Wednesday, July 18, 2007

Fine Print

Many years ago, when I was a fresh young U.S. Coast Guardsman stationed at a certain port for the summer, I hung a picture of a Woman on the wall of my room.

She was beautiful. She was also clothed. I think it was an ad for perfume or jeans or something. This perturbed my roommate, who couldn't see the point in posting such a photo if its subject wasn't naked or groping Herself or something.

I have never liked porn. The contrived cacaphony, the absurd bodily fakery, the typical presence of some guy revealing parts of himself that I'd rather not see, and of course, its demeaning effect upon Women, just doesn't heat my wires.

A Woman in beautiful clothing or in my presence sweetly and simply without any, now that has the effect on me that nature intended.

So it intrigued me when I read the fine print a few days ago on my DSL contract with Verizon, the provider. I am not to access anything pornographic, it said. That's unusual, for an Internet provider, I would think, but really not a concern for me. It goes on to state that I may also not access anything obscene, cruel or, if I remember right, racist.


Who defines cruel?

And what if I go to some white supremacist website for legitimate research, the sort of thing that a writer must do every now and then?

Will Verizon agents show up at my door with a warning or will my service suddenly just vanish?

Who sits back in their home office to do the judging? To whom might I appeal if accused?

Are they aware of capnolagnia and will I see my screen go blank if I click on old Virginia Slims ads?


rp said...

I agree that a beautiful woman is something to behold! But that really isn't the point, is it. Who defines anything? Isn't that the running debate? Who defines what is considered cruel? Obscene? Inappropriate? The only thing on this list of DSL don'ts that I see that is cut and dry is racist.

And why, if the government can't, should a private enterprise be able to dictate what is or is not cruel, obscene or inappropriate? So, it, as a monolith can remain unimpeachable? Put itself in the company of the likes of Blockbuster and Walmart, censoring what we see in the name of family values?

Were Verizon to actually make good on its contract, I suspect many, many households would find themselves cut off. Revenues for the company would drop off. Then they'd have to answer to shareholders. Hmmm. Seems you're safe in indulging your smoking fetish ;)

eastcoastdweller said...

RP: It did indeed strike me as odd.

The contract also suggested that I buy an Internet filter in order to avoid incurring the wrath of its censors with naughty surfing.

Garrgh, You did have to go and call the old capno thing a fetish, didn't you! Uncomfortable associations that word has but I guess I have to live with it, since I claim to be annoyed by too much Political Correctness in the world.

A friend of mine claims this blog of mine has a G rating by some tester of such things. The fetish word probably just killed that.

rp said...

well, the dictionary definition of capnolagnia does suggest an appreciation of that nature. No insult intended at all...I sincerely apologize if offense was taken. When reading the remark, I thought it was an example of the absurd...

I have been the best way out of a hole is to quit digging, so this is me doing just that.

eastcoastdweller said...

No, RP, no!

No offense was taken! Not in the least!

eastcoastdweller said...

As You probably realize by now, RP, it is against the rules of my blog for any Woman to ever "dig Herself into a hole," because that would put Her below my level and I would die first rather than perpetuate such a crime!

The fetish word is genuine and commonly used. I have to accept it.

Please let this blog be at least one place in the world where You can always speak Your mind freely without fear of giving offense!