the Greater Nomadic Council

There have been quite a few pieces on the porn angle. There is a link to be sure. I think is broader than, as you say, the violent stomach churning stuff, though that is real. The broader link is that pornography is a degradation in general. It is also a lie. To reduce a woman or man or both or a group to objects for one's sexual pleasure is to remove their humanity from an interaction with that person or those people. Abu Ghraib was an interaction with others which denied their intrinsic value, and (leaving off the snuff films and S&M stuff) even softer porn is in a similar, but of course less greivous, way in the same vein of dehumanizing acts. And yes, it is a slippery slope argument, only different types of people have less or more grip on the shoes of their personality.

Interesting article. It raises some difficult questions, ones I haven't thought enough about to have anything worth saying. On a related note, did you see Susan Sontag's article in the NY Times about the relation between photography and torture? It's here in case you haven't:

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/05/23/magazine/23PRISONS.html?pagewanted=1&ei=5007&en=a2cb6ea6bd297c8f&ex=1400644800&partner=NYT_REG_SYSTEM_BLOWS_CHUNKS

Broadly speaking, I agree with Downto. Only, I would hesitate to say that every dehumanizing act is bad in itself, because the bounds of "humanity" are in flux in a liberal society. In a nation of free will, some people may find actions empowering that others would find dehumanizing. Nevertheless, I find most pornography distasteful and it especially hurts to see how dehumanized American soldiers are by the emphasis on pornography and sexual humiliation in military training and military comradery (again, I consider "Full Metal Jacket" the most brilliant artistic statement on the matter). This is precisely the kind of thing that the integration of women and gays should be reducing, yet it doesn't seem to be happening.

And as a broad matter of ethics, I agree with Downto's Kantian formulation of the issue (that the intrinsic humanity of the enemy must be respected or war will morally ruin all of us). If only a form Kantian ethics or rule Utilitarianism was substitued for the mix of Hobbesiansim and crude Utilitarianism we experience in today's foreign policy. If only.

Downto, I of course disagree with that perspective on pornography - I don't think it's any more legitimate to see a slippery slope between softcore porn and simulated rape than to see one between homosexuality and dog-fucking. They appeal to different impulses. I would also draw the distinction between objectification, which is definitely inherent in porn, and dehumanization, which is not. People are constantly objectified in everyday life - when they're in your way in traffic or when they're wearing a nice suit, for example. This doesn't mean you automatically, progressively forget that they're people the more often you get cut off in traffic or the more well-dressed folks you're surrounded by.

People's objecthood, sexual and otherwise, is inherent, but it's not incompatible with the other aspects of their existence. What I consider the best porn is actually humanizing, because it's an exploration of sexuality that doesn't ignore or conceal the subject's humanity. Of course, there's not much of this out there, but it does exist, and by its existence delegitimizes arguments against porn as "inherently" anything - which by the way is a class of arguments that's pretty facile regardless of the application.

A problem with the article occurs to me in light of your responses - the existence of all the porn in the world can't explain the monstrosity of what happened. There's a huge, huge leap between witnessing even the most repugnant acts and actually committing them.

Obviously, the objectification of women does not equal the dehumanization of wowen. The whole question of objectification is certainly an interesting issue that we can hopefully get into later....

But would you deny that objectification and dehumanization are generally correlated when it comes to porn? Given this, is it really so unfair to make generalizations about it as we have above? For my part, I hardly need to believe there is a slippery slope between soft porn and and rape (and I don't) in order to argue that the vast majority of soft porn is still dehumanizing in practice--both for the model and the consumer.

I also think you express my own thoughts very well in your point that the best "porn"--that is, human "porn" (the kind of stuff you see in European film)--illuminates the subjectivity, humanity, pleasure, and power of actual characters. Nevertheless, many would question whether such represenations actually qualify as "porn". The sort of "porn" that I (presumably Downto) object to is not concerned with subjects, but rather with broadly objectified stereotypes. The porn industry, as we know it, exists to lump every women in the world into about a dozen pornographic themes. This is all quite fun, but unless the consumer has awesome powers of fantasy comparmentalization (and I wouldn't rule the possibility of this out), it's hard to see how it isn't dehumanizing.

P.S. Honestly, I'm not sure if I'll be willing to stand by these arguments tomorrow. That Sontag essay really hit me and the Puritan inside is pouring out.

