Pornographers

[bigguyinpasadena]

In another thread,now locked,the subject of pornographers exploiting third world and emerging nations(eastern europe)young people for the pleasure and profit of richer nations(namly US,western EU,and some countries in asia).One Poster tried to compare the "illegal"use of guys for rent to the the use of underage/finacially disadvantaged boys in "barebacking"films.

While this argument was rightly shot down as without merit,the thread could have continued into an intereting discussion regardin porn,and our responsibilies as consumers of porn.

I personaly find it repugnant to exploit young people in this way.And I am ashamed for this board that this would be cause for debate.To me,it is such an obvious MORAL(religion and law were not even part of my thoughts on this)thoughts that the exploitation of young men-putting their lives and health at risk for the sake of getting your rocks off-is MORALLY abhorant.And that consumers of these products have the blood of these young men on their hands.

To equate the hiring of a CONSENTING ADULT to perform sex acts,while illegal(and this is a cultural/religious based law that is not universaly recognized)to the use of these young men forced,either through actual threat of harm or finacial hardship.to perform sex acts that put their lives at risk is without merit.

Porn is driven by the market.To see that there is a market for this among members of this board is disheartning.

I have worked for porn producers,socilize with them,and know a few by reputation alone.I have found there to be a high"yuch"factor here.I would say over 50% of the guys I know who are involved in the porn trade are scummmy,I worked for one of the scummiest who has been forced to take his ample backside to a country without extradition agreements with the US.He is still producing porn,and runs a brothel as well. There are the others,who treat the talent well,insure their safety,and make sure that the talent will make a return appearance if requested.

Anyway,I just needed to finish my thoughts on this.

If you respond to this,please leave proper names/websites/film titles out of the discussion so that it is not locked down.

[raife]

It would seem that both porno and escorting are rather risky endeavors, given our (US) anti-sexual cultural predilections, and are open to abuse by the "scummier" element among us. I guess I don't understand your moral distinctions:

 

Why is it any more immoral to exploit youth in a third world country than here in the first world. Underage exploitation is one thing, that becomes "kiddie porn" in this country (USA) and is hunted down and prosecuted by a large and wrathful mob, so I see no real issue there.

 

Alternatively, is a young man "forced... through financial hardship" to sell drugs, kidnap, blackmail or any one of a million other illegal (immoral) but lucrative things? If not, than why is barebacking in porno (or prostitution) any different? If you define "financial hardship" as being able to "force" someone to do something otherwise objectionable to them, then the ability of an adult to truly "consent" becomes rather murky indeed. ("are you doing this because you want to or just because you need the money?") I'm not defending the scum-sucking porno producers or their overeager clients, and I don't like barebacking in porno any more than you do, but it seems that taking this particular moral stance, while emotionally satisfying, doesn't have much credence in terms of a rational defense.

 

-R

[bigguyinpasadena]

Raife I do not make a distinction in my head between domestic"kiddie porn"which would involve undo influence/coersion/threats and porn that is produced in other less advataged countries-both are repugnant.

However,there a much higher chance that the stuff being churned out in eastern europe,asia,latin america etc...is being made using kids who are not there strictly for profit,but rather there under threat of physical harm,or because they are so hard up for the cash that they can see no other choice.And to ask a young man to risk being infected with a disease that will threaten his body for the rest of his life is,in my head,wrong regardless of the location.And to make a buck off of it,well there is a special place in you-know where.

Of course the CRIMES(kidnapping,running drugs,etc,,,)you bring up are not any less reprehisable.But they do take some cunning,skill,and street smarts.They also involve a great deal of risk.And it is true that some of the people doing this are doing it under duress.

I do not think that takes away from my original statement,it just broadens the discussion.

As I have gotten older and(I hope)wiser.I tend to really consider the consequences of my actions regarding paying for sex.I now tend to hire guys who will use the money to LIVE rather than kill themselves with drugs.I do not always follow my heart in these matters-but I am getting better.

[ted]

As a consumer of sexual services, be they porn videos, or escort services I try to be careful in my choices. I'm lucky in that my taste in men tends toward the muscular 30 something, rather than the 19 year old. Although there are exceptions, the guys that are doing it in their late 20's, 30's and have been doing it for awhile, are more likely to be doing it to live "well" and because they really do enjoy it, rather than because they "have to to pay the rent" or are being forced into it. I'm thinking of guys like Rick, Franco, Jon Ramsey, and others who I really consider professional escorts. There seem to be a few younger guys who fit the description too, but I haven't met most of them yet. Even though it may be illegal, I really don't have misgivings about hiring in such instances, or I wouldn't do it. After all, it is the worlds oldest profession. If we weren't such a sexually hung up nation it would probably be legal here too, as it is in some other countries.

