Originally posted by Texas Lynn
I heard somewhere (radio preacher? not sure) a good percentage (30%) of Baptist ministers are addicted to inappropriate contentography. I'm dubious about that claim. More than one, sure, but I'm not sure 30% or even 20% are "addicted". and how did they define "addicted"? An "addiction", even an 'obsession" with such is by definition different than addictions to alcohol, drugs, etc. Everybody likes something. Moreover, how to define "inappropriate contentography"? In my experience those who are against it give it an overly broad definition. Are magazines like Playboy and Penthouse inappropriate contentographic? I would say no. Silly, yes. Harmful to women in that they idealize the "Barbie" figure, yes.
First, let me stop to say that I'm glad you're here. People capable of intelligent discourse are always a pleasure. Second, I agree with you on all of the above points. The term "addiction" is thrown around way too much these days, especially in regards to this topic. An Addiction is a specific, compulsive response to stimuli in the brain. Anything that doesn't meet a specific set of criteria cannot be rightly called an addiction. That doesn't mean that those habits can't be very hard to break, it just means they are not clinically an "addiction."
The point of what constitutes inappropriate contentography is also a difficult discussion to achieve agreement in. In many cases one man's (or woman's) inappropriate contentograhpy is another man's art. On the other hand, some things, say, for example
Martian Bimbos in Space 4, are clearly inappropriate contentographic. Not a condemnation on my part, just clarification of terms. For example, I do not consider Playboy to be inappropriate contentographic in the sense of it being obscenity. I'm sure others here would disagree.
As for preachers, I think it's more than a few and probably less than many people think. I do have to tell this story on that note though. I was hanging out with a friend of mine who worked as a dancer at a club here in town. We were in the upstairs area of the club chatting and I thought I recognized the guy at the next table. As it turns out it was a prominent leader in the anti-inappropriate contentography crusade here in Dallas. He seemed to be enjoying the lapdances for a guy who spends most of his working life trying to shut the places down.
Originally posted by Texas Lynn
I think the movie "Boogie Nights" accurately portrays the inappropriate content industry. Mark Wahlberg played a character loosely based on the late inappropriate content star John Holmes. He was a loser who was well endowed in the male anatomy department and recruited by a inappropriate content director played by Burt Reynolds. After his career went downhill, so did he. The impression was that these people, not unlike Sports Heroes or legitimate movie stars, are not the brightest lights on the planet.
I saw the movie, and I think it was probably very representative of the inappropriate content industry twenty years ago. Things seem to be substantially different now. I don't think most of them are ready for honorary doctorates from Harvard yet, but a good number of the actresses seem to at least have a fair amount of business savy these days. IIRC one major starlet actually has a degree in microbiology. Of course for every one of those, there are probably a hundred who are as you said, not that bright.
Originally posted by Texas Lynn
I'd compare it to choices among ghetto youth such as, work at Mickey D's for minimum wage, or, deal drugs? Hmmm. As Eldridge Cleaver said "What is irrational to the mother country may seem rational to the colony."
I think you hit the nail on the head here.
-brett