Why do you assume that pornography is generally dehumanizing? That is, how do you define the term and how or why do you think it is usually a result of viewing or creating porn?

Scott, Sontag makes some relatively obvious points in a compelling way, and her point about the (intentional) confusion between photographs and events is vital. But her relatively brief attempts at pointing to a connection between current American cultural practices and the prevalence of torture in Iraq are frankly feeble. Given the weight of history, it seems safe to conclude that there's something in the immediate reality of war that brings out the worst inherent tendencies of members of nearly any culture - tracing the roots of those tendencies in individual cultures can be enlightening, but it's largely academic, as there are certainly much stronger forces pushing people's behavior in that direction. It may very well be porn that frames torture practices for some Americans, but there's certainly a good dose of racial and nationalist chauvinism in there as well. Conjecturally, the metanarrative of torture for Athenians might have been slavery, and for the Vietcong maybe it was tribalism. But I don't think that makes any of these things the cause of brutality, just a catalyst for something more basic.

And I think the question that has to be asked about objectification vs. dehumanization is whether consuming certain images and ideas changes your treatment of people. The rise of internet porn in the last ten years has not seen a correlative rise of rape, as far as I know, and while it's far less measurable, I doubt it has undermined people's ability to love one another genuinely (that may very well be happening, but I doubt porn would be the only, or even the first culprit anyone looked to). I have to go to lunch, more later.

The most interesting point I think she made was about the posed nature of the photos. People were smiling not just because they were enjoying being torturers, but because it's a reflex when taking photos. Overall, I think the essay is somewhat poorly organized—it's more a collection of related ideas than an argument—but still interesting enough to be worth reading.

I can't resist this - on the question of whether humanizing porn is "really porn," maybe you should ask John Ashcroft. He's obviously turned into an uncontrollable, distracted sex fiend by the cold, stone titties of Justice.

"Rape that painting! Rape the shit out of it!"

(for those not down, it's a David Cross joke.)

For those of us who are even less "down," who the hell is David Cross?

He's the bald, nerdy-looking guy with glasses from Mr. Show. Here's more info:

http://www.bobanddavid.com/

He's fucking amazing. I won't rhapsodize on him here - maybe I'll do a post.

"Downto, I of course disagree with that perspective on pornography - I don't think it's any more legitimate to see a slippery slope between softcore porn and simulated rape than to see one between homosexuality and dog-fucking."

They are both forms of buggery, my friend. They have been grouped together that way for 3 millenia. If you don't see it, it doesn't mean its not there.

"They appeal to different impulses."

Please elaborate.

I had intended to preface my comment with the declaration that since we had such profoundly different worldviews, I wasn't interested in getting into a discussion about it. That you consider homosexual sex and bestiality to fall in the same category legitimizes every nasty thing I've said to you thus far, but I'm going to exercise some restraint and not add to the tally.

"I would also draw the distinction between objectification, which is definitely inherent in porn, and dehumanization, which is not. "

A clever but false distinction. Is a human on the same plane as objects? If yes, then why bother arguing. If no, then how can it not be dehumanizing to treat a human in a way not fitting to their nature, in this case as an object. If sort of, then your thinking is too muddy to make distinction so why, again, bother writing.

PS. These last three posts are all in reference to sleepy's post at the near top.

They are both forms of buggery, my friend. They have been grouped together that way for 3 millenia. If you don't see it, it doesn't mean its not there.

Don't forget heterosexual mutual masturbation, oral sex, and anal sex. Those are all sodomy as well.

However, since you're not acting like a complete Martian on the pornography thing, I'll do what I can. To boil the distinction down to its most basic form, sex is sex, but rape is violence. Depictions (and commissions) of rape or any of a number of degrees of sexual domination or humiliation are sexual, certainly, but they're primarily about power. I don't want to use the term 'healthy', because I think a certain amount of power play can be part of a healthy sexuality, but the primary mode of sexual interaction between people is not about power - it's about love, ideally, but even in less idyllic circumstances it's about the sex itself rather than playing out the larger drama of society.

I don't think that's a very clear explanation, but I'm working on something else right now. I might try again tomorrow.

Down, a human is an object. I have physical form. I take up space. It's pretty clear that I'm an object. But I also have a personality, I have an intellect, I am self-aware. The two are not mutually exclusive, nor are we unable to move between viewing a person as an object in one context (as in the traffic example) to viewing them as a personality and intellect in another context. There's nothing "clever" about this distinction - it's self-evident.

