Santorum, Pornography and the Left
GOP presidential hopeful Rick Santorum’s remarks about pornography have drawn the expected reactions: nods of agreement from social conservatives, eye-rolling from some Republicans who don’t want to see the party bogged down in controversial social issues, and derision from liberals who accuse the party of wanting to control the sexual and reproductive lives of Americans.
There is certainly some hypocrisy embedded in all those positions. You would have to be naïve to think there aren’t those among anti-pornography crusaders who head straight to the “adult” channels when they check into their hotels. Likewise, there are Republicans—and Democrats—who fear the societal toll of pornography, but are afraid to speak up lest they be tarred as blue-nosed advocates of censorship.
But it’s the position of the Left that I find most convoluted, because it’s a subject that would seem ripe for discussion within a movement so closely associated with women’s issues. After all, the exploitation and degradation of women are among the primary allures of pornography. Beyond that, you would be hard-pressed to find a marriage counselor, psychologist or family-issues expert who wouldn’t concede that there can be serious negative consequences to repeated exposure to porn.
Enter the dreaded slippery-slope argument: if you try to exercise some control, you’ll inevitably come up against a yahoo sheriff who raids the local art museum, confiscates the Chagall exhibit and jails the museum’s curator. But that’s like suggesting jury trials should be eliminated because innocent defendants are occasionally found guilty.
None of this is an argument to ban pornography, but its omnipresence in this information age certainly makes it a subject worthy of discussion. But when pornography—or any of the so-called social issues—is brought up, the political switchblades are immediately introduced, and any rational discussion seems impossible.
There are absolutists on both sides of the issue, but, as is often the case, the best course is likely to be found somewhere in the middle. That, however, would require the kind of serious and thoughtful give-and-take that seems unattainable in this era of shrill talking heads. As for the Left, their argument that the government should stay out of the bedroom is one that would be easier to support if only they weren’t so anxious to welcome it in to every other room in the house.
- Comment (87)
- · Quote
- · UnfollowFollow (3)
Comments:
Dec '10
Re: Santorum, Pornography and the Left
James Of England
Stuart Creque
I'm taking issue with this:
"Romney's quieter strategy of dissuading a leading brand from carrying pornography carries actual benefits with none of the political costs and none of the government intrusion."
Setting aside the fact that Marriott is run by a devout Mormon family that puts the Book of Mormon in the nightstands of its hotels, and that they've always been leery of offering pay-per-view porn in their rooms, what actual benefit is it that they offer porn-free rooms? It may be a selling feature for travelers who don't want that material, but travelers who do have many other hotel choices. The fact that Good Housekeeping isn't a porno mag doesn't counterbalance Hustler.
If Good Housekeeping used to carry pornography, and voluntarily stopped, I think that this would be a victory for a moral America. Do you disagree?
Yes, I disagree.
Neither Marriott Hotels nor Good Housekeeping are known as porn purveyors. Their taking a stand makes no appreciable difference.
Get Cosmopolitan to drop its softcore porn, or get all business hotels to drop their adult PPV channels, and that's a measurable achievement.
Jun '10
Re: Santorum, Pornography and the Left
Tommy De Seno
Your surprised wife changes the intent of my question. Let me clear it up:
What if she knows about it and he only watches to stimulate arousal, just like viagra? Or if they both watch it for the same purpose?
Is there still a difference then between porn and viagra?
Yes, because it violates the exclusivity proper to marriage. Even if a wife gives her husband permission to have an affair, I still think adultery is adultery. I don't think the 6th Commandment means "thou shalt not commit adultery without the prior consent of thy spouse."
Further, porn involves paying someone to have sex while you watch, which is a form of prostitution. It's wrong on several levels.
Jun '10
Re: Santorum, Pornography and the Left
Tommy De Seno
What if she knows about it and he only watches to stimulate arousal, just like viagra? Or if they both watch it for the same purpose?
Also, he's essentially telling his wife "honey, you just don't excite me any more. I need to watch younger, more attractive women having sex in order to stimulate me enough to make love to you."
Mar '11
Re: Santorum, Pornography and the Left
It has been said before but it needs repeating. Pornography is the manifestation but it is not the sickness.
The failure in our modern day America is the absence of shame. It is not that pornography should be illegal or that adults should be prevented from doing whatever they damn well please behind closed doors; it is that no one any longer knows shame.
Mr. De Seno posits "reasonable" scenarios where, "what if this" or "that" occurs. Our nation is in the process of abandoning dignity and honor and being reduced to the crude savageness of, "eh, if it harms no one else, who cares?"
The point is any man who is a man should care. Anyone else is merely a boy.
Nov '11
Re: Santorum, Pornography and the Left
I am reminded of Claire's words:
May '10
Re: Santorum, Pornography and the Left
iWc
I am sorry, but I do not see it.
I would accept that the more we accept pornography in thereal worldthe more harm it does. Making sex just another bodily function, like that of copulating insects, is enormously destructive.
