Thursday, August 28, 2008
People are such prudes
I saw this article the other day and shook my head in disappointment:
BARTLETT, TN (WMC-TV) - Bartlett Grove Park sits in the middle of a subdivision. It's a favorite spot for children, and was recently the site of an adult website porno shoot.
The video clip we discovered begins innocently enough.
"I thought I'd come out for the day," says the "model."
She then exposes herself on the playground slide.Some garden variety exposure is pretty tame as far as "explicit pornography" is concerned. After watching the clip of the local news story, I gathered that this chick pretty much just flashes her twat at the camera from the top of the playground slide. It's not like Anabolic was shooting the latest installment in their Romantic Rectal Reaming series there. A brief flash of sloppily augmented breasts and her cooch are a far cry from doing a double anal ass-to-mouth scene with Vince Voyeur and Lexington Steele.
"She's definitely a tramp -- just nasty," parent Barbara Taylor said in reaction to the video.
Taylor had a typical reaction.
"I think it's disgusting," she said. "I think I'm not letting my kids go down that slide anymore."
Danny Berryhill is a Baptist minister who lives right across the street.
"I don't have the words," he said. "I'm a Baptist minister, and I have no words."
Action News 5 is not publicizing the the exact web-site the video appears on, but it's full of explicit pornography, and there's a promise to visit more public places.
Bartlett Police Capt. Tina Schaber said the girl in the video is clearly breaking a law.
"Public indecency right off the bat," she said.
Police got on the case after Action News 5 clued them in.
"I don't think this would be appropriate for an adult to see in a park -- much less a child," Schaber said.
According to Schaber, the model and those video-taping her could be charged with a number of other crimes.
"These days, who knows?" she said. "She could be over 18 -- she could be under 18."
Action News 5 was unable to locate the "model." She writes on the web-site that the pornographic shoot took place just last week.
A brief search of the internets turned up the identity of the "model," and as far as porn goes, my blog is more hardcore than the park spectacle perpetrated by "nasty tramp" calling herself Foxy Jacky. The extent of her inappropriate public indecency is primarily her giggling and doing stuff like this ("have a looksee at my hooters, y'all!"):
SCANDALOUS! I mean, there are some mildly more offensive shots of Foxy Jacky providing the camera with some intentional upskirt action, but nothing that would really warrant disinfecting the playground. Her site does have some uninspired whipped cream blowjob pictures and trite hardcore on it, but...yawn. All that seems to be done in the private confines of her apartment, and is nothing I haven't seen about 80,000 times from do-it-yourself adult cam entrepreneurs. Frankly, I find Foxy Jacky's poorly punctuated narrative of her adventures in indecent exposure more of an affront to my moral sensibilities than any of the actual public nudity:
August 26 - I am sure this update isn't going to go over too well with the local police but I don't care. I was called a tramp and a few other not so nice things last night by the local news station. All of this because I took a few naked pictures at a park how stupid. I made sure when I did it that there were no kids around and I didn't hurt anyony when I did it so I don't see a problem. Now the local police are talking about arresting me for doing this well here is another set in the public that I shot I hope you like it and I have lots more to put up soon lol. If you have no real crimes to investigate and need to meet a quota I guess there is not much I can do here is the link check it out.
Foxy Jacky accompanies this scathing polemic with new shots of her flashing her ossified snap-on clearance sale tits at an arcade. Her brand of boring gonzo nudity might lull me to sleep, but I do have to applaud her for continuing her subversive behavior despite threats of police intervention. Not only is she sticking it to authority, but she's demonstrating the marketing savvy to parlay her notoriety into at least two or three more foxyjacky.com subscribers. Maybe if she really takes advantage of her ability to shock Baptist ministers into silence, she might hit the big time (ie: a slot on the next iteration of "Rock of Love with Bret Michaels," since that seems the number one vehicle for cam whores and low-rent pro/am porn stars crossing over to the mainstream).
If I were a resident of Bartlett, Tennessee, I would consider providing a forum for a "tramp" to expose herself a better use of my tax dollars than recreational equipment for hateful children to play on. Certainly I'd rather see public space appropriated by blond chicks getting naked than kids running around getting dirty, making noise, and generally pissing me off. Foxy Jacky has actually done her community a service by getting uptight soccer moms to keep their brats at home and off the streets, not to mention silencing annoying preacher types. Clearly, these horribly offended parties are a bunch of lame prudes who spend way too much time judging other people, so if Foxy Jacky's briefly bared pussy is going to keep them locked up in their homes and churches, I say give that skank a key to the fucking city.
Labels: crime and punishment, destroy all children, nudity, porn, retard rage, sluts
Comments:
Links to this post:
<< Home
You say, "...I would consider providing a forum for a 'tramp' to expose herself a better use of my tax dollars than recreational equipment for hateful children to play on."
