Pornography

[Johnny Canuck3]

Jeez, I bet this Noam Chomsky is a fun guy to talk to at parties. He's got a bloody silly name too.

Personally, I'd like to talk to someone named "Noam". I'd be thinking 'gnome', the whole time.

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

I'm Mr Azrael, and yes, screwing is great. It also causes untold emotional turmoil and unwanted pregnancies that often result in neglected children or abortion. Its unintended and unwanted consequences led to wise restraints that the modern libertines ditched, without offering an alternative.

If there is a strange creature who denies the fact that we like to fuck, it isn't me. It's precisely because it's so enjoyable that we should be careful.

It's like eating. You do too much, you get really fat. But no one says that eating per se is a bad thing.

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

I am, and if it's been good enough for the past two millennia I don't see why it can't be good for at least another two.

But there are millions of other people: buddhists, for instance, who are able to function as people and as sexual beings, without any judaeochristian baggage. Maybe there are other ways of doing things?

 

[untethered]

It's like eating. You do too much, you get really fat. But no one says that eating per se is a bad thing.

Pornography is all about gluttony not normal appetites.

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

thats exactly what he was saying!

Fine, but why single out working as a sex worker for special approbation? Chambermaid, chicken plucker, ditch digger, all are in the same boat.

 

[untethered]

But there are millions of other people: buddhists, for instance, who are able to function as people and as sexual beings, without any judaeochristian baggage. Maybe there are other ways of doing things?

Good for them. I don't know how Buddhists view pornography but I certainly hope they don't bring any over here if they're partial to it.

 

[Azrael]

This assumes that we're happy with the emotional and moral aspects that have been attached to sex by our Judaeo-christian civilization over the past two millenia.

Many of us aren't, which is why the "if it feels good, **** it" free love brigade won an easy victory. Restraint is hard, and so easy to dismiss as repression. The point is that our personal happiness isn't the only consideration. Free screwing, as it should properly be known, causes a great deal of misery into the bargain. It used to be the view that we sacrificed some gratification out of consideration for others. No longer. We're all free now.

I am, and if it's been good enough for the past two millennia I don't see why it can't be good for at least another two.

It's outdated, apparently. Why it should suddenly become outdated after two millennia (longer, if we're referring to the Judeo part of Judeo-Christian) I'm not too sure. Perhaps Prof. Chomsky could explain.

 

[Shevek]

Fine, but why single out working as a sex worker for special approbation? Chambermaid, chicken plucker, ditch digger, all are in the same boat.

he isn't singling out porn workers. He is saying they are all done under durress and the conditions that force people into these situations should be eradicated.

 

[Azrael]

It's like eating. You do too much, you get really fat. But no one says that eating per se is a bad thing.

And unless you follow the teaching of St. Paul very literally, no one's saying that sex per se is a bad thing either. It's a wonderful thing in the right circumstances. Call it the difference between eating and gluttony, or in the case of porn, the Savoy vs a Big Mac.

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

Well this towering intellect claims he's never heard of Hustler, and yes, Prof. Chomsky does to child abuse, at 2:49. .

Maybe he's getting old. And I'd say that any american male over 40 who's never heard of hustler is either lying or......he's lying.

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

Pornography is all about gluttony not normal appetites.

I don't agree. It can be gluttony, but the mere interest in or desire to view or read sexually titillating material, isn't of itself gluttony.

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

Good for them. I don't know how Buddhists view pornography but I certainly hope they don't bring any over here if they're partial to it.

Bad news. The Buddhists are already here.

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

Many of us aren't, which is why the "if it feels good, **** it" free love brigade won an easy victory.

Yes. Unfortunately, the free love brigade was no more correct than the other extreme was correct. As always, 'the middle path'.

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

Free screwing, as it should properly be known, causes a great deal of misery into the bargain. It used to be the view that we sacrificed some gratification out of consideration for others. No longer. We're all free now. D

I think there are consequences, but it's hard to separate the 'true' consequences, from the 'baggage' consequences, ie the guilt, self hatred etc, that in fact are arising from the judaeo christian upbringing, as opposed to arising from the interaction itself.

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

he isn't singling out porn workers. He is saying they are all done under durress and the conditions that force people into these situations should be eradicated.

I thought the original thing here was that porn should be eradicated because it exploits poor women.

That's like arguing that eating chicken should be eradicated because chicken pluckers are underpaid.

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

And unless you follow the teaching of St. Paul very literally, no one's saying that sex per se is a bad thing either. It's a wonderful thing in the right circumstances. Call it the difference between eating and gluttony, or in the case of porn, the Savoy vs a Big Mac.

Didn't St. Paul on sex get trumped by St. Augustine?

 

[Azrael]

Yes. Unfortunately, the free love brigade was no more correct than the other extreme was correct. As always, 'the middle path'.

We had one. It promoted sex inside marriage as right and the alternatives as wrong, but didn't make too much of a fuss when people lapsed, provided they kept it discrete. Now it's heresy against the ideals of '68 to suggest that any type of union is preferable, let alone right. Guess all the dead babies and broken homes get marked down as collateral damage for a greater good. The '68ers are good at that.

