The Political Problem of Pornography

[ShieldWife]

The Right has been bleating on about freedom for decades while conceding every important issue to the Left. And yet you accuse me of making a Faustian bargain? That's not what I see when I look at history. What I see is the Right giving people "freedom," and the Left using that to remake society in their own image. Forgive me for wanting to try something different.

I agree that the right has been conceding to the left and has thus been losing. I am not advocating some kind of deal with leftists whereby we let them keep their porn and they let us keep our free speech. They take away what ever rights they can from us when ever they can.

But, they aren’t all powerful. They might control the major institutions in society but the average people still have a lot of power over their own lives - their professions, what media they consume, freedom of speech, how their raise their children, and so much of what happens on the internet. If the elites always got their way, there wouldn’t be any right wing sites or speakers on the net.

So I’m not saying that we make deals, I am saying that we should be wary with empowering institutions controlled by the enemy. Especially when it is a “problem” that we can simply choose to avoid.

Agree to all of this. I think there's a distinction to be made between the practicality of implementing a policy and the rightness of it. My goal is argue for the rightness of my position and provide a possible political solution.

You can argue for the immorality of pornography or how it may be destructive, but it’s hard to call it a political solution when you know that the powers that be are against you and in fact you rather put you in prison than a child pornographer any day.

How can you be countercultural in a society that actively works against you? Company is stronger than habit, after all. If you don't have communities of virtuous wives coming together to lead virtuous lives, you will be spiritually crushed by the machine of liberalism. I do hope you continue to lead a life of virtue; I just ask that, if you are serious about the problem, to recognize it as a political problem rather than an individual one and act accordingly.

Perhaps if countercultural communities are created...

The only way to be counter cultural is if society works against you. Otherwise it’s not counter culture. The fact is that there are countercultural
communities all over the nation, all over the Western world most likely but rarer in Europe than in the USA. The conservative homeschooling community is one such countercultural community. My family is friends with numerous other families in our region, we home schooling our kids, don’t own TV sets, our kids play together, have book clubs, play music, fight with boffer swords, learn about nature and farming, put on talent shows, read books written in the past that still have good values.

These communities can and do exist, because so much of the establishments power over our lives I power that we give them. We don’t have to send our kids to school, we don’t have to watch TV or see movies, we don’t have to enrich greedy corporations buying luxuries we don’t need, we don’t have to watch pornography, we don’t have to go to a university. So much power over what matters in life is still in our own hands, at least for now.

 

[The Name of Love]

Relevant to note the Hays' Code was a standard self-imposed by (monopolistic/oligarchical) Hollywood studios via the Motion Picture Association in an active effort to curb government, local and federal, agencies involvement...And the degree to which it 'worked' (even within your own standards and desires) is highly debatable itself--some of the highest plaudits it received being from directors saying they just had to invent more devious ways of inserting what they wanted in, and a number of films flouting it anyways.

Outside of your own standards, it stomped down a number of creative works (Betty Boop, famously), and, somewhat making a point others have raised in regards to government agency except as an industry one, which individual films would fall under it or be given a stamp of approval was impacted heavily by personal and political animosities between Holywood personalities and how some rich assholes didn't want competition from their rivals (Hughes' The Outlaw as the standard-bearer for this one).

The Hays Code didn't work because it was implemented from the top-down. Had each state or locality implemented its own version of the Hays Code, we'd have had a much better system in place. That's what I believe.

Looking beneath the superficialities, one finds:

• The same sort of self-righteous authoritarianism. The mindset that everyone else should be forced at gunpoint to go along with your values.
• The same wilful obtuseness when faced with any sort of practical criticism either of those values, or of the proposed means to attaining to the stated goals.
• The same deification of government - evil will vanish if the king decrees a law against it.
• The same overt rejection of the teaching of the Bible whenever it conflicts with their own man-made philosophy.
• The same desire to treat human nature as something malleable by government coercion.
• The same endgame economically. Whether it's "The Church" or The Party, the goal is a system where "other people work, while we sit and eat."

In order: projection, projection, strawman, strawman, strawman, and strawman. Your comments on Catholics is especially ironic given how it was my conversing with a Christian fundamentalist that convinced me to become a social conservative in the first place.