Having slept on it, I'll admit I'm not really certain about any of what I said above--when it comes down to it, my problem with porn is more a matter of personal prejudice than informed opinion. I would love to see an actual study on the question of dehumanization and porn. Certainly, there are plenty of kinds of porn that objectify subjects but are nevertheless playful, empowering, and fun. I'm the last person who would condemn a loving couple that gets into porn in order to inject some kinkiness into their sex life. And it would be ridiculous to claim that a normal person who starts consuming porn is going to become dehumanized or deviant—it’s much more complex than all that.

Perhaps I’m less wary of porn itself than with the current status of the porn industry and the role it tends to play in contemporary sexuality, or in other words the sort of porn the contemporary consumer demands the most. I guess I feel that porn’s biggest role in social life is reinforcing patterns and metaphors of objectification when it comes to sexuality, and this tends to have a negative impact on various kinds of human relationships. Speaking for myself, I wouldn't advocate censorship but rather criticism and consciousness-raising. Nevertheless I can sympathize with feminists and traditionalists who would.

I know from experience that plenty of well-adjusted people consume the sort of porn I attack, and this has naturally made me more tolerant and open to experimenting with pornography. Sometimes I wonder if my intuitive reaction is ultimately related to the particularities of my upbringing and the impact of Southern Baptism. Similarly, and for obvious reasons, porn consumption is extraordinarily rare among Boulder progressives or German university students, which once again reinforces my prejudice (born of social context) that porn consumption is tied, causally or incidentally, to deviance. Here in Germany, I occasionally go to a video store with a large porn section, and there I witness the true diversity sleeping beneath the homogenous university town—all sorts of marginalized and/or frightening characters, there to rent a porn video or video game. At the same time, the kind of overt sexuality and taste for porn over here in Europe was profoundly shocking to me at first, but I have gradually gotten used to it and see positive aspects in it, even if I remain critical.

My prejudice, nevertheless, is that those who consume porn but resist its impact on their active fantasy lives, their construction of the female sex, and their ideas about male-female power relations--these people are the exceptions rather than the rule. We all have fantasy lives and ulterior selves, and some of us compartmentalize them better than others. But I'm amazed someone as attuned to the complexity of social relations as David can ask "whether consuming certain images and ideas changes your treatment of people." Of course it does. Whether for good or bad, our patterns of consumption and the things we consume affect patterns of personal relations, personal values, taste, cultural loyalties--the whole bag that constitutes the individual. I sometimes feel that we liberals are so averse to censorship and other people telling us what to do that we end up blinding ourselves to basic truths of social reality and social causation.

Why do I find most porn dehumanizing? On the level of theory, I am sympathetic to the feminists like Andrea Dworkin and Catherine MacKinnon. This speech is an example of their reasoning…

http://www.nostatusquo.com/ACLU/dworkin/PornHappens.html

I think Dworkin expresses it a lot better than I ever could. But let me try to explain how I see it. Consider the Webster definition of dehumanize-"to deprive of human qualities, personality, or spirit". I don’t see how one can deny that the majority of times a model struts onto a porn set, her job is to cancel her individuality and become a stereotyped object. Her disempowerment—the stripping away of individuality, will and power to resist--is the sexual empowerment of the consumer. With regard to the consumer, I feel porn is often dehumanizing in that the porn fantasy creeps into his ideas about relationships, the language of relationships, expectations of relationships—leading to the idea that a relationship is about mutual exploitation, where the consumer is an object as well (preferably a hard young stud with a 10 inch cock). Now I'm not saying that the idea of sex as exploitation or sex as a power dynamic can't be fun or playful--it just seems to me that in practice, the fantasy creeping into reality is something that is more likely to have a bad effect than a good one.

Besides, I'm not even addressing the darker, more violent side of porn--the frequent emphasis on gang-bangs, simulated rape, sex with minors, on and on...in general the kind of pornographic culture that finds the idea of big studs in military uniforms raping the shit out of the local population hot. And I’m not even getting into the role of pornography when it comes to gender construction in the military or in less extreme cases like fraternities. Can anyone forget the rhetoric in “Full Metal Jacket” where sexuality and violence are coupled together….”This is my rifle, this is my gun, this is for killing, this is for fun”. Can we deny that this rhetoric, albeit in less extreme forms, is spread out throughout the culture? And that pornography plays a significant, if largely instrumental, role in the objectification of women that is part of the whole chauvinist ideology?

