April 22, 2008
Pornography Vs The Marketplace
I’m usually pretty decisive when it comes to deciding how I view issues as they come down the pike, but this one has me just a bit flabbergasted.
Now, I’m not at all a fan of pornography, this for three reasons:
1. I don’t own a pornograph, and
2. I can conceive no thrill whatsoever in watching other people “making whoopee”.
3. I consider sex to be a very personal, private activity to be shared only by those involved.
There’s something cheapening in the very concept, in fact, and when I read of porn “actors”, for some reason the likes of Richard Burton, Humphrey Bogart, Elizabeth Taylor, James Stewart, Katherine Hepburn, John Wayne, William Holden, Peter Lorrie and even Raquel Welch and Brigit Bardeaux fail, no matter what, to come to mind.
However, there does seem to be a major market for the stuff, this judging from the myriad sex shops and Internet porn sites, the porn video spam and so forth.
We are a market based republic, and there would not exist this veritable cornucopia of erotic spam unless there was a profitably voluminous response to it.
In other words, the porn industry has achieved its own commercial legitimacy by virtue of its constituency.
I pretty much spit on the legal acceptance that pornography is a protectorate of the 1st Amendment – how does freedom of speech apply to sex flicks? Answer: It doesn’t, but our legal system has become so distorted that our esteemed justices are apt to interpret anything as Constitutional these days.
Sexual relations with camels? Sure, why not? 20 inch dildos? Constitutionally guaranteed. Nipple clamps? An absolute must! Sodomy? An absolute right under the First Amendment, “Cut and Print!”
Here is where my own confusion enters the picture.
We are a free country of Judeo-Christian origins, and we are, to all intents and purposes, a democracy. Those among us who are conservatives believe in limited government and basically, from that perspective, being left alone.
We hate being dictated to by liberals who smother us in political correctness, taxation without representation, multiculturalism (try running a business in which you require all your employees to speak English and see how fast the ACLU rams itself down your throat), G-dlessness in our schools, oppressive gun control measures and other venues that contradict the Constitution, yet we sometimes forget justice and dictate to them as well.
If millions of people want to be able to watch porn at the hotels they stay in, why should we obstruct that particular segment of the marketplace, immoral as it may be, and deny them their perversions? After all, at the end of things, they’ll have to explain their proclivities to a being whose office is several floors above those of us who pass judgment here and now, the CEO of the universe. If He decides that they’ve sinned, He’ll deal with them.
My own take is that any porn available should be restricted to rooms that are occupied only by adults, no rooms booked that in any way include minors, but we should not restrict, by lawsuit or law, these hotels from catering to the demands of their regular guests.
If they want to watch a bunch of sweaty people flopping and squirming on a bed, let them.
My point being, we really can’t force our concept of morality on other people. It’s up to them to make their own decisions, and it’s up to G-d to judge them when they kick the bucket.
http://hardastarboard.mu.nu/wp-trackback.php?p=812
April 22nd, 2008 at 9:16 am
As much as I detest porn in any form, you are right, Seth. We have no more right to ban the idiot’s porn than atheists have to ban the Bible. This has to be kept a “free” country or we lose all meaning. The government has no place interfering in people’s personal lives unless those people are damaging someone else.
April 22nd, 2008 at 9:50 am
Good bad or indifferent in order to continue to live in a free Republic even the reprobates who promote porn must have a Constitutional protection to sell their crap!
That right ends when it takes the rights of others away such as the use of innocent children in child porn. But if they are not imposing on others Constitutional rights or illegal activity, as disgusting as their garbage is they have a right to promote and sell this junk in this country.
If that right is taken because of the content of the stuff then it opens the door for taking religous and free speech rights away for churches and those of us who use the blogosphere to express our opinions!
April 22nd, 2008 at 11:17 am
While I believe in the free marketplace and of course, the First Amendment, I have to weigh in on this with a Catholic perspective. I’m going to be pedantic and cut and paste from the Catechism, as it is far more articulate on this matter than I am. First, pornography is a sin against God and violates the Sixth Commandment, which tells us that we may not commit adultery. While a literalist may construe that as simply refraining from sex with anyone but one’s spouse, the Church teaches that the core meaning of that Commandment is about the virtue of CHASTITY, and how any violation of chastity is a sin against God and man.