That you lie about what I believe, that you argue with strawmen of your own making rather than arguing in charity demonstrates who your father is. I'd rather be a "Leftist" than a child of Satan.

I regret that I could give but one like to your post.
In @The Name of Love 's type of society, you would probably be allowed to live as long as you sincerely converted to Roman Catholicism.
I don't think the Secular Left would be as forgiving. Their goal, as you say, is to eradicate all that is not themselves.

Actually, I don't mind non-Catholics living in my ideal society so long as they respected the Catholic government's authority as the ruling power and not engage in subversive activity. Ideally, I'd like everyone to get to live in the society of their choosing.

I agree that the right has been conceding to the left and has thus been losing. I am not advocating some kind of deal with leftists whereby we let them keep their porn and they let us keep our free speech. They take away what ever rights they can from us when ever they can.

But, they aren’t all powerful. They might control the major institutions in society but the average people still have a lot of power over their own lives - their professions, what media they consume, freedom of speech, how their raise their children, and so much of what happens on the internet. If the elites always got their way, there wouldn’t be any right wing sites or speakers on the net.

So I’m not saying that we make deals, I am saying that we should be wary with empowering institutions controlled by the enemy. Especially when it is a “problem” that we can simply choose to avoid.

Well yes, but the thing preventing the elites from getting what they want isn't the right; it's reality. The problem I have is that the Left has been getting the Right to concede on all social issues by appealing to abstract freedom. That's how they legalized contraception, abortion, gay "marriage", and pornography and took over all of the relevant institutions in our society. Do you disagree?

You can argue for the immorality of pornography or how it may be destructive, but it’s hard to call it a political solution when you know that the powers that be are against you and in fact you rather put you in prison than a child pornographer any day.

Yes, I agree. But by this same token, I find non-political, individual solutions to be laughably ineffectual. You will bow to peer pressure no matter how personally virtuous you are. It's just a fact of your human nature.

The only way to be counter cultural is if society works against you. Otherwise it’s not counter culture. The fact is that there are countercultural
communities all over the nation, all over the Western world most likely but rarer in Europe than in the USA. The conservative homeschooling community is one such countercultural community. My family is friends with numerous other families in our region, we home schooling our kids, don’t own TV sets, our kids play together, have book clubs, play music, fight with boffer swords, learn about nature and farming, put on talent shows, read books written in the past that still have good values.

These communities can and do exist, because so much of the establishments power over our lives I power that we give them. We don’t have to send our kids to school, we don’t have to watch TV or see movies, we don’t have to enrich greedy corporations buying luxuries we don’t need, we don’t have to watch pornography, we don’t have to go to a university. So much power over what matters in life is still in our own hands, at least for now.

Well, at least we can agree with this. Creating communities is what's important. I just think we also, at the same time, get over our fear of authority and power.

 

[ShadowsOfParadox]

...how exactly do you intend to distinguish between porn and say, "biology textbooks"? For that matter, how would you avoid banning writing that relies on sexuality and eroticism as an integral part of the story?

Like, you say "porn" and I'm sure you have, in your head, a very specific image of what that is, but how exactly would you define that in a way that doesn't involve "I'll know it when I see it"?

Especially since "I'll know it when I see it" is basically guaranteed to run into viewpoint discrimination in the US. The Supreme Court ruled that the patent office can't deny patents on the basis of "obscenity" for that very reason, which frankly, is probably a good part of why those obscenity laws AREN'T enforced, because if they were, they'd get smacked down. Like, there are STILL Witchcraft Laws on the books, they don't get enforced because trying to enforce them would fail miserably.

 

[Deleted member]

@ShadowsOfParadox I would, if I were to advocate for one, limit a pornography ban to cover video images of explicit sexual contact and simulated sex games involving real or simulated persons to avoid complicated questions around works of classical art.

 

[ShadowsOfParadox]

@ShadowsOfParadox I would, if I were to advocate for one, limit a pornography ban to cover video images of explicit sexual contact

...so, a Christmas movie where an important part of a main characters background is that they look reasonably like a famous actor and so are a stunt double for them in scene's involving sex is now banned, and no, you can't edit out the sex scenes because important character development happens while the character is talking with their counterpart during the filming. Or you've just shifted how porn is made...

and simulated sex games involving real or simulated persons

Games are speech though, and if you aren't going to ban it everywhere it'll prolly get knocked down... also that seems like it would just result in the actual sex parts being swapped from "people" to "dolls"... or potentially some really REALLY weird justifications for why the sex isn't happening with "persons". Also I wonder how broad the "simulated sex" part would be... You might just ban all the Fire Emblem games with kids involved...