Of course, one could object that pornography is merely a tool in these contexts or a “frame” if you will. I would certainly grant you that when it comes to the barbarism displayed in war, things like nationalism, chauvinism, and ignorance in general play a far greater role than the culture of pornography. It is perfectly possible that because pornography is associated with cultural practices I despise, that I'm being unfair. But I think merely assuming that pornography has no effect is a false comfort—it is once again buying into the collective liberal delusion that consuming such images has no effect on how one thinks and acts.

"But I'm amazed someone as attuned to the complexity of social relations as David can ask "whether consuming certain images and ideas changes your treatment of people." "

Well, I wasn't asking it as a general question, but as a question we as a society and individuals need to ask ourselves about porn - and about televised violence etc. - and I guess I could have phrased it better as "HOW consuming certain images changes our treatment of people." It's obviously one that gets asked a lot, but I don't know many people who will claim there's a clear answer, much less one so overwhelmingly conclusive that it justifies forcefully altering people's consumption of media.

I will agree with you that the role of porn in society is increasingly disturbing, and the practices of the porn industry (especially on the lower rungs) even more so. And certainly, as with anything, there are people who will be negatively impacted psychologically by the increasing concentration of these images. And I suppose the potential for expression of these changes is greater than in the case of violence - a man is much more likely to subtly dominate his girlfriend than he is to make like Dirty Harry and start shooting people.

Still, I can't say that I see an essential difference. Porn is image and fantasy, and some people are, as you said, better at compartmentalizing than others. I don't think there's any ground for having a debate over whether that number is small (as you think) or large (as I think), so we may just have to leave it at that - but i would point out to you the overt paternalism of your position, arguing as you do that the great unwashed 'just can't handle it.'

I suppose I'm ultimately evaluating the situation on the basis of my own taste, which leans towards sites like Fleshbot and Sensible Erection, where links to porn are mixed with links to articles in Harper's. I can't get inside the head of the kind of guys who likes to watch "Jenna Goes Deep" with the lights off in his parent's basement, but I'm disinclined to think of him as some foreign species. I think there are plenty of responsible consumers of porn out there.

I'll get to Dworkin in a minute or three.

Allright, lets start off by pointing out that Dworkin is saying some pretty crazy stuff about sex in general: "An argument can be made that in order for men to have sexual pleasure with women, we have to be inferior and dehumanized, which means controlled, which means less autonomous, less free, less real. " or "We count ourselves goddamn lucky when whatever happens falls short of rape." This is utter nonsense, of course, and while I'm certainly doing my own legitimacy no favors by pointing it out, it's hard to imagine Dworkin as anything but extremely averse to sex and men in general. I sympathize with whatever her history might be, but it has clearly poisoned her perception of sexuality.

In similarly histrionic mode, she vastly overplays her hand when it comes to women's daily subjection: "women are pushed, shoved, felt up, called dirty names, have their passage physically blocked on the street or in the office." I know these things happen, but the whole world is not a construction site in the Bronx - I think it would have been about a hundred times more true to say that "women are ogled, propositioned, gratuitously complimented, admired from afar." These, too, are invasions, violations - but they are complex ones, and Dworkin seems pretty averse to complexity. For her, everything must be literal violence.

Her point about sexual excitement as a legitimizing force of racial hatred is a good one, and Sontag seems to have drawn from it in her Abu Ghraib peice. But to conflate that deviancy backwards with the whole of sexuality is itself offensive.

Reading further, Scott, I'm pretty amazed that you cite this as reflecting your viewpoint. It's an astonishingly impoverished view of sexuality and a bleak view of society (though that's perhaps a bit closer to justified). It's simply not an argument - it's various hightoned declarations clearly intended to be shouted from a podium: "Constitutionally protecting pornography as if it were speech means that there is a new way in which we are legally chattel." That's just crazy, I can't even begin to argue with it, because it's not an argument. It's not based in the real world.

Dworkin is in activist mode here. I applaud what she tried to accomplish, and I don't deny that in a context that sees porn consumption as deviant, porn vendors will always be primarily frequented by deviants, making them shady places. But I think in this and in all arguments you have to look at the whole spectrum, which in Austin, for example, includes a number of sex stores that are centers of feminist organizing and sexual empowerment.