I must preface this with an understanding of the dignity of the human person as taught by the Church:
1711 Endowed with a spiritual soul, with intellect and with free will, the human person is from his very conception ordered to God and destined for eternal beatitude. He pursues his perfection in “seeking and loving what is true and good” (GS 15 # 2).
1712 In man, true freedom is an “outstanding manifestation of the divine image” (GS 17).
1713 Man is obliged to follow the moral law, which urges him “to do what is good and avoid what is evil” (cf. GS 16). This law makes itself heard in his conscience.
1714 Man, having been wounded in his nature by original sin, is subject to error and inclined to evil in exercising his freedom.
1700 The dignity of the human person is rooted in his creation in the image and likeness of God (article 1); it is fulfilled in his vocation to divine beatitude (article 2). It is essential to a human being freely to direct himself to this fulfillment (article 3). By his deliberate actions (article 4), the human person does, or does not, conform to the good promised by God and attested by moral conscience (article 5). Human beings make their own contribution to their interior growth; they make their whole sentient and spiritual lives into means of this growth (article 6). With the help of grace they grow in virtue (article 7), avoid sin, and if they sin they entrust themselves as did the prodigal son1 to the mercy of our Father in heaven (article 8). In this way they attain to the perfection of charity.
Here is what the Catechism states on the virtue of chastity:
2339 Chastity includes an apprenticeship in self-mastery which is a training in human freedom. The alternative is clear: either man governs his passions and finds peace, or he lets himself be dominated by them and becomes unhappy.125 “Man’s dignity therefore requires him to act out of conscious and free choice, as moved and drawn in a personal way from within, and not by blind impulses in himself or by mere external constraint. Man gains such dignity when, ridding himself of all slavery to the passions, he presses forward to his goal by freely choosing what is good and, by his diligence and skill, effectively secures for himself the means suited to this end.”126
2344 Chastity represents an eminently personal task; it also involves a cultural effort, for there is “an interdependence between personal betterment and the improvement of society.”130 Chastity presupposes respect for the rights of the person, in particular the right to receive information and an education that respect the moral and spiritual dimensions of human life.
Now, on the subject of “Scandal”:
Respect for the souls of others: scandal
2284 Scandal is an attitude or behavior which leads another to do evil. The person who gives scandal becomes his neighbor’s tempter. He damages virtue and integrity; he may even draw his brother into spiritual death. Scandal is a grave offense if by deed or omission another is deliberately led into a grave offense.
2286 Scandal can be provoked by laws or institutions, by fashion or opinion.
Therefore, they are guilty of scandal who establish laws or social structures leading to the decline of morals and the corruption of religious practice, or to “social conditions that, intentionally or not, make Christian conduct and obedience to the Commandments difficult and practically impossible.”87 This is also true of business leaders who make rules encouraging fraud, teachers who provoke their children to anger,88 or manipulators of public opinion who turn it away from moral values.
2287 Anyone who uses the power at his disposal in such a way that it leads others to do wrong becomes guilty of scandal and responsible for the evil that he has directly or indirectly encouraged. “Temptations to sin are sure to come; but woe to him by whom they come!”89
And here the Church weighs in on some offenses against Chastity, including pornography:
2351 Lust is disordered desire for or inordinate enjoyment of sexual pleasure. Sexual pleasure is morally disordered when sought for itself, isolated from its procreative and unitive purposes.
2354 Pornography consists in removing real or simulated sexual acts from the intimacy of the partners, in order to display them deliberately to third parties. It offends against chastity because it perverts the conjugal act, the intimate giving of spouses to each other. It does grave injury to the dignity of its participants (actors, vendors, the public), since each one becomes an object of base pleasure and illicit profit for others. It immerses all who are involved in the illusion of a fantasy world. It is a grave offense. Civil authorities should prevent the production and distribution of pornographic materials.
