You know that we've come a long way when conservatives argue against pornography because it makes sex less enjoyable.

And when Christianity Today uses the term "the horniest old goat" to discuss something other than livestock.

"Armed with two-thirds of the truth..."

How Christian of them.

Did you catch the interview with Hefner on Weekend Edition on National Public Radio a few Saturdays ago? The host was trying to be all hip & kewl & with-it, but he couldn't quite stifle a reflexive revulsion. This leaked out in the form of some softball questions about whether Playboy "exploits" women. He didn't even have the nerve to ask it himself, instead putting the question in the mouths of hypothetical feminists.

I like these quotes re pornography:

Lust is the craving for salt of a man who is dying of thirst.
-- Frederick Buechner, _Wishful Thinking_, 1971

Once again the puritan makes the mistake of thinking that to have sex continually on view is an incitement to it. It in fact weakens the feelings and passions that sex can and should arouse. Pornographic literature and movies do not incite us to strenuous emulation. On the contrary, they are substitutes, evidence not of the strength of our sexual feelings, but of their enfeeblement.
-- Henry Fairlie, _The Seven Deadly Sins Today_, 1978

I'm reminded of a story I read a year or so ago. To combat declining birth rates, the French were planning to televise more pornography as a desperate attempt to get people in the mood.

Someone will have to explain to me how watching a girl go down on a guy makes someone more interested in family life.

If French TV really did start airing more porn, I expect the decision will eventually be reversed. Presumably after future-France's majority Muslim population elects one of their own to the presidency.

Actually, R.W., that is really quite a funny story that dovetails nicely with Robert's and Sanity's comments.

Since the twenties, conservatives have generally tended to make the mistake of opposing pornography on the basis of the lavisious behaviour it would cause. While they were conjuring up images of little Johnny inflamed out of his gourd by a peek at some girl's nether regions, liberals played the game of pretending it was just about cerebral artistic taste--the image was either the stoic, pipe-smoking gentleman comparing it to Rembrandt or perhaps the mature, sophisticated and wholesome married couple having a little innocent, consensual fun on the boundaries of their rock-solid marriage. They chortled (a la Reefer Madness) at the very thought that anyone would be so base as to actually have his sexual behaviour influenced by the stuff.

Now, conservatives have come to understand that it is really a vile form of misogynist saltpeter that kills love and sexual desire, while progressive bureaucrats are desperately hoping it will help them induce an artifical rutting season.

Somedays life is just too much fun.

Michael Jackson's worse hands down, at least Hef's depravity doesn't involve (and damage) minor children.

Pornography has always been opposed on the grounds of indecency. The concern over "indecency" regards societal impact and its effects on individual "morality" and thus society as a whole. The words of the framers regarding such quaint notions as virtue was taken seriously and the danger they percieved in widespread pornography has ,more or less, materialized according to schedual. Prostitution was a health issue, the regulation of pornography was concerned with protecting the morals of children as well as society at large.

The image of Mr. Hefner excercising his taste in sexual stimuli would have been tough for the 19th century bluenoses to have imagined but I wonder if they would have been surprised that it has finally reached that level of self-involved depravity.

Sounds like the girls (Twins!?!!) are pretty depraved, too.

It might be more complicated than you imagine.

Some years ago, I read a strange biography of Hef (no publisher, no date, sort of like those old socialist tracts with no identifiable origin) that appeared to be based on detailed observations inside the mansions. In this guy's view, Hef was actually a hopeless romantic at heart, and the catchphrase among the Tony Randalls and other hangers-on was "Hef's in love again."

He may have gone looking for it in all the wrong places, but it is not so clear to me that pornography, of itself, is good or bad.

For one thing, it's hard to define.

For another, although I didn't watch it, during the football games yesterday, "60 Minutes" was promoting the "fact" that "more Americans watch pornography than watch sports."

And odd state of affairs for an almost universally religious society, if true.

You know, I thought Hef had actually finally decided to grow up back a decade or so ago when he married one of his Playmates of the Year, settled down with her in the Playboy Mansion, and fathered two sons. No such luck though. He divorced said Playmate of the Year and is now behaving even more wildly than he ever did back in Playboy's salad days (I don't remember his hanging out with twins in those days). I'm a little skeptical of Sandy Bentley's statements about Hef's supposed preference for gay porn; as an ex, she just _might_ have an ax to grind with him. I don't have any trouble believing though that, at 77, he is a more-than-suitable case for Viagra.

