The problem is not pornography, per se. Rather it is the unfettered access to pornography by children....and....the increasing social/cultural 'acceptability' of pornography -- it's normalization as a 'how to' for making love (which of course it is not)
But pornography itself? First, we'd have to define it (something that's never really been successfully done). And then we'd have to wrestle with the fact that it is not ever going away. 'Pornography', however we define it, is the naturally inevitability outcome of human sexual desire. It's as old as we are.
So what is it?
Typically it's seen as content of an explicitly sexual nature which is designed or intended to arouse sexual excitement. Of course that's why Courbet, Joyce, Roth, Picasso, Updike, Horst, Newton, Warhol, Mapplethorpe, Bernini, Hokusai, Manet, Rodin, Titian, Klimt, de Sade, Mailer, Rubens, and a countless number of film directors have had their work banned, or otherwise censored over the years, decades, and centuries. Each of us 'knows it when we see it' (to borrow Justice Stewarts famous categorization of pornography)....but we all see it differently.
So no -- if Freedom of Speech means anything, it means we can't 'ban porn'.
We can, however, try to restrict and control access for minors (recognizing that persistence and tech talent can probably defeat a lot of those controls). More importantly, we can try to extract it from its current cultural role (for too many) as a template for what sex is and how it should occur.
Again, though, the problem there is not the explicit nature of the sexual content to which adults have access, it's the fact that -- as a society -- we've spent 50+ years disconnecting sex from love, and love from marriage.
When you reduce desire to a nominal itch....and when you equate 'love' to a Saturday night hook-up intended only to scratch that itch....are we surprised that 'choking' as a hook-up 'accessory' goes mainstream? It's stupid & cruel & depersonalizing & dangerous, but so are 'zipless f*cks' (immortalized by Erica Jong 50 years ago) & one-night-stands ("if you can't be with the one you love, love the one you're with") in the midst of the post-pill Sexual Revolution.
The question is: how do we return deep significance and transcendent meaning to an act that we have enthusiastically trivialized for generations? How do we make meaningful what we declared is meaningless & bestial? (See the lyrics for WAP, by Cardi B, debuting at #1 on the Pop Charts, described as one of the best songs of the year in 2020....and ask yourself if that's the world in which 'a kiss is just a kiss, a sigh, just a sigh')
If we can figure that out, the 'problem' of pornography takes care of itself.
Many, if not most people today, are not marriage material. There is a chasm between what may be desirable on the level of populations, and what is possible with what is now going on in the real world.
It seems like the guest is implying a dichotomy exists between Christian monogamy on the one hand and some historical arrangement that was on balance worse for women on the other. It seems like that framing doesn’t admit of the possibility of alternative, more egalitarian forms of non-monogamy.
(For the record, I’m not advocating for such arrangements, but it seems it should not be taken as a given that what represented an advance in the status of women 2000 years ago is still the best option in that respect.)
On pornography that shows obscene behavior- I suspect that a liberal judge would say “Pornography is a fiction movie. If obscene porn behavior is to be censored, would it not also make sense to censor behavior that is even more violent in ‘Friday the 13th’ type slasher fiction movies?” How would you respond?
Interesting discussion about gov policy disincentivizing marriage. On father presence as role-model, girls also benefit from seeing an example of manhood at home - when considering marriage candidates in future years.
I came to realize several years ago that the sexual revolution and globalization were catastrophe for non-affluent men and women throughout the West. (and i am gay, btw.)
Conn Carroll is well educated and informed about marriage. Glenn well knows the benefits of a healthy marriage. On the other hand, an unhappy marriage is unhealthy. On balance, I blame unreasonable feminists for the breakdown of marriage. Men are simple creatures, and when they are young they must NOT be deprived of sex. Females must respect their husbands sensitivities, especially as they begin to age. Females should teach their husbands to 'grow' in marriage. Men are loyal partners but dunderheades. I know I am one.
I think I can support eliminating various "financial penalties" in terms of benefits as a result of marriage. I might even support slight financial BENEFITS in taxation and government benefits to support marriage (particularly since as it was stated that it's the lower socio economic strata that are less likely to marry/stay married. BUT - as libertarian that is as FAR as I am willing to grant the state any more "power" over our lives, social lives, associations, etc etc etc. In fact, I support the state to get out of the marriage business altogether.
