Amazing Response to Last Week’s Party Post!
All I can say is “Wow!” and “Thank you!”
When I added the “Why I am NOT Attending RJ’s Party” post last week, I knew it would be controversial, and I wondered what backlash I might experience.
Usually I get from 3-5 “comments” on a post within a week of posting it. I published that post Saturday morning, and by lunchtime you (my readers) had left 119 comments! That’s amazing! As I write this post, there are 192 comments . . . it was obvious I touched a nerve with this one.
The VAST majority of you were supportive and shared my dim view of pornography and its damaging effects. Some of you argued that pornography wasn’t a bad thing, but still agreed that people who disagree with pornography shouldn’t be promoting this particular event. And a few of you told me (basically) I was completely wrong on this one.
I thank you ALL for leaving your opinions here. For those of you who disagreed, I respect your opinion and especially your courage for posting here in full knowledge that the majority of comments were not in agreement with your own. Bravo! 
Some of you lamented the fact that I had identified myself as a “conservative Christian”. Please understand I only shared this information so people would know where I was coming from personally. I do not for one second believe that “morality” and “family values” are limited to Christianity. In fact, I believe most religions share this common thread.
Also, it was not my intention to call into question the integrity of the people promoting this event. Most of them I don’t know personally. Perhaps they don’t share my sentiments about the evils of pornography. Or they sincerely believe the Playboy Mansion is just a fancy “venue”, no longer associated with the other Playboy enterprises. Or maybe they just didn’t think it through.
One person I DO know personally is Yanik Silver. I’ve worked with him for years. We’ve exchanged gifts when our children were born. I consider him a friend.
He is a man of high integrity. He cares for his customers and one of his primary concerns whenever he does a promotion is that his affiliates get credit for whatever sales they generate.
He and I come from different backgrounds and obviously think differently on the issue of what the Playboy Mansion represents, but that doesn’t change my high regard for him and the integrity he’s displayed in all the years I’ve known him.
I thought it was “important” to take a stand on this and publish my thoughts. I think it’s good to “step back” and talk about the really important things in life sometimes.
But this blog is supposed to be about “business tools”, so that’s what I’m going to get back to in my next post.
If any of you wanted a personal reply to your comment (there’s just not enough time to answer every one), then please copy it to me in an email (just click on the “contact me” link on the right side of this page) and I’ll be happy to reply.
See you next time!
Paul
Share This
June 26th, 2007 at 4:20 pm
Yanik’s email was the one that surrprised me the most. My wife almost emailed his wife to tell her to “stick with her guns” and not give Yanik the permission slip.
I applauded your previous post and I am still kind of shocked this discussion even had to take place.
All the best,
George
June 26th, 2007 at 4:27 pm
Way to go
Bill
June 26th, 2007 at 5:27 pm
Glad you had the nerve to take the stand. You could have just ‘let sleeping dogs lie’ but sometimes you just got to call it what it is. Definitely respect you for it!
Blessings,
Mark
June 26th, 2007 at 7:08 pm
Playboy magazine and its related enterprises has done the most harm of any of the so-called “adult” industries (hows that phrase for marketing misuse?). Why? It mainstreamed the idea of the “Playboy” who lives his own life, and isn’t burdened by conventional morality or responsibilities.
It played the “good cop” to the “bad cop” of Hustler and other hard core magazines. While everyone argued over the pictures in Playboy being too revealing, they neglected the much joked about articles that promoted the Playboy way of life.
Far from being “liberal” in the real sense of that word, Playboy has led the way in the enslavement of people to their lower natures. For the same reason parents train children not to suck their thumbs, healthy societies train people to transcend their lower natures to achieve the higher purpose they were made for.
This is the essence of the Christian position. We were made for something higher than indulging our lower passions. We were made in the image of God.
June 26th, 2007 at 7:31 pm
One of the major “biggies” about this, (and YES, I was invited) is it practically screams “No women allowed”. This entire thing is so sexist, that I unsubscribed from several lists because of it.
I, too, am a Christian, but that’s beside the point. This goes WAY beyond religious morals, and points in fact to the ‘backtracking’ our society is moving towards, in relation to its respect of women.