 

[The Name of Love]

...how exactly do you intend to distinguish between porn and say, "biology textbooks"? For that matter, how would you avoid banning writing that relies on sexuality and eroticism as an integral part of the story?

Like, you say "porn" and I'm sure you have, in your head, a very specific image of what that is, but how exactly would you define that in a way that doesn't involve "I'll know it when I see it"?

Especially since "I'll know it when I see it" is basically guaranteed to run into viewpoint discrimination in the US. The Supreme Court ruled that the patent office can't deny patents on the basis of "obscenity" for that very reason, which frankly, is probably a good part of why those obscenity laws AREN'T enforced, because if they were, they'd get smacked down. Like, there are STILL Witchcraft Laws on the books, they don't get enforced because trying to enforce them would fail miserably.

To my understanding, pornography is media designed to titillate. It is not any particular quality within the pornography that makes it pornographic per se (although you can find certain qualities common to all porn such as the graphic depiction of sex acts), but the motivations of the pornographer. That is the reason why I think censorship of pornography is difficult.

Now that we've identified what porn is, there are only two principled anti-porn policies we can implement that wouldn't rely on the opinions of judges.

First option: we can take the position of the Counter-Reformation Popes, particularly Pope Innocent X. I personally see nothing of value in depicting naked people in an explicit way in any context whatsoever and would wholeheartedly support such a law were it implemented in consistently applied, but there may be a danger in inconsistent application

Second option: anti-pornography can be modeled off of libel laws, whereby the onus is on the prosecutor to prove the defendant was motivated by the desire to induce lust and perversion into others using his work. This may be an anti-porn law that'd be more readily acceptable to the wider public, as only the most egregious cases of obscenity would be prohibited and it would save biology textbooks and eroticism in art, but it may not be effective in tackling the political problem of porn.

Both options have their pros and cons, and I'd support either one, though the second options seems to be more sensible given our modern, pluralistic, and freedom-loving society.

Games are speech though, and if you aren't going to ban it everywhere it'll prolly get knocked down... also that seems like it would just result in the actual sex parts being swapped from "people" to "dolls"... or potentially some really REALLY weird justifications for why the sex isn't happening with "persons". Also I wonder how broad the "simulated sex" part would be... You might just ban all the Fire Emblem games with kids involved...

This is egregious. Fire Emblem games with kids involved wouldn't be subject to anti-obscenity laws because none of the sex is explicitly depicted in any way, shape, or form.

 

[ShieldWife]

Well yes, but the thing preventing the elites from getting what they want isn't the right; it's reality. The problem I have is that the Left has been getting the Right to concede on all social issues by appealing to abstract freedom. That's how they legalized contraception, abortion, gay "marriage", and pornography and took over all of the relevant institutions in our society. Do you disagree?

The organized political right hasn’t done much to stop the left in achieving their goals, because they are largely sell outs. People on the right though? Sure, they have played a role in slowing our slide to the left if not preventing it.

Though, for the most part you’re right. The right does lose because it compromises its values and allows the left to shift the Overton window in their direction. Well, this isn’t the only reason the right loses, but it is a big one.

A major problem is that the right is too conservative. When ever the left gets a victory, the conservatives suddenly decide that what the left were just fighting for and right just fighting against us now true conservatism and that you’re a Nazi, and thus actually a liberal, if you oppose it.

Yes, I agree. But by this same token, I find non-political, individual solutions to be laughably ineffectual. You will bow to peer pressure no matter how personally virtuous you are. It's just a fact of your human nature.

People don’t always bow to peer pressure. If they did, most of us would be at White Hall saying “Orange man bad” rather than here at the Sietch.

The activities of a few lone individuals is relatively insignificant, but when you get enough individuals that they can come together and make their own movement, make their own community, then something truly great and be born. Hey, that is what happened with the Sietch right? 😊

This, in my opinion, is a far more moral way of enacting change than getting ahold of power and then dictating from the top down - like the left has been doing for the past century.