I’m probably preaching to the choir here, but I doubt if anyone can disagree that pornography has terrible social costs. I have seen cases where the addiction to porn (and it IS a sickness) has destroyed marriages, ruined lives (especially child porn), and created an industry fraught with degredation, particularly to women. It is a violation of the fundamental dignity of the human person.
While I can’t say that I want to make porn illegal (except child porn, of course), I don’t have a problem with those folks who want to ask hotels to refrain from selling it.
Silence construes consent. And it is perfectly within our rights to condemn and object to that which clearly destroys the moral fabric of society, as well as destroys human dignity and marriage.
April 22nd, 2008 at 11:18 am
Hmmm, I don’t know why that sunglass face is on my above comment… but just ignore it!
And sorry for the lengthy missive, Seth!
April 22nd, 2008 at 12:38 pm
Seth:
You say that we can’t force our concept of morality on people, yet we do it all the time! The prohibition of murder is “forcing” morality on people, as it violates a person’s right to life.
The issue with porn is that we must educate people on the inherent dignity of the human person, and that porn, which reduces the person as an object of gratification, violates that dignity.
I struggle with this because I believe in freedom of speech, but where is the line drawn, when that “speech” creates a danger to society, in that certain people are degraded and used for profit?
I suppose from a legal standpoint, the only way to ban porn is to prove that it presents a “clear and present danger” to society, however I fear that it would be an extraordinarily arduous task, considering that many people do not even believe in the concept of the dignity of the human person.
Okay, now I’ll shut up… but this post is very challenging and thought provoking.
April 22nd, 2008 at 1:16 pm
This whole damn thing is sickning!
I love this line though:
We are a free country of Judeo-Christian origins, and we are, to all intents and purposes, a democracy. Those among us who are conservatives believe in limited government and basically, from that perspective, being left alone.
You said it brother!!
April 22nd, 2008 at 2:25 pm
[...] Seth has his thoughts about porn and the free markets. I totally agree with him…Interesting comment thread going on over there too- be sure to read it. [...]
April 22nd, 2008 at 3:16 pm
The odd thing is that the ACLU believes that the 1st Amendment protects pornography but not stating or defending politically incorrect positions. Something got switched around somewhere.
April 22nd, 2008 at 6:29 pm
I hope you all protest this enough so that hotels offer the movies for free!
April 22nd, 2008 at 8:53 pm
Gayle –
That’s the whole thing in a nutshell. To pick and choose freedoms according to the dictates of one school of morality over others, no matter how strongly we feel about our beliefs, would defeat the whole purpose of our being a “free” country.
Ken –
I think that’s how the present extreme state of affairs began, though I can confidently point to the left here, and say “they started it”.
It began with the foolish and totally politically motivated idea that allowing prayer in schools (which, as I recall from my own public school days — days of yore at this point — entailed what amounted to a moment of silence, where you could pray to G-d, Allah, Buddha, a rock, the sun god, some idol or other or not pray at all) was some sort of oppressive bonding of Church and State.
As soon as the left won that one, and successfully removed every vestige of Christianity from schools, they started pushing to see how much further they could go, and seeing their religion(s) under attack, Christians began to fight back. This self defense was immediately pounced on by atheists as “religious extremism”, and everything took off from there. The gay marriage agenda, the “1st Amendment right” of pornographers, a real head scratcher, that, “rights” for that organization that endorses men having sex with boys, etc.
Thanks to the liberal/socialist MSM and a few powerful lefty politicians, we are living in a stacked deck. These same people who want to make perversion and immorality normal, run of the mill, everyday phenomena are also trying to take away rights that actually are guaranteed in the Constitution, and if we attempt to deprive them of anything that they are legally permitted to do, it will set precedents that we will not like. Those doors will open very quickly.
April 22nd, 2008 at 9:54 pm
Pornography is evil. I truly believe that. It cheapens sex and captures many, driving them to an addiction. Using the argument that you use above ’bout pornography and the enforcement of morality, I agree with atheling, we force morality on people everyday with our laws as it is. The problem is that proverbial slippery slope we all talk about when this type of constitutional issue pops up. You ban pornography as obscene, but were do you stop before we end up like the Taliban with women in burqas is the symbol of chastity and ankle is considered obscene. With freedoms there comes responsibility. Unfortunately, in today’s America, responsibility has been thrown out the window by the left, and the if it feels good do it mentality has allowed pornography to take root and make beaucoup $$$$. If the cash would dry up, then I think that pornography itself would start to wither in response.
