Don't hate the hater, mock them instead
It is inevitable when one not only merchants pornographic materials but also maintains an online presence that persons and sites of a decidedly anti-porn flavor will cross one's path with some regularity. It's much like ideological fiber in the alimentary tract of reason; indigestible, serves only to keep fecal matter flowing, and some people get entirely too wound up on the subject. Porn might be a near equivalent of a triple-processed sugar sponge saturated with sweet lard and pure cocaine, but that doesn't mean anyone needs a triple scoop of shame-flavored Metamucil either.
Should anyone actually suffer the morbid curiosity to find such a resource, they would most likely find the usual arguments against.
Excuse me while I finish pointing and laughing derisively at their pitifully puerile "solution" arrived at by hopelessly nebulous "arguments." It's a good start on a passive-aggressive guilt trip, but nowhere near a logical construct.
Let's tear into this bloated bubble of self-aggrandizing whimsy then shall we.
"It objectifies and/or dehumanizes women." Right. Forget the men, we all know they aren't people anyway. Or perhaps the assumption is that males are somehow better equipped to handle the material. Regardless of oversight or intent, the impression is that it's the women who are what's important to protect. Sorry, but I'm not comfortable with double-standards. Either your point encompasses everyone or I want to know exactly why you feel the need for the distinction. By the way, neither of those actions automatically validates the statement either.
However, let us for the moment assume they are being all-inclusive. It's all fixed now right? We can go charging off to tilt this menacing windmill of social injustice now? Settle down there, Sparky. I'd like someone to point out to me what profession exists that does not in some manner dehumanize or objectify those it employs. For example, I am a retail management minion. Am I a person to my customers? Not entirely. I am just that guy who rings up their stuff, makes change, and answers questions. Sometimes I'm that fucking asshole who gets in the way of their self-expression when they no longer think the rules apply to them. It's the same as any other store. The faces over the register change, but largely, we are just a part of the furniture. People working a switchboard are merely more user-interactive voices over the phone. Models are nothing but a marketable image. The list is infinite.
But, they're being all sexual and naked and that makes it all different. I see. So anyone employed doing something that gives you a chubby is somehow more damaging to their sense of self than a daily grind in a "cube farm" or working fast food? I guarantee a stripper quitting is remarked upon much more than "Doug? Dave? Dale? That guy who used to hum along to his iPod, you know who I'm talking about right?"
"People get damaged by it." What else is fucking new? Bike couriers eat pavement or car fenders. Miners get caught in cave-ins, explosive blasts, and inhale nasty shit in the dust. Office assistants get carpal tunnel. Everything you do has associated wear-and-tear and that is only the physical. You want to ban air traffic control personnel because the high stress leads to burn-out, suicide, and other stress related outcomes? Just because there are risks and consequences involved, it doesn't make a case of itself. Otherwise, you might as well push to ban professional sports given how much competing at that level takes out of the body.
"It's morally wrong." That entirely depends upon your moral standpoint. Just because you or a certain percentage of humanity find something repugnant, it does not automatically invalidate the moral standpoint of everyone else who does not share your own. Even if predicated upon some religious text, it remains a subjective verdict and unless one happens to live in a theocracy, it's insufficient to serve as an argument against societal aspects.
Pretty much all of the above boils down to, "I don't like it." I don't care if you do or not. Bugger off and do your own thing and get over the fact some people do like it.
Should anyone actually suffer the morbid curiosity to find such a resource, they would most likely find the usual arguments against.
- It objectifies and/or dehumanizes women.
- People get damaged by it.
- It's morally wrong.
Excuse me while I finish pointing and laughing derisively at their pitifully puerile "solution" arrived at by hopelessly nebulous "arguments." It's a good start on a passive-aggressive guilt trip, but nowhere near a logical construct.
Let's tear into this bloated bubble of self-aggrandizing whimsy then shall we.
"It objectifies and/or dehumanizes women." Right. Forget the men, we all know they aren't people anyway. Or perhaps the assumption is that males are somehow better equipped to handle the material. Regardless of oversight or intent, the impression is that it's the women who are what's important to protect. Sorry, but I'm not comfortable with double-standards. Either your point encompasses everyone or I want to know exactly why you feel the need for the distinction. By the way, neither of those actions automatically validates the statement either.
However, let us for the moment assume they are being all-inclusive. It's all fixed now right? We can go charging off to tilt this menacing windmill of social injustice now? Settle down there, Sparky. I'd like someone to point out to me what profession exists that does not in some manner dehumanize or objectify those it employs. For example, I am a retail management minion. Am I a person to my customers? Not entirely. I am just that guy who rings up their stuff, makes change, and answers questions. Sometimes I'm that fucking asshole who gets in the way of their self-expression when they no longer think the rules apply to them. It's the same as any other store. The faces over the register change, but largely, we are just a part of the furniture. People working a switchboard are merely more user-interactive voices over the phone. Models are nothing but a marketable image. The list is infinite.
But, they're being all sexual and naked and that makes it all different. I see. So anyone employed doing something that gives you a chubby is somehow more damaging to their sense of self than a daily grind in a "cube farm" or working fast food? I guarantee a stripper quitting is remarked upon much more than "Doug? Dave? Dale? That guy who used to hum along to his iPod, you know who I'm talking about right?"
"People get damaged by it." What else is fucking new? Bike couriers eat pavement or car fenders. Miners get caught in cave-ins, explosive blasts, and inhale nasty shit in the dust. Office assistants get carpal tunnel. Everything you do has associated wear-and-tear and that is only the physical. You want to ban air traffic control personnel because the high stress leads to burn-out, suicide, and other stress related outcomes? Just because there are risks and consequences involved, it doesn't make a case of itself. Otherwise, you might as well push to ban professional sports given how much competing at that level takes out of the body.
"It's morally wrong." That entirely depends upon your moral standpoint. Just because you or a certain percentage of humanity find something repugnant, it does not automatically invalidate the moral standpoint of everyone else who does not share your own. Even if predicated upon some religious text, it remains a subjective verdict and unless one happens to live in a theocracy, it's insufficient to serve as an argument against societal aspects.
Pretty much all of the above boils down to, "I don't like it." I don't care if you do or not. Bugger off and do your own thing and get over the fact some people do like it.
To be continued.
posted by Lanius at 5:55 PM
1 Comments:
"a triple-processed sugar sponge saturated with sweet lard and pure cocaine"
I'll have two of those to go please. :) I love your insight, you are smart with a wicked sense of humor. I always look forward to what you will say next...
Eden
Post a Comment
<< Home