Well, at least we can agree with this. Creating communities is what's important. I just think we also, at the same time, get over our fear of authority and power.

Communities are important. I’ll overcome my fear of power and authority when I see a major source of power and/or authority which is good.

 

[The Name of Love]

People don’t always bow to peer pressure. If they did, most of us would be at White Hall saying “Orange man bad” rather than here at the Sietch.

The activities of a few lone individuals is relatively insignificant, but when you get enough individuals that they can come together and make their own movement, make their own community, then something truly great and be born. Hey, that is what happened with the Sietch right? 😊

This, in my opinion, is a far more moral way of enacting change than getting ahold of power and then dictating from the top down - like the left has been doing for the past century.

How many of us are out there, exactly?

Communities are important. I’ll overcome my fear of power and authority when I see a major source of power and/or authority which is good.

You'd probably overcome your fear of power and authority faster if you let go of your liberalism and recognize that power and authority are facts of human existence, not these evil, corrupting things.

 

[ShieldWife]

How many of us are out there, exactly?

Depends on what you mean by "us"

People who oppose the leftist agenda - quite a few. Especially if the left were honest about their ultimate goals for Western civilization. People who are aware of the world's problems and how to fix them - definitely a minority but a growing one.

If there aren't many of us out there, then talking about all the laws we should make is particularly absurd. A disliked and disempowered minority isn't going to be passing laws to force their beliefs on the people with power.

You'd probably overcome your fear of power and authority faster if you let go of your liberalism and recognize that power and authority are facts of human existence, not these evil, corrupting things.

I don't really see myself as that much of a liberal. I do believe that power and authority are facts of human existence. Then again, so is evil and corruption. Isn't that one of the tenets of Christianity, the idea that humanity is inherently sinful?

 

[The Name of Love]

I don't really see myself as that much of a liberal. I do believe that power and authority are facts of human existence. Then again, so is evil and corruption. Isn't that one of the tenets of Christianity, the idea that humanity is inherently sinful?

Indeed.

 

[Captain X]

Where are the theocrats? I'd like to meet them!

Say hello when you look in the mirror.

Also, I support limited government too. I'm just not a libertarian about it.

This is undermined by basically everything you've said in this thread thus far.

If they did that, would the secularists leave them alone?

I'd leave them the fuck alone if they left me the fuck alone. I'm a real live and let live kind of guy that way.

 

[GoldRanger]

If you don't want me being snarky on the Internet, then don't give me ammunition. For Heaven's sake, you're basically claiming you'd join the enemy because someone on the Internet disagreed with you. Have you no self-awareness?

No. I'm willing to be with whatever side will let me continue my way of life with as little changes as possible (for the negative). I thought that would probably be the right, but your attitude definitely makes me doubt that. I can definitely swallow my pride and learn some fictional pronouns, what I can't agree to is for a religious inquisition to restrict my internet access according to whatever virtues they decide on without my input and based on beliefs I don't share.

 

[almostinsane]

No. I'm willing to be with whatever side will let me continue my way of life with as little changes as possible (for the negative). I thought that would probably be the right, but your attitude definitely makes me doubt that. I can definitely swallow my pride and learn some fictional pronouns, what I can't agree to is for a religious inquisition to restrict my internet access according to whatever virtues they decide on without my input and based on beliefs I don't share.

As you can see, most people on this right-leaning forum are arguing against him.

 

[The Name of Love]

Say hello when you look in the mirror.

What's your definition of theocrat?

This is undermined by basically everything you've said in this thread thus far.

How about this? Does this contradict me being in favor of limited government?

when it comes to freedom of association, I'd push it as far as possible. I'd argue voluntary association is the bedrock of a functioning society, and efforts by the government to restrict association would be not only unwise, but also unjust. I'm against modern anti-discrimination laws for that very reason. I also think there ought to be more devolution in government because of the principle of subsidiarity. I don't think a single centralized bureaucracy can make decisions for people outside of their area. This is why I think it'd be more viable to promote anti-porn laws in state and local governments rather than federal ones.

