Johannes_Paulsen
Member
I like the revised poster. Good job!
Comments wanted on a new poster (NSFW?)
- Thread starter Oleg Volk
- Start date
- Status
Not to be a wet blanket, but this one leaves me stone cold. I don't like the asociation, and I agree with kungfuhippie, that the pairing sounds more like something an anti would say.
Not my thing at all, no.
Springmom
Edited to add: I think all the sex toy shops around here would be very surprised to find out they're being felons. There's places all over Houston that sell "sex aids". I'll check the law, but I think you may be incorrect in your presumption regarding Texas.
Not my thing at all, no.
Springmom
Edited to add: I think all the sex toy shops around here would be very surprised to find out they're being felons. There's places all over Houston that sell "sex aids". I'll check the law, but I think you may be incorrect in your presumption regarding Texas.
Last edited:
Excellent poster; the juxtaposition of the revolver and vibrator increases the impact of each. I like the first rendition best, it got the point across immediately because it's straight and to the point. The second one is too wordy; it's a poster, not a dissertation.
ZeSpectre
Member
Bwahhhahahahahahahaha! <Gasping for air> Hahahaha HE HE HE hahahaha!!!
I actually busted out in a full fledged guffaw at work and had to hide the page before my co-workers saw it.
YOU SHOULD WARN WHEN THE POSTER ISN'T WORK SAFE!!!
Cheers
Ze
I actually busted out in a full fledged guffaw at work and had to hide the page before my co-workers saw it.
YOU SHOULD WARN WHEN THE POSTER ISN'T WORK SAFE!!!
Cheers
Ze
30 cal slob
Member
Oleg,
I LIKE IT!
(LMAO).
p.s. the sad truth is that it'll probably be easier to legalize the sale of "marital aids" in TX than it will be to legalize handguns in Chicago (Parker v. D.C. nothwithstanding).
I LIKE IT!
(LMAO).
p.s. the sad truth is that it'll probably be easier to legalize the sale of "marital aids" in TX than it will be to legalize handguns in Chicago (Parker v. D.C. nothwithstanding).
tinygnat219
Member
Very nice!
Not to hijack the thread, but here's the law you were probably thinking of:
43.23. OBSCENITY. (a) A person commits an offense if,
knowing its content and character, he wholesale promotes or
possesses with intent to wholesale promote any obscene material or
obscene device.
(b) Except as provided by Subsection (h), an offense under
Subsection (a) is a state jail felony.
(c) A person commits an offense if, knowing its content and
character, he:
(1) promotes or possesses with intent to promote any
obscene material or obscene device; or
(2) produces, presents, or directs an obscene
performance or participates in a portion thereof that is obscene or
that contributes to its obscenity.
(d) Except as provided by Subsection (h), an offense under
Subsection (c) is a Class A misdemeanor.
(e) A person who promotes or wholesale promotes obscene
material or an obscene device or possesses the same with intent to
promote or wholesale promote it in the course of his business is
presumed to do so with knowledge of its content and character.
(f) A person who possesses six or more obscene devices or
identical or similar obscene articles is presumed to possess them
with intent to promote the same.
(g) It is an affirmative defense to prosecution under this
section that the person who possesses or promotes material or a
device proscribed by this section does so for a bona fide medical,
psychiatric, judicial, legislative, or law enforcement purpose.
(h) The punishment for an offense under Subsection (a) is
increased to the punishment for a felony of the third degree and the
punishment for an offense under Subsection (c) is increased to the
punishment for a state jail felony if it is shown on the trial of the
offense that obscene material that is the subject of the offense
visually depicts activities described by Section 43.21(a)(1)(B)
engaged in by:
(1) a child younger than 18 years of age at the time
the image of the child was made;
(2) an image that to a reasonable person would be
virtually indistinguishable from the image of a child younger than
18 years of age; or
(3) an image created, adapted, or modified to be the
image of an identifiable child.
