Pornography destroys relationships

Robyn Blumner got one thing right in her May 13 column Moralists punish youths' natural sexual curiosity. It was her final statement: "I just don't get it.'' That's right, Robyn. You don't get it.

© St. Petersburg Times, published May 20, 2001

Robyn Blumner got one thing right in her May 13 column Moralists punish youths' natural sexual curiosity. It was her final statement: "I just don't get it." That's right, Robyn. You don't get it.

Turning adolescents loose with pornography to learn about sexual relationships is akin to turning an unlicensed 14-year-old driver loose on U.S. 19 so he can learn to drive in traffic. Why don't you just ask the countless number of women whose marriages and families have been destroyed by pornography if they would like for their sons to follow in their fathers' footsteps? Or, better yet, would they like for their daughters to explore their sexuality by posing for those magazines?

Pornography destroys emotional and physical intimacy in relationships. Pornography exploits women as objects for male gratification. Pornography is evil and it should be censored.

For another view on this topic, try reading An Affair of the Mind by Laurie Hall, whose husband became addicted to pornography. She knows the truth.

Vickie Krivacs, Palm Harbor

Learn from the European

However, Blumner did not present other aspects of this issue. I have traveled throughout Europe (with children 13 and older) and found numerous shops that sell graphic souvenirs. These articles are available to anyone of any age but Europeans have fewer incidences of rape, child abuse and pedophilia than the United States, which censors these graphic images. Europeans have always incorporated sex and alcohol education into their childrens' lives, starting at a young age; these subjects are accepted, not taboo, and abuse is rare

Why not learn from our European neighbors? Censorship and strict moral standards only make our youth desire these prohibitions more. Knowledge is power. "Who's harming whom?"

Jan Gerdes, St. Petersburg

Character over cultur

Robyn Blumner seems genuinely perplexed by people of character. Like most people programmed by the pervasive violations of today's culture, she believes resistance to the programming can only be motivated by repression or self-interest

Character transcends culture. It originates from conscience when we clearly see the difference between the life we are living and the life we were created to live. Character doesn't flow from repression but from putting into action what we naturally know to be right in our hearts. It's the exercise of personal sovereignty. It's standing up to the collective culture in spite of the personal cost.

Children are easily influenced. With little effort they can be torn from personal sovereignty and cast adrift in the moral vagaries of culture. They deserve special protection.

Blumner's cultural perspective certainly bodes well for her career choice. But life's lessons will not be denied. I suspect her perspective will change when she watches her own children struggle to grow up in the demoralized world she has helped to create.

Michael Fay, St. Petersburg

Too much pressur

We weren't the least bit surprised by what the teachers had to say about the FCAT and neither should anybody else. Well, with the exception of Jeb Bush and his cronies in Tallahassee

Giving the test is a great idea. Using it as a tool to measure a student's progress is a great idea. Including the written portion of the test is a great idea. But to use this test to grade our schools is ludicrous, and that's being backed up by our teachers all over the state. And that's not even getting into the very serious problems that occur once the grades are out and the schools get their recognition money. It's the saddest time for many schools because it pits the school's staff against each other. We know. We saw it happen at our school.

The rules of the FCAT are changing all the time during the school year. How can teachers keep up with that? "Teaching to the test" and "comparing apples to oranges" are not just buzz phrases. This is what is happening in our schools. Gov. Bush, please listen to these teachers! They're in the classrooms seeing what's happening firsthand.

From the students' point of view, the FCAT puts a tremendous amount of pressure on them. We have a fourth-grader who spent many nights worrying about the test, and she's an excellent student! It's ridiculous to put this kind of weight on our students' shoulders.

Our oldest daughter is just starting grad school at the University of Florida for her master's in education. We're not sure we disagree with the views of teachers who advised our graduating teachers to move to Georgia. Florida sure doesn't show them an awful lot of respect. The Legislature puts money into the budget for higher salaries and then takes it out. While lawmakers put some back, it still isn't enough. (And we won't even get into vouchers here.)

So, no, I'm not surprised at all at what our teachers have to say about the FCAT. I sure hope that Jeb is!

Anne and Paul Kluga, Safety Harbor

Competition creates jobs

Re: Keep our sugar policy, letter, May 13.

The letter writer's attacks on the on free trade and the "bourgeoisie" sugar consumers (i.e., candy and cola companies) are grossly devoid of any basis in fact.

In fact, how would she respond to the General Accounting Office's report that such "sugar subsidies" cost the American taxpayer a total of $1.4-billion dollars per year? All to "protect" Americans from "evil" dumping practices of other countries.

What the letter writer fails to mention is that these very same "evil" and "unethical" practices are commonly practiced by the United States as well, from protectionist tariffs to outright threats upon banning imports -- look no further than Oct. 15, 1999, when the U.S. House voted 345-44 to threaten an outright ban on steel imports from Japan, Russia and Brazil. The idea of "protecting" the sugar industry from such foreign imports smacks of socialist protection schemes at their worst. Subsidies don't protect the American consumer -- one needs to look no further than the steel industry to see that they in fact cost Americans billions of dollars to save precious few jobs. In fact, according to the Institute for International Economics, "Quotas would cost $800,000 per job saved." That's quite a hefty price for the taxpayer to bear considering such jobs pay far less than $100,000.

Would removing these pork-barrel laws help the American consumer? Removing such tariffs would reduce prices on sugar-related imports 44 percent annually. The letter writer claims that such savings are never passed onto the American consumer, but this is simply false. The money doesn't just disappear. Will prices go down? Perhaps not. But will prices go up? Will jobs get cut? These are better questions. Cutting a clearly unfair overhead on producers would provide a means of defraying price increases and layoffs while encouraging expansion and investment. Simply put, profits don't disappear into a "magic vacuum" (unless of course, you're sending them to the government . . .).

Protectionist policies work counter to the benefits of a free-market system. Protecting the uncompetitive at the expense of the consumer only weakens us as a nation, producing inferior products and chipping away at innovation. The free market may be harsh, and people may lose jobs, but not as many as would be lost to a dereliction of the American marketplace.

Ultimately, competition is a source of strength, not of weakness. Foreign subsidies ultimately defeat themselves by making their products weak to competition. More jobs are ultimately created through competition and lower prices than are lost -- this is an empirical truth the letter writer clearly neglects.

Steve Skutnik, Palm Harbor

It's no jok

Until my husband and I moved to St. Petersburg, I was a native Marylander -- that proud state that gave the world Marvin Mandel and Spiro Agnew

Before I moved to Florida, I thought I was hip to venality and corruption in state government.

Before I moved to Florida, I thought that Carl Hiaasen was joking, or at least exaggerating . . .

Mary W. Matthews, St. Petersburg

© 2006 • All Rights Reserved • St. Petersburg Times
490 First Avenue South • St. Petersburg, FL 33701 • 727-893-8111

Contact the Times | Privacy Policy
Standard of Accuracy | Terms, Conditions & Copyright