I would frankly prefer to read and respond to something from Dworkin that's not a stump speech.

Woa, hold on there...I don't think I expressed myself very well above. I'm not endorsing Dworkin's position. I'm sympathetic to it insofar as she points out how pornography dehumanizes women and how she makes this case as a conscious leftist. Given that I haven't put much thought into the issue (as I admit above), I think people like Dworkin deserve some respect and leverage to make their argument as women and feminists. In any case, attacking them as prudes is IMO a big red herring. How many times has this move been used to oppress women in the past? And how many times have free-spirited women been attacked for not appreciating the complexity of the hegemonic order? Again, I don't agree with Dworkin's activist position (censorship). One thing I find extremely annoying in liberal circles is the attitude that moral criticism=censorship, which generally leads to various hysterias (although I suppose I deserve it in this case since I linked to Dworkin). And certainly Dworkin's "speech" is over the top. Rather, I'm just too lazy to find a serious article on the Internet, and I wanted to cite an example from the feminist perspective.

I'm not familar with Dworkin's history, sexuality, or intellectual loyalties. But I think you're misconstruing what she's saying, or at least what I get out of what she says. I read the statement you cite as more about potentially oppressive nature of contemporary sexual role-playing (in which porn plays a constructive role) than one of objective fact.

The fact is the vast majority of porn is not directed at good upper-class young men. I don't have statistics at hand, but common sense tells me the majority of porn shops are located in lower-class districts (for all the obvious reasons), and the mass of porn consumers are usually marginalized or deviant in one way or another. For ordinary people, the role of pornography in their lives is hardly as complex as we ironic postmodernists would have it. Finally, I don't see a sex shop as a typical venue for sexual empowerment--if they exist in Austin that is great, but surely you don't think they're representative?

Obviously there are plenty of responsible porn consumers out there and I have no interest in making them feel bad. But just because these people exist doesn't deflect from the argument that the culture of pornography isn't generally dehumanizing. Like I said above, other institutions and cultural practices certainly play a larger role, but IMHO, simply acting as if porn is like candy is not going to help matters.

As for the paternialism in my argument, I'm well aware of that. But I'll point out to you once again that the culture I'd like to see is where individuals, families, and cultural groupings discuss these issues themselves, rather than censorship from governing bodies. The whole idea is for citizens to start acting like responsible parents and less like naive infants. But yes, I would prefer it if porn (or at least "objectifying" porn) was more taboo and people cared more about matters of taste and their effect on society.

Finally, regarding my impoverished sexuality, let me once again say that I enjoy sexual role-playing and my taste in women, at least in the past, has generally lied contra to hard-core feminists. However, I would have a hard time seeing myself with the kind of woman who thought the consumption of blatantly objectifying porn was aye-ok (unless of course, she merely thought it was funny). That would be, for me, an impoverished and empty view of sexuality. Rather, the type of girl I go out with generally does all she can to ignore the existence of such things. Anyways my argument (although perhaps less Dworkin's) is related to broadly humanist ideals, rather than those of militant feminism.

In any case, attacking them as prudes is IMO a big red herring. How many times has this move been used to oppress women in the past?

I pointed this out myself, which doesn't give me a pass, but I'm not throwing the accusation out there without knowledge of its severely checkered past. But it's hard not to have this reaction given the extreme stridency and anti-sex, reductionist, war-between-the-sexes tone of the specific statements I cite. This rhetoric might have had its place in the sixties and seventies in inciting women to rise up, but I think it's irresponsible in this day and age, when we need to be concentrating on constructing a new way of interaction between the sexes, not continuing to build walls.

"Finally, regarding my impoverished sexuality . . ." I guess I wasn't clear enough - I was trying to express my disbelief that Dworkin's statements could accurately represent your viewpoint - which apparently they don't, entirely. I wasn't trying to put you down at all, this isn't a discussion that should need to invoke the personal.

But I would reiterate that Dworkin is engaged in shifty business here. She says that "In pornography, the fetishizing of the female body . . . is always concrete and specific," then she goes directly on to talk about "the women on whom the pornography is used." I presume here she's talking about women who interact with men who are 'under the influence' of porn. This means that she's asserting that there's something "concrete and specific" about the way porn works to change a specific man's relationships to women. I don't think any reputable psychologist in the world would second that notion.