Conversely, I really don't see how we can condone barebacking under any circumstances today, with the possible exception of between 2 guys in a completely trusting monogamous relationship. Too many have died. And yes, the drugs enable a longer life span, but it is a compromised life of taking drugs daily, and never really being healthy again. Until we have a cure, or a vaccine to prevent, barebacking is playing with someone's life. I can't do that, so no barebacking video's for me. If no one buys them they will stop making them. And for that matter no barebacking escorts for me, even if he plays safe with me.

[raife]

Hey BigGuy,

 

I don't disagree at all with your stand, in fact I share it. Certianly we must make personal distinctions in our consumption of material that could harm others in its production. I just don't see your assertion that because some imported bareback porno is made in poor countries, that is somehow more vile because the boys are more likely to have been coerced by poverty and abusive handlers than bareback porno made here. I just don't believe there's any coersion when there's consent, and I don't believe financial hardship makes it impossible to consent. There are always options other than russian roulette. Alternatively, if some of these Eastern European guys think each other is "straight" and "you can't get HIV from another straight guy", that's self delusion, not coercion. Not that I'd buy the video in either case.

 

Slippery rational basis aside, there are obviously things we can do:

 

[ul][li]Don't buy these pornos in question (domestic or foreign) ourselves[/li]

[li]Make our view clear to others that are buying them, thus transferring the metaphorical "blood to their hands" (this is what that other guy got all hot and bothered about)[/li]

[li]Fight the porno producers (rather hard to do, given abusive porno producers' fly-by-night nature and resemblance to cockroaches)[/li]

[li]Work to have them declared illegal (I'm all for this if there's provable coercion involved)[/li][/ul]

 

Sorry for seeming pedantic, I just want my own moral stance to be clearly derivable from my values, thus I only argue for clarity within myself.

 

I totally share your value of paying money to life affirming 'scorts who use the income to better themselves, you're preaching to the choir on this one bud.

 

-R src=http://www.radioparadise.com/modules/Forums/images/smiles/icon_hug.gif

[HightopGuy]

I know going into writing this reply that it's going to come off sounding wrong and I'm probably going to get flamed to hell and back, but oh well...

 

When it comes to purchasing goods in general, I don't have the information, the time, nor the desire to worry about all the effects on everybody in the chain involved in producing said product.

 

I get so tired of reading things like:

 

- Don't buy clothes made overseas, because it's possible they were made with child labor.

 

- Don't buy a new computer, because the old ones are recycled by poor people overseas who are exposed to harmful chemicals.

 

- Don't buy a foreign car, because you're putting American workers out of a job.

 

- Don't buy bareback videos, because it's possible the actors were coerced into it.

 

- Etc, etc, etc.

 

Next thing you know, we'll be encouraged to not buy dildos because the factory that makes them emits toxic chemicals that poisons the workers.

 

Enough already. Just because some products are produced questionably doesn't mean they all are. Some that you may think are okay might be made by exploiting people. Some you think are made with exploited labor are probably just fine.

 

As I said above, I don't have the information needed to research each and every purchase I make. And I don't have the time nor desire to. If I did, I'd spend 95% of my day worrying about that stuff I'm buying at Wal-Mart is putting local merchants out of business, or my foreign car denying a job to an American, or the dildo I bought poisoning some factory worker, or the bareback video I bought made by desperate young men with guns to their heads.

 

If I sound callous, sorry. There's no easy to express my feelings on this matter without sounding like I don't give a damn. I do give a damn, to the extent that I have all the information concerning how it was made. If the video I buy has a big label on it saying "Made with exploited porn stars and we don't give a damn if they get HIV or not" I wouldn't buy it. But barring that, I have to assume that the people involved were consenting adults, they did NOT have guns to their heads, that they were tested for HIV before the video was made (not 100% reliable, I know, but probably as reliable as we're going to get with today's technology), that they knew what they were doing, and were personally responsible for their actions.

 

I hope this explanation makes sense, even if others don't share my views...

[raife]

Yea I'm pretty burned out on boycotts too, it's all about balance. There always seems to be a imperfect link in any given supply chain.