On another note, if we can’t ban pornography, then why can we ban prostitution. There’s a very fine line there in my opinion… women and men having sex for money…. if you film one its ok, but the other is not?
April 22nd, 2008 at 10:07 pm
Atheling –
I find nothing in your comment(s) that I disagree with, except the murder part — I don’t see the prohibition of murder as depriving anyone of a right, per se, because, like child porn, it involves a victim. That is infringing on someone else’s right to live, or in the case of child porn, using an innocent child for the purposes of perverse sexual gratification or profit in a way that can induce psychological and perhaps even physical damage that will become lifelong baggage for that victim.
Now, this is not to say there aren’t a few people in this world who, if murdered, would get no sympathy whatsoever from me.
But my overall point is that our society here in America has survived as it has because we are free to do pretty much anything we wish to do as long as we do not harm others or infringe upon their Constitutional or legal rights. We thrive because we allow people to think, to indulge, to worship, to speak their piece without the restriction of legally enforced selectivity.
Your first comment could be pretty much broken down to this: G-d gave man free will, and man takes responsibility for how he uses it. In context of the post and thread, pornography is a sin for the reasons stated, to which I agree unequivocally.
Which also makes reference to what I stated in the post: It’s up to them to make their own decisions, and it’s up to G-d to judge them when they kick the bucket.
As far as Marriott’s in-room porn is concerned, well… I don’t stay at Marriotts anyway, depending on how much time, hour-wise per day, I actually expect to spend in the room/suite and whether or not I’ll be entertaining or otherwise meeting with clients in my hotel accommodation, I stay at either more expensive or slightly less expensive hotels. For example, here in N.Y., since I’m not here on business and spend very little time in the room (how could anybody come to N.Y. and hang out in the hotel!!!?), I’m staying at a Days Inn on the upper west side.
But…those who frequent Marriott hotels will be in the chain’s computer system. If they feel strongly enough about the porn issue, it would behoove them to write letters or email Marriott expressing their discontent and advising the hoteliers that they will no longer stay at Marriott hotels as long as they continue the practice of making “skin flicks” available.
I do think, though, that a chain with Marriott’s prestige cheapens itself by making porn available like some “vacancy/no vacancy –Color TV/Air Conditioner” signs, rusty, after-last-call, “bring-your-best-friend’s-ol’-lady-’cause-hell, he’s-with-yours” motel on the outskirts of town.
The smiley with the sunglasses tells me that my comment section has the capability of making the whole gamut of those symbols available! Now I’ll have to try and find the key to making them available to all commenters, including me.
April 22nd, 2008 at 10:13 pm
Shoprat –
Our “friends” on the left left have convoluted Constitutional interpretation to the point that the greatest document in history may as well have been written in Sanskrit.
April 22nd, 2008 at 10:25 pm
Marie –
This is the whole key to our country and its people, and I sincerely pray that we right thinkers will prevail.
We are confronted with a media and a political party that are attacking all we stand for from both ends — pressing immoral agendas on one end and attacking our Constitutional rights on the other.
Talk about an “onslaught”!
The only way we can win this, rather than succumb to the leftism that now dominates the EU countries, is by sticking with the Constitution and the rule of law, and voting, blogging and telling everyone we meet whose opinions are swayed by the lefty (MSM) media the truth.
Because the left has the MSM locked in as their propaganda tool, it is and will continue to be an upward battle, but if mere salmon (Yum, lox!) can swim upstream, we should be able to do the same.
April 22nd, 2008 at 10:29 pm
Jeff –
There’s something extremely unhealthy about a guy sitting alone in a hotel room watching pornography, whether it’s free or not. It’s actually kind of creepy…
April 22nd, 2008 at 10:59 pm
Probly so! I assume the movies are not too extreme. But maybe it keeps some of the bad crowd off the streets and in their rooms when they travel?