I think that Dworkin's (and your) claims would be easier to swallow if they were prefaced as targeted at specific kinds of porn. Her over-the-top descriptions of vaginas as "targets" certainly ring true with regards to an (admittedly large) portion of porn out there. But they just sound crazy when they're applied to "pornography" as a class of expression. I won't claim that porn is art, because that's just an attempt to legitimize it under another name. Porn is porn, and there is good porn, and (lots of) bad porn. While there is a legitimate and important battle to be fought against the attitudes and worldviews that lead to the production of bad porn, the real red herring here is targeting "porn" as a class. It's an extremely useful red herring, perhaps, at its worst a potent symbol and easily discernible expression of misogyny, but nonetheless, it is not the thing itself.

"I don't have statistics at hand, but common sense tells me the majority of porn shops are located in lower-class districts (for all the obvious reasons), and the mass of porn consumers are usually marginalized or deviant in one way or another."

This statement struck me on a second read-through, and I have to say it seems to quite clearly express something Southern Baptist. I always assumed that sex shops existed out on the highway at the edge of town because having a "neighbourhood porn store" would just mean a lot of people who knew each other in a day-to-day context revealing their secret lives to one another in uncomfortable ways. The mass of porn consumers are deviant at least insofar as porn itself is considered deviant, so what you're saying is a bit of a self-fulfilling prophecy. You seem to very much subscribe to an image of a porn consumer as a dirty old man in a raincoat - but this is a circular conception.

Also, by the by, your statement above skirts the implication that the poor are more likely to be sexually deviant - I'm sure that's not your intention, but the suggestion is there.

By complete accident, I just came upon a ridiculously appropriate passage in John Barth's "The End of the Road." This is just after the protagonist has made a halfhearted stab at seducing an older woman:

"I'm a cad," I agreed readily, and rose to leave. There was a little more to this matter than Miss Rankin was willing to see, but in the main she had a pretty clear view of things. Her mistake, in the long run, was articulating her protest. The game was spoiled now, of course: I had assigned to Miss Rankin the role of Forty-Year-Old Pickup, a delicate enough character for her to bring off successfully in my current mood; I had no interest whatever in the quite complex (and no doubt interesting, from another point of view) human being she might be apart from that role. What she should have done, it seems to me, assuming she was after the same thing I was after, was assign me a role gratifying to her own vanity--say, The Fresh But Unintelligent Young Man Whose Body One Uses For On's Pleasure Without Otherwise Taking Him Seriously--and then we could have pursued our business with no wounds inflicted on either side. As it was, my present feeling, though a good deal stronger, was essentially the same feeling one has when a filling-station attendant or a cabbdriver launches into his life-story: as a rule, and especially when one is in a hurry or is grouchy, one wishes the man to be nothing more difficult than The Obliging Filling-Station Attendant or The Adroit Cabdriver. These are the essences you have assigned them, at least temporarily, for your own purposes, as a taleteller makes a man The Handsome Young Poet or The Jealous Old Husband; and while you know very well that no historical human being was ever just an Obliging Filling-Station Attendant or a Handsome Young Poet, you are nevertheless prepared to ignore your man's charming complexities - must ignore them in fact, if you are going to get on with the plot, or get things done according to schedule.

Of course, this emphasizes the character's callowness, but I think it's safe to say we all do the same thing in our daily lives, constantly, with or without pornography entering the picture (note its complete absence from this scenario of sexual exploitation).

"Also, by the by, your statement above skirts the implication that the poor are more likely to be sexually deviant - I'm sure that's not your intention, but the suggestion is there."

Fair enough. I'm trying to say that the poor are more likely to be "victims" of pornography, just like any other form of deviance. The move I'm making is to suggest that the culture of pornography ought to be judged by its general effects, rather than by exceptional cases flourishing in upper class, educated, and ironic sectors. It's a similar argument to objecting to the presence of gun shops in the inner cities. The people making this argument aren't racist--they just realize that gun violence is often linked to certain socioeconomic factors.

I grant you the comparison/argument is problematic. Nevertheless, I don't think it is untenable.

As for pornography/deviance--I can see the point that porn's dehumanizing features could possibly be exacerbated by society's attacks on the medium, i.e. labeling something deviant becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy. Nevertheless, it's hard for me to see how we would be better off if the porn I'm criticising wasn't considered deviant. As I've been trying to argue, pornography acts as a counter to certain praisworthy humanistic norms (this is why it's so useful in contexts like the military) and thus ought to be considered deviant. We ought to be happy that crudely objectifying women isn't socially acceptable for much of the population. But there is still a long way to go.

