The Sky Is Falling!!
I tend to spend a lot of time here ragging on socialism, collectivism, and other forms of ant-colony-like thought from leftists. But not today. Today's recipient of the "Somebody Needs To Relax" award is Rebecca Hagelin, a columnist for the online rightist website Townhall.com. Her beef? Apple has now released an iPod that plays video, which means that individuals can now put pornography on their iPods.
Of course, social conservatives seldom admit that what really bothers them the most about pornography is that deep down they'd really enjoy it if they hadn't been brainwashed into an unnatural hatred of themselves via their religious programming. And in their hung-up, sexually repressed world, anything that they'd like to do but can't (due to the whole "I am a jealous 'god' who'll roast your ass for eternity if you even think about it " thing) becomes the target of their perpetually indignant rage. So they trot out "the children" as their one-size-fits-all excuse to censor, ban and persecute.
But what I really love is how they're now trying to back up their superstition-driven arguments by dressing them up to look objective (kinda like putting a white coat on Creationism and calling it "Intelligent Design"). Citing a study by the Heritage Foundation, Hagelin lists all of the damage that exposure to erotica allegedly causes. Naturally, children are especially threatened by these things. The list is so good, I just have to comment on it:
• Developing tolerance toward sexually explicit material, thereby requiring more novel or bizarre material to achieve the same level of arousal or interest.
Really? I ask y'all .... how many of you who started off enjoying plain old regular porn suddenly developed a taste for explicit pictures of two hookers, a moose, and a food processor?? Sounds like a retread of the old "Marijuana leads to heroin" argument.
• Overestimating the prevalence of less common sexual practices (e.g., group sex,
bestiality and sadomasochistic activity).
I swear this betrays what many of these folks secretly dream of. And notice how they lump group sex -- which can just be a normal extension of regular sex -- in with stuff that the overwhelming majority of erotic consumers avoid.
• Abandoning the goal of sexual exclusivity with a partner.
Ah ... now we're getting somewhere. Are they concerned about children per se, or about indoctrinating children with their own belief system?? What, outside of their religious dogma, establishes "sexual exclusivity with a partner" as the end-all and be-all??
• Perceiving promiscuity as a normal state of interaction.
Gee ... in many other species it is a "normal state of interaction". For a huge number of people on this planet it's a pretty normal state of interaction too. Perhaps the real point here is that promiscuity IS in fact the normal state of interaction, and certain religions have opted to ban it for reasons of economic and social control. Just maybe??
• Developing cynical attitudes about love.
I don't follow the reasoning here at all. Anyone who has fallen in love more than once or twice has probably become a bit cynical. Anyone who's fallen in love more than once or twice and not gotten any sex out of it should be especially cynical.
• Believing marriage is sexually confining.
Isn't it?? This isn't necessarily a bad thing (especially if you lived a bit before you got married), but for many who marry young and haven't lived much, marriage does become sexually confining (which might help explain the high divorce rates in the country).
• Believing that raising children and having a family is as an unattractive prospect.
Religion to the forefront again. Pre-ordained sex roles, perhaps?? For many of us, raising children and having a family IS an unattractive prospect. It has nothing to do with pornography. It really doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that having children is expensive, it limits your personal freedom, it entails life-long obligations that everyone is not equally willing/able to assume, and it absolutely changes your life. Now if you want to go ahead and pump out a few .... be my guest (at your own expense, please). But there are perfectly logical reasons not to reproduce .... assuming that logic is controlling your thinking.
• Developing a negative body image, especially for women.
Maybe these folks really haven't been watching much pornography. A negative body image for women?? As comedian Robert Schimmel pointed out, virtually any woman can do what women in erotic films can do. They may be a little larger or smaller or narrower or wider .... but they can do it. If anyone should develop a negative body image from pornography it's men. Did you ever see the units on those guys? Moreover, they continue to "function" for 15-30 minutes without any "accidental emissions". That not only gives us guys a negative body image, but it's also really, really depressing.