But pornography in thefictionalworld can be something else entirely. There it can be an outlet (like watching sports) that may not have any productive purpose, but at least keeps people out of trouble.
I, too, am sorry you don't see it.
There is no comparison--none--between watching sports and watching porn. There is nothing objectively immoral, no human degradation, no desecration, in sports.
There is no such thing as innocent porn. It is not and never can be beneficial.
May '10
Re: Santorum, Pornography and the Left
A year or two ago my husband and I went to see Turandot at the Philly opera house. Wanting to hear that beautiful aria again, I came home and googled "Nessun Dorma" on you tube. Besides Pavarotti, up came obscenity, in full color photos. One more click would have given me the whole routine.
This is not okay. I have three sons. I have two daughters. I have nieces and nephews.
I also have friends whose lives have been devastated by pornography addiction.
May '10
Re: Santorum, Pornography and the Left
Aodhan:
One should also not confuse revulsion at watching pornography itself with certitude that its effects are malign. These are two separate issues: one is a moral judgment, the other an empirical hypothesis. · 17 hours ago
Revulsion is an emotional response, not a moral judgment.
We don't need empirical studies to judge that pornography is objectively immoral, since it involves an abuse of human sexuality and the exploitation of women, or to grasp that because it is immoral, its effects on human life and society are malign and ought to be combatted. How it is best combatted in a given society involves political, legal, and cultural judgments, viz. practical wisdom.
Empirical studies can show us whether and to what extent social science bears out the moral judgment, and/or how best to mitigate its effects.
But, personally, I don't need to see the studies to know the truth of the matter, any more than I need studies to tell me that lying undermines trust in friendship.
For anyone interested, here's a great Catholic org. dedicated to helping men get free. Its founder was a porn addict for 16 years.
Re: Santorum, Pornography and the Left
Joseph Stanko
Tommy De Seno
What if she knows about it and he only watches to stimulate arousal, just like viagra? Or if they both watch it for the same purpose?
Yes, because it violates the exclusivity proper to marriage.
Then buy women burkas lest you ever think another woman attractive and violate the exclusivity proper of your marriage. Or poke your eyes out.
Arousal for many is an involuntary response, particularly younger people. As folks grow older, they may need some mood altering help or physical help (like viagra) to be there for their spouse.
As for paying people to act in the movie - so long as it's consensual so be it. I get paid to do all sorts of stuff I'd rather not do but do it for money.
None of this needs government action.
Is any of it sinful? Sure! But I don't impose my religion by government. There is no seular purpose to banning porn.
I have such faith in my religion that I know people can be brought to Him by evangelization. Never will I doubt Jesus by imposing him by force like Islamofascists do with Allah.
Edited on March 17, 2012 at 4:20pmAug '10
Re: Santorum, Pornography and the Left
EJHill:
Porn "actresses" often come from desperate situations and do things they aren't proud of for money. But why do young girls exploit themselves just for the sake of doing so? That's the part of the modern culture that bothers me the most.
Yes. What really sickens me is the things that ordinary girls -- even girls who consider themselves "good girls" -- do for the fleeting attention (not necessarily affection) of another person. The drunken hookups, the degrading relationships...
Porn seems almost innocent by comparison.
May '10
Re: Santorum, Pornography and the Left
Anyone interested in empirical studies on the subject should get Mary Eberstadt's new book, Adam and Eve After the Pill: Paradoxes of the Sexual Revolution.
Feb '11
Re: Santorum, Pornography and the Left
Tommy De Seno
Joseph Stanko
Tommy De Seno
What if she knows about it and he only watches to stimulate arousal, just like viagra? Or if they both watch it for the same purpose?
Yes, because it violates the exclusivity proper to marriage.
Then buy women burkas lest you ever think another woman attractive and violate the exclusivity proper of your marriage. Or poke your eyes out.
Arousal for many is an involuntary response, particularly younger people. As folks grow older, they may need some mood altering help or physical help (like viagra) to be there for their spouse.
.....
This is coming out of left field, Tommy. Joseph was answering your question about a moral difference between porn and Viagra. Incidental arousal from looking upon a pretty woman wasn't part of the question or the response. Intent matters, context matters, method matters; Joseph made several distinctions between porn and Viagra that seemed applicable IMO. It reminds me of the NFP discussion: properly ordered intended arousal (as distinct from the involuntary and incidental sort) is ok as long as the methods used employ virtue rather than vice. Seems to me that porn fails that test on the levels Joseph indicated.
Re: Santorum, Pornography and the Left
Ed the last part was in regard about legality is in context of the thread and very much in context. The thread is about Santorum wanting to make porn illegal.
Feb '11
Re: Santorum, Pornography and the Left
Snow Bird:.....
