Florida Lawmakers Address Most Pressing Problem Ever: Ban TruckNuts

[Tave]

TV violence is fake.  Full frontal nudity can't be faked.  That's an important difference.

Boogie Nights?

I don't understand why that difference is important. TV violence is often visually identical to real violence.

[Tave]

And to take this in another direction:

Let's not discount sex on today's television. Are we so sure we aren't showing full nudity? I think we're almost there. Anyone ever watch a show like Tila Tequila? Visual effects guys have gotten pretty tight and precise with the blurs.

[sandertheshark]

Boogie Nights?

I don't understand why that difference is important. TV violence is often visually identical to real violence.

TV violence is usually nothing like real life.  The only show I've ever seen that gets it close is The Shield.  And FX gets away with a hell of a lot of nudity on Nip/Tuck as well.

[sandertheshark]

It's called anime, Sander.

Oh, right. 

[dazzleman]

When it comes to TV, I'm more concerned with the values the shows transmit than whether there is any nudity, per se.

The human body is what it is, and when we're overly prudish, we transmit the attitude to children that there is something wrong with their body.

I'm not exactly a 'hang it all out there' type of guy, but I think a more relaxed attitude toward the human body is not such a terribly thing.  I don't think a child will be scarred for life by seeing a natural part of the male or female anatomy.

The problem is when TV shows or movies glorify a certain type of behavior, without ever showing the negative consequences of that type of behavior.

[akuma_supreme]

When it comes to TV, I'm more concerned with the values the shows transmit than whether there is any nudity, per se.

The human body is what it is, and when we're overly prudish, we transmit the attitude to children that there is something wrong with their body.

I'm not exactly a 'hang it all out there' type of guy, but I think a more relaxed attitude toward the human body is not such a terribly thing.  I don't think a child will be scarred for life by seeing a natural part of the male or female anatomy.

The problem is when TV shows or movies glorify a certain type of behavior, without ever showing the negative consequences of that type of behavior.

I'll agree with you to an extent that media can sometimes glorify self-destructive actions, and that this could impact very young children, especially if they are of the more impressionable type and/or do not have appropriate attention being given top them by their parents or guardians. 

One should also consider that television is not new in glorifying self-destructive human behavior.  Whether it be religious devotees whipping themselves, or the vomitoriums of ancient Rome, we've been glorifying self-destruction from probably as long as we've been human.

I also wonder sometimes what sort of impact our constant obsession with happy endings has on our psyches?  Life is rarely neat and tidy, and every day we are faced with ambivalence.  How often does any sort of media we are exposed to reflect this trait of reality?

[Soup DeVille]

TV violence is usually nothing like real life. 

That's OK, because porn usually isn't anything like real sex either.

[akuma_supreme]

That's OK, because porn usually isn't anything like real sex either.

And here I though straights had sex by humping each others' belly buttons.

[Soup DeVille]

And here I though straights had sex by humping each others' belly buttons.

Well, then no wonder why it doesn't appeal to you!

[Raza]

I'm mostly playing the devils advocate here. They don't really bother me that much other than I think they're classless and tacky. However, I can see why many would find it offensive.

I see classless and tacky shit everyday.  If we made it all illegal, I'd be the only one allowed to leave my house.

I don't think the "just don't look at it" works.  If that's the case should somebody be able to wear an extremely offensive or disgusting t-shirt into a public place and just tell others not to look at it?

Yes. 

[The Pirate]

I see classless and tacky shit everyday.  If we made it all illegal, I'd be the only one allowed to leave my house.
 

[Tave]

I see classless and tacky shit everyday.  If we made it all illegal, I'd be the only one allowed to leave my house.

I wore a dress shirt and black shoes when I went out last night,




















but only because it was too cold for shorts and sandals.

[akuma_supreme]

I wore a dress shirt and black shoes when I went out last night,




















but only because it was too cold for shorts and sandals.

http://stuffwhitepeoplelike.wordpress.com/2008/03/11/86-shorts/

[J86]

I wore a dress shirt and black shoes when I went out last night,




















but only because it was too cold for shorts and sandals.

shorts and flops to the bar last night

[Tave]

I decided to use this story as a prompt for my final paper in Queer Theory. Here's the opening paragraphs of my first draft.




