Tuesday, February 28, 2006

 

PORN and the Sex Industry

We had a great discussion about porn and the sex industry tonight. Please feel free to continue it here.

We addressed three main issues:
1. What is porn?
2. Ethics of Porn
3. Porn industry

Here are some of the discussion questions:

Is porn art?

Is porn degrading, and if so to just women, or men too?

Does porn facilitate or perpetuate violence against women?

Who is accountable for the negative consequences of porn, the consumer or the producer?

Why are women’s fantasies never pictured in mainstream porn?

Is porn different in different cultures?

Are submissive sexual roles a choice for women?

What effect does dehumanizing men and women in pornography have on our sex lives?

Is there racism in porn?

Can we make watching porn a positive experience when we watch it by ourselves or with our sexual partners?

What is healthy sex?

17 Comments:

Blogger Max said...

Hey all,

It was wonderful to be able to hear the variety of candid opinions, impressions, and analyses tonight.

At the Sex Fair I spoke (read: interrogated) a couple of the TMAC guys and found out that they have awesome anti-violence against women politics. I think that we should coordinate something with them since they are so eager to activate and educate about violence on campus. The men I spoke with had really interesting critiques of porn. I wouldn't exactly call them feminist...but they were certainly pro-woman and really nuanced.

Here's my question:

Like a year and a half ago, some of you might remember, there was a rumor (or story) going around about a female Tufts student on a porn site. The link was pretty heavily circulated. I remember the response being generally either of the "I-feel-so-sorry-for-her" school or of total disbelief.

What do you guys think? Any impressions of women (or men) involved in sex work?

I know most people found it surprising that a Tufts student would get wrapped up in that "type of thing" and I was interest in hearing the feminists' analyses!

Take Care!

-Rebecca

11:27 PM  
Blogger Max said...

Oops. I forgot to mention.

In case you are interested, Linda "Lovelace" wrote an autobiography about her role in Deep Throat (70s mainstream porn sensation) called ORDEAL. In it she speaks frankly about her own repeated rape, forced prostitution, and abuse over the course of several years. It's a quick read- but not for the faint of heart. It's garaunteed to make anyone question their porn politics in under 20 enrapturing pages.

Also, take a look at www.spreadmagazine.org. The hard copy is available at most women's sex toy shops (GrandOpening/GoodVibe/Babeland all carry it)... It's a magazine written by and for sex workers. See what you think.

Bye again, for now---

Rebecca

11:35 PM  
Blogger The Dicknotist said...

You know, I can rarely read feminist literature without feeling attacked (I'm a man). I usually ignore anything with the word "feminist" in it, but when the topic is about pornography, I feel almost compelled to chime in my two cents.

"Does porn facilitate or perpetuate violence against women?"

I've never gotten the argument that porn is somehow linked to violence against women. The literature suggests that only violent porn does so, but only be creating permissive attitudes about sexual violence - that may or may not lead to perpetuating it. Even still, violent porn is such a miniscule part of porn that's actually produced. Most porn just shows people having anonymous sex. You may disagree with it or be repulsed by it, but get violent over it? Does masturbating to Jenna Jameson somehow perpetuates violence? Hard to believe on any intellectual level.

"Is porn art?"

Absolutely, but then again, so it the female body. I cannot fathom how anyone can look through

the photography in Playboy or Maxim and not see a work of art. Not everyone can take photos of

such caliber and make the women look so great. Just look at normal photography in MySpace as a

comparison. Besides, isn't it all context specific? Why doesn't anyone complain about the

sexualized paintings and nudity seen at the MFA? It's dubious to me that it's ok to see naked

women in a painting by a famous artist but not ok to do so in a video or in a porn magazine.

"Is porn degrading, and if so to just women, or men too?"

You can see it as degrading, depending on your taste. I think what why some women view porn this way is because they're so geared towards forming, building, and maintaing relationships. Porn depicts sex as mostly anonymous - something you do to quench your libido much in the same way you drink water to quench your thirst. It's very anonymous and passive, which is very offensive to women. That's too bad, but that the sexes are just wired differently.

