i would say that we are choosing, and we are choosing freedom and fun.

you can be as moralistic as you want, just don't tread on me.

I can usually spot a Peter post without checking the name. He explains what he means.

In Scotland as has been posted elsewhere on this blog, sexual predators are permitted to roam the land without fear of reproach because the people live in fear of being labeled judgmental.

The descendants of the once proud Vikings are loathe to confront the immigrant Moslems in their midst who are raping their women and children lest they be thought insensitive and uncaring. So-called honor killings are adjudicated by the laws of sharia within the Moslem enclaves in Norway and Sweden and other northern European countries, so that their religious rights can be protected. Denmark has set up tax payer funded schools in Pakistan so their immigrant population can stay in touch with their roots.

The world has gone mad, so it's difficult to get worked up about a little thing like porn on a cell phone.

RC:

It is a luxury those of us who do about one percent of the work around here can indulge in.

erp:

And you see absolutely no connection?

Peter, Of course I see a connection. Perhaps I've lost the ability, if I ever had it, to write clearly.

The cultural revolution of the 60's that almost destroyed our culture succeeded in convincing us that the very worst sin, in fact the only sin, if truth be told, is to be judgmental. Anything goes. If it feels good, it's okay to do it. Into this category is porn, drugs, abortion, casual sex, violence, and so on.

So what I'm saying here is in the grand scheme of things where the feelings of sexual predators and rapists must be put before the safety of innocents, then what's a bit of porn on your cell phone in comparison.

Does this answer your question?

I note with amusement that you reference enough.org as your "empirical" source - the writer of the "justharmlessfun" pdf calls women who enjoy sex "sluts" on page 3.

Further, the author leans quite heavily on the 1986 U.S. gov't report on porn, which called erotica slighty harmful, and said that it contributed to crime.

However, since '86, porn in the U.S. has gotten more hardcore, and much easier (and MUCH cheaper) to get.
Yet, crime rates have declined, so obviously pornography is only a very small negative influence.

The bottom line is that we condemn the vices that we don't enjoy, and defend those that we do.

Both Peter and G.K. Chesterton defend tobacco addicts, for instance, although literally millions more have died from smoking than from any knock-on effects of porn viewing.

If every smoker in the U.S. were issued a stack of girlie mags, and had their filthy, vile weed confiscated, America would immediately be a better and healthier place.

Having said that, yes, of course I agree that pornography is a vice, and that America would also be a better place if nobody partook.
However, blaming it for crime and saying that it's corrupting North America's children is a hilarious overreach.

Posted by: Michael Herdegen at September 18, 2005 9:03 PM

Nice rant, Michael. Want to be a little more specific about that pg 3 reference because it has blown right by me.

Me, I think that if every porn addict in the U.S. were issued a pack of smokes and had their filthy, vile porn confiscated, America would immediately be a better and healthier place.

Hey, this is fun.

Peter:

The difference is that I can point to a pile of dead smokers, and all you've got are queasy feelings.

But hey, don't let me harsh your mellow.

After all, emotions trump facts every time on the Left, so why not join in, if it feels good ?

Posted by: Michael Herdegen at September 18, 2005 9:54 PM

My bad.
It's in section 3, page 6, where Bruce Watson writes: The characteristic message of pornography is that women are sluts (or, in the more measured terminology of scholarly analysis of content - promiscuous sexual creatures...) [Emph. add.]

Deconstructed, it's clear that Mr. Watson believes that the principal message of porn is that women are sexual creatures, whom he further characterizes as being "sluts", instead of simply being women who enjoy sex, as do men.

Additionally, on page 5, he tells of an undescribed "sexually oriented business" (a convenience store that sold nudie magazines ?) that had a bar open nearby.
According to Mr. Watson, crime increased by 300% within 1000' of the SOB over the next year.
Hilariously, he blames the crime on the SOB, even though crime did not increase until AFTER the bar opened.

In Mr. Watson's world, drunks are lovable scamps that wouldn't hurt a fly, whereas the evil patrons of an erotic establishment live for mayhem.
Of course, that runs counter to the experience of every cop in the world, but try explaining the real world to a fanatic.

Posted by: Michael Herdegen at September 18, 2005 10:39 PM

The part that really pisses me off is that this is the reason they won't sell simple phone with monochrome screens.

Posted by: Robert Schwartz at September 19, 2005 12:07 AM

Well, they do want to be able to deliver color content to you, but not necessarily porn.

Posted by: Michael Herdegen at September 19, 2005 12:28 AM

Michael:

Deconstructed, it's clear that Mr. Watson believes that the principal message of porn is that women are sexual creatures, whom he further characterizes as being "sluts", instead of simply being women who enjoy sex, as do men.

That's one of the great things about deconstruction, isn't it? You get to find all kinds of stuff that isn't there. So, I guess what you are saying is that Debbie really did want to do Dallas and we should mind our own business and leave the healthy, spirited little thing alone, right?

Your argument proves why porn is almost entirely a male past time.

C'mon, Peter, I put it in bold for you, what more do you want ?
It's not like I attempted to outline Mr. Watson's position on tax reform, based on his crude references to females.

Your argument is essentially that if A = B, B does not = A, which requires a bit more supporting explanation than a sarcastic capitulation.

Here: The characteristic message of pornography is that women are promiscuous sexual creatures (or, in the more measured terminology of scholarly analysis of content - sluts...), i.e., Bruce Watson labels sexually active women as "sluts". And Mr. Watson believes that pornography is what demeans women - he should look in a mirror.

However, I understand why you feel compelled to defend Mr. Watson's phrasing:

I wrote ...instead of simply being women who enjoy sex, as do men, which could mean anything from a slut to a matron to the Madonna, and you responded with I guess what you are saying is that Debbie really did want to do Dallas..., which suggests that you agree with Mr. Watson - women who enjoy sex are tramps who want to copulate with as many partners as possible.

At least you've backed off from endorsing tobacco addiction, which is a positive step.

Posted by: Michael Herdegen at September 19, 2005 9:27 AM

In theory I would agree with Michael regarding the relative equality between women and men who enjoy sex. In reality, there is a big difference between how promiscuous women and promiscuous men are viewed and treated, and it isn't just a Victorian hangup that won't go away. Promiscuous women will always be devalued by society, particularly by the men who so enjoy the fruits of permissiveness. Human sexual dynamics are hard-coded, and won't submit to easy redefinition by utopian idealism.

The mainstreaming of pornography is not a good thing. You can argue that it is easily segregated by modern technology to willing viewers, but such a widespread acceptance of an extreme expression of sex in the private sphere recalibrates what is acceptable in the public sphere towards a more sexualized standard. Certainly noone can argue that broadcast television has not become more racy and explicit in the last 25 years since pornography became more readily available through videocassettes and cable tv.