I hadn’t expected to type such a title. A fan of Mr. Holder, I am not. If there is one issue that the some elements on the Right get as regulatory-obsessive as Henry Waxman it is pornography. Obviously there is a broad consensus that some genres of porn warrant investigation and legal proscription, but in its outline this is one component of the “Culture War” than the anti-porn Left and Right long ago lost.
Holder accused of neglecting porn fight:
Earlier this month, Hatch and 41 other senators sent a letter to Holder pushing him to bring criminal cases against “all major distributors of adult obscenity.”
“We write to urge the Department of Justice vigorously to enforce federal obscenity laws against major commercial distributors of hardcore adult pornography,” said the April 4 letter, circulated by Hatch. “We know more than ever how illegal adult obscenity contributes to violence against women, addiction, harm to children, and sex trafficking. This material harms individuals, families and communities and the problems are only getting worse.”
Most signers were conservative Republicans, but Sen. Joe Lieberman (I-Conn.) and six Senate Democrats also signed on: Ben Nelson and Mark Pryor of Arkansas, Bill Nelson of Florida, Tom Carper of Delaware, Amy Klobuchar of Minnesota, and Dianne Feinstein of California.
A few distinct issues:
– There is no problem in my book with “legislating morality” on principle. There’s plenty of legislation which upholds the morals of a society.
– I am skeptical of the empirical evidence that adult pornography is a major harmer of “individuals, families and communities.” The arguments made from the feminist Left and religious Right on this issue are usually anecdotal. I often joke that young liberal feminists are the eminent experts on the male consumption of hardcore pornography, judging from how often you see this particular demographic authoring reflective pieces on this issue. I suspect most males do not reflect on pornography much because it is more, shall we say, a matter of reflex for them.
– In terms of harming “individuals, families and communities” I think the slow slouch toward destigmatization of adultery is far more problematic. I’m sure you could name many other issues which might be targeted by morals legislation which would likely be more efficacious in upholding the norms of bourgeois Western culture than anti-porn legislation.
– The triviality of finding the most filthy pornography in a matter of seconds makes the expenditure of funds on prosecuting obscenity charges when it comes to adult pornography farcical. Sometimes actions must be taken even if they are futile. But should we really make our stand on pornography?
Here is the simple fact: Sexual voilence against children and women have been falling for decades. And even now with porn at everyones fingertips assaults are at their all-time low.
The wing nuts once again prove themselves tone death to real issues impacting families.
The wing nuts once again prove themselves tone death to real issues impacting families.
just for the record, many of the utilitarian arguments of the ‘wing nuts’ are borrowed in whole cloth from left-wing feminists. this is to some extent simply tactical because some social conservatives oppose pornography purely on root normative grounds, but they probably know that battle is lost, so they shift toward consequentialism.
I expected better of my own Senator Amy Klobuchar than to fall victim to Andrea Dworkin’s self-loathing propaganda campaign, despite her feminist DFL credentials.
The last dozen issues of Cosmopolitan alone have done more damage to women’s self esteem and self confidence than the last dozen years output of the entire porn industry.
Really, it’s time women realized that what hurts them isn’t men’s sexual self-indulgence but their own self-indulgence in the false cultures of fashion and beauty.
Last week I read an article–of course I can’t remember where–the point of which was that the virtual sex available on the Internet was causing younger men to lose interest in real sex, since the former was much wilder and hotter than the latter, and didn’t involve any courtship rituals. I have no idea whether this is true, or if it is, to what extent it’s true; all the “evidence” in the article was anecdotal.
But say it IS true. I suppose anti-porn women could marshal an argument that porn is depriving them of fulfilling sex lives. Sort of a reverse Lysistrata.
He’s too busy protecting us from the scourge of online poker.
“some social conservatives oppose pornography purely on root normative grounds, but they probably know that battle is lost, so they shift toward consequentialism.”
I’ve found this to be common on many issues. For instance, most people’s stand on the death penalty is a matter of gut feeling, but you can’t change others’ gut feelings, so people try to convince each other that the death penalty is good or bad on utilitarian grounds.
Only someone of a rare fiber can say I am for (or against) the death penalty even though I know most people would be worse (or better) off for having it. The same goes for taxes, immigration, ect.
I have heard the theory that the large reduction in rapes in the past 15 years is, in part, due to easy access to online porn. I find this very believable.
“social conservatives… shift toward consequentialism”
The right has been attacking pornography on these grounds at least since the Kinsey Report, but stepped it up during the 80’s. (Reagan set up a commission, stacked with anti-porn crusaders, to “study the effects of pornography.” Later, C. Everett Koop would state: “Although the evidence may be slim, we nevertheless know enough to conclude that pornography does present a clear and present danger to American public health,” which is like saying, “we’re going to do what we want, no matter what the study says.”) I’m just pointing out that this “shift” has been there from the beginning.
Porn’s been here since the beginning, too. Victorian pornographers, flourishing in what one historian has called “a religion-soaked period,” were unusually inventive. Child prostitution–involving pre-pubescent girls–also flourished then.