Who is accountable for the negative consequences of porn, the consumer or the producer?

No one's ever been able to prove the negative consequences of porn - it's all speculation really. Resolve that question first before talking about accountability.

Why are women’s fantasies never pictured in mainstream porn?

The premise of the question is wrong. Check here for a guide: http://www.babeland.com/sexinfo/features/womenguidetoporn/
I'd also argue the softcore crap on Cinemax late night is women's porn. C'mon. It's not explicit and usually involves some relationship between the characters...even a storyline! Boooring. :) I suspect the person who wrote this question doesn't watch much porn, or she'd (or he'd?) have known.

Is porn different in different cultures?

Yep. In fact, over the past twn years, we've seen Japanese porn have a definite effect on American porn. For example, in Japan, porn was censored where the directors could not show penetration. So, they had to think of a way to visually please their customers without violating the law. What resulted was bukkake, a group sex practice wherein a series of men take turns ejaculating on the woman. That practice has since become increasingly popular in American porn as well. I love diversity. :)

Are submissive sexual roles a choice for women?

Yes. In fact, most men nowadays are little wuss boys who give up all their power to their girlfriends in hopes of gaining approval. Go to a bar or nightclub on any weekend and watch from afar...ir's quite a show. Just recently, I saw a guy approach a woman sitting down by getting on bended knee. Sad. And really, there are plenty of men who wouldn't mind a girl who likes to take charge in the bedroom...most women just aren't confident enough to do so.

Is there racism in porn?

Yeah, but porn is no more racist than greater society. i.e. Interracial porn scenes aren't allowed to be viewed in some parts of the country (you can guess where) where it's still taboo.

Can we make watching porn a positive experience when we watch it by ourselves or with our sexual

partners?

Probably not. Most women, particularly those in their 20s, are too self-conscious to enjoy porn with their partners or even to engage in sex freely and comfortably. This insecurity is rooted in greater society's overwhelming failure in raising girls with even average, let alone high self-esteem. And that's greatly rooted with absent fatherhood as well. So, by the time they reach their 20s, they're too damaged to enjoy porn with guys. They're too busy comparing themselves to the women in the videos rather than just enjoying the experience.

What is healthy sex?

Consentual relations between two healthy adults who are open, honest, straight-forward, respectful, and are as concerned for each other's pleasure as their own.

8:57 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Dear Gerard,

It seems like you are getting most of your information by drawing on personal experience, so allow me to draw on mine (as a white, heterosexual, woman at Tufts.)

First, let me just address you porn vs. art segment. There is a lot there it's not where I want to focus my attention. In my experience as a feminist working with other feminists there has been a lot of concern over censorship. It is problematic, it isn't something everyone supports or requires. Certainly there are people who would claim that depictions of women in art are as insulting as depictions of women as art.

HOWEVER: the fact that you call the female body art in itself is inherently misogynistic. It implies that it is shaped for the observer or that it's shape is incidentally artistic. Implicit in this is the suggestion that women's bodies are public in some measure- that they can be valued by men. The notion of valuing a woman's body as art implies asymetrical power. A woman's body doesn't exist for your enjoyment- artistic or otherwise. It's not up to you or anyone else to declare it art.

What I really want to address is your assertion that women are "wired differently," that degradation is a function of their own psyches, and that women just don't like sex as much as men. All of these things are untrue. Actually I, like many women, have looked at porn--- I know what's out there and I know about the violence in porn.

Often, porn made for straight men by straight men endorses and encourages these same misconceptions of yours: "Women don't like sex, we have to take it from them."

Why do you think that stories appeal to women more or women don't want sex? You are assuming away women's agency. Maybe the problem is that there is no porn out there that looks like the sex women are having- where as it often depicts men's sex. I am NOT referring to fantasy here.. but reality. Women often find that porn doesn't look like the sex they are having- not because they aren't wild or kinky or into sex... but because porn doesn't really look a lot like sex.