 

However what we're talking about is a little more direct, I won't buy bareback vids for the same reason I won't buy snuff films or tapes of guys playing russian roulette, bullfights, dogfights, etc. (well that and the shit doesn't interest me at all...) Somebody is paying a price for that footage you're watching. There's tons of pre 80's condomless pornos out there (pre HIV) if want to watch guys going at it raw...

 

I would recommend that you watch [a href=http://www.thegiftdocumentary.com/]The Gift[/a] if you ever get a chance, it's been shown on The Sundance Channel several times. It sure shook me the hell up and cured me of any lingering mystique I associated with barebacking...

 

-R src=http://www.radioparadise.com/modules/Forums/images/smiles/icon_eyes.gif

[woodlawn]

>One

>Poster tried to compare the "illegal"use of guys for rent to

>the the use of underage/finacially disadvantaged boys in

>"barebacking"films.

>While this argument was rightly shot down as without merit,

 

I just read that thread and I do not see that anyone made a persuasive argument that "shot down" what VaHawk said there.

 

>I personaly find it repugnant to exploit young people in this

>way.And I am ashamed for this board that this would be cause

>for debate.To me,it is such an obvious MORAL(religion and law

>were not even part of my thoughts on this)thoughts that the

>exploitation of young men-putting their lives and health at

>risk for the sake of getting your rocks off-is MORALLY

>abhorant.And that consumers of these products have the blood

>of these young men on their hands.

>To equate the hiring of a CONSENTING ADULT to perform sex

>acts,while illegal(and this is a cultural/religious based law

>that is not universaly recognized)to the use of these young

>men forced,either through actual threat of harm or finacial

>hardship.to perform sex acts that put their lives at risk is

>without merit.

 

I don't know that anyone was trying to "equate" adult prostitution with the practices you're complaining about. The point was made that there are those on this board who rail against certain practices because they find those practices morally repugnant, while at the same time they oppose efforts to ban prostitution by those who find prostitution morally repugnant. Almost everyone here seems to have a list of sexual practices they would ban. The only difference between them and moral crusaders like Falwell is that their list is different.

[JamesK840]

At first I thought "forced... through financial hardship" was a very weak point, but there is something about an American going to a place where the monthly wage may be $100 and offering double or triple that for a couple hours of doing something that may effect the kid for the rest of his life...

 

Any comparison to 'over here' is completely off because 1: there is at least knowledge of the existence of AIDS and plenty of places to get the facts for literate Americans/Western Europeans and 2: the disparity isn't so great, in fact, that's why these producers go to the third world, so they don't have to pay thousands and thousands of dollars to convince somebody who's aware of the risk and so that the people they are exploiting have no legal recourse against them...

 

It is really something to think about, thanks for making me fully consider it BGP! The only downside is if you can't affect the core demand and only get the Americans out, others/locals will just follow the money and take over the market, with far less chance of an even slightly compassionate producer at least doing over the counter AIDS tests and such...

[VaHawk]

“While this argument was rightly shot down as without merit”

No big secret that you are referring to me and as woodlawn so eloquently pointed out, my argument was not “shot down as without merit”.

“I personaly find it repugnant to exploit young people in this way.And I am ashamed for this board that this would be cause for debate.To me,it is such an obvious MORAL(religion and law were not even part of my thoughts on this)thoughts that the exploitation of young men-putting their lives and health at risk for the sake of getting your rocks off-is MORALLY abhorant.And that consumers of these products have the blood of these young men on their hands.”

Yes, your/others personal repugnance was the whole point of my reply. And what the heck do you mean that religion and law weren’t part of your thoughts on morals, as morals are defined by religious canons and laws enacted by the community? As such, are morals to be defined by each individual’s personal definition?

“To equate the hiring of a CONSENTING ADULT to perform sex acts,while illegal(and this is a cultural/religious based law that is not universaly recognized)to the use of these young men forced,either through actual threat of harm or finacial hardship.to perform sex acts that put their lives at risk is without merit.”

Many countries have an age of consent less than the current 18 years of age in the USA, so such guys participating in bare back porno films are indeed CONSENTING ADULTS! Of course those laws are not UNIVERSALLY recognized as they aren’t recognized here in the good old USA. What proof are you proffering that these guys in turn are being “forced” to engage in such activities? I’d venture none whatsoever. And how presumptuous of you, to imply that everyone who engages in bare backing sex, is doomed to be infected with the HIV virus as an automatic given. If both partners are not infected, then how does it mean that either will thusly be infected?