April 22nd, 2008 at 11:04 pm
Duncan –
Welcome!
…if we can’t ban pornography, then why can we ban prostitution…
You make a very good point. I got into my present career via a position as a casino security shift supervisor in Nevada. In Nevada, prostitution is legal outside town limits, at brothels like Cherry Patch Ranch and the Mustang Ranch. In my position I became acquainted with ranch security bosses and met numerous “workers” from said places, as well as several call girls whom pit bosses obtained for some high rollers for room visits.
One such call girl lived downstairs from me with her cab driver boyfriend, who generally lost all his money in our poker room and basically lived off her.
Most of the prostitutes I met out there actually believed that what they did for a living was both respectable and socially useful, and many said that among their “professional” chores was listening to johns for whom sex wasn’t even part of the service, they just needed women to talk to about their marital problems and the like. I could never decide whether or not to take these stories seriously.
Most of those I met also said they wouldn’t make porn flix because they didn’t want to be followed, when they used their savings to get into more respectable circumstances, by film that might negate the possibilities of success in the “real world”.
So there seem to be distinctions between porn and prostitution, though I tend to lump them together: Justify it all you want, it all boils down to the destiny of your soul.
You have free choice, use it as you will, but beware the consequences of wrongful use.
Today, there is even a politically correct term (like flight attendant, sanitation engineer, etc) for porn actors/actresses, strippers, prostitutes and so forth: “Sex Workers”.
I fear that we have already crossed a threshold in this regard. Sexual immorality is now part and parcel of our society.
The “if it feels good, do it” advocates have already won.
April 22nd, 2008 at 11:06 pm
Jeff –
The bad crowd? LOL!
April 23rd, 2008 at 9:21 am
Seth,
I knew I was preaching to the choir :).
Well, if we can’t ban it, we should certainly maitain an element of shame that accompanies it. Women (and men) can rationalize all they like about whether or not they are providing a “service” to society, though committing adultery with someone is wrong, whether or not there is a “psychological” aspect that they believe is “helpful”. It seems that our sensibilities are become more and more jaded these days. I feel sorry for women who think they can sell themselves and create a “respectable” veneer.
As for Jeff’s comment, his idea that keeping a “bad crowd” off the streets and in a hotel room is disingenuous. Plenty of bad things happen in hotel rooms - I recall a woman who was selling her 13 year old daughter to a man for sex, which occurred in a hotel room… that’s the tip of the iceberg.
Call me a prude, whatever, but sin is sin, and once our society tolerates it then we are headed down the tubes.
April 23rd, 2008 at 12:11 pm
Many good comments above. I particular second the comments by atheling and Duncan regarding the degradation to the person that pronography induces.
I think there are two key areas where individual freedom overlaps with society regarding pornography.
1) legalization vs. approbation
In our Constitutional system, we strive to maintain a distinction between illegal and immoral and are careful to minimize making acts illegal simply because a societal consensus (or enough legislators) believes them immoral. The slippery slope of criminalizing immoral acts we see in the Taliban government, for instance. However, we have long reserved the right for individual to affirm and perhaps enforce moral constraints through non-judicial methods, especially shame, shunning, verbal condemnation, etc.
However, we now find ourselves sliding down the opposite slippery slope, where the power of the state is now being invoked to make certain moral judgment illegal, under the argument that disapproval equals deprivation of rights - translating to, “if it’s legal, you don’t have a right to condemn it”. We’ve seen this evolution over the past 30 years with regards to gay rights, where original drive to legalize gay sex have progressed to demands for full societal acceptance (and punishment of dissenters) on the ground that anything short of full approval is discrimination and violating rights.
I thus have a concern, as we’ve seen among “sex workers” of moving from legalization of pornography to a demand for de jure approval of anything and everything depicted and approbation for the producers of pornographic material.
That is, even if we err towards individual rights to purchase and consume pornography, this does not require that society become approving of the whole industry.
2) Externalities (”broken window” enforcement)
The second aspect (where I see much analogy to illegal drugs) has to do with the externalities of pornography, the effects that purchase and consumption has on other people. One such effect, as has been observed in urban law enforcement, is that neglect of the neighborhood breeds crime.