No. I'm willing to be with whatever side will let me continue my way of life with as little changes as possible (for the negative). I thought that would probably be the right, but your attitude definitely makes me doubt that. I can definitely swallow my pride and learn some fictional pronouns, what I can't agree to is for a religious inquisition to restrict my internet access according to whatever virtues they decide on.

By all means, become a Leftist because the mean a self-professed far right nutjob disagreed with you on the Internet. I double dog dare you.

 

[GoldRanger]

By all means, become a Leftist because the mean a self-professed far right nutjob disagreed with you on the Internet. I double dog dare you.

It's not "because you disagreed with me on the internet" obviously, are you being intentionally dense? It's because you and your sympathizers will clearly try to implement your crazy ideas and take away my rights were you to take power. If I see that this is the paradigm the right is shifting to in general (not just one person on the internet), I will have no choice but to go over (very unhappily and unwillingly) to the left, as the side that will compromise my core values and my way of life the least, and you can bet your dick that I'll do it if your kind pushes me into a corner.

 

[GoldRanger]

As you can see, most people on this right-leaning forum are arguing against him.

That's definitely encouraging.

 

[Captain X]

What's your definition of theocrat?

Definition of THEOCRAT

one who rules in or lives under a theocratic form of government; one who favors a theocratic form of government… See the full definition

www.merriam-webster.com

How about this? Does this contradict me being in favor of limited government?

Your entire premise in this thread is based on an idea that would require a very large, intrusive form of government. You've had it pointed out to you by more than one person that what you propose is completely incompatible with our Constitution and is very much the same type of government being pushed for by the social justice types, and you've basically just said that you're cool with that. You've also railed against libertarianism and the idea of individual liberties, so, yes, it's quite laughable that you now claim to be for limited government.

 

[The Name of Love]

Definition of THEOCRAT

one who rules in or lives under a theocratic form of government; one who favors a theocratic form of government… See the full definition

www.merriam-webster.com

Okay, since I'm not one who favors a form of government whereby immediate divine guidance or officials who are regarded as divinely guided rule us, I'm not a theocrat. While I do believe that, ideally, the state ought to be subordinated to the Catholic Church, I don't believe Catholic bishops should have political power. The Church and state are distinct institutions that each have their own ends.

Your entire premise in this thread is based on an idea that would require a very large, intrusive form of government. You've had it pointed out to you by more than one person that what you propose is completely incompatible with our Constitution and is very much the same type of government being pushed for by the social justice types, and you've basically just said that you're cool with that. You've also railed against libertarianism and the idea of individual liberties, so, yes, it's quite laughable that you now claim to be for limited government.

It wouldn't require a "large, intrusive form of government," at least not one any more intrusive than our current government, and that my ideas are "unconstitutional" is highly questionable. Furthermore, if you think that I have to be a libertarian to be in favor of limited government, you are just being an ideologue. Your repeated question-begging, your baseless namecalling, and your presumption of my motives is very, very annoying. I'm going to ask you very nicely to please stop.

It's not "because you disagreed with me on the internet" obviously, are you being intentionally dense? It's because you and your sympathizers will clearly try to implement your crazy ideas and take away my rights were you to take power. If I see that this is the paradigm the right is shifting to in general (not just one person on the internet), I will have no choice but to go over (very unhappily and unwillingly) to the left, as the side that will compromise my core values and my way of life the least, and you can bet your dick that I'll do it if your kind pushes me into a corner.

Okay, Coomer.

 

[GoldRanger]

Okay, Coomer.

Call me whatever you like, having access to things even if they go against someone else's religious beliefs, whether it's porn, or alcohol, or premarital sex or bacon or any of the other things you or people similar to you in outlook would like to restrict is more important to me than not being called names by you or these same people.

 

[Cherico]

That's definitely encouraging.

Most of us realize that were in a survival situation.

As in a couple side ways elections and we all end up pressed agaisnt the wall and shot survival situation. That means a lot of people who don't agree on a lot of things or even most things have to work together. Hell this site was created because things have been getting that bad politically.

That means we all kind of have to figure out ways we can live together, as for me I suggest autonomy. People like the name of love should be allowed to form their own little towns and we agree to stay out of their business and not fuck with them and they agree to do the same. America's big enough were we can do that.