As further refutation, prostitution is legal in many countries, but not in the USA, but you rail against the unfairness of this in the USA, because it is one of those “degrees of distinction of morals” you use to engage in that which is also immoral under the religious/community standards in the USA.

 

”To see that there is a market for this among members of this board is disheartning.”

 

Not NEARLY as disheartening as seeing the old “double standard” being applied! And to justify such double standards upon what you/others “personally find abhorrent”.

I just love how you and others get to tell the rest of us what is moral and immoral and how you all justify immorality upon “degrees and distinctions”. LMAO!

To rant and rail and accuse others of having “blood on their hands” for purchasing a perfectly legal bare backing video where all the participants are willing, consenting adults, while engaging in activities that are defined as immoral in most US communities HAS GOT TO BE THE ABSOULTE PINNACLE OF HYPOCRISY!

[Doug69]

I agree with every point you are making, Hawk, but I wanted to add just one thing:

 

>And

>how presumptuous of you, to imply that everyone who engages in

>bare backing sex, is doomed to be infected with the HIV virus

>as an automatic given. If both partners are not infected,

>then how does it mean that either will thusly be infected?

 

Also, many, many people who bareback - whether on videos or who look for bareback partners online - are already HIV-positive - which is precisely why they're willing to bareback. So blaming porn producers for filming people voluntarily engaging in bareback sex for the models' HIV-positive status is incredibly ignorant and, as you say, presumptuous. If 2 already-HIV-positive people choose to bareback on video, the producer who produces that video has nothing to do with their HIV status.

 

This is just yet another case of people who love Vice X (prostitution generally or, even better(!), prostitution involving 60 year old guys and 18 year old kids) screaming about how moral prohibitions against Vice X are wrong, but because they don't like Vice Y (bareback videos), they want to be champions of the Moral Prohibition against Vice Y. What else is new?

[VaHawk]

Thanks Doug69! Once again, you are 100% on target! Mea culpa, I SHOULD have noted that bare backing videos between HIV+ participants is also a very valid point of refutation and I sincerely appreciate you pointing out this fact. LOL!, as Ann Landers always said, get out the wet noodle as I blew the obvious!

[raife]

And what the heck do you mean that religion and law weren’t part of your thoughts on morals, as morals are defined by religious canons and laws enacted by the community?

 

As such, are morals to be defined by each individual’s personal definition?

 

Therein lies the crux of this whole sordid misunderstanding, to this I would say hell yes! Only for the naive and immature is it enough to just blanket accept the predigested packet of "morals" that comes from either ancient exoteric religions or governnmental/legal systems. Free-thinking rational humans above a certian level of development should derive their own moral code and ethical system from the values they hold dear. One-size-fits-all proscribed black and white moral codes are fine to get one to a certian point, then things get utterly complex and the old [a href=http://www.wie.org/_flash/sd.asp?hp=1]Blue Meme[/a] is unable to cope. Funny thing is, one develops even more and finds their personal morality inexorably aligning with global evolutionary morality "the greatest good for the greatest number"

 

And how presumptuous of you, to imply that everyone who engages in bare backing sex, is doomed to be infected with the HIV virus as an automatic given. If both partners are not infected, then how does it mean that either will thusly be infected?

 

I call this russian roulette only the producers maybe haven't bothered to tell the boys the gun(s) may be loaded! I don't want to watch, and I can damn well critize you for watching as well, the same as I can call you on buying snuff films!

 

Not NEARLY as disheartening as seeing the old “double standard” being applied! And to justify such double standards upon what you/others “personally find abhorrent”.

I just love how you and others get to tell the rest of us what is moral and immoral and how you all justify immorality upon “degrees and distinctions”. LMAO!

 

To rant and rail and accuse others of having “blood on their hands” for purchasing a perfectly legal bare backing video where all the participants are willing, consenting adults, while engaging in activities that are defined as immoral in most US communities HAS GOT TO BE THE ABSOULTE PINNACLE OF HYPOCRISY!

 

There's no double standard because I'm speaking from my moral perspective, not some proscribed scheme. This is the essence of personal communication I'm just trying to persuade you of my moral view, you can accept or reject it based on your own morality, then I can call you a heartless immoral bastard again based on my own morals. Then we just agree to disagree and go our own way (or kill each other if we're of a certain hawkish "preemptive" bent, but I'll leave that for the fundie Islamists and the Spanish Inquisition...). So there is no hypocrisy here, only the normal dissonance of differing moral standards.