(i) In this section, "identifiable child" means a person,
recognizable as an actual person by the person's face, likeness, or
other distinguishing characteristic, such as a unique birthmark or
other recognizable feature:
(1) who was younger than 18 years of age at the time
the visual depiction was created, adapted, or modified; or
(2) whose image as a person younger than 18 years of
age was used in creating, adapting, or modifying the visual
depiction.
(j) An attorney representing the state who seeks an increase
in punishment under Subsection (h)(3) is not required to prove the
actual identity of an identifiable child.
Acts 1973, 63rd Leg., p. 883, ch. 399, § 1, eff. Jan. 1, 1974.
Amended by Acts 1979, 66th Leg., p. 1975, ch. 778, § 2, eff.
Sept. 1, 1979; Acts 1993, 73rd Leg., ch. 900, § 1.01, eff. Sept.
1, 1994; Acts 2003, 78th Leg., ch. 1005, § 1, eff. Sept. 1, 2003.
I can tell you from the number of "Cindie's" shops around town, this is the most totally unenforced law on the books, which sort of weakens the argument a bit.
OK. Back to your regularly scheduled vibrators now....
Springmom
43.23. OBSCENITY. (a) A person commits an offense if,
knowing its content and character, he wholesale promotes or
possesses with intent to wholesale promote any obscene material or
obscene device.
(b) Except as provided by Subsection (h), an offense under
Subsection (a) is a state jail felony.
(c) A person commits an offense if, knowing its content and
character, he:
(1) promotes or possesses with intent to promote any
obscene material or obscene device; or
(2) produces, presents, or directs an obscene
performance or participates in a portion thereof that is obscene or
that contributes to its obscenity.
(d) Except as provided by Subsection (h), an offense under
Subsection (c) is a Class A misdemeanor.
(e) A person who promotes or wholesale promotes obscene
material or an obscene device or possesses the same with intent to
promote or wholesale promote it in the course of his business is
presumed to do so with knowledge of its content and character.
(f) A person who possesses six or more obscene devices or
identical or similar obscene articles is presumed to possess them
with intent to promote the same.
(g) It is an affirmative defense to prosecution under this
section that the person who possesses or promotes material or a
device proscribed by this section does so for a bona fide medical,
psychiatric, judicial, legislative, or law enforcement purpose.
(h) The punishment for an offense under Subsection (a) is
increased to the punishment for a felony of the third degree and the
punishment for an offense under Subsection (c) is increased to the
punishment for a state jail felony if it is shown on the trial of the
offense that obscene material that is the subject of the offense
visually depicts activities described by Section 43.21(a)(1)(B)
engaged in by:
(1) a child younger than 18 years of age at the time
the image of the child was made;
(2) an image that to a reasonable person would be
virtually indistinguishable from the image of a child younger than
18 years of age; or
(3) an image created, adapted, or modified to be the
image of an identifiable child.
(i) In this section, "identifiable child" means a person,
recognizable as an actual person by the person's face, likeness, or
other distinguishing characteristic, such as a unique birthmark or
other recognizable feature:
(1) who was younger than 18 years of age at the time
the visual depiction was created, adapted, or modified; or
(2) whose image as a person younger than 18 years of
age was used in creating, adapting, or modifying the visual
depiction.
(j) An attorney representing the state who seeks an increase
in punishment under Subsection (h)(3) is not required to prove the
actual identity of an identifiable child.
Acts 1973, 63rd Leg., p. 883, ch. 399, § 1, eff. Jan. 1, 1974.
Amended by Acts 1979, 66th Leg., p. 1975, ch. 778, § 2, eff.
Sept. 1, 1979; Acts 1993, 73rd Leg., ch. 900, § 1.01, eff. Sept.
1, 1994; Acts 2003, 78th Leg., ch. 1005, § 1, eff. Sept. 1, 2003.
I can tell you from the number of "Cindie's" shops around town, this is the most totally unenforced law on the books, which sort of weakens the argument a bit.
OK. Back to your regularly scheduled vibrators now....
Springmom
Oleg Volk
Moderator Emeritus
An email from the hand model:
I think the target audience isn't necessarily pro-RKBA...they don't have to be. I want them to think twice about giving their government -- on any level -- the power to ban things.