I don’t know any female marketers who would attend, and if they did, would feel they could confess it to their customers and subscribers. As I said above, this blatently says that women marketers don’t count.
June 26th, 2007 at 8:51 pm
Hi Paul
From the comments on your previous post about RJ’s party it is heartening to know that there are still lots of people in the world who will take a stand on moral issues when it comes to matters affecting our families.
My question to you is how to make Google remove disgusting nude pornograhic images from its search database. Recently I was researching on the topic of ginger root and I wanted an image so when I keyed in ginger, the first image that came up was a totally naked lady named ‘ginger’. If this is so freely available what will it invoke in the minds of young children. I am not a prude by any means but my first thought was of my young daughter being exposed to these images before she is ready. Surely there must be a way for Google to separate these images from those used by children and non-pornographic users
Cecilia
June 27th, 2007 at 12:31 am
There is no doubt that the choice of venue for this “charity event” was in poor taste.
That so many put their stamp of approval on this event by electing to participate is disturbing. But what is truly shocking is how they chose to cloak their attendance: charity, of course, and (by far my favorite) … a unique NETWORKING opportunity!!!
On second thought, I can’t imagine better staging for ‘networking’ than Hugh Hefner’s pad. I am just having trouble figuring out exactly where female internet marketers would fit in this picture. I guess they were never meant to ‘network’ – or at least not on a level plane.
Here’s hoping that most of you will have enough sensitivity to spare us the excuses. Enough said already … just do us all a favor and put a lid on it!
June 27th, 2007 at 7:40 am
I think porn should be removed from the web, but sadly it never will be.
June 27th, 2007 at 7:49 am
Paul,
I’m going to the Mansion, in fact I bought the “Golden Ticket”, with in 15 minutes of the salesletter being released.
Now with that being said, I’m fairly new to your blog, and I think you give GREAT content, and I enjoy your tips and ideas.
I’ve read quite a few coments from your post, and I must say, I DO NOT agree with many of them…at all! (which is fine, we can agree, to disagree)
BUT, I do give YOU BIG KUDOS and RESPECT, Paul, for taking a stand and building a relationship with your audience.
I will look forward to reading your future posts…
My two cents…America is Amazing, because we can CHOOSE to have opposing views, and still respect wach other. (vanilla vs chocolate)
Thanks for letting me offer my view,
Mike Perl
Americas Foreclosure Expert
June 28th, 2007 at 9:46 pm
What has disturbed me the most is the way in which this was marketed. The original sales letter was the most filthy thing I have ever seen in my ten years of Internet marketing and I can’t believe that some of these people put their photo and testimonial on it.
Beyond the way this has made female marketers feel, there is also the issue that there were likely many underage recipients of this promotion. Due to the low barrier to entry in starting an Internet business, many teens are involved in this industry and likely received this email as well. How would some of these marketers as parents like for their children to receive smut like this just for joining an Internet marketing newsletter?!
The participation of those who are associated with this fiasco was short-sighted. It’s too bad that the good and decent reputations of many of those who have been involved will be tainted by something so stupid. Just goes to show you that if you lie down with dogs, you wake up with fleas!
July 5th, 2007 at 1:11 pm
Paul, as I commented on the original post, your no-nonsense stance for morality has made a subscriber out of me.
I do appreciate that you clarified that you were not attacking the integrity of the various marketers involved, though I never thought that you were trying to do that. I may not agree with someone’s personal moral standards, but unless they are being dishonest about it, that doesn’t make them a person of low integrity.
I look forward to more great business tools.
~Adam
Explode The Net!
July 5th, 2007 at 5:00 pm
Paul,
Let me chime in with my admiration for you taking a public stance, doing so with integrity and not apologizing for your views. We don’t all have to see things the same way, but we do have to respect each others views even (and particularly) when we do not agree. For me, there is little else you could have done to gain my respect and loyalty.
Another great benefit for us, your readers, is that you let us know a more personal side of you. I think we all want to do business and learn from those we not only admire, but can relate to, and your recent posts have gone a LONG way toward both.
Suzanne
July 5th, 2007 at 9:33 pm
It was a great post with 192 ‘Freaking Comments’! Keep it up Paul.