On The Third Hand

Tuesday, 12 Feb 2002

Porn Wars update [permalink]

Natalije has posted a new summary piece at Libertarian Samizdata, and Dale Amon jumped in with a post of his own -- and the lyrics to Tom Lehrer's "Smut". I'm very fond of Tom Lehrer, though I had forgotten that particular (entirely appropriate) song. Mark Byron commented on the Dale's Lehrer post; seems there are a number of Lehrer fans in the Blogosphere. I knew there was something I liked about this "place".

Kevin H. has a few comments to add, and a link to a new blog, "Louder Fenn", who makes some interesting points. However; one of his comments is: "Pornography by its nature causes damage. To be sure, you can argue that pornography does not always cause damage; but the argument that must be addressed is that pornography is, in and of itself, damaging." I could make the statement that "Religion is, in and of itself, damaging". Then I can challenge you to disprove it. Go ahead.

I don't want statements, I want statements backed by fact and neutral studies. I'm sure anyone can prove a link between weirdoes and pornography. I can also prove a link between weirdoes and religion. That does not mean either one necessarily is "in and of itself, damaging".

I'm looking for rationally based discussion here. I have looked, but I can find no studies on pornography that have any real correlation with anything. Gut feelings don't count. Find me some facts. Find me a study that finds that rape or child abuse or even divorce increases when pornography is legal (with other factors considered). Tell me why it is bad -- besides the fact that some of you think sex is inherently evil (unless suddenly made sweetly sacred by the magic wand of marriage). I want facts! Anyone have some?

[update] William Sulik has responded, I couldn't get to his original link to law.com's definition of pornography, because it doesn't work on my browser. I did manage to get it using (reluctantly) MSIE, and the quote is accurate. I'd like to make the point (again) that sex with children and/or animals is illegal (in most countries) -- both to perform and to film (there is the "accessory to" charge). I'll also note that there was a suggestion in my forum that there should perhaps be a new term for 'pornography involving illegal acts', to differentiate it from what is commonly understood (by non-legal dictionaries) to define pornography. I found that a very sensible suggestion.

William also says that he knows people who have had their lives wrecked by pornography. That may be... but were their lives wrecked by the pornography itself -- or by a person (or by persons) who abused them and used pornography as an excuse? If we want to get into personal stories, I could find some who would testify to failing marriages revived by recourse to a bit of pornography.

Williams's last comment about women and men's differing perception on porn perhaps being "to do with the way we are hard-wired" invites the comment that perhaps women are better able to differentiate between fantasy and reality?
Start or join a forum discussion

New terrorism alert [permalink]

The FBI has put out a new warning "...RECENT INFORMATION INDICATES A PLANNED ATTACK MAY OCCUR IN THE UNITED STATES OR AGAINST U.S. INTERESTS IN THE COUNTRY OF YEMEN ON OR AROUND 02/12/02. ONE OR MORE OPERATIVES MAY BE INVOLVED IN THE ATTACK,..." They have also posted pictures of the operatives that may be involved.

As usual, the warning is vague. I don't blame them -- telling the enemy exactly what you know is a Very Bad Idea. I doubt I have any readers in Yemen, but some other bloggers may. Last I checked, the Daily Pundit and Ken Layne had both blogged this -- but I haven't read everyone this morning. I hope some others also picked it up. It's 'below the fold' on CNN and BBC online, but both MSNBC and Fox have headlined it.
Start or join a forum discussion

Naughty stuff update [permalink]

I found two more people weighing in on the pornography discussion. Justin Slotman at the Insolvent Republic of Blogistan drops in to critique Playboy. Mark Byron also jumps into the fray with "Sex was designed to be more than a pleasurable exchange of bodily fluids that can lead to procreation, it is designed as well a bonding between two people, a bond that will be weaker if the parties were sexually active with others." He adds a quite a few other arguments from a religious standpoint. I'll give him points for noting that "This isn't going to sway too many agnostics...".

Like Natalije, I consider sex to be natural, and I agree with her comment that :"the truth is that sometimes sex is the banquet at the wedding feast and sometimes it is just a quick trip to McDonalds." In fact, I rather like her comparison of sex and food. My opinion is that it is just as unhealthy to insist on a banquet for each meal as to eat every meal at McDonalds. Even in a committed relationship, sex is sometimes the equivalent of leftover tuna casserole. That doesn't mean it isn't worth eating.

[update]Kevin also posted a promise to come up with some "links on porn and its connection to violence, family breakup, and the like". (I must have missed that yesterday) I'm waiting.
Start or join a forum discussion