Porn is degrading and obscene

Obscene and Degrading?

Well, doh! Of course porn is degrading and obscene, isn't that's the point? But does that make it (a) bad (b) bad enough to ban or censor?

I've spent many years arguing that porn is not necessarily degrading or obscene, but I think I've missed the point. We can argue until hell freezes over, just how degrading and obscene, but I think that the only conclusion we can reach is that we all have a different view of how degrading and obscene.

Sure, people often consider some porn to be artistic, educational, have high production values, etc etc. But for argument sake, let's accept that but since sex brings us all down to the same level of equality, then it sounds reasonable to say that it degrades. And porn is obscene by definition.

The discussion I think we should be having, is: COMPARED to other areas of our lives, how degrading and obscene is porn.

I think we should be consistent in our criticisms, and it shouldn't matter what is degrading and obscene. Degrading and obscene is degrading and obscene.

If someone has too much to drink and throws up, that is degrading. Some people who lose their jobs consider it degrading, and those of them who take up cleaning toilets may find it degrading.

Alcohol and tobacco kills hundreds of thousands of people each year. That is obscene. Secondary effects of both vices kills too (secondary smoking and drink driving accidents). That is obscene in all senses of the word.

So it does seem that we readily tolerate degrading and obscene. And that doesn't mean that we accept it, like it, or don't do anything about it. But we do tolerate it.

So why do we single out pornography as being degrading and obscene? Personally I think it's snobbery: We all like to think that we "make love", rather than "shag". That we are connoisseurs of wines, not alcoholics, and that we can appreciate artistic erotica, and not porn.

A touch of hypocrisy perhaps?

The Opposite of Sex

Sex is God's joke on human beings -- Bette Davis

From Tomi Ungerer's Erotoscope

Bette Davis's observation, is pretty much on the mark. Sex lends itself so well to observation humour because it's the antithesis of our non-sexual lives. In other words, it's full of opposites and contradictions.

I thank God I was raised Catholic, so sex will always be dirty. -- John Waters

Waters highlights the root of sexual humour: we all like to believe that thousands of years of evolution have brought us cultured and civilized lives, but when we get down between the sheets (or our partner's legs!), we're no different to whores, animals and even dung beetles.

Sex between a man and a woman can be absolutely wonderful - provided you get between the right man and the right woman. -- Woody Allen

Woody Allen is spot on. On the one hand, loving monogamous sex is an ideal to which we aspire. But on the other hand, we sometimes can't help getting more adventurous thoughts in our heads.

Don't worry, it only seems kinky the first time. -- Author Unknown

I'm surprised that all sex doesn't seem kinky the first time. Throughout childhood we're taught that masturbation is bad, sex before marriage is bad, sex without love is bad, sex without contraception is bad. And then a couple of surges of testosterone either makes us completely amnesic, or somehow makes bad, good.

"It is not true that sex degrades women... if it is any good." -- Alan Partridge

It was Germaine Greer who belived that if we all displayed our genitals, it would equalise us all, and went on to practice what we preach in Screw magazine. Alan Partridge's joke is not that good sex does not degrade, but that sex does degrade. It bring us all down to the animal level: Judges, royalty, your parents, you and I. Our naive children would probably disagree with us.

Now that's funny.

Earth girls have it easy

The title is a spin on a 1988 B-movie "Earth Girls are Easy". Obviously girls are not easy, but I think there is a good argument to suggest that when it comes down to getting sex, girls do have it easy. As the saying goes:

Women can have sex with any man they want. But men can have sex only with women who will let them.

OK, it's an over-generalization, but there an element of truth. Most women could probably have sex with most men they meet, whereas most men will probably not be able to have sex with most (if any!) women they meet.

If we accept the generalization, what does this imbalance of power mean? Why should it be the case?

• Women are more choosy.
  
• Women have better communication skills.
  
• Women are better seductresses.
  
• Women want more meaningful relationships.
  

But then again, perhaps it's not so easy for women. After all, they are in competition for a select group of men... who probably haven't much incentive for being good in bed since there a line of women waiting to jump into bed with them. And you wonder why some men are unfaithful.

On the plus side, unpopular men hopefully end up having more time to do other more constructive things. While some of them learn a bit more about the opposite sex... respect, patience, dedication, write blogs on sex and culture, etc, it's true that some men become a little geeky.

So there you have it. Women have a choice between hapless hunks and quirky geeks. I guess Earth girls don't have it so easy after all. But I bet most guys would like to have the same choice.

Homosexuality is unnatural

Imagine you were the opposite sex. Would you be attracted to men or women?

Your head reasons that you that would remain the same sexuality as you are now, and fancy the opposite gender as you do now... quite unnatural! but your heart still adores the same gender as you do now, but that would change your sexuality... quite unnatural!

I guess the results are only truly acceptable if you are bisexual!

I've heard the statement that "Homosexuality is unnatural" by many anti-gays, but like most throw-away lines, it's rarely examined further. Has it never occurred to anti-gays that homosexuals find heterosexuality equally unnatural?

It does seem that if you were the opposite sex, your desires would equally appear unnatural.

Or course the argument is somewhat contrived. Polyester is unnatural, but anti-gays don't shun clothes made from it. Modern medicine is unnatural and the same point applies.

Perhaps we could argue that being anti-gay is unnatural, but then again the diversity of mankind, both good and bad, is as natural as the clouds in the sky.

Surely what people mean by unnatural, is something they don't naturally like. But that's no reason to dislike the person. I don't like tobacco and the fact that it kills hundreds of thousands of people each year. But I have nothing against tobacconists.

Incidentally, the picture refers to the cockney expression, "he's as queer as a clockwork orange", which refers to someone's unusualness, rather than being gay.