Monday, February 05, 2007
The Prince of Phallic Symbolism
It might seem like I'm stuck of talk show hosts, and maybe I am, but I just have to write about this, since it at once stands out as irrefutable proof that the christian taliban right is obsessed with sexual symbolism, if not with the sex itself.
I watched the HyperBowl game yesterday, and enjoyed it, in spite of the fact that I'm not that much of a fan of foopbaw. I've always rather enjoyed the game played under inclement weather conditions. It's interesting to see how the players deal with rain, snow, cold and/or a muddy field. In yesterday's game, the main problem was a steady rain that lasted troughout the game. One of the reasons my interest in the game has flagged, is the proliferation of covered stadia. Traditionally, foopbaw is an outdoor sport.
Debbie and I watched the halftime show with a high degree of enthusiasm, both being Prince fans. While I might've picked a slightly different playlist, I still enjoyed it thoroughly. As did Debbie. I commented that this was one of the only halftime shows that actually worked, in several years.
This morning, on the infamous Laura Ingraham talk show, I found out how wrong I was. I didn't notice this, I was enjoying the show: seems that, at one point, Prince used a wind machine to blow a large, white cloth sheet to a vertical, flapping, moving screen 'pon which the lighting caused his shadow to be displayed as he sang and played his guitar. For a brief moment, Price turned so that the shadow of his body hid the guitar body, and the neck of the guitar appeared to be sticking out of the front of his pants. As he ran his hand up and down the frets, well, you can imagine how that looked.
Ms Ingraham, sexually repressed individual that she appears to be, jumped 'pon that image like Miss Balbricker in the shower scene in the film Porky's.
Ms Ingraham spent a large portion of her show discussing this, bringing up the Janet Jackson/Justin Timberlake show a few years ago. It seems we can see which kind of individual is sex-obsessed.
One of the excuses Ms Ingraham (and others--Hannity, O'Reilly, et al) uses for her fixation 'pon these kinds of images is that of protecting the children.
We have to protect the children.
I don't think it's the job of the christian taliban right to make the world child-safe. I don't want the world to be child safe, nor is it its nature to be so.
Parents, care for your children. Love your children. What you teach them in their first four years will go far toward their psychological makeup throughout their lives. What you teach them in the next ten or so years will make young men and women out of them.
And, for the sake of their safety and future sanity, keep them out of the government's children's prisons!! They're getting more and more dangerous and more and more destructive of the uniqueness of the individual.
No one has ever been able to convince me that casually observed sexual images are destructive to children. Usually, they elicit an attack of curiosity--normal and healthy for a child. You tell the youngster the truth--just enough to satisfy his curiosity. You can tell him more later, as he gets older.
"Protecting" a child from his own adulthood is far more destructive than any casually observed sexual images he might encounter. If you can manage to protect your children from sexual abuse--a formidable enough task--that'll do. That'll do, along with his education and your love.
Government schools are child abuse.