I think the target audience isn't necessarily pro-RKBA...they don't have to be. I want them to think twice about giving their government -- on any level -- the power to ban things.
bogie
Member
I like it.
1) Makes you think.
2) Isn't for the right wing thumpin' crowd, half of whom would faint when they see it, anyway.
Sheesh... It's not even anatomically correct. Aren't they supposed to be bigger?
1) Makes you think.
2) Isn't for the right wing thumpin' crowd, half of whom would faint when they see it, anyway.
Sheesh... It's not even anatomically correct. Aren't they supposed to be bigger?
arthurcw
Member
In Texas, all "Aides" are sold as "novelty" Items. This 1) avoids the law and 2) stops "dissatisfied customer complaints". Didn't work? Sorry... It's a Novelty.
As to the poster. I don't like it. I don't like the comparison. I don't like the association with sex. I also don't think Vibrators are in the bill of rights. Sorry, I guess I'm just not Libertarian enough to see all things as being equal.
I don't think this does much for gun ownership but cheapen it to a lowest common denominator and relegates it to "things people need when they are not satisfied, not fulfilled, or compensating."
And no... I see no reason why a couple could not have "aides" around the house. I just don't think getting off has the same weight as the right of self defense.
And (at the risk of being black balled from the high road) a local community DOES have the right to regulate S.O.B’s and obscenity. While it plays well as a Federal Powers poster to Thinking Americans (a rare and dieing breed) and as a blanket statement about powers to Libertarians and Open Minded Liberals (all 10 of them, most of which come to THR anyway), I don’t think it does much for the unconverted. It however DOES give ammo to the antis.
I just see all types of wrong with this one. Wrong argument. Wrong comparison. Wrong sentiment. With lots of unintended baggage.
P.S. Thread should have had an *Adult Content* warning. Being from Texas, I do not think it’s polite to let a lady click on this link without some warning. If she does click after the warning? Fine. Says nothin’ ill about the lady. But our distaff citizens should be respected, even though, more often than not, they can kick our tails in all manner of areas.
As to the poster. I don't like it. I don't like the comparison. I don't like the association with sex. I also don't think Vibrators are in the bill of rights. Sorry, I guess I'm just not Libertarian enough to see all things as being equal.
I don't think this does much for gun ownership but cheapen it to a lowest common denominator and relegates it to "things people need when they are not satisfied, not fulfilled, or compensating."
And no... I see no reason why a couple could not have "aides" around the house. I just don't think getting off has the same weight as the right of self defense.
And (at the risk of being black balled from the high road) a local community DOES have the right to regulate S.O.B’s and obscenity. While it plays well as a Federal Powers poster to Thinking Americans (a rare and dieing breed) and as a blanket statement about powers to Libertarians and Open Minded Liberals (all 10 of them, most of which come to THR anyway), I don’t think it does much for the unconverted. It however DOES give ammo to the antis.
I just see all types of wrong with this one. Wrong argument. Wrong comparison. Wrong sentiment. With lots of unintended baggage.
P.S. Thread should have had an *Adult Content* warning. Being from Texas, I do not think it’s polite to let a lady click on this link without some warning. If she does click after the warning? Fine. Says nothin’ ill about the lady. But our distaff citizens should be respected, even though, more often than not, they can kick our tails in all manner of areas.
Neo-Luddite
Member
The traditional 'Freudian' pairing works to make the gun seem a fetish object like the 'Big Pappa Smurf' (which is a fetish object in form and function). I get the message, but I'm in the group that is made uncomfortable by ***** and not put off by the revolver. How would someone more 'offended' by the sight of the revolver de-code the message?
Or I'm just too much of a prude.
Or I'm just too much of a prude.
arthurcw
Member
Yes... But that's not a bad thing.
Au contraire. Possession of a vibrator is most assuredly protected by the 4th Amendment. Also, (I'm sorry if y'all don't like this, but) it's humorous how some of you are 'offended' by the sight of an inanimate object, just like gungrabbers are 'offended' at the sight of a handgun.
