝑎𝑚. 𝑇ℎ𝑒𝑟𝑒 𝑖𝑠 𝑛𝑜 ℎ𝑢𝑚𝑜𝑟 𝑖𝑛 𝐼𝑠𝑙𝑎𝑚. 𝑇ℎ𝑒𝑟𝑒 𝑖𝑠 𝑛𝑜 𝑓𝑢𝑛 𝑖𝑛 𝐼𝑠𝑙𝑎𝑚.
-- Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini
Someone need to read Arab and Persian medieval poetry.
Or see Pier Paolo Pasolini's 1974 film "Arabian Nights."
Is this the one with a castration scene ?
Can't remember. I only saw it once back when it first came out.
What I remember. A man should have married his cousin and instead married a sort of witch/prophetess. He went back and forth between the two women and his cousin died from despair. The witch punished him by castrating him. The last scene with him show him weeping on his cousin's corpse.
Way way back machine...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U-Ty7MAlSBA
Now considered racist (though Stevens defends it).
Parody is racist?
That was way back and not now.
https://scontent-ord5-1.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t39.30808-6/424721011_1608394253280264_997367687245666191_n.jpg?_nc_cat=108&ccb=1-7&_nc_sid=3635dc&_nc_ohc=Vx_hHFFK8NEAX8r0Afd&_nc_ht=scontent-ord5-1.xx&oh=00_AfDdNuwrqO8Btpv0ulDas7KeSXUlKqQolovn225jovxW_A&oe=65BDA068
Quote from the priest who performed my wedding all those millennia ago during the rehearsal, "Who is laughing? There is no laughter in God's house!"
I wonder what ol' Ruhallah would have thought of this:
𝐼 𝑎𝑚 𝑐𝑜𝑚𝑒 𝑡ℎ𝑎𝑡 𝑡ℎ𝑒𝑦 𝑚𝑖𝑔ℎ𝑡 ℎ𝑎𝑣𝑒 𝑙𝑖𝑓𝑒, 𝑎𝑛𝑑 𝑡ℎ𝑎𝑡 𝑡ℎ𝑒𝑦 𝑚𝑖𝑔ℎ𝑡 ℎ𝑎𝑣𝑒 𝑖𝑡 𝑚𝑜𝑟𝑒 𝑎𝑏𝑢𝑛𝑑𝑎𝑛𝑡𝑙𝑦.
-- John 10:10
Rethuglikkkans, Forever falsely accusing others of cancel culture while simultaneously practicing cancel culture.
I thought you knew it does not apply to them. Silly you.
That 'bounty law' out of Texas is going to come back to haunt us many, many more times I think.
Seems to me that Deevers is trying to address something only he truly considers to be a problem. I really don't think he's thought this one through, either, because he's going after an industry that has enough money to fight for years this if they truly feel the need, and without doubt the state will run out of money first. Considering who usually views porn, I strongly suspect this bill has less support than Deevers might at first think, as well.* To my thinking, if Deevers actually wanted a solution to pornography he'd be looking to create helpful materials that direct those feeling they need help to resources they can use, but this? This appears to be little more than a showboat attempt to claim "hey, I tried" later on; I'm not sure Deevers has any expectation this bill of his will pass, and it works for him if it doesn't. This sort of behavior is one of the biggest issues I currently have with the Republican party, too: they're not in government to actually create, interpret, or enforce good laws, they're in it for the attention. Color me unimpressed.
*According to Psychology Today, it's mostly men still: https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/everyone-on-top/202309/how-much-porn-do-americans-really-watch
BTW, "FORBIDDEN." PORN is freely accessible, education and factual stuff is forbidden? Wow.
Yet most in porn are female. Lesbian porn is far more popular than male porn. I am not speaking of the namby pamby family suitable stuff on TV.
As I understand it, most lesbian porn is directed at men anyway. I wouldn't know of course, Dusty.
I have straight female friends into Gay male porn. I recently discovered college wrestling is very much fun.
I took judo. Also tons of fun.
Ça dépend pour qui.
"I'm just trying to be faithful."
To the US Constitution, which you swore an oath to support and defend? You failed that epically. But then again, most Christian politicos on the red side of the aisle do.
Meanwhile, 43rd ranked Oklahoma has REAL issues that need addressing.
They're 48th in both Education and Health Care, for example. Seems to me that's a tad more pressing.
But fixing those problems is <whine>HARD</whine>. Making anything we don't like illegal is easy.
This isn't a serious law. He's just doing the tiktok challenge of "Tell me that you have batshit crazy dick picks floating around the internet, without telling that you have batshit crazy dick picks floating around the internet.