On the other hand, a society that didn't marginalize its deviants and spit on them as much as we do would probably be a better one. I'm not for spitting, but rather clarity of sight.

"Of course, this emphasizes the character's callowness, but I think it's safe to say we all do the same thing in our daily lives, constantly, with or without pornography entering the picture (note its complete absence from this scenario of sexual exploitation)."

Sleepy,

Your words above sound like a concession speech to me. You essentially admit that pornography leads increases callowness. Put this same line of reasoning in a nother context and you have this: "The housefire above had nothing to do with gasoline."

All you have done is emphasize that pornography can exacerbate dehumanization and objectification of other persons.

Down, your powers of (il)logic stagger me. Presenting a scenario of sexual exploitation completely absent of pornography, and pointing out that objectification is a fact of life without pornography, emphasizes "that pornography can exacerbate dehumanization and objectification of other persons"?

Admittedly, the exact words I use above could be interpreted as meaning "we're all monsters to one another anyway, what have we got to lose if we throw some dehumanizing porn into the mix?" But really all of the above is by way of an interesting aside, not really germane to the discussion at hand - we may very well all be monsters, but this holds no bearing over whether or not pornography makes us even greater monsters.

Sleepy,
You said "with or without pornography" which implies that pornography is indeed just another tool for dehumanization. My inferrence maybe incorrect but it is not (il)logical. Admittedly it was a modest point, but I thought you were trying to say earlier that porn doesn't dehumanize.

Interesting discussion. One point I haven't seen addressed though is this—given the objectifying nature of most, if not all, pornography, does it provide some mitigating good? Or is there not even a utilitarian argument to be made for it?

Mall:

I suppose generally the satiation of a desire is a "good", but the problem with porn, as with drugs, is it is a false satiation. It leads to no lasting happiness and does not open dorrs to other lasting happinesses.
It has no social benefit because it has been clearly linked to an increase in rape, abuse, etc.
I don't see one really. Not even a streched one.

Well, it's fine to argue that people shouldn't do certain things, but that doesn't mean they should be illegal. Most laws are based on consequentialism, so if the harm from legalizing something distasteful like pornography is less than the harm from keeping it illegal, then that would make it worth keeping legal, hence a mitigating good. The same goes for drugs, which I think should be legalized, but that's another discussion. However, what I was really asking was if the pleasure provided by pornography outweighs the negatives. Whether you think pleasure is a worthwhile goal doesn't really affect the question. Others do. I would agree that we should seek the good, not pleasure, but I'm not willing to try and legislate that. Also, I would like to see the studies linking pornography to a rise in rape and abuse if you know where to find them.

The good and the pleasureful are one in the same. The quality of the pornographic pleasures is what I criticize. It is fleeting, illusory, and yields great displeasure. I am in the pleasure seeking camp. I just dispute what gives the greatest pleasures.

I see what you mean regarding the allowance of porn, which I thought you were distinguishing from porn itself. I still disagree but there is an argument their for not legalizing it. I also disagree with the legalization of pot, crack, etc. though the argument is more clear for pornography because of the double exploitation of both the viewer and the viewed.

I disagree with you that the good and pleasure are the same. So does Plato, by the way. :)

As for the question of legalizing things like drugs or pornography, I simply don't think you can legislate morality. So long as there is a strong, common desire among the populace for something there will be a supply. When that supply is legal, regulated, and relatively safe, there is less harm to society than if it were illegal. Prohibition is the classic example. If you want to decrease the consumption of things you find wrong, education is the way to do it, not legislation. As for the drug legalization question, I may have to put a post up on the topic soon just so we can have it out. That's a particular case of legalizing something where there really is no sound argument for prohibition.

Downto also seems to disagree with himself as to whether the good and the pleasurable are the same, since in the traditional sense, at least, there can be no "bad goods," which is apparently what he thinks pornography is if you connect the rather convoluted dots of his statement above.

Whether a government should legislate morality is a weak argument for the legalization or decriminalization of drugs. We legislate morality all the time. Take labor for instance: working conditions, hour restrictions, child labor laws, etc. There are scores of laws that regulate nothing but morality (incidentally, they are mostly grounded in the Commerce Clause). Laws against murder, rape, sodomy, bestiality, etc. aren't based on economics.