 

Agreeing to disagree...

 

-R

[VaHawk]

Excuse me, but where did I ever call anyone a "heartless immoral bastard"??? I know I DIDN'T because I hate the word bastard!

 

What are you railing about? Your "personal morals" preempt/have more validation over my "personal morals"? Is that what you are trying to say?

 

Or are you trying to say, that each individual "lives in a world of their own choosing", where the prevailing laws and morals of the society one lives in, should be totally dismissed as irrelevant/unapplicable if such morals/laws disagree with an individual's self-defined "morals"? Isn't that the definition of total anarchy, as I stated?

 

If that is what you are advocating, then I REALLY don't want to see you disputing a pedophile's justification of engaging in sex with pre-pubescent boys and girls and I CERTAINLY DON'T WANT to see you accusing others of having "blood on their hands" for buying barebacking videos!

 

BTW: As for me personally, I don't buy/watch porn period!

[raife]

Excuse me, but where did I ever call anyone a "heartless immoral bastard"??? I know I DIDN'T because I hate the word bastard!

 

I'm not saying you did, VaHawk... it was just part of an illustrative example, pure metaphor and certainly not meant to be taken literally. No disparagement intended

 

 

What are you railing about? Your "personal morals" preempt/have more validation over my "personal morals"? Is that what you are trying to say?

 

Or are you trying to say, that each individual "lives in a world of their own choosing", where the prevailing laws and morals of the society one lives in, should be totally dismissed as irrelevant/unapplicable if such morals/laws disagree with an individual's self-defined "morals"? Isn't that the definition of total anarchy, as I stated?

 

Not at all, I'm saying that at each level of [a href=http://www.wie.org/_flash/sd.asp?hp=1]consciousness development[/a], a different moral standard takes precidence, and ultimately, what we want is a society where each persons (and subcultures') individual morals, values and choices are respected within the framework of the whole, which we want to be a large enough tent to accommidate the various stages of personal moral growth. Obviously victimizing others goes against most people's standards and must be reigned in. This is not anarchy, this is freedom for you to go your way and I mine.

 

If that is what you are advocating, then I REALLY don't want to see you disputing a pedophile's justification of engaging in sex with pre-pubescent boys and girls and I CERTAINLY DON'T WANT to see you accusing others of having "blood on their hands" for buying barebacking videos!

 

Anarchy is not what I'm advocating, just a larger framework of freedom. But both pre-pubescent pedophilia and "coercive barebacking" have definite victims, and these victims must be protected from the predation of others. Here is where the "persuasion" and "healthy reasoned debate" come in. How exactly to define the parameters of this "victim" status. It's my job to persuade you that some of the values of my moral code just may possibly have more merit that those of your moral code and you likewise persuade me that no indeed it's me that's full of shit and thus we debate and reason and discuss and come to some form of manageable compromise position that we both can life with (or not... of course the other option is to get up from the table and walk... or declare Holy War... but that's not my style)

 

BTW: As for me personally, I don't buy/watch porn period!

 

I respect that wholesome all-American stance while at the same time I say to you that for me, sex is an excellent expression of the Divine in all of us, and thus for me porno is a great celebration of the Immanent, Descending path (yin-yang = ascending-descending masculine-feminine "the Dance of Shiva") - voila, we can respect each others stances... Where it gets wonky is if you were to want to deny me my healthy dose of porno, or I were to somehow force my love of skin on you (a la "nipplegate") but I won't go there...

 

In loving respect

-R

[VaHawk]

COOL! Certainly no problems on this end!

[woodlawn]

>what we want is a society where each persons

>(and subcultures') individual morals, values and choices are

>respected within the framework of the whole, which we want to

>be a large enough tent to accommidate the various stages of

>personal moral growth. Obviously victimizing others goes

>against most people's standards and must be reigned in. This

>is not anarchy, this is freedom for you to go your way and I

>mine.

 

To me it sounds like a lot of bullshit. Every community where people live together places limits on the behavior of individuals where most members of the community believe the said behavior impacts other members. In an earlier post you pour scorn on people who simply abide by the moral code of the society in which they live without questioning it. In your post above, however, you state that behavior that "goes against most people's standards . . . must be reigned in." If you don't want to abide by the limits of the community in which you live you have two options. You can go on acting outside those limits until you get caught -- which seems to be the preferred method of most of the people who frequent this website -- or you can move to a community that doesn't restrict the sort of behavior you want to engage in.