     On April 17th, the Florida Senate passed new motor vehicle legislation, which would impose a $60 fine on people caught driving with prosthetic genitalia attached to their cars. The regulation is a response to the rising popularity of ?Truck Nutz:? artificial testicles mounted onto the trailer hitch of pickup trucks. Senator Carey Baker, of Eustis, spearheaded the effort, which was criticized by Sen. Steve Geller (Hallandale) as a waste of time. Bizarrely enough, Sen. Jim King (Jacksonville), ?had a set on one of his vehicles, which he described as ?all pimped out.? They are no more than ?an expression of truckliness,? he said, although he'd acceded to his wife's request to take them off?(source).
     Implicit in both the criticism and support of Florida?s decision is a recognition of the disagreement over acceptable forms of sexual expression. The ill-defined boundary between ?too far? and ?too controlling? serves as a source of constant tension between those that follow society?s sexual mores, and those that challenge them. This argument surfaces all over the cultural landscape: in television, churches, stores, radio, film, parks, schools, music, literature, the internet, homes, parades, parties, offices, newspapers, and even car bumpers. The anxiety that the boundary generates affects youth sexuality like no other force. People will always experience a range of different desires, but no one is free from the discourse of sexuality. Both pro-Truck Nutz and anti-Truck Nutz share the same dialogue. It influences community opinion (Truck Nutz are bad!), shames sexual preference (people who have Truck Nutz are bad!), and restricts sexual expression (I can?t wear Truck Nutz anymore). In other words, the language around sex shapes sexuality more than any specific practice or orientation.

[akuma_supreme]

I decided to use this story as a prompt for my final paper in Queer Theory. Here's the opening paragraphs of my first draft.




     On April 17th, the Florida Senate passed new motor vehicle legislation, which would impose a $60 fine on people caught driving with prosthetic genitalia attached to their cars. The regulation is a response to the rising popularity of ?Truck Nutz:? artificial testicles mounted onto the trailer hitch of pickup trucks. Senator Carey Baker, of Eustis, spearheaded the effort, which was criticized by Sen. Steve Geller (Hallandale) as a waste of time. Bizarrely enough, Sen. Jim King (Jacksonville), ?had a set on one of his vehicles, which he described as ?all pimped out.? They are no more than ?an expression of truckliness,? he said, although he'd acceded to his wife's request to take them off?(source).
     Implicit in both the criticism and support of Florida?s decision is a recognition of the disagreement over acceptable forms of sexual expression. The ill-defined boundary between ?too far? and ?too controlling? serves as a source of constant tension between those that follow society?s sexual mores, and those that challenge them. This argument surfaces all over the cultural landscape: in television, churches, stores, radio, film, parks, schools, music, literature, the internet, homes, parades, parties, offices, newspapers, and even car bumpers. The anxiety that the boundary generates affects youth sexuality like no other force. People will always experience a range of different desires, but no one is free from the discourse of sexuality. Both pro-Truck Nutz and anti-Truck Nutz share the same dialogue. It influences community opinion (Truck Nutz are bad!), shames sexual preference (people who have Truck Nutz are bad!), and restricts sexual expression (I can?t wear Truck Nutz anymore). In other words, the language around sex shapes sexuality more than any specific practice or orientation.

You have an interesting start.  You might want to also discuss the double standard with the "naked lady" mudflaps.  They have been on the road for decades, with seemingly little to no controversy.  Only when an expression of male sexuality hit the streets did the "what about the children" jihadists got all in a tizzy.  The TruckNutz are not considered unacceptable strictly because they are a representation of sexuality, but rather because they also undermine traditional expressions of sexuality allowed within the contraints of a patriarchal culture. 

Namely that sexuality is designed as a one-way street-  only the female form/archetype is allowed to be indentified as a sexual object.  Proscribing the male form in any representation that could be construed as possessing sexual overtones serves to stultify both heterosexual female sexuality (if not deny its existance altogether) as well as suppress any latent societal predilections towards male-male homosexuality (both of which threaten patriarchal hegemeony). 