There are other, more compelling arguments for decriminalization, but that "legislation of morality" is a leftist meme in the same way that "slippery slope" arguments tend to be rightist memes.

Hmm.. good point. I guess I should restrict that phrase a little more carefully. I meant we should not legislate morality when there is no clear moral consensus on the given issue. We're clear that murder, child labor, rape, etc all Bad Things. It's not so clear that pornography, drugs, guns, and others are. Still, my reasons for supporting the legalization of drugs have absolutely nothing to do with the perceived morality of drug use.

He wasn't arguing for legalization because we can't legislate morality, he was arguing for legalization on purely pragmatic grounds.

Downto also seems to disagree with himself as to whether the good and the pleasurable are the same, since in the traditional sense, at least, there can be no "bad goods," which is apparently what he thinks pornography is if you connect the rather convoluted dots of his statement above.

Though I wouldn't put it quite that way, that's essentially what Socrates says. I think what downto meant when he wrote he's "in the pleasure seeking camp" should be more accurately described as "happiness-seeking". According to Socrates's formulation, the pursuit of the good leads to happiness, not pleasure. Pleasure is merely the satiation of a desire and can be good or bad; it lacks an inherent moral component.

As for the question at hand, I think it could be better phrased as "Is it more harmful to make porn illegal or to allow it?" If you accept the premise that porn is harmful in the ways that Scott and Downto seem to beleive, the question of any mitigating good isn't even on the table anymore. The only arguments for a mitigating good from porn are A) personal enjoyment, which as Down clumsily attempts to point out can't be justified if you're both being turned into an immoral monster and denying deeper pleasures to boot, and B) that it diverts perverse energies into harmless onanism. This last isn't mutually exclusive with the idea that porn promotes abuse of women, but does bring back the idea that its effects are different from person to person - and God forbid we should consider people to be unique individuals with different tolerances and needs.

Of course, from that point it becomes a no-win situation - making porn illegal will lead to a much more exploitative industry, blur the line between porn and snuff films, push a gargantuan portion of the economy underground, etc. etc. etc. The only reason porn isn't illegal now is, I'm pretty sure, because big companies like Time-Warner make such obscene amounts of money from it. There certainly isn't anyone on Capitol Hill adopting my bold Pro-Jerkoff stance.

I don't think that you can't accept the harmful nature of porn as they've described while thinking that keeping it legal is less harmful than making it illegal. For things that will always be desired by a significant portion of the population and will therefore always have a supply, harm reduction is the proper legislative stance.

Well, I guess my final comment was a bit confused - while I certainly think that in fact big money is what keeps porn legal, I do agree that in effect we have a harm-reduction policy. It's not the motivation, though.

I was really just saying that, if porn is as bad as they say it is, no positive effect short of curing cancer could make it right to keep it legal on its own merits. Harm reduction is another set of issues, a criteria by which legalization does in fact make sense.

First off, and speaking for myself, I think making a moral argument that something is harmful is qualitatively different than arguing that something should be legally forbidden. There are different standards of certainty and evidence at hand IMO. I would argue that on the balance pornography plays a negative role in society according to my values. But I'm not about to claim banning it would necessarily lead to positive results. I hardly think that pot use generally leads to the betterment of humanity, yet I find it frustrating and absurd that it's illegal. For me these are two different things....and something to think about.

Secondly, I think the principle of free speech is a moral principle that isn't easy to quantify as a respective good in a consequentialist scheme. That's not to categorically say that no forms of expression ought to be banned. Rather, consequentialist thinking is more sensible when it respects (and/or gives great consideraton to) certain rules (rule utilitarianism) grounded in customs and ethical principles that have proven themselves in the past. The mere fact that, IMO, leaps toward censorship have often proven dreadfully mistaken in the past is a big deal, and hence any case for censorship has to prove itself powerful enough to abandon the rules.

Can I just briefly proclaim, Most Controversy-Inciting Post EVAH!

Sleepy,

The good is not pornography, the good is the sexual pleasure of arousal derived from the pornography. Sexual pleasure is good. It is only bad because of the circumstances which, in the end make it far less pleasurable and lead to more displeasures such as addiction, lonliness, and the decreased ability to engage others as persons (which I guess is lonliness again.)

The dots were there, you just misinterpreted the picture I made.