[raife]

To me it sounds like a lot of bullshit. Every community where people live together places limits on the behavior of individuals where most members of the community believe the said behavior impacts other members. In an earlier post you pour scorn on people who simply abide by the moral code of the society in which they live without questioning it. In your post above, however, you state that behavior that "goes against most people's standards . . . must be reigned in." If you don't want to abide by the limits of the community in which you live you have two options. You can go on acting outside those limits until you get caught -- which seems to be the preferred method of most of the people who frequent this website -- or you can move to a community that doesn't restrict the sort of behavior you want to engage in.

 

While not scorn, I don't have as much respect for those who haven't thought through their own moral code to decide if it really makes sense in light of their own life. For example, avowed Southern Baptists camped out here on the mc, asserting conservative Christian values and not even considering the fact that just being here "among the heathen" violates the written in stone dogmatic moral code which they're espousing. Hoisted on their own petard. But this level of morality (mythic/membership) includes young people and still-developing adults, so it's always better just to encourage growth and learning experiences and let folks develop at their own pace.

 

I'm totally hooked on [a href=http://www.wie.org/_flash/sd.asp?hp=1]Spiral Dynamics[/a] because it gives me a great framework for understanding the whole liberal ([a href=http://www.wie.org/j22/beck-mini.asp?meme=green]Green Meme[/a]) vs conservative ([a href=http://www.wie.org/j22/beck-mini.asp?meme=blue]Blue Meme[/a]) dynamic, such as why it is that sparks fly when you and your fellow Blue-centric buds (such as the Eminent VaHawk, Doug69, and the no-longer-present regulation) join in on a primarily [a href=http://www.wie.org/j22/beck-mini.asp?meme=orange]Orange[/a]/Green discussion board and start sharing your views. Blue and Green have differing values systems and worldviews, which is why liberals and conservatives both feel as if they are talking to an alien race when they try to discuss anything. If everybody can keep an open mind however, some very constructive conversations can develop, otherwise (as frequently seen) it devolves into a mud-slinging contest... It's always interesting, nevertheless

 

I totally agree with your two options though... (with the addition of a third: work within the community to get the moral standards changed!) In the prior post I was speaking about the ideal role of a larger moral framework as embodied by an idealized mythical [a href=http://www.wie.org/j22/beck.asp?page=1]second tier[/a] government (as something of an Idealist, I focus on that a lot), but in the real world in which we live, we work with what we've got, and it's always better if you can live in a community whose moral standards align well with your own personal standards. Which is why I do quite well in Los Angeles, Denver, Montreal and swoon Amsterdam (+ much of Europe) but having read this board lately, I think I'll avoid Columbus Ohio like the plague!

 

-R

[Doug69]

>I'm totally hooked on Spiral

>Dynamics because it gives me a great framework for

>understanding the whole liberal Green

>Meme vs conservative ([a

>Blue Meme dynamic, such as why it is that sparks fly when you

>and your fellow Blue-centric buds

>(such as the Eminent VaHawk, Doug69, and the no-longer-present

>regulation) join in on a primarily Green

>discussion board and start sharing your views. Blue and Green

>have differing values systems and worldviews, which is why

>liberals and conservatives both feel as if they are talking to

>an alien race when they try to discuss anything.

 

About all of this, I have a few questions:

 

(1) Do you recognize that it is quite likely that the reason you find this Sprial Dynamics theory so compelling is because it takes your world-view (the "Green Meme") and proclaims it to be the most evolved and highest level of existence, the pre-requisite to some transcendent state, and you therefore saw it and said: "Wow, look what I found - a theory defines me and what I think as being the highest level of being - or at least higher than all the others who see the world differently than I do, at least on this "plane" - and I will therefore embrace this theory and start following it, because it affirms everything I think and am?"

 

(2) Do you see any irony in your labelling some of of us in this thread as being lowly, brainwashed creatures of the "Blue Meme" - i.e., those who have need to follow and submit to a Higher Authority - when it is YOU who are arrogating unto yourself the right to condemn the individual choices of other adults based upon some fuzzy, ever-shifting moral code, whereas we in the Blue Sewer, or at least some of us Blue Monsters, are doing nothing other than defending the right of those individuals to make those choices and pointing out the inconsistency and hypocrisy of those like you and BGP who are desperately seeking out some objectively grounded (yet somehow still subjective) moral code in order to condemn the acts of others and defend the acts of yourself? Isn't that exactly what the religious followers who populate the "Blue Meme" seek, at their core, to do? How are you any different than them?