Only after the TruckNutz came into being did people suddenly decide that the "Naked Lady" mudflaps were a threat.  Although they have existed for decades on the road, only after an automobile fetish emerged that defied patriarchal norms for sexual expression did their antecedent (which although still sexual conformed with the expected paradigms of acceptable sexual expression in a patriarchal society) suddenly become a problem to be rectified.

[Tave]

You have an interesting start.  You might want to also discuss the double standard with the "naked lady" mudflaps.  They have been on the road for decades, with seemingly little to no controversy.  Only when an expression of male sexuality hit the streets did the "what about the children" jihadists got all in a tizzy.  The TruckNutz are not considered unacceptable strictly because they are a representation of sexuality, but rather because they also undermine traditional expressions of sexuality allowed within the contraints of a patriarchal culture. 

Namely that sexuality is designed as a one-way street-  only the female form/archetype is allowed to be indentified as a sexual object.  Proscribing the male form in any representation that could be construed as possessing sexual overtones serves to stultify both heterosexual female sexuality (if not deny its existance altogether) as well as suppress any latent societal predilections towards male-male homosexuality (both of which threaten patriarchal hegemeony). 

Only after the TruckNutz came into being did people suddenly decide that the "Naked Lady" mudflaps were a threat.  Although they have existed for decades on the road, only after an automobile fetish emerged that defied patriarchal norms for sexual expression did their antecedent (which although still sexual conformed with the expected paradigms of acceptable sexual expression in a patriarchal society) suddenly become a problem to be rectified.

Yeah, that's interesting, and I think I might have some of that in my paper. I can't spend too much time on the Florida case, because it's only a 4 page paper and I need to address the question, which is:

(something close to) What do you think is the most important factor in teenage sexuality today?

Here's what I got so far:






On April 17th, the Florida Senate passed new motor-vehicle legislation, which would impose a $60 fine on people caught driving with prosthetic genitalia attached to their cars. The regulation is a response to the rising popularity of ?Truck Nutz:? artificial testicles mounted onto the trailer hitch of pickup trucks. Senator Carey Baker, of Eustis, spearheaded the effort, which was criticized by Sen. Steve Geller (Hallandale) as a waste of time. Bizarrely enough, Sen. Jim King (Jacksonville), ?had a set on one of his vehicles, which he described as ?all pimped out.? They are no more than ?an expression of truckliness,? he said, although he'd acceded to his wife's request to take them off?(source).
   Implicit in both the criticism and support of Florida?s decision is a recognition of the disagreement over acceptable forms of sexual expression. The ill-defined boundary between ?too far? and ?too strict? serves as a source of constant tension between those that follow society?s sexual mores, and those that challenge them. This argument surfaces all over the cultural landscape: in television, churches, stores, radio, film, parks, schools, music, literature, the internet, homes, parades, parties, offices, newspapers, and even car bumpers. The anxiety that the boundary generates affects youth sexuality like no other force. People will always experience a range of different desire, but no one is free from the discourse of sexuality. Both pro-Truck Nutz and anti-Truck Nutz speak the same language in the same room. The process influences community opinion (Truck Nutz are bad!), shames sexual preference (people who have Truck Nutz are bad!), and restricts sexual expression (I can?t wear Truck Nutz anymore). In other words, the language of sex shapes sexuality more than any specific practice or orientation.
   Foucault argues that language has grown in its ability to articulate sex, and that instead of restricting sex, the West has actually expanded sexual discussion. More people talk openly about sex, and more is said. But this doesn?t mean we have reached some sort of consensus. The more people talk about sex, the more reasons they find to disagree. When discourse admits only one form of sexuality (actually two, ?normal? and ?perverse?), discussion is one-dimensional, regardless of any diversity of practice. As definitions of sex begin to include alternate viewpoints, points of potential conflict create themselves. What was once a unitary value becomes fragmented, and people have something to argue.
   These disagreements are crucial to the development of sexual identity. Children are born into a world of sex as both a participant and an object of the dialogue.  The various positions and attitudes manipulate, not necessarily desire, but feelings about desire. In the literature of the closet, the world is largely resistant and intolerant of homosexual coupling. The protagonists feel an enormous amount of shame, and sexual freedom is a distant possibility: a vague promise never quite fulfilled, like the life of Clare Kendry in Passing.  In later work, such as Tony Kushner?s ?Angels in America,? a wider variety of queer identity appears in the text. Gay men still feel shame (Joe), because dominant ideology still says homosexuality is shameful, but by this point in history, several counter-narratives have entered the discourse and begun to change the way people understand their orientations. Prior and Louis, for all their problems, aren?t riddled with panic over the basic fact that they?re gay, and the reason for this is that they grew up in a world where someone said ?being gay isn?t wrong.?
   As society reaches an even deeper understanding of queer ethos, what will the sex of tomorrow look like, and how will we label it? I can only imagine. The internet and computer technology in general provide a new frontier for sexual expression, and it is entirely possible that people will have sex with virtual partners in a digital world. The language for this behavior is not written, norms and values aren?t assigned. People will discover how they?ll talk about it when it happens. This discussion will have an impact on mainstream opinions of the practice. People will shame it or normalize it or both. The dialogue will also effect the feelings of those who do it. Some will participate and rejoice, but not all. Then again, something completely different might appear on the sexual horizon. Desire is multiple, seemingly endless, and personal. So personal that it may be impossible to try to answer why some desire what others don?t.  In ?Notes from the Underground,? Dostoyevsky says of desire:
[W]hat can be expected of man since he is a being endowed with strange qualities? Shower upon him every earthly blessing, drown him in a sea of happiness, so that nothing but bubbles of bliss can be seen on the surface; give him economic prosperity, such that he should have nothing else to do but sleep, eat cakes and busy himself with the continuation of his species, and even then out of sheer ingratitude, sheer spite, man would play you some nasty trick. (21)
   Sexual identities will continue to diversify and find new objects. In turn, the discourse around sex will find new ways to communicate, and desire will always escape complete explanation. Psychology can only map desire so far; much of it hides in the unconscious. As Dostoyevsky says, once you think you have it figured out, it throws you a new surprise. On the other hand, discourse will always influence people?s feelings about their own desire and their opinions of the behavior of others. Language will color identity with shame, pride, or something else.

