Image provided by: Texas A&M University
About The Battalion. (College Station, Tex.) 1893-current | View Entire Issue (July 7, 1998)
The Battalion iesday • July 7,1998 PINION :ril P'heAsJ told ]]|| in a anstop efense ti accurarJ thy typj as then to He when)* Mansfiei '« l ovem ww.pervert.com 'J 16 ‘male pig’ stems from the adolescent perversion of Internet pornography nee again, American males have proved what sick and perverted crea- are. they April Towery opinion editor t n reij |h ial ca ing to ^ast eetinl 'eek, a col- t on B Th e s aid, 'omton ioss anc hrenicle s who Hd the ot Gr< o| 10 most ■ched the wh wds on the knk Hemet. •’uldpliBmong CogdtHe words vvitotiSj in order, Iwith gl XXX, lay boy, ht ak u|e, porno and porn. Addition- ■ only four human beings ap- cutor ear in the Top 100. They are to divamela Anderson (No. 12), Jenny p w; IcCarthy (31), Cindy Crawford |tors a::land Madonna (74). trial H)K, guys, get off the computer n ^P n ■ g e t a hfe. I don't expect 21- to r. ear-old males to not have sexual witaaBosity, but looking at dirty pic- fesiAs doesn't quench the curiosi- Jtonly fuels the fire. On the "Friendsnet" site, more h 1,300 repulsive sexual pro- iles are listed. The explicit lan- ige and pictures warn Web ijfers not to go further unless V are 18 years old or older. |l, no one's going to know many high school students even younger males are leaking a few peeks on their hotne computers. Bmd it's everywhere. I was re searching the cure for impotence ve 1V M Viagra for a past column and ich found a site that invited Internet ’ ( ,1, surfers with the slogan, "After pou see these pictures, you won't -d Viagra." fomen aren't looking at se- n Jdive nude photos of male “dels every chance they get. Internet sites that offer nographic material are very ich female-dominated. [it is so sad that men have be- e so obsessed with sex they e to look at dirty pictures on Internet and read about "Per il Kitty" and her fantasies to la thrill. pornography also is the start- point for much more serious lin, v Issues. |dus, I Almost every human has some ittinif Prt of sexual desire or curiosity. iedAf Bs is normal. What is not nor- l e ‘ s to trivialize and de-sani- |etries |e something that was created , vve ,?P )e a beautiful expression of liece, |febetween men and women, fcdfically husbands and wives, easier said than done. bare, been : tlie . ire li?# omin g involved in pornogra- “y adds to the downward spiral. lsS tafi Seria l killer Ted Bundy had a Ikmind and perverse desire to | n ,ot I 1 beautiful women. In inter- Bvvs before his death, he attrib- said fd much of his mental illness mcblbis early obsession with isk^B m ography. himBTrue, not everyone who looks m the I Veset wy students struggle with lust |d sexual desires. These things se internal destruction. And at a few Playboys becomes a seri al killer. However, the men who spend their spare time entertain ing pornography do have less re spect for women and thus the "typical male," the disgusting, insensitive and perverted pig, is born. If men would stop looking at pornography, they would stop seeing women as sex objects. True, some women act like sex objects. It could be argued some women deserve to be treated like sex objects. I disagree. Women are humans. They may act or dress a certain way because of insecurity, their upbringing or another reason. However, even Persian Kitty has feelings that can be hurt. And treating some one like a prostitute is unaccept able in any case. Men who entertain pornogra phy treat women this way with out even thinking about it. It has become socially acceptable. The old saying "garbage in, garbage out" rings true in this situation. If people put filthy trash in their minds all the time, it reflects in their words and ac tions. However, the men who spend their spare time enter taining pornogra phy do have less respect for women and thus the “typi cal male,” the dis gusting, insensitive and perverted pig, is born. It's just like watching a horror movie. The pictures and images remain in the viewer's mind long after the movie has ended. It causes nightmares. Similarly, pornography causes its viewers to constantly enter tain the images in their minds. It affects their views toward women and sex in general. It triv ializes an act that should be very special. The Bible states the message best. Those who utilize their thoughts for good will find peace of mind. "Whatever things are true, whatever things are noble, what ever things are just, whatever things are pure, whatever things are lovely, whatever things are of good report, if there is any virtue and if there is anything praise worthy, meditate on these things . . . and the peace of God will be with you." — Philippians 4:8 € // ft 'll, & f Graphic By Brad Graeber/The Battalion Playboys and prisoners do not mix John Lemons columnist April Towery is a senior journalism major. T he recent 4th of July holiday offered a stir ring reminder of the strengths of our great land. Indeed, this is the freest country in the world. But if one has kept up with the news during the past several weeks, one cannot help but notice that the United States is a bit mixed up at times. Recent head lines show the list of inalien able rights Americans claim as their own is changing. Unfortunately, the revised list of American rights do not mark progress nor do they make citi zens more free. On the contrary, the new American rights are signposts marking this country's journey along the road to becoming a modem-day Sodom and Gomorrah. Consider the court case resolved last Thursday in which the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled convicts have a right to pornography. That is right, along with leg irons, lock downs and license plate making. Playboy and Hustler are now offi cially part of the prison experience. The suit was prompted by a 1993 ban on nude pinups imposed at Arizona's Maricopa County Jail. The county said that inmates harassed female guards by waving pictures from sexually explicit magazines at them. The court, however, ruled that banning nude pictures could go too far. "We question whether all materials depicting nudi ty are reasonably likely to be the cause of violence or a tool of harassment," Judge Betty Fletcher said in an Associated Press report. The court feared that a ban on nude pictures could apply to more socially acceptable images like classical art or National Geographic photos. What is truly reprehensible about this case is how the court has undermined the