 

(3) Wouldn't you agree that it's not merely the world's traditional, long-standing religions which fulfill the need to have a superior code of morals to submit to and follow, but also certain political ideologies (such as the cliched form of Leftist Secular Humanism which drives that theory and many of your posts) which decree what is Right and Wrong and Good and Evil based not on religious decrees but based on some sort of overarching Political Truths about Humanity? And aren't the people who follow such Ideological codes every bit as much beknighted by the defining Blue Meme Sin of living in submission to someone else's system of Morality and Ethics as those awful Baptists, Buddhists, and Moslems who populate the Blue Sewer?

 

(4) Do you find it revealing at all that, having read several of your posts here on this and other topics, I see all of the defining attributes of the Blue Meme in your world-view and none in mine, yet you see the opposite?

 

Having said all of that, I must compliment you on your strikingly advanced and complex use of HTML code. Your (literally) vibrant and colorful posts do electrify the Board, at least on an asthetic level, which counts for something, I suppose. I felt compelled to give credit where it's due.

[raife]

About all of this, I have a few questions:

 

(1) Do you recognize that it is quite likely that the reason you find this Sprial Dynamics theory so compelling is because it takes your world-view (the "Green Meme") and proclaims it to be the most evolved and highest level of existence, the pre-requisite to some transcendent state, and you therefore saw it and said: "Wow, look what I found - a theory defines me and what I think as being the highest level of being - or at least higher than all the others who see the world differently than I do, at least on this "plane" - and I will therefore embrace this theory and start following it, because it affirms everything I think and am?"

 

Actually, after spending most of my life in first Blue then Green camps, I'm now accepting the second tier perspective that all 6 first tier memes are essential and unavoidable components of human consciousness development, we each as individuals have to progress through the levels at our own pace, and there is no "higher" or "lower", just more all-encompassing and adaptive and evolutionarily successful. Each level transcends and includes the levels that come before it in development, and we develop our own individualized Spiral color mix as our life conditions change, though, we tend do gravitate to a particular Meme with whose values we most closely identify at a given point in our life. We each may find the need move up or down the Spiral and that's why colors are used rather than "level 1, 2, 3, etc", because ranking and "my Meme is better than yours" are antithetical to the whole idea of the Spiral as a whole. All are needed, none can stand alone and each Meme has weaknesses and blind-spots without the others to supplement it. Still, I can see that this whole thing seems horribly elitist to you, but for looking at conflict between cultures and historical human development as a whole, it's a theory well grounded in empirical data and goes farther than any other at being "fair and balanced" to the entire population as we progress along this precarious evolutionary track.

 

(2) Do you see any irony in your labeling some of us in this thread as being lowly, brainwashed creatures of the "Blue Meme" - i.e., those who have need to follow and submit to a Higher Authority - when it is YOU who are arrogating unto yourself the right to condemn the individual choices of other adults based upon some fuzzy, ever-shifting moral code, whereas we in the Blue Sewer, or at least some of us Blue Monsters, are doing nothing other than defending the right of those individuals to make those choices and pointing out the inconsistency and hypocrisy of those like you and BGP who are desperately seeking out some objectively grounded (yet somehow still subjective) moral code in order to condemn the acts of others and defend the acts of yourself? Isn't that exactly what the religious followers who populate the "Blue Meme" seek, at their core, to do? How are you any different than them?

 

All the perjoratives are yours, Neither "lowly" or "brainwashed" is an attribute of the Blue Meme, all Memes have healthy and pathological manifestations, and I respect the Blue Meme within myself as a source of strengh and stability. While I no longer identify with Blue as my my main point-of-focus, Blue is certainly necessary to whip Red into shape, and it was Blue that responded quickly to 9-11 without which Green might have been locked into endless UN-style "analysis paralysis". Sure we're looking for a framework within which the world makes some sense, but that can take into account the complexity of cultural development without resorting to oversimplifying into some black/white sketchbook caricature.

 

Obviously I'm only human, and I've spent a lot of time as Green, so I strongly identify with my Kum-Ba-Yah hand-holding brothers, and yea, I've been known to lob mudballs in the endless liberal vs conservative feud, though as a libertarian, I seem to identify with only about ½ of each sides' agenda.