During my IT days, one of the suits obliquely floated the idea of installing internet filters. I thought it was a thoroughly stupid idea, if only because the company was a player in a small and arcane corner of the construction industry and frequented sites researching or ordering items such as screws, nails, studs, and a unbelievable host of other things that would give a content filter fits. Nevertheless, said suit kept making noises so one day I surreptitiously installed some monitoring software. Lo and behold, who were the major offenders? Three of the five highest ranking suits. By the way, all were staunch Republicans, one of whom fancied himself a heavy hitter in the local and state party.
I assume all people are liars and frauds. I have even gone so far as to accuse my wife of sneaking into voting booths and voting Democrat. Excepting that transgression, scepticism makes life much simpler.
Pursuing right, good, and prudence should be applauded - even if one doesn't always achieve these ideals. I don't buy this idea that failing to be perfect makes one a fraud or a liar. We're only human beings after all.
Feb '11
Re: Santorum, Pornography and the Left
True, but the first part about burkas and gouging your eyes out - that's the part I thought came from left field. And the context I was referring to is the context in which arousal occurs, as it relates to the question about the morality of porn and Viagra.
Edited on March 17, 2012 at 6:20pmFeb '11
Re: Santorum, Pornography and the Left
As for the legality part, I guess that's why I can never be a full fledged libertarian. I believe in individual liberty; I also believe in community liberty. I realize these are in conflict most of the time, but that's where federalism plays such an important role in maintaining a society that respects individual liberty (and a bunch of individuals merely living in close proximity to one another does not a society make). Where I disagree with libertarians is that a community must identify a direct cause and effect amongst discreet individuals before action is appropriate; where I disagree with leftists is that only one vision is acceptable and that it's properly imposed at the highest level of civilization.
Mar '11
Re: Santorum, Pornography and the Left
Ed G.
Snow Bird:.....
Nevertheless, said suit kept making noises so one day I surreptitiously installed some monitoring software. Lo and behold, who were the major offenders? Three of the five highest ranking suits. By the way, all were staunch Republicans, one of whom fancied himself a heavy hitter in the local and state party.
I assume all people are liars and frauds. I have even gone so far as to accuse my wife of sneaking into voting booths and voting Democrat. Excepting that transgression, scepticism makes life much simpler.
Pursuing right, good, and prudence should be applauded - even if one doesn't always achieve these ideals. I don't buy this idea that failing to be perfect makes one a fraud or a liar. We're only human beings after all. · 29 minutes ago
Indeed. Are we not all sinners? If we sometimes fail does that mean we should simply give up, cease attempting to better ourselves?
Edited on March 17, 2012 at 6:44pmFeb '11
Re: Santorum, Pornography and the Left
Ed G.
Pursuing right, good, and prudence should be applauded - even if one doesn't always achieve these ideals. I don't buy this idea that failing to be perfect makes one a fraud or a liar.
Roberto
Indeed. Are we not all sinners? If we sometimes fail does that mean we should simply give up, cease attempting to better ourselves?
As noted in the preamble to post 54, the subject was hypocrisy, a virtually universal human constant. I will not back off my concluding criticism ("I assume . . .") The generalization is valid. That at least some people may try to rise above their nature is laudable but beside the point. The basic nature remains.
Feb '11
Re: Santorum, Pornography and the Left
Snow Bird
Ed G.
Pursuing right, good, and prudence should be applauded - even if one doesn't always achieve these ideals. I don't buy this idea that failing to be perfect makes one a fraud or a liar.
Roberto
Indeed. Are we not all sinners? If we sometimes fail does that mean we should simply give up, cease attempting to better ourselves?
As noted in the preamble to post 54, the subject was hypocrisy, a virtually universal human constant. I will not back off my concluding criticism ("I assume . . .") The generalization is valid. That at least some people may try to rise above their nature is laudable but beside the point. The basic nature remains. · 2 minutes ago
I disagree with you about hypocrisy. Having ideals and failing to live up to them isn't hypocrisy. Claiming to have ideals while having no intention of pursuing them or having ideals for others but not for oneself, this is hypocrisy.
I also disagree with your concluding generalization about frauds and liars; I think that takes skepticism too far.
Edited on March 17, 2012 at 7:36pmMar '11
Re: Santorum, Pornography and the Left
Snow Bird
Ed G.
Pursuing right, good, and prudence should be applauded - even if one doesn't always achieve these ideals. I don't buy this idea that failing to be perfect makes one a fraud or a liar.
Roberto
Indeed. Are we not all sinners? If we sometimes fail does that mean we should simply give up, cease attempting to better ourselves?
As noted in the preamble to post 54, the subject was hypocrisy, a virtually universal human constant. I will not back off my concluding criticism ("I assume . . .") The generalization is valid. That at least some people may try to rise above their nature is laudable but beside the point. The basic nature remains. · 8 minutes ago
You have a point. But, I also think it is wise to be wary of embracing too much cynicism. It is so easy to fall into the trap of letting that dominate one's entire outlook, from there it is simply "a hop, skip and a jump" to the nihilism the Left embraces.