What about Truck Nutz? They are a perfect example of the process in action. Two people that might agree on one identity (pedophilia is bad) disagree on Truck Nutz. The practice and the dialogue create a new identity. Desire fragments itself again.


Edit: I highlighted my important points. Realize that I am way beyond intoxicated right now

[GoCougs]

This is very, very gay - and also very, very funny considering the demographic that can't get enough of them.

[akuma_supreme]

This is very, very gay - and also very, very funny considering the demographic that can't get enough of them.

Are you kidding?  This message thread is butcher than Chuck Norris compared to this:

http://youtube.com/watch?v=ayZGZ2NSxs4

[akuma_supreme]

Yeah, that's interesting, and I think I might have some of that in my paper. I can't spend too much time on the Florida case, because it's only a 4 page paper and I need to address the question, which is:

(something close to) What do you think is the most important factor in teenage sexuality today?

Here's what I got so far:

Edit: I highlighted my important points. Realize that I am way beyond intoxicated right now

I think that this is a good development.  Since your basic thesis is that language is the dominate influence (positive and negative) in how the teenager of today develops his/her sexual identity, you may want to restructure your discussion of the TruckNutz.  You should focus the discussion on pointing out that since the FL lawmakers have now made these "illegal" they are marking this fetish with the same brand as other sexual practices considered socially undesireable or destructive, such as rape or incest.  Then you may want to launch into a discussion on the signals that this sends to the young developing mind- to girls, this reinforces the patriarchal dogma that male genitalia is something to be feared, whilst with boys, it reinforces the message that they should feel shamed by their sexuality.


I was all about the Women's Studies courses I took when analyzing the roles of gender in modern societal memes.  My apologies for my excessive use of "patriarchy".   

[hotrodalex]

Are you kidding?  This message thread is butcher than Chuck Norris compared to this:

http://youtube.com/watch?v=ayZGZ2NSxs4

Wow, that was, ummm...odd