I can't help but think this is just another example of the American Taliban trying to chase us back into the 13th century. Talk about a group of people who need to get laid more ....
Of course, social conservatives seldom admit that what really bothers them the most about pornography is that deep down they'd really enjoy it if they hadn't been brainwashed into an unnatural hatred of themselves via their religious programming. And in their hung-up, sexually repressed world, anything that they'd like to do but can't (due to the whole "I am a jealous 'god' who'll roast your ass for eternity if you even think about it " thing) becomes the target of their perpetually indignant rage. So they trot out "the children" as their one-size-fits-all excuse to censor, ban and persecute.
But what I really love is how they're now trying to back up their superstition-driven arguments by dressing them up to look objective (kinda like putting a white coat on Creationism and calling it "Intelligent Design"). Citing a study by the Heritage Foundation, Hagelin lists all of the damage that exposure to erotica allegedly causes. Naturally, children are especially threatened by these things. The list is so good, I just have to comment on it:
• Developing tolerance toward sexually explicit material, thereby requiring more novel or bizarre material to achieve the same level of arousal or interest.
Really? I ask y'all .... how many of you who started off enjoying plain old regular porn suddenly developed a taste for explicit pictures of two hookers, a moose, and a food processor?? Sounds like a retread of the old "Marijuana leads to heroin" argument.
• Overestimating the prevalence of less common sexual practices (e.g., group sex,
bestiality and sadomasochistic activity).
I swear this betrays what many of these folks secretly dream of. And notice how they lump group sex -- which can just be a normal extension of regular sex -- in with stuff that the overwhelming majority of erotic consumers avoid.
• Abandoning the goal of sexual exclusivity with a partner.
Ah ... now we're getting somewhere. Are they concerned about children per se, or about indoctrinating children with their own belief system?? What, outside of their religious dogma, establishes "sexual exclusivity with a partner" as the end-all and be-all??
• Perceiving promiscuity as a normal state of interaction.
Gee ... in many other species it is a "normal state of interaction". For a huge number of people on this planet it's a pretty normal state of interaction too. Perhaps the real point here is that promiscuity IS in fact the normal state of interaction, and certain religions have opted to ban it for reasons of economic and social control. Just maybe??
• Developing cynical attitudes about love.
I don't follow the reasoning here at all. Anyone who has fallen in love more than once or twice has probably become a bit cynical. Anyone who's fallen in love more than once or twice and not gotten any sex out of it should be especially cynical.
• Believing marriage is sexually confining.
Isn't it?? This isn't necessarily a bad thing (especially if you lived a bit before you got married), but for many who marry young and haven't lived much, marriage does become sexually confining (which might help explain the high divorce rates in the country).
• Believing that raising children and having a family is as an unattractive prospect.
Religion to the forefront again. Pre-ordained sex roles, perhaps?? For many of us, raising children and having a family IS an unattractive prospect. It has nothing to do with pornography. It really doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that having children is expensive, it limits your personal freedom, it entails life-long obligations that everyone is not equally willing/able to assume, and it absolutely changes your life. Now if you want to go ahead and pump out a few .... be my guest (at your own expense, please). But there are perfectly logical reasons not to reproduce .... assuming that logic is controlling your thinking.
• Developing a negative body image, especially for women.
Maybe these folks really haven't been watching much pornography. A negative body image for women?? As comedian Robert Schimmel pointed out, virtually any woman can do what women in erotic films can do. They may be a little larger or smaller or narrower or wider .... but they can do it. If anyone should develop a negative body image from pornography it's men. Did you ever see the units on those guys? Moreover, they continue to "function" for 15-30 minutes without any "accidental emissions". That not only gives us guys a negative body image, but it's also really, really depressing.
I can't help but think this is just another example of the American Taliban trying to chase us back into the 13th century. Talk about a group of people who need to get laid more ....
posted by DrJDG @ 00:05
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home