Of course, one can't be sure that the story as reported is true but it has a ring to it which makes it logical. As far as pornography goes, it is safe to say that most people know it when they see it.Good or bad? Well, it does tend to objectify and transform fellow human beings intomaterial, one dimensional, sexually gratifying "things", similar to the way sociopathic personalities view others. If it leads to creating those kind of habits of mind which become reflected in character, pornography would have to be considered a net negative in terms of influencing society.

An article in NY magazine the other day ( a rag, I know) spoke of the effects that internet porn is having on the relationships between younger men and women in the city. Not good.

Pornography has been around for a very long time, making this probably a case of: Nothing new to see here, move along.

Everything has been around for a long time--the question is what happens to societies that embrace things that were previously controlled.

It's been around so let's encourage more of it? I guess that's what determines value, the fact that it exists.

Given a choice between porn and encouraging people to go into cloisters or take vows of celibacy, I'll take porn, thanks. We know how well those celibacy vows have worked, don't we?

The Courier-Journal has a story this morning about a leading anti-porn crusader arrested in the company of a whore and a bottle of Viagra.

Why am I not surprised?

And how is he different from Hef?

Jeff:

Sure, like divorce has been around a long time, so a 50% rate is "nothing new here"?

The NY article was by Naomi Wolf, and was an incisive piece.

One of her points was that young women do not feel they can compete with interactive Internet porn, and the constant control that men have through using it. What she did not directly say was that young women today do not feel they have any power when confronting men over porn, because it has been sidelined as a 'moral' issue. It may disgust them, it may bore them, whatever - but they cannot disparage it without being slimed as prudish. That is the real sadness.

Of course, pornography has always been about control: men would rather look at porn (or go to strip clubs, etc.) and be like Hefner than go home and love their wives.

Harry:

They share a problem but one tried saving others from it and the other tried dragging everyone down to his level. That's a major difference.

jim:

Men have also taken control of women's bodies by way of the plastic surgery they require them to get in order to conform to a certain absurd and pornography-induced standard.

oj-

Yeah but, the hypocrisy of it all!

Back in the '60s, a friend of mine (we used to double date, it was so long ago) used to complain, more or less seriously, about women's romance magazines, the porn of the day, which did not go in for clinical description but did set off rockets and bells once the beast with two backs was formed.

How, he asked, can a mere man compete with those sorts of expectations? Indeed.

But I never noticed moralists worrying about it then.

Now the shoe is on the other foot and the moralists do worry.

It could lead a person to suspect that the underlying motive is not as much morality as fear of sex.

Harry:

I truly have no idea what you're talking about. Moralists of that day even opposed comic books.

Harry:

"Given a choice between porn and encouraging people to go into cloisters or take vows of celibacy, I'll take porn, thanks."

Once again, an argument for traditional virtue collapses in the face of scientific analysis and rigour.

Jim:

About two years ago, The Spectator (London) wrote a great confessional by a trendy, liberal professional woman who had never thought much about porn and held all the modern views. Then she found out her husband of twenty years was surfing teen porn sites at night. Her rage, shame, betrayal and disgust gushed out in an articulate screed. The marriage was over. She couldn't understand or accept or even look him in the face. Indeed she couldn't trust him fully with their two teen daughters--wondered constantly what was on his mind.

I wonder whether our "porn is harmless" posters here would be willing to volunteer to counsel the lady.

Harry-

At least your materialism is consistent if not always "rational". Assuming, of course, you'd prefer a more rather than less decent, tidy and respectful civilization for your children and granchildren to inherit, I'll bet you'd insist that the live sex shows and animal acts be restricted from setting up across from their schools?

Which among you should I trust to be my censor?

Me.

Jeff:

Were you a moralist you could be your own.

I'm not an admirer of traditional virtues, having been raised a Catholic.

That doesn't mean I admire everything anybody's ever offered to replace the traditions, but porn is no big deal.

To take a topic in the news this week, Michelangelo's David, I'll just point out that traditional virtues have been fine for the past 400 years with a monument to the male physique by a notorious homosexual that requires a fig leaf the size of a horse blanket to preserve the timid from scandal.

Honesty would be a virtue in my preferred system.