 |
|
|
|
Prove Us Wrong Number 10
Boy howdy did we git our scrawny white asses proved wrong on this one. Yessiree, them folks made us looks dumb as dirt and lahk we didn't don't know shee-it from shinola. Damn. I guess we was askin' for it, strutting 'round like a peacock an all. We got our hash settled but good.
RESOLVED: Since it is not adultery for two movie stars who are married to other people to have a love scene together, it would not be incest when two movie stars who are relatives have a love scene together.
Date: Monday, April 17, 2000 10:25 AM
From: Oo655321oO@(deleted)
WEll guy,
I would have to say that you are correct in assuming that if two people
who are relatives do a sex scene together it is not incest, because no actual
sex ever happens. There is only in instance in which you would be wrong, what
instance is that you ask, well, I will tell you, Down and Dirty, hardcore
porn flicks. But, in such a case, there are many more issues that need to be
addressed, and I do not feel compelled to ellaborate.
Oh yeah, if there happened to be a vanilla shake involved one could
argue that there was also incest involved, but that is a different debate
entirely.
Now I do realize that this is called "Prove Us Wrong" and I didn't
prove you wrong, or even try to for that matter, but I was just hoping I
could get my E-Mail posted on the greatest site on the entire internet (Do I
sense a little sarcasm, Nah, it can't be).
Anyways,
Later,
The Sock Monkey Junky
To Rebut:
First, thanks for the sarcasm-free email! It's so refreshing, in this, the Irony Age, to read an email free of that scourge of clear thinking and accurate communication, sarcasm.
Second, thanks for admitting you did not prove us wrong. So many people come to this with such a confrontational attitude, and come off all belligerent and even insulting. People don't seem to realize that just because it's called "Prove Us Wrong" doesn't mean you necessarily have to prove us wrong. You could contribute to our side of the argument, if you liked.
Third, dammit, you proved us wrong. Full-fledged coitus between relatives in a porn movie would, technically, be incest. Nontechnically, too, now that I think about it. We never thought about the porn movie thing because our minds don't work that way. Porn freak.
Anyway, you proved us wrong. NEXT!
Date: Wednesday, April 19, 2000 8:34 AM
From: HOWARME@(deleted)
Who says it's not adultery? I'm sure that's why a lot of Jimmy Swaggert
types don't go to the movies. So If that's the case, then it could be
assumed that it would indeed be incest between two family members. So then
would it also be true that if you really killed someone, like shot dead, on
purpose, that it would be ok and noone would go to jail, because of course
it was "Just a movie"? In which case I fail to see the difference. If an
adult had sex with a child would that be ok? Of course not, it would still
be considered child molestation. That's why it's not allowed. That's why
police confiscate material that shows that type of thing. It's all the
same. It's just that with something's we tend to look the other way and not
over react when we witness it. It appeals to our voyeurism. There are other
types of behavior that is totally unexceptable to "our way of thinking" so
we do not allow it. I'm done, I rest my case. I believe I have proven you
wrong.
To Rebut:
Dude, you are out there. WAY out there. I can only wade a few sentences in before losing your extremely tenuous train of thought. Near as I can tell, you are refuting the first part of our analogy. If two movie stars married to other people had a love scene, it's not adultery. I'm pretty sure it's not adultery unless you have coitus, in which case it's a porn movie and we're already wrong, as mentioned above. If it's not a porn movie, then it's not adultery, because they're just PRETENDING. Unless you take the biblical view about committing adultery in your heart because you were just thinking about it. In which case, we'd be wrong again. Unless the movie stars had no interest in each other whatsoever and just did the love scene through the sheer power of their acting talent! Then it wouldn't be adultery. You know, no cop, no crime? Anyway, I hope this answer is as incomprehensible as your argument. Later.
Date: Monday, May 1, 2000 9:18 PM
From: FistOfEstonia@(deleted)
To the dear charm workers at Vgg.com:
To me this "Prove Us Wrong" resolution seems to surface the age-old
problem of comparing apples and {insert witty substitute for "oranges" here}.
