From Fox News:
It's one thing to dangle fuzzy dice from a rear view mirror, but decorating a trailer hitch with a large pair of rubber testicles might be a bit much in Virginia.
State Del. Lionel Spruill introduced a bill Tuesday to ban displaying replicas of human genitalia on vehicles, calling it a safety issue because it could distract other drivers.
Some people might feel insecure enough about their manhood and potency that they feel the need to hang these things on the back of their truck, and still others might get off in looking at them.
Me, I find them disgusting and obscene. I'm dreading the moment one of my kids (especially my daughter) sees one and asks, "What's that, Dad?"
Safety issue or not, I think they're obscene. And governments have the right to ban what is considered by the average person to be obscene.
The First Amendment was intended to protect free political speech and dissent, not allow some insecure juvenile male to hang a pair of toy testicles of the back of his pickup truck.
22 comments:
I AGREE THIS IS VERY DIS-TASTEFUL. BILLBOARDS ARE NOT ALLOWED TO BE POSTED ON THE SIDE OF HIGHWAYS, SO WHY SHOULD THESE JUVENILE PEOPLE THAT DO NOT THINK OR CARE WHAT CHILDREN THINK OR SEE BE ABLE TO DRIVE AROUND WITH THEM. I THINK PARENTS NEED TO MAKE A MORE FIRM ON MATTERS SUCH AS THESE.
Yes, God forbid you should have to explain a natural, normal part of human anatomy to your child.
Human anatomy should be explained to children when they're old enough to understand such things, and it should be done in a serious atmosphere which pays the proper respect for the seriousness and implications of such things.
Someone who fails to understand that is likely either immature (like the people who have these on their trucks), sexually insecure (again, like the people who have these on their trucks), or a sexual radical. Or possibly all three.
How old does a kid have to be to understand that boys have testicles? Why does it have to be such a serious matter?
I think you're being unfairly harsh on these truck drivers. Could it be that balls just look funny, especially when hanging from a pickup truck, and that someone who is literally offended by the sight of them is just, well, a prude?
Would you be okay with these guys walking down the street with their balls hanging out? If so, I think we have an answer to my previous comment.
Two rubber testicles hanging from a pickup truck, prompting a child to wonder what they might be, is one thing.
Guys walking down the street exposing themselves is quite another.
Yet you don't seem to see it that way. Is everything in the world black and white to you?
Anonymous (5:46), please do tell us the difference. Enlighten us!
For the most part, moral matters are pretty black and white.
Rubber testicles (especially when they're very anatomically correct) hanging from a truck are obscene. Just as pair of breasts pasted to the grill, or a vagina, or a penis, would be.
You might want to ask yourself why you can't see what most decent grownups can easily understand. Could it be one or more of those three things I mentioned above?
Bob,
No, moral matters are not black and white. The world doesn't work in absolutes. There are ALWAYS going to be exceptions, and no rational person would make blanket statements and expect them to apply to any and every situation. I truly pity someone who sees the world as you do.
That said, no, I do not consider a representation of human anatomy like the one mentioned above to be obscene. If I did, I'd have to ask myself: am I really so insecure about my body and sexuality itself that I can't even laugh at it? Am I so ashamed of my own body that I get personally offended when someone shows a caricature of it?
As for whether or not I am a sexual radical...I hardly think that rubber testicles are a political statement.
Are there absolutely no absolutes, Anonymous?
Carrie,
So you REALLY don't understand why we have laws against indecent exposure, meanwhile it's perfectly legal to show caricatures of human genitalia on personal property? I'm sorry.
But I am interested to hear more about why you feel they're identical. You sound like a moral absolutist, like our friend Bob, so I guess if you see someone in a library reading a human anatomy textbook, complete with full-page photos, you'd ask him to please close it, as it's offending you and putting unacceptable questions in your child's head, like "Mommy, what's a vagina?"
And I suppose, like Bob, you consider a woman breastfeeding her child in a public restroom to be morally equivalent to seeing a decal of a pair of breasts pasted onto a car window. God forbid you should see a flash of nipple!!