HayseedDixie
Member
I gotta chime in here... I like this one. Both versions. It's incredible the things that threaten and invoke fear in some people. As a side note, I do find it odd that a sex toy would be illegal in my state; especially considering there were sex shops displaying such items (and other far more creative deveices) all over my hometown of Austin. I suppose it's all in a name - referring to them as "novely items" and "personal massagers".
DigitalWarrior
Member
Just because something is unenforced does not mean a darned thing. At some points in our history, white guys wouldn't be bothered by laws prohibiting the RKBA.
I really like the idea, but think that the text should be before the image. The image is distracting.
My suggestion:
I really like the idea, but think that the text should be before the image. The image is distracting.
My suggestion:
Just thinking out loud.
I get what you are trying to convey. No problem.
And yes it's offensive to some. Some are offended by guns, others I guess are offended at the mere representation of something they already have, or see on some sort of regular basis.
But the point needs to be made somehow (which you are trying to do)
That people should be aware that when one group is allowed to vote away another's like of something it opens the door for others to vote away something they like.
A better element needs to be found for the "facial massager".
Something that a great number of people like, but is somewhat controversial to others. I don't know, maybe a big fat greasy cheeseburger, or golf clubs, or a big humvee.
Let them vote this away today, and maybe tomorrow they will vote that away.
I don't know. Just food for thought.
I get what you are trying to convey. No problem.
And yes it's offensive to some. Some are offended by guns, others I guess are offended at the mere representation of something they already have, or see on some sort of regular basis.
But the point needs to be made somehow (which you are trying to do)
That people should be aware that when one group is allowed to vote away another's like of something it opens the door for others to vote away something they like.
A better element needs to be found for the "facial massager".
Something that a great number of people like, but is somewhat controversial to others. I don't know, maybe a big fat greasy cheeseburger, or golf clubs, or a big humvee.
Let them vote this away today, and maybe tomorrow they will vote that away.
I don't know. Just food for thought.
Wow. This has gotten feisty.
This is a false comparison. A handgun is not embarrassing. A handgun is not something I would hide from the view of my child (only control access and use). A handgun is not obscene. Lots of folks would say that all that is true of the vibrator too. But lots would NOT, and as we, in general, avoid stuff that would embarass people on this list (I believe the general rule is, if you could say it/show it in your living room to a mixed audience, it's okay here) this particular poster doesn't measure up to that standard. It's Oleg's list and he can do what he wants, but the fact is, it doesn't measure up to the usual standards of the High Road.
Then there's the model's response to me (not sure why she didn't email me directly, but whatever)
I do recall that case, although not the disposition of it. I would also point out that ONE arrest in a state of this size and population is hardly repression of the sex toy/novelty trade.
Second, I was speaking of TEXAS, not Jackson, Mississippi. If you want to change the wording of the poster to refer to Mississippi, go ahead. But novelty sales are not repressed here, at least not in the cities I've ever lived in. They just aren't.
Look, I'm offended by the poster. I was embarrassed by it. This isn't my thing at all. Sorry. But it's your list, and I'll just skip your posters so I can avoid further stuff like this.
Springmom
This is a false comparison. A handgun is not embarrassing. A handgun is not something I would hide from the view of my child (only control access and use). A handgun is not obscene. Lots of folks would say that all that is true of the vibrator too. But lots would NOT, and as we, in general, avoid stuff that would embarass people on this list (I believe the general rule is, if you could say it/show it in your living room to a mixed audience, it's okay here) this particular poster doesn't measure up to that standard. It's Oleg's list and he can do what he wants, but the fact is, it doesn't measure up to the usual standards of the High Road.
Then there's the model's response to me (not sure why she didn't email me directly, but whatever)
I do recall that case, although not the disposition of it. I would also point out that ONE arrest in a state of this size and population is hardly repression of the sex toy/novelty trade.
Second, I was speaking of TEXAS, not Jackson, Mississippi. If you want to change the wording of the poster to refer to Mississippi, go ahead. But novelty sales are not repressed here, at least not in the cities I've ever lived in. They just aren't.
Look, I'm offended by the poster. I was embarrassed by it. This isn't my thing at all. Sorry. But it's your list, and I'll just skip your posters so I can avoid further stuff like this.