OK, fine. But she wouldn't get the same audience if she were posing in government-provided facility for public nudity.
Obviously the appeal of these pictures is that they exploit the taboo of combining sex/nudity with children's playground equipment. Partly it's just that the two are incongruous, and for some people that's exciting. But also, for some people, the excitement comes from sexualizing an area that is supposed to be safe for children.
And that is what really grossed out the people in the community. It's not that they hate sex; but they don't want their children's play area publicly exploited as the subject of a sex fantasy.
Even you can appreciate the importance of having different areas set up for different purposes. You presumably wouldn't want babies drooling and spitting up in the place where you like to have sex. Why, then, is it any better for people to play out their public-sex fantasies in a place that has been designated for a different purpose?
Later on I want to say a few things about your "child-hating" in general. But for now, even if you don't like kids, you can appreciate that there's something skewed about using public facilities for porn that arguably sexualizes their play space.
OK, fine. But she wouldn't get the same audience if she were posing in government-provided facility for public nudity.
Obviously the appeal of these pictures is that they exploit the taboo of combining sex/nudity with children's playground equipment. Partly it's just that the two are incongruous, and for some people that's exciting. But also, for some people, the excitement comes from sexualizing an area that is supposed to be safe for children.
And that is what really grossed out the people in the community. It's not that they hate sex; but they don't want their children's play area publicly exploited as the subject of a sex fantasy.
Even you can appreciate the importance of having different areas set up for different purposes. You presumably wouldn't want babies drooling and spitting up in the place where you like to have sex. Why, then, is it any better for people to play out their public-sex fantasies in a place that has been designated for a different purpose?
Later on I want to say a few things about your "child-hating" in general. But for now, even if you don't like kids, you can appreciate that there's something skewed about using public facilities for porn that arguably sexualizes their play space.
# posted by 
: 9/15/2008 2:16 PM
: 9/15/2008 2:16 PM
OK, as promised, here are my comments on child-hating.
I can imagine someone saying, "I love butterflies, but I don't care for caterpillars." Even though they're the same species, and you couldn't have one without the other, that doesn't mean you have to like both.
But you know what? I tend to think someone who really loved butterflies would develop an appreciation for caterpillars too. If you actually despise caterpillars, and go around saying "Squash all caterpillars!" (even as a joke), I feel like you're not really such a big fan of butterflies.
The point (if I may state the obvious) is that your "child-hating" doesn't strike me as anti-child; to me it just feels anti-human.
Children are just people. You may say they are undeveloped in many ways, and I guess that annoys you. Fine. But to say "hate" implies a level of anger that goes beyond "I don't enjoy their company"; it indicates that you have some kind of problem.
If you must hate someone, it makes a lot more sense to hate parents. After all, children didn't choose to be children; generally speaking, people become parents because of some choice they've made.
So if families tick you off (for some reason), it is irrational to blame the totally dependent creatures who did not choose the situation. Much more sensible and fair to blame the actual decision-makers.
By the way, we use this metric all the time in determining what is fair. Pick on someone (if you must) for being a Democrat or a Republican or an evangelical Christian or a Scientologist, because they have made a choice and have the power to choose differently. But when you pick on someone for being black or white male or female or young or old, we usually call it bigotry.
Post a Comment
I can imagine someone saying, "I love butterflies, but I don't care for caterpillars." Even though they're the same species, and you couldn't have one without the other, that doesn't mean you have to like both.
But you know what? I tend to think someone who really loved butterflies would develop an appreciation for caterpillars too. If you actually despise caterpillars, and go around saying "Squash all caterpillars!" (even as a joke), I feel like you're not really such a big fan of butterflies.
The point (if I may state the obvious) is that your "child-hating" doesn't strike me as anti-child; to me it just feels anti-human.
Children are just people. You may say they are undeveloped in many ways, and I guess that annoys you. Fine. But to say "hate" implies a level of anger that goes beyond "I don't enjoy their company"; it indicates that you have some kind of problem.
If you must hate someone, it makes a lot more sense to hate parents. After all, children didn't choose to be children; generally speaking, people become parents because of some choice they've made.
So if families tick you off (for some reason), it is irrational to blame the totally dependent creatures who did not choose the situation. Much more sensible and fair to blame the actual decision-makers.
By the way, we use this metric all the time in determining what is fair. Pick on someone (if you must) for being a Democrat or a Republican or an evangelical Christian or a Scientologist, because they have made a choice and have the power to choose differently. But when you pick on someone for being black or white male or female or young or old, we usually call it bigotry.
# posted by : 9/16/2008 9:02 PM
: 9/16/2008 9:02 PM Links to this post:
<< Home
Subscribe to Posts [Atom]