The problem is not pornography, per se. Rather it is the unfettered access to pornography by children....and....the increasing social/cultural 'acceptability' of pornography -- it's normalization as a 'how to' for making love (which of course it is not)
But pornography itself? First, we'd have to define it (something that's never really been successfully done). And then we'd have to wrestle with the fact that it is not ever going away. 'Pornography', however we define it, is the naturally inevitability outcome of human sexual desire. It's as old as we are.
So what is it?
Typically it's seen as content of an explicitly sexual nature which is designed or intended to arouse sexual excitement. Of course that's why Courbet, Joyce, Roth, Picasso, Updike, Horst, Newton, Warhol, Mapplethorpe, Bernini, Hokusai, Manet, Rodin, Titian, Klimt, de Sade, Mailer, Rubens, and a countless number of film directors have had their work banned, or otherwise censored over the years, decades, and centuries. Each of us 'knows it when we see it' (to borrow Justice Stewarts famous categorization of pornography)....but we all see it differently.
So no -- if Freedom of Speech means anything, it means we can't 'ban porn'.
We can, however, try to restrict and control access for minors (recognizing that persistence and tech talent can probably defeat a lot of those controls). More importantly, we can try to extract it from its current cultural role (for too many) as a template for what sex is and how it should occur.
Again, though, the problem there is not the explicit nature of the sexual content to which adults have access, it's the fact that -- as a society -- we've spent 50+ years disconnecting sex from love, and love from marriage.
When you reduce desire to a nominal itch....and when you equate 'love' to a Saturday night hook-up intended only to scratch that itch....are we surprised that 'choking' as a hook-up 'accessory' goes mainstream? It's stupid & cruel & depersonalizing & dangerous, but so are 'zipless f*cks' (immortalized by Erica Jong 50 years ago) & one-night-stands ("if you can't be with the one you love, love the one you're with") in the midst of the post-pill Sexual Revolution.
The question is: how do we return deep significance and transcendent meaning to an act that we have enthusiastically trivialized for generations? How do we make meaningful what we declared is meaningless & bestial? (See the lyrics for WAP, by Cardi B, debuting at #1 on the Pop Charts, described as one of the best songs of the year in 2020....and ask yourself if that's the world in which 'a kiss is just a kiss, a sigh, just a sigh')
If we can figure that out, the 'problem' of pornography takes care of itself.
I'll just say some happy, healthy marriages are wonderfully enhanced by their kinks and the courts should probably stay out of it.
Many, if not most people today, are not marriage material. There is a chasm between what may be desirable on the level of populations, and what is possible with what is now going on in the real world.
It seems like the guest is implying a dichotomy exists between Christian monogamy on the one hand and some historical arrangement that was on balance worse for women on the other. It seems like that framing doesn’t admit of the possibility of alternative, more egalitarian forms of non-monogamy.
(For the record, I’m not advocating for such arrangements, but it seems it should not be taken as a given that what represented an advance in the status of women 2000 years ago is still the best option in that respect.)
On pornography that shows obscene behavior- I suspect that a liberal judge would say “Pornography is a fiction movie. If obscene porn behavior is to be censored, would it not also make sense to censor behavior that is even more violent in ‘Friday the 13th’ type slasher fiction movies?” How would you respond?
Interesting discussion about gov policy disincentivizing marriage. On father presence as role-model, girls also benefit from seeing an example of manhood at home - when considering marriage candidates in future years.
I came to realize several years ago that the sexual revolution and globalization were catastrophe for non-affluent men and women throughout the West. (and i am gay, btw.)
Conn Carroll is well educated and informed about marriage. Glenn well knows the benefits of a healthy marriage. On the other hand, an unhappy marriage is unhealthy. On balance, I blame unreasonable feminists for the breakdown of marriage. Men are simple creatures, and when they are young they must NOT be deprived of sex. Females must respect their husbands sensitivities, especially as they begin to age. Females should teach their husbands to 'grow' in marriage. Men are loyal partners but dunderheades. I know I am one.
Reply
I think I can support eliminating various "financial penalties" in terms of benefits as a result of marriage. I might even support slight financial BENEFITS in taxation and government benefits to support marriage (particularly since as it was stated that it's the lower socio economic strata that are less likely to marry/stay married. BUT - as libertarian that is as FAR as I am willing to grant the state any more "power" over our lives, social lives, associations, etc etc etc. In fact, I support the state to get out of the marriage business altogether.