On The Third Hand

Monday, 11 Feb 2002

And now for something fun... [permalink]

Pornography. It seems that Natalije at Libertarian Samizdata had a small objection to a post by Kevin at Ideas etc., the title of which was "Why Porn is Bad". He posted a long rant, which included his belief (which I respect) that "Sex is meant to unite two people; it is meant to be the physical act of a mental act: a intimate commitment to a relationship."

Natalije disagrees with that, and so do I. If he had left it at that, I doubt she would have responded. Nor would I. I don't argue with people's personal beliefs. However, he continues with the argument that porn is degrading, and "pornography is an escalating addiction; it leads to a search for more and to different types of porn", and offers no proof or statistics. He further states: " Once you have seen a little and like it you want more; once you have seen more you want even more. This is what leads to orgy, rape, incest, bestiality, sadomasochism, and a whole host of other fetish orientated sites."

I still see no proof -- just opinion. I'd like to see some proof for that claim, Kevin! I've seen pornography, and read it, and I promise you I have suffered no urge to "escalate". Most of it, in fact, I find terminally boring. I see that "escalating" argument as being similar to the "smoking pot turns you into a heroin addict" argument. There were orgies, rapes, incest, and such going on long before pornography was "popular".

I think the whole disagreement between Kevin and Natalije really hinges on her statement that "the truth is that sometimes sex is the banquet at the wedding feast and sometimes it is just a quick trip to McDonalds." I see sex the same way Natlije does, as a natural human urge -- not sacred. Kevin sees it as something sacred, and understandably sees pornography as -- essentially -- blasphemous.

Kevin thereafter posted a response to Natalije, and she posted a response to his response (and also to a number of e-mails she'd gotten). It all would have ended on an agreement to disagree, and I would not have said a thing -- except that I happened to click on a blog link (from somewhere) to William Sulik's Blithering Idiot blog and that one irritated me. He did make one good point -- that Natlije had (mistakenly) assumed that Kevin wants to make porn illegal (which Kevin explicitly denied in his second post). However; he then proceeds to say:

"In the first place, porn or pornography is derived from the Greek pornographos, an adjective, "writing about prostitutes, from pornE prostitute + graphein to write."Pornography is defined as   n. pictures and/or writings of sexual activity    intended solely to excite lascivious feelings of   a particularly blatant and aberrational kind, such   as acts involving children, animals, orgies, and    all types of sexual intercourse. The printing,    publication, sale and distribution of "hard core"    pornography is either a felony or misdemeanor in   most states. Since determining what is pornography    and what is "soft core" and "hard core" are    subjective questions to judges, juries and law    enforcement officials, it is difficult to define,    since the law cases cannot print examples for the    courts to follow.It is understandable that Radic would rather define pornography as Playboy and Vogue as opposed to bestiality and the rape of underage children. Because if she does so, she has to go on record as saying these things are "not bad." Remember that Holtsberry's original point was that "Porn is bad""

I'd dearly love to know where he got that definition. The dictionaries at dictionary.com do not mention bestiality, or rape of (redundantly) underage children -- nor do any of the three (other) dictionaries I have at home. Both rape (of children or adults) and bestiality are illegal in most (civilized) countries. One does not have to disapprove of pornography to disapprove of abuse. Setting up straw men does not advance an argument. Give me facts and figures

If you want to argue that porn causes illegal behavior, I want facts and statistics. Not the kind of statistics that work backward, either. It's like that pot smoker=heroin addict propaganda. I won't argue that many heroin addicts have smoked pot. I'd bet a week's pay that an even larger percentage of them have drunk milk. By that logic, drinking milk makes you a heroin addict. If people want to write or film pornography, I have no problem with that. It is up to them. If people want to read or see it, that is also their choice.

Like Natalije, I am perfectly willing to let anyone do their best to discourage behaviors through social means -- it is only when they try to do it through law that I object. Until you on the 'anti' side can prove to me that pornography harms anything except your own sense of "morality", I shall continue to enjoy the occasional pornographic piece (written or visual) despite your opinions. Pornography, like sex, can sometimes be just plain fun.

I might add... I also find it deliciously ironic that we now have two male bloggers arguing against pornography -- and two female bloggers arguing for it (raspberry --pbblllllllttttt-- directed at those who don't think Americans understand irony).

[Aside to Mr. Sulik at Blithering Idiot -- mentioning Britney Spears won't get you hits, irritating me may; however, get you one or two].
Start or join a forum discussion

Lest we forget [permalink]

It has been 5 months since September 11, 2001. Let's not forget what happened that day.

Let us also remember the outpouring of support from around the world. . As we Americans listen to statements from the chattering classes and governments now, it might be good to keep in mind how the world's people reacted that day -- and the days following. My reaction to the attacks was a cold rage. It took the candles and flowers to bring tears to my eyes.

If I ruled the US (fat chance) I'd have loudly and publicly thanked the Canadian and Mexican governments who allowed our diverted planes to land on September 11, despite possible risk to their own countries. And I would especially have mentioned the people in Gander, Newfoundland and the surrounding towns, for their treatment of our refugees. Newfoundland may not be Canada's wealthiest province, but its people are rich in ways that cannot be measured in dollars.

The world may have now returned to the normal incessant bickering, but the reactions in the days just after September 11th gave me the hope that someday, somehow... the people of this world will figure out how to "just get along".
Start or join a forum discussion