I can't really quote someone from last night- but I can bring up something she said, which was that porn misrepresents female pleasure. I think that's true, after thinking about it. That's not what the female orgasm really looks like... so women are turned off. The men assume that it's just cause sex makes them quesy or uncomfortable.

There is more to say though. I hope other people jump in here!

-anonymous TFA member

10:48 AM  
Blogger The Dicknotist said...

This in response to the anonymous poster's comments above.

"HOWEVER: the fact that you call the female body art in itself is inherently misogynistic. It implies that it is shaped for the observer or that it's shape is incidentally artistic."

I fundamentally and vehemently disagree there. Maybe you'll never understand this because we are wired differently. I am a man and as a man, I am very visual. Whether you like it or not, a woman's beauty is what attracts me to them initially. I used to buy into the feminist rhetoric and feel guilty for this, but I soon realized that I was fighting my very nature and was only destroying my relationships with women and my self-confidence in the process.

There's nothing wrong with enjoying the female form. Granted, beauty is only skin deep. I want to know what's behind that smile and those curves...to know what makes her tick, what kind of person she is, what makes her happy. That's the fine line between enjoying a woman's beauty and objectifying women to the extent that all she becomes is a series of body parts.

"Implicit in this is the suggestion that women's bodies are public in some measure- that they can be valued by men. The notion of valuing a woman's body as art implies asymetrical power. A woman's body doesn't exist for your enjoyment- artistic or otherwise. It's not up to you or anyone else to declare it art."

Again, why is it a bad thing for a guy to value a woman's beauty? Is it wrong for a woman to value a man's height? Should we cut out our eyeballs to level the playing field? And there is an asymmetrical power: too many men in our society believe that the world revolves around beautiful women. Consequently, they feel that they aren't worthy enough, get insecure, and never approach and flirt with the ones they really want. They just settle. Sad.

"What I really want to address is your assertion that women are 'wired differently,' that degradation is a function of their own psyches, and that women just don't like sex as much as men."

You know, there's an concept in psychology called projections, where you project your own insecurities onto someone else...me in this case. Go back and reread my post carefully and critically. I NEVER said that I believed women did not enjoy sex as much as men. On the contrary, I think women may enjoy and crave sex more than men. The clitoris is the only organ designed exclusively for sexual pleasure and has thousands of more nerve endings than the penis. Plus, women are more apt to have multiple orgasms, so I know better than to believe the women-don't-like-sex myth.

What I did say (and I stand by what I said) is that many women, because of their insecurities and issues around body image, have a hard time engaging in sex openly and freely. This, btw, also applies to men with performance anxiety...they go limp because they're more worried about what their partner will think of them than just enjoying the act.

"All of these things are untrue. Actually I, like many women, have looked at porn--- I know what's out there and I know about the violence in porn."

Good, then you should also know that violent porn isn't mainstream. Most porn is just sex acts, which I suspect is why you have to keep stressing violent porn. It's tough to argue that a video of people have consensual sex is something related to rape and violence, so you have to go for the more extreme, rarer stuff.

"Often, porn made for straight men by straight men endorses and encourages these same misconceptions of yours: 'Women don't like sex, we have to take it from them.'"

I already address my supposed "misconceptions" above. Porn is entertainment, not education. People who take it seriously are like those annoying reviwers who dislike epics like Braveheart 'cause it's not historically accurate. It's a movie! Same as porn. In real life, no one wants to have sex like they do in porn...that's be uncomfortable. And quite frankly, it feels better to climax inside a woman than outside, but that's just opinion there. But porn is entertainment and most of the consumers are men who are visual creatures. We want to see it all, hence the odd depiction of sex acts where the guy is basically standing up, supporting his back just so the women gets shown. :)

And sex isn't taken: it's mutually shared. You don't lose anything by having sex; you gain pleasure. (Of course, always use protection).

"Why do you think that stories appeal to women more or women don't want sex? You are assuming away women's agency. Maybe the problem is that there is no porn out there that looks like the sex women are having- where as it often depicts men's sex. I am NOT referring to fantasy here.. but reality. Women often find that porn doesn't look like the sex they are having- not because they aren't wild or kinky or into sex... but because porn doesn't really look a lot like sex."