Springmom
arthurcw
Member
Not illegal to POSSESS THEM in Texas. And even if it was, if PC exists, you can be searched. Moot point.
.
I find it humorous how Libertine individuals think that because someone disagrees with the message an image of an object juxtaposed with a firearm sends that they are somehow offend by the juxtaposed image. I don't believe anywhere in my post I said I was offended by a vibrator? Wait.. let me reread it...
Nope. No where did I say I was offended by the image of the vibrator.
The Vibrator causes no feelings in me what so ever. ... not when it's... Never mind. A message that, however inadvertently, plays into the anti view of firearms as just glorified sex toys for those with "short comings" does offend me. A message that equates sex toys with self defense does concern me. But the Vibrator itself, does nothing for me other than casue concerned that this poster is simply for shock value.
Edited to add... The Vibrator also causes GREAT CONCERN that many will be turned off. It's no different that the "pro-lifers" who think it's OK to shove pictures of aborted fetuses in people’s faces. It's not charitable. It's not good marketing. If you have so little concern for your audience that you will berate them with images like this when you KNOW many will be offended, they you are saying, "You must be 100% with us or you are against us." Again... the RKBA community is its own worst enemy. Please don't confuse support for the 2nd amendment with a de facto support for everything under the sun.
.
Sorry, but then it belongs in L&P or APS.
So THAT'S where that went.
Could you wash that real well before you send it back to me?
LOL. Seriously, OV, been a fan of your work for years and I once saw a pic of Lee (the mortar guy) that you did and I exclaimed "Damn, Oleg made you look sexy, I bet he could make me almost attractive!"
D.
AZEX
Could you wash that real well before you send it back to me?
LOL. Seriously, OV, been a fan of your work for years and I once saw a pic of Lee (the mortar guy) that you did and I exclaimed "Damn, Oleg made you look sexy, I bet he could make me almost attractive!"
D.
AZEX
Johannes_Paulsen
Member
Oleg,
I think that your poster will bear some fruit toward its intended audience. A lot of the anti-RKBA people I know tend to resent government involvement in, for instance, their sex lives of the sort that the Texas statute represents. This poster advances an argument that will make them stop and think about their gut-level reaction to firearms -- exactly what it should do.
As an aside, I am constantly surprised at how many people find human sexuality to be "obscene" and "embarassing".
It also amazes me how people tolerate regulation in other areas of their private life that they would find completely intolerable if it were applied to firearm ownership. Would anyone NOT find it "repressive" if only one owner of a handgun was arrested for possession of a firearm if some state or municipality outlawed handgun ownership?
Oleg Volk
Moderator Emeritus
Honest feedback is fine and helpful. Now, how would you re-make this message to make it more effective?
I had to go out and water my garden to think about this (I do my best thinking in my garden, don't laugh).
What I'd do is go for a different comparison, and one that hits harder. How about a comparison with the old miscegenation laws? Showing an interracial couple being "busted", and comparing that with gun ownership? There was a time when marrying outside your race was illegal in many states, and the comparison between "the government shouldn't tell you who to marry" and "the government shouldn't tell you you can't own guns" is stronger and probably will evoke a more uniformly visceral reaction in the intended direction.
Not sure how I'd word it, though I'd leave out a reference to any specific state. The issue is not what Texas does or doesn't do, for example, it's governmental interference in our private lives. Something that drives that point home, without being too wordy, would make a strong poster.
Springmom
What I'd do is go for a different comparison, and one that hits harder. How about a comparison with the old miscegenation laws? Showing an interracial couple being "busted", and comparing that with gun ownership? There was a time when marrying outside your race was illegal in many states, and the comparison between "the government shouldn't tell you who to marry" and "the government shouldn't tell you you can't own guns" is stronger and probably will evoke a more uniformly visceral reaction in the intended direction.
Not sure how I'd word it, though I'd leave out a reference to any specific state. The issue is not what Texas does or doesn't do, for example, it's governmental interference in our private lives. Something that drives that point home, without being too wordy, would make a strong poster.
Springmom
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
