Rico, your're right on , Bro!!

John Rodgers
88 GL Driver

Rico Sapolich wrote:
>
> In a message dated 6/17/01 10:12:29 AM, hksawyer@CATT.COM writes:
>
> << At 01:16 AM 6/17/01 -0400, Rico Sapolich wrote:
> >In a message dated 6/16/01 11:30:30 PM, badassbus@HOTMAIL.COM writes:
> >
> ><< Can't believe these guys stole my idea for Vanagon porn >>
> >
> >badassbus,
> >
> >Apparently you suffer a dearth of ideas.  But, you make up for it by being
> >one hell of an asshole.
> >
> >Rich
>
> Rich, come on man, we are mostly adults here! . . .
> The "drive" for reproduction the strongest force
> on the planet at times, right up there with the primal instinct
> survival.  . . .  From your inflamed response, you
> were extremely offended.   . . .
>
> Did I have fair warning?  . . .
>
> . . .What would happen to the discussions if there is a chill to the freedom
> of speech that we enjoy on the list? . . .
> HK >>
>
> *****! ! ! ! ! ! BEWARE: THE FOLLOWING CONTAINS COURSE AND COMMON LANGUAGE
> WHICH MAY LEAVE INDELIBLE SEXUAL IMAGES ON YOUR IMAGINATION.  IT IS VULGAR,
> SHAMELESS AND, PERHAPS, POINTLESS ! ! ! ! ! *****
>
> HK and Others:
>
> Where or where do I begin this much belated response to more e-mail's than I
> honestly had the stamina to read?  Once the fuse was lit, I left town only to
> return to a mailbox bloated by the subject of porn.  The glut of mail has
> provoked me to examine certain of my attitudes, something I avoid when it
> comes to art, food, music or . . . sex.  I would much rather let the primal
> chord be plucked, then revel in its resonance.
>
> More than one suggested I am merely a prude.  Hardly so.  Ever since I was 11
> years old, when Linda Giles sat across the aisle from me in Mrs. Curran's
> classroom and allowed me to peer up her skirt while wondering what delights
> lay ensconced in her white panties, I have been a prisoner of sex.  When I
> was 15, I had an 18 year old girlfriend who drove a Bugeye Sprite and who put
> me onto the scent of a woman; I have been rabidly following the trail ever
> since.  During my college years, I took a long stroll on the wild side with a
> string of go-go dancers, today, they are called strippers.  They came in all
> flavors and each one, as all women, had something unique to offer.  But, one
> stood far above the rest as the most sexually motivated creature I have ever
> known.  She was a fiery mix of Puerto Rican, Japanese and Irish and we had
> only two things in common: an appreciation of raw rhythm and blues and
> bumping uglies.  On those merits she persuaded me to quit my summer job and
> to travel with her to almost every dive in the Northeast.  By the time I
> returned to reality, any demureness I may have harbored was permanently
> extricated from my persona.  As you can see, I am far from being a tightass
> regarding exhibitions of human sexuality.
>
> So, why DID I chastise badassbus?  With one reservation, it was not so much
> the subject matter as it was the effrontery to my sense of scale.  There is a
> proper time and a correct place for everything and this forum provided
> neither for badassbus.  Beyond the impropriety of it all, there is nothing
> clever, enticing nor particularly unique about a couple of teenie boppers
> getting their backs blown out in VW bus.  What could be more banal?
>
> The thing that did bother me, and still does, is that the porn selected was
> tinged by pedophilia, as is the bulk of the straight porn on the internet.
> What, dear lord, is it with the almost de riguer shaved pussy?  A hairless
> mons pubis is what one sees when one changes a sweet female baby's diaper.
> Or, when a 3-year-old removes her accidentally wetted training pants and
> continues to romp around the front yard.  With all her reproductive system
> hidden safely inside of her developing womb, a female child has to be one of
> God's most asexual creations!  Yet, these sleazebag internet porno kings are
> foisting this perversion on young minds as if it is desirable or even normal.
>
> When a man as intellectually evolved as Andrew Wiles is a father, HK, I have
> to agree with you that the desire to procreate is whipping us all down the
> path of life.  If this is the case, using it to excuse badassbus's temerity
> is rather tenuous because the only appropriate subject of porn for most of us
> should be, in turn, a woman fully ripened for the task at hand.  One with a
> slight layer of body fat to carry her through the rigors of a pregnancy, a
> fully developed pelvic girdle to bear children without undue trauma, full and
> supple breasts for her babies to suckle and, the most visible indication that
> all systems are go, pubic hair.  Hell, sounds like a Modigliani or, arguably
> the hottest babe of all time, Marilyn Monroe.  So, badassbus, if you want to
> offend to a lesser degree, offer some porn of a woman, not a child who has
> just figured out the reason for that deep orifice amidships and whose parents
> are indulgent enough to pay for a boob job.
>
> The inadequate warning did not make this posting any more appropriate.
> Compared to what we expect to find here, the connection to Vanagons is very
> thin and I, for one, assumed it was some sort of innocuous joke.  Since this
> is not a courtroom, allowances have to be made for assumptions.  If you say
> someone who has been around the block should have known better merely from
> the subject line, consider this: I have been searching for a precision Rivett
> lathe.  One of my searches returned a site whose window was entitled "TOOL
> PORN".  Far from displaying teenage girls doing unnatural things with Snap-On
> rachets, it showed machine tools a couple of guys had rescued from the
> scrapyards of New England and requested others to share their own dirty,
> i.e., greasy, snapshots.  With this mindset, I clicked on badassbus's link.
>
> Surely, my ramblings have tested everyone's patience, so, I won't go into why
> I think the 1st Amendment should not protect pornographers.
>
> An Arab friend once told me that when a person in his country accidentally
> sees someone in a compromising situation, such as catching a glimpse of a
> bather through a bathroom window, the shame is not on the one seen but on the
> viewer for looking.  With that in mind, I share the shame the posting caused.
>
> Rich