The right has been attacking pornography on these grounds at least since the Kinsey Report, but stepped it up during the 80′s.
for mainstream consumption since the rise anti-porn radical feminism in the 70s social cons often simply use the feminist critique. in their own circles and outlets they don’t do this nearly as much, but make more naked recourse to moral rationales which they know a priori. this doesn’t mean that they don’t accept the feminist critique in its particulars; they probably find it creditable that porn leads to violence and rape and is an affront from female dignity. but their broader paradigm is different from that of the feminists. e.g., porn is an affront to human dignity and divine law, with female dignity just being a subset.
Hmmm…I would much rather have real sex with my missus than watch a porno. (And I will happily confess that I have enjoyed watching porn in my time.)
If you are a guy who wants to have real sex, you are tasked with finding somebody who is willing to have sex with you. If you are unable, then tension builds up.
There is a much-maligned book out there called “A Natural History of Rape”–http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Natural_History_of_Rape–which dared to go against the mainstream dogma that rape was about power, but rather, rape was more about sex and spreading one’s seed. This is a view to which I am largely sympathetic. But this does lead back to what I was saying above…
We are biological entities and I am fond of saying that biological entities are all driven by the four F’s:
1.) Feed
2.) A four-letter word synonymous with sexual congress
3.) Flight
4.) Fight
So if, say number 2 is unfulfilled, a man may resort to rape simply to relieve his natural urge. Now if watching some porn at home and masturbating relieves that pressure and prevents that pressure from ever getting built up enough that he would rape a woman, then I’m all for it.
“we’re going to do what we want, no matter what the study says.”
Golly, that sounds like dietary regulations/guidelines and the crusade against animal fat.
I would much rather have real sex with my missus than watch a porno
that’s the consensus among men. but hey, what do we know about our own sexual preferences? 🙂
This all makes me think of something that a good friend of mine always said: “Weak people take strong positions on weak issues.”
I would much rather have real sex with my missus than watch a porno…
You have a “missus.” The problem with “female replacement” broached above is that lower-status men give up on the chase when they have easy access to other means of “satisfaction.” It becomes a trade-off between effort and reward. If you’re a 5’6″ guy with less than average looks, a twenty minutes on YouPorn will be a better deal than years of rejection in nightclubs and other social venues.
This is one area where religion will be missed. It provided an area for the opposite sex to meet likeminded individuals who wanted to get married, as opposed to just “hooking up” and then seeing what happens.
As far as the lowered rape rates go, I wouldn’t be surprised to find that porn has lowered the rates, but I wonder about the increased imprisonment rates, too. Sailer created a measure of overall criminality that was analogous to the economic “misery index” (inflation + unemployment). The criminality index would be a mix of Crime Rates plus Imprisonment Rates.
Porn has via the Net steadily grown in power. Feminists may be a bit alarmist but are correct in one regard–porn exploits women (and men for that matter). Most porn babes are washed up at 30, if not before. Health issues–ie, STDs– also a problem. There are many sound reasons to control and regulate porn–and that’s not necessarily a “christian” POV, but …moral, or “normative” as the eggheads say.
@ J., yes there are sensible reasons one might want additional regulation of the PRODUCTION of erotica; what free-speech conservatives object to is restricting its CONSUMPTION.
@ J., yes there are sensible reasons one might want additional regulation of the production of erotica; but not its consumption, or in the case of the letter Hume cites, restricting distribution for consumption-driven reasons.
(It’s fine to restrict a porn distributor from locating a storefront near a school; but not from a neighborhood because the domestic violence rate is high.)
There may be a distinction to be drawn, but Im not sure having access to websites–or mags at the local liquor joint– featuring women being urinated on (or…worse) falls under the protection of “free speech.” A few years ago, I might have agreed with you–but some of us know a bit about the wrong side of porno. Moreover evidence exists linking hard core porn to some violent crime and rape. I wouldn’t say it’s conclusive, but it’s there. Does porn produce Ted Bundys? In some cases, I’d say…yeah.
“Hmmm…I would much rather have real sex with my missus than watch a porno. (And I will happily confess that I have enjoyed watching porn in my time.)”
So would I, however:
* she’s rarely “in the mood”
* even when she is, the fiveplay period is much too long.
Porn is just easier.
“Really, it’s time women realized that what hurts them isn’t men’s sexual self-indulgence but their own self-indulgence in the false cultures of fashion and beauty.”
That is very well said, but it is all-too-hard for many individuals to analyze themselves. The blame game is the easier route.
The vegas libertarian sorts tend to think anyone who opposes the porn business does so from a fire and brimstone POV or maybe Mormonic perspective. That is mistaken. One doesn’t approve of Brigham Dung–or Mitt Romneyoid, or the usual WASP tinhorn moralists– by denouncing porno.
Rational humans should oppose porn on moral grounds, because it exploits humans (both producers and consumers), regardless if it turns a profit or not. Larry Flynt shouldn’t be a role model for intelligent secularists for that matter, and if controlling distribution reduces porno consumption that’s a good thing. Shame on J-Edgar Holder.