 

[untethered]

Bad news. The Buddhists are already here.

Well I hope they didn't bring their pornography, though it wouldn't surprise me if they were waved right through customs while reading it openly.

 

[Azrael]

I think there are consequences, but it's hard to separate the 'true' consequences, from the 'baggage' consequences, ie the guilt, self hatred etc, that in fact are arising from the judaeo christian upbringing, as opposed to arising from the interaction itself.

Perhaps one begets the other?

Didn't St. Paul on sex get trumped by St. Augustine?

Well St. Augustine isn't scripture, but unless we want the human race to expire, it doesn't do to pay too much attention to St. Paul.

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

Well I hope they didn't bring their pornography, though it wouldn't surprise me if they were waved right through customs while reading it openly.

They're probably just filming it here. Bald head/orange robe porn, for those who are into that.

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

We had one. It promoted sex inside marriage as right and the alternatives as wrong, but didn't make too much of a fuss when people lapsed, provided they kept it discrete.

You're remembering a past that I don't remember. The past I remember, has back alley coathanger abortions in it, women going to other cities to have babies in secret, then giving them up for adoption or putting them in orphanages, married male philanderers just 'being boys', while the women were sluts or nymphomaniacs, etc.

That's the pre 68 past that I remember.

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

Perhaps one begets the other?

Well St. Augustine isn't scripture, but unless we want the human race to expire, it doesn't do to pay too much attention to St. Paul.

Augustine isn't scripture, but the influence of his ideas on sex, sin and original sin, arguably came to dominate church thinking in the centuries to follow.

 

[Azrael]

You're remembering a past that I don't remember. The past I remember, has back alley coathanger abortions in it, women going to other cities to have babies in secret, then giving them up for adoption or putting them in orphanages, married male philanderers just 'being boys', while the women were sluts or nymphomaniacs, etc.

That's the pre 68 past that I remember.

And you're doubtless right. The old culture gave us many bad things, and instead of trying to reform it, we abolished it completely and replaced it with a vacuum.

Now we have broken homes, often with serial "boyfriends", that produce gangs of feral children; endless drunken trysts that end in allegations of rape; spiraling divorce rates; and abortion on tap. No one knows what the rules are because they're aren't any. Married male philanders have never been freer, and mainstream culture judges a women's worth by her looks. And despite all the cries of freedom and equality, the double standard sticks around as stubbornly as limpets to a rockface.

What we have looks suspiciously like good-old-fashioned libertinism. Freedom for lotharios and dirty old men at the expense of the rest. Progress, eh!

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

And you're doubtless right. The old culture gave us many bad things, and instead of trying to reform it, we abolished it completely and replaced it with a vacuum.

Now we have broken homes, often with serial "boyfriends", that produce gangs of feral children; endless drunken trysts that end in allegations of rape; spiraling divorce rates; and abortion on tap. No one knows what the rules are because they're aren't any. Married male philanders have never been freer, and mainstream culture judges a women's worth by her looks. And despite all the cries of freedom and equality, the double standard sticks around as stubbornly as limpets to a rockface.

What we have looks suspiciously like good-old-fashioned libertinism. Freedom for lotharios and dirty old men at the expense of the rest. Progress, eh!

I think we tried to reform it, but the reform system was way too permissive. [God it feels weird saying that: too permissive! wtf have I become?!]

But yeah. I don't think you can just blame sexual permissiveness for the current state of affairs. What it is, is the culture of 'me' ism, a culture that puts the individual and his/her needs above all else.

 

[Azrael]

But yeah. I don't think you can just blame sexual permissiveness for the current state of affairs. What it is, is the culture of 'me' ism, a culture that puts the individual and his/her needs above all else.

Permissiveness and selfishness are often one and the same, I think.

There were moves to reform the old culture for decades, but the 68ers swept it away. "Free love" is revolutionary. We forget how revolutionary through familiarity. Instead of saying some restraints are wrong it says they all are.

Of course we don't have "free love" now, and all make sure to loudly mock the hippies. Check out many sex-ed brochures, though, with their amoral talk of "what's right for you", and you soon realise that it's exactly what we have. The hippies' only mistake was to be too blatant, and to have an appalling taste in psychedelic tie-dye.

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

There were moves to reform the old culture for decades,.

I wasn't aware of that. What was done?

 

[Azrael]

I wasn't aware of that. What was done?

Can't comment about Canada, but in England and Wales we had the National Council for the Unmarried Mother and her Child, which tried to help unwed mothers, and fight the nasty stigma around bastardy. This has now become "Gingerbread" (it was renamed the National Council for One Parent Families in 1970, and merged with a separate Gingerbread in 2007 to form the current ogranisation). Details (note, link to pdf) here.

The 1970 name-change was immense: an organisation that had promoted tolerance (which implies disapproval) switched to one promoting equality between different types of family. Reform became revolution.