Maricopa County sheriff's ability to maintain discipline in his jail. Here is a situation where it was prudent to ban nude pictures. Female guards, who were just try ing to do their job, were being sexually harassed. Surely, those guards are entitled to work in a ha rassment-free environment. Moreover, allowing inmates to have pornogra phy seems to be an ineffective way to run a prison. After all, the purpose of prison is to punish and re habilitate criminals. But allowing prisoners to pin up nude pictures is no punishment, nor does it aid in prisoner rehabilitation. No, if anything, pornog raphy is a destructive force. It is thought by many psychologists to be addictive. Indeed, one wonders if pornography was what the framers of the Constitution had in mind when they were laying out the Bill of Rights. Apparently, the core of American rights is life, liberty and the pursuit of adult magazines. The Maricopa county jail case, however, is not the only disheartening story to appear in the news during the past few weeks. Although Americans can have pornography while serving time in jail, they cannot have prayer while spending time in public school. Just ask Mildred Rosario. Rosario was fired last month from her teaching job in a Bronx, N.Y. middle school after leading her sixth-grade class in a prayer. On June 8, a student in Rosario's class asked if a schoolmate who had drowned had gone to heaven. Rosario led the class in a religious discussion that ended with a prayer. During the prayer, Rosario placed her hand on each studenfis head. After a parent complained, the Bronx school board fired Rosario. Rosario's case offers another example of rights being distorted. This time, Rosario's right to ex press herself has been trampled. Here is a woman, who in good faith, attempted to console her stu dents grief over the death of a peer. Although public school classrooms are not the place for teachers to proselytize their religious be liefs, Rosario deserved better treatment than being terminated. Rosario caused no harm. She left no scars on her students. If anything, she comforted them. Surely, a warning or temporary suspension would have been more appropriate than firing Rosario. But these days, Americans have so twisted their rights that they want to be free of what is helpful, i.e., prayer, and want to embrace what is harmful, i.e., pornography. The country is in a frightening state when cons can have pom, but kids cannot have prayer. At least this cloud has a small silver lining — the courts have not yet ruled that kids can have pornography or that convicts cannot pray. Maybe there still is hope. John Lemons is a graduate student in electrical engineering. ational interests fuel the U.S.’ foreign policy or many people, foreign policy is like another uni verse — as far beyond | e ! r perception as it is from r lr daily concern. However, resident Clinton's recent state | Slt 1:0 China incited a fire |° rm controversy as many rationed the real objective of | p C d States foreign policy. I v en before the official an- [ ff Ur| cement was made, an en- M eCh ° rus P rotes t was raised J ai * st visit. The reasons rs*, 0 i ec ting were as varied as the organizations lM|t madethem - 1 embers of the religious right charged that the I n Hed States should not communicate with any t ntr y that violates an undefined, yet oft repeated F 0r al code," while human rights activists pointed \ |ri ar d s China's record of suppressing democracy T* 1 '"dividual rights. Steven Gyeszly columnist On their own, in a domestic setting, these are valid complaints. Yet in the field of foreign rela tions, these views are woefully naive in their focus. Diplomats are envoys, not missionaries. Ameri can foreign policy has never been about creating a global utopia; it is, to paraphrase Daniel Vare, the art of letting another country do what we want. Is sues of morality and questions of human rights do have their place in American international diplo macy, but they never interfere with what our coun try is truly after. Most Americans use terms ranging from moral out rage to mortal sin in describing the Chinese procedure of the forced organ harvesting of prisoners. As grue some as this procedure is, we have historically main tained, and even cultivated, relations with other coun tries guilty of inhumane acts as long as they did not interfere with American interests. Ironically, if foreign relations were determined strictly on the basis of morality, countries such as France, Germany and Great Britain would cut off all diplomatic ties with us because the United States maintains the death penalty while all of the European Union nations have abolished it. Clinton's state visit to China also brought to light the U.S.' relationship with countries that deny their citizens basic human rights. China is not a democracy and does not pretend to be one. Yet the absence of democracy has never interfered with the U.S.' diplomatic ties to foreign countries. After all, look at the U.S.' two closest allies in the Gulf: Saudi Arabia and Kuwait. In terms of free dom, about the only difference between commu nism and a monarchy is that in a monarchy, the se cret police have better-looking uniforms. This nation's history is evidence of the reality of foreign policy. One of the best illustrations is to look back at the events of late 1956. Despite our government's vow to "roll back" communism, the United States refused to help as Soviet tanks invad ed Hungary, crushing a Hungarian revolt against the communist regime. Yet at the very same time, the U.S. is willing to start a war in an effort to pro tect shipping interests at the Suez Canal. The U.S.' foreign policy is fueled by domestic needs. We practice international diplomacy because we want something from the other country. Whether it is better access to a foreign marketplace, continued cooperation in regional political affairs or a pledge to send peacekeeping troops, the U.S. gets what it is after, and only then begin discussion on a Joint Declaration of Human Rights. Some argue that the best foreign policy is one that keeps the U.S. away from most countries. Yet the gov ernment practices international diplomacy for one rea son — to advance national interests. It is because of our idea of foreign policy — getting what the govern ment really want from other countries while paying lip service to morality and human rights that we have preserved those rights where it counts most: here at home. Steven Gyeszly is a junior finance major.