It's all dependent on context, Carrie. A pair of rubber testicles has a different connotation than the real things -- because the real things were MADE for sex and if a man exposes his on the street, there is an implied sexual threat that is absent in, say, a vehicle decoration which was made for just that: decoration.
It's amazing the things that some people need to have explained.
I could ask you the same thing, Mr. Miyagi, and let this debate-to-nowhere continue.
Anonymous, you're right about context. An anatomy book would be appropriate for the study of human anatomy. Somehow you don't seem to get that hanging a pair of testicles on the back of a truck is NOT appropriate. It's called "vulgar" and "obscene" and such.
It's amazing that some people's mama's never told them the difference between academic study and lasciviousness.
If I photocopied pictures of human genitals out of the anatomy textbook and turned them into a bumper sticker, would that be obscene? I think even car decorations can be educational!
Now that you've mentioned my "mama," she actually taught me the importance of being able to laugh at the ridiculousness of sexuality -- and especially the ridiculousness of certain people who go to extreme lengths to repress it.
Chime in any time, Carrie...
Anonymous, the "debate-to-nowhere" might continue because you know you're wrong but won't admit it. You know there are absolutes; you just don't like them when they restrain you from what you want. You only want them to protect you, don't you? It doesn't work that way.
People who are secure in their sexuality don't need to display it in public, and be the center of attention.
Bob,
I've debated with you in several threads on this site, and you and I both know you are just as unwilling to admit when you are wrong. Or more likely, you aren't even able to realize when you are wrong.
So I will not continue this conversation. I have better things to do than argue with an inconsequential, sexually repressed, homophobic zealot -- who doesn't even know he's any of these things.
It's not that they feel the need to, but that they see nothing wrong in WANTING to. The inability to have a sense of humor about it can be just as good an indication of sexual insecurity.
It would be crazy for me to say I was wrong when I know I'm right, and any reasonable person knows it.
It's truly sad that you can't see that you're very wrapped up in what the Bible identifies in Isaiah 5:20 - calling evil good and good evil. It may be because you've reached the stage talked about in Romans 1:28-21 where you've so rejected what is right that God has simply returned you over "to a depraved mind, to do what ought not be done." I was near that stage once, but God eventually got through to me; maybe He will to you eventually, too.
And by the way, I'm not afraid of homosexuals; God says it's wrong, and I believe him. And I'm reasonably sure my wife would disagree with your assessment that I'm sexually repressed.
Have a good night!
Anonymous, I find your examples to be lacking.
"My" seeing someone with an anatomy textbook, would not put questions (unacceptable or not) in my child's head.
On the other hand... if my child were to be in the adult study section of the library... and a stranger either called my child over to look at the textbook or intentionally held it up for my child to see, I would question motive and find it unacceptable. The stranger would have over-stepped acceptable boundaries. I would likewise question the motives of any adult that would intentionally expose children (of all ages) to replicas of private body parts.
Anonymous, what makes you feel that the real things imply anymore threat than the replicas? Replica body parts are, after all, sold in adult stores for those who use such items for sexual purposes.
And what do testicles have to do with nursing a baby? Breasts do provide milk for babies.
Let's see... I wonder what the function is of testicles?
Anonymous, you still may not get even this, but I heard an analogy a few years ago that made a lot of sense to me. It was about exposing children to information (especially sexual information) before they're ready to understand it and properly handle it.
It was from Corrie ten Boom in her autobiography, The Hiding Place. She tells of when she was a young girl and came across the words "sex sin" in a poem, and when she asked her father about it:
And so, seated next to Father in the train compartment, I suddenly asked, "Father, what is sex sin?"
He turned to look at me, as he always did when answering a question, but, to my surprise, he said nothing. At last he stood up, lifted his traveling case from the rack over our heads, and set it on the floor.
"Will you carry it off the train, Corrie?" he asked.
I stood up and tugged at it. It was crammed with watches and spare parts he had purchased that morning.
"It's too heavy," I said.
"Yes," he said. "And it would be a pretty poor father who would ask his little girl to carry such a load. It's the same way, Corrie, with knowledge. Some knowledge is too heavy for children. When you are older and stronger, you can bear it. For now you must trust me to carry it for you."
Bob...
How perfectly said and oh so true! Wisdom is always impressive, is it not?
Post a Comment