 

(3) Wouldn't you agree that it's not merely the world's traditional, long-standing religions which fulfill the need to have a superior code of morals to submit to and follow, but also certain political ideologies (such as the cliched form of Leftist Secular Humanism which drives that theory and many of your posts) which decree what is Right and Wrong and Good and Evil based not on religious decrees but based on some sort of overarching Political Truths about Humanity? And aren't the people who follow such Ideological codes every bit as much beknighted by the defining Blue Meme Sin of living in submission to someone else's system of Morality and Ethics as those awful Baptists, Buddhists, and Moslems who populate the Blue Sewer?

 

Everybody who has developed to the level of the Blue Meme onward has Blue as a component of their consciousness, and Green as manifested in the political Liberal of today tends to vilify and repress the Memes that got it to where it is. The trick is to use this as a general guide and not as an Ideological Sword to smite people with. It's a tool and a model, not the Holy Writ of Evolution. Those who think of it that way are, yes, totally expressing Blue. One of the problems with Green is that in their rush in distancing themselves from their dogmatic heritage towards moral relativism, they lose complete track of left-right up-down and fall prey to a stage-specific malady known as "aperspectival madness". Hence this framework to try to map our reality using the basic tenets of evolution as "orienting generalizations", a Map of Consciousness Development for Dummies guidebook, so to speak

 

(4) Do you find it revealing at all that, having read several of your posts here on this and other topics, I see all of the defining attributes of the Blue Meme in your world-view and none in mine, yet you see the opposite?

 

If so it's because (1) I'm totally human with all the faults and limitations suggested by the label (2) I'm kind of new at this whole Spiral development thing and have strong historical identification with both Blue and Green components of myself. Since the colors are interdependent (and mutually self-reflective) and Blue (and Red) are the Ideological head-butting colors and I've been doing a lot of that recently, of which I'm somewhat regretful (Green), and invigorated (Blue & Red), still my goal is to better myself by adopting a more global and evolutionary perspective that honors all God's Creation. That's obviously a heady goal, and it doesn't look like I'm going to make it in this lifetime (which is why reincarnation is such a great doctrine, but that's another post…)

 

Having said all of that, I must compliment you on your strikingly advanced and complex use of HTML code. Your (literally) vibrant and colorful posts do electrify the Board, at least on an asthetic level, which counts for something, I suppose. I felt compelled to give credit where it's due.

 

Thank you! src=http://www.radioparadise.com/modules/Forums/images/smiles/propeller.gif

 

 

-R src=http://www.radioparadise.com/modules/Forums/images/smiles/icon_hug.gif

[woodlawn]

>I don't have as much

>respect for those who haven't thought through their own moral

>code to decide if it really makes sense in light of their own

>life. For example, avowed Southern Baptists camped out here on

>the mc, asserting conservative Christian values and not even

>considering the fact that just being here "among the heathen"

>violates the written in stone dogmatic moral

>code which they're espousing.

 

How do you know they haven't considered it and come up with an explanation that satisfies them?

 

>But this level of morality (mythic/membership)

>includes young people and still-developing adults, so it's

>always better just to encourage growth and learning

>experiences and let folks develop at their own pace.

 

I don't see what the above has to do with real life. No matter what stage of "development" an individual may have reached, he's required to respect the limits his community places on behavior or suffer the consequences.

 

>such as why it is that sparks fly when you

>and your fellow buds join in on a primarily Green

>discussion board and start sharing your views. Blue and Green have >differing values systems

 

I take it you haven't read a lot of my posts. If you had, you'd know that Doug and I disagree on a great many social and economic issues. The usual reason for my disagreements with other board members, however, is my penchant for pointing out that the positions they take have nothing to do with principles or values but are simply rationalizations for doing whatever it is they feel like doing. I can respect people who adopt a value system they believe in and stick to it, whether or not it accords with mine. I find it a lot harder to respect people who simply adopt "values" that allow them to satisfy their personal desires and that prohibit nothing except things they don't want to do anyway. So many of the people who post here seem to fit that description.

 

 

>I totally agree with your two options though... (with the

>addition of a third: work within the community to get

>the moral standards changed!

 

That's not an alternative to the options I proposed, since working to get moral standards changed doesn't exempt one from obeying the standards that currently exist. If you get busted for soliciting a hooker you'll find the fact that you are working to get the law changed doesn't constitute a defense to the charge.