Apart from child pornography, where we all agree that society has a compelling interest in protecting minors, we know well that the pornography industry extends beyond voluntary participants (actors, producers) and the many are exploited, compelled, or even enslaved into being actors, etc. Such activities not only victimize the individuals, but also tend to degrade the environment and breed more abuse. (Also, we may well see an impact on neighborhoods, especially as many of those forced into pornography are often addicted to drugs (often not by choice) and/or that those pornography producers are also involved in the drug trade.
Thus society may have a legitimate interest in legislating the distribution and possession of pornography on grounds not of trying to legislate individual morality, but rather because of the adverse effects to society entailing from the commercial trade - in analogy to laws about drug use.
April 23rd, 2008 at 12:18 pm
Well said, civil truth. I agree. We should reserve the right to voice our objection to what we think is immoral, despite its legal status.
The use of shame and guilt has been effectively used in societies over the centuries. If we remove those restraints, we have succumbed to an indifference to good and evil.
April 23rd, 2008 at 8:58 pm
Sorry I’m so late getting here, but this is the first visit to New York in years in which I haven’t been bogged down by business, and returning to the hotel once I’ve gone out is tough — it’s the greatest city in the universe, and once turned loose on it, well, I’m having an awesome time!
Atheling –
Thanks to television, which is the single most potent promotional and trend-shaping venue in existence, our society’s moral outlook has changed drastically in the last three decades or so.
We’ve come from an age wherein Lucille Ball wasn’t allowed to use the word pregnant on her show, even though she was positively bulging with the obvious and Barbara Eden, as Jeannie, wasn’t permitted to show her navel while wearing her harem costume, to an age where the kid in Married With Children sleeps with an inflatable doll.
Desi Arnaz said it best in an interview a few years ago. “On the show, Lucy couldn’t use the word pregnant. Nowadays, not only can you use the word, they can even show how you got that way.”
The folks in Hollywood have gradually, over a number of years, increased that which is permissible for family viewing, and this gradual course has acclimated the viewing public to each new level until today, there are even sitcoms that make homosexuality as mainstream as the Donna Reid Show once was.
People whose weekday evening activity consists of television have “evolved” right along with the decreasing morality of the fare they watch. TV sells everything from furniture to fashion. It also sells lifestyles.
For this reason, I don’t believe the shame factor would/will work today as it might have 30+ years ago.
There is a much smaller percentage of the population that sees anything wrong with what we would consider immoral activities, while there is a much larger percentage of the population that participates in same.
Civil Truth –
Very good points re both the relationships between porn and drug trafficking and the fact that so many of the “performers” are forced into their participation. Coercion or drug addiction, both of which constitute the use of sex slaves.
While you are right on point about the porn/drug trafficking connection, I don’t believe that any legislation connecting the two will ever occur, simply because there will always be the challenge that not all porn producers are into drugs as well, and therefore such connections will always be investigated and prosecuted on a case-by-case basis.
To that end, there are a lot of sleazy lawyers out there whose sole bread & butter specialties are defending pimps and drug dealers, some of whom are regular clients. These legal parasites know all the angles and loopholes, and how to con a jury.
So we’re stuck with legalized immorality, and I don’t see anything but a worsening of the situation as “the law” increases in their favor.
Even though we’re completely in the right, we’re fighting a losing battle.
April 24th, 2008 at 4:16 am
Amen, Seth! If we don’t want to dictated to from on high we need to quit trying to dictate to others. There are limits to what should be permissable under the Law, but some things are best dealt with without resorting to bans and laws. “There ought to be a law!” is a knee-jerk response to things that make us uncomfortable. That’s no reason to actually pass such laws.
April 24th, 2008 at 8:16 am
Benning –
Agreed. It irritates me to no end when I see the left, therefore, who contiuously push for increased immorality, using the courts and/or Congress whenever possible to try to inflict their own agendas on the rest of us, whether they seek to legitimize abnormal behavior or to infringe on the rights of the rest of us.
But that’s them and they’re wrong, and the only true moral high ground in this country lies with those of us who respect the rights of others and endorse the upholding of the Constitution.