The foundation of adultery is marriage. Now, marriage is really a
byproduct of society, as is the need for entertainment, id est movies. Given
this, it can be assumed, even warranted, that, to better obtain our social
goal of being entertain, we can manipulate other social rules (in this case,
the rule that is against adultery). It can also be said, that, because
marriage has not coexisted with humans for the duration of our evolution, we
view it as superficial (loosely termed) and will not object when the laws of
it (marriage) are violated.
Incest, however, is different. We object to incest because the mixing of
similar genes is frown upon by the overseer of Evolution. Incest, unlike
marriage, is a biological concern. Also unlike marriage, the problem of
incest goes back in our evolution as far as we are willing to trace. It can
even be said that there is a fear and repugnance towards these licentious
feelings hardwired into our brains. To try and change or over ride these
feelings just to provide entertainment is unthinkable and inadvisable. From
this, it can be stated that humans, who have a knack for realizing something
is "not for real" find it impossible to ignore the fact that the two figures
engaging in coitus on the screen are related.
Marriage and incest are not on the same plane and thus cannot be easily
compared. I have attempted to do and even then found that, while outwardly
similar, the two will evoke different emotions in the audience in question
and hence cannot treated in the same manner.
To Rebut:
Um, who the hell is this "Overseer of Evolution" you refer to? Is it some wacko deity you built a shrine to in your breakfast nook? Because I am in the market for a new religion to join, actually and... um. We'll discuss later.
Anyhoo, the incest taboo is just as much a byproduct of society as marriage. And it's not as consistent as you think. Just because it grosses YOU out, did not prevent the pharaohs of ancient Egypt from marrying their sisters, which happened.
The upshot here is that pointing out our analogy is flawed does not satisfactorily disprove the validity of our statement. Is it incest or ain't it? We say it ain't, and you don't seem to have an answer for that. Where's your precious "Overseer of Evolution" now? Hanh? Myeah!
Date: Sunday, May 7, 2000 12:37 PM
From: lovezapp@(deleted)
The crux of adultery's immorality lies in its quality of unfaithfulness. A married couple can claim adultery only when the act was not conceited to by both parties. Each individual must act with deceit and deliberate philandering against the other. So, by that rationale, a movie star who engages in a love scene with another who his not his/her partner does indeed have permission by his/her spouse to act in this manner. Therefore it is not unfaithfulness, it is
entertainment. Incest, on the other hand, is the mere act of intercourse with members so close in relation that marriage is illegal. No level of authority can condone incest, it is incest no matter how you look at it. Comparing incest with adultery is comparing a degree of culture with a natural law. Margaret Mead vs Isaac Newton, you get the idea (although Mead in an American Gladiator match with Newton would kick serious hoo ha). So there you are, proven wrong. Forced to wallowing in all of your wrongfulness. Wrongy wrong wrong. By the way, you guys make me laugh.
Thanks.
james
To Rebut:
Well James, I think that even if both husband and wife agree to the infidelity, it is still technically adultery. A little food for thought for all those "swingers" out there. Sure, it's marginally better than with the lying and scheming and betraying and sinning and such, but it's still adultery. It has nothing to do with the quality of faithfulness/unfaithfulness. It's all about the sex, dammit, SEX!
And once again, saying there's a flaw in our analogy does not answer the question? Incest or not?
And save the Margaret Mead/Isaac Netwon pitch for MTV's Deathmatch, willya?
Date: Wednesday, May 24, 2000 9:02 PM
From: cfrantz@(deleted)
You guys are wrong!
from feeshycat
newfane vt
To Rebut:
Sure, fine. You proved us wrong. Whatever.
Well, we got proved wrong on this one right out of the gate by the porn freak. Other people tried to take the high road and argue about marriage and natural laws and all that crap and they totally blew it. You just had to go look at the porn. Anyway, we didn't get much response on this particular Prove Us Wrong, and I don't blame you. It's kinda creepy, and we made you think too much about probably very disturbing and/or arousing things. I know I did. We'll promise to try to clean up our act, as long as you good folks promise to keep playing. . .
Prove Us Wrong!
|
|
|
|