Again, where did I say that women don't want sex?! I agree that porn isn't real, yet so, is most of the stuff you see in TV and movies. I'm stunned that anyone wouldn't know this by now. :) Actually, they do make women-centered porn really: romance novels (if you believe sexually explicit text can be porn as well). In fact, 54% of the books sold last year were romance novels and women gobble this stuff up. Same thing goes for Cosmo Magazine, the #1 Women's Mag for several years running. If you pick up a copy of Cosmo and put it side-by-side with Maxim, you'll be amazed to see that Cosmo discusses sex much more often.

Look, I won't pretend to know everything about the female mind, but I've dated enough to know that women are seduced between the ears and by stirring their emotions - two things visual porn just can't do (without the guys falling asleep). Not ALL women are like this, but most are. You can continue to spit back feminist rhetoric to try to wish the world was different, but that's just the way we're wired.

1:21 PM  
Blogger Misprint said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

7:27 PM  
Blogger Misprint said...

To Gerard:

Let me begin by saying that the idea that any woman has had consensual sex with you is totally amazing to me.

And if you feel attacked by feminist literature, it isn't because you're a man; it's because you're a cretin.

I can't even begin to articulate everything that is offensive, repulsive, and just plain wrong in what you've said, but I, begin both indomitable and somewhat masochistic, will try.

To wit:

You are not "wired" in any way; as human, not simian, we can be counted on (or ought be counted on) to exercise our will. To fob off your total sexual narcissism (I will say nothing about your putative capacity for sexual violence) as the work of biological determinism is both laughable and offensive. The sex you are having doesn't sound like sex to me; it sounds like you're jacking off with someone else in the room.

And I bet it's just about that much fun for your partners.

Among the countless things you fail to understand:

1. Porn may not resemble the sex people, both men and women, are actually having, or want to be having. But you seem blissfully ignorant of the fact that actual people are having the sex depicted in porn: the performers. They don't want to be having that manner of sex, either; mainstream porn thus degrades, defames, and violates both the men and women who appear in it. It therefore is fundamentally different from mere "entertainments."

And explicitly violent porn is "rare"? Please.

2. I would not call pornographic sex "anonymous": I would call it violent. While one may be capable of having sex with strangers ("anonymous sex") that recognizes and does justice to their autonomy, and their personhood, the sex in porn does neither of these things. Pornographic sex is an act that depicts and emerges from profound alienation between men and women--it isn't a "relationship" that's missing from pornographic sex, but any relation between the people fucking at all.

Furthermore: since none of the women in mainstream heterosexual porn are themselves aroused (and the men are hard, but not, strictly speaking, aroused--if they were, every fluffer could retire, superfluous), porn contributes to straight men's total blindness not only to what women desire, but what turns them on. From porn, the average Dick might assume that women might have orgasms just from fellating their lovers.

Sure they do. And they also enjoy obtaining breast implants, bleaching their hair, and removing all their body hair so that they resemble something between a Barbie doll and a ten-year-old girl.

Porn is part of the culture that damages women. That you would dare say that women who don't enjoy watching porn with their infantile, self-absorbed, sexually unsatisfying dickhead boyfriends are "damaged" is grotesque. It's not that women are "comparing" themselves to the women in pornography, but that they know that men are--it's a pity that these men can't achieve an erection without the presence of a woman's entirely counterfeit pleasure, as available in porn.

Of course, I think men's excitement at porn has as much to do with the presence of another man's (much bigger) erection, but that's another story.

As for regarding a woman's body as "art": the problem here is not in lusting after women's bodies. I certainly do. The problem in calling a woman's body "art" lies in the way in which it robs the woman in question of her personhood, and renders her a mere object. Women aren't "seduced [only] between the ears"--I'm sure that this is just something that unattractive men say to console themselves.

You know nothing about women, about their desire, or about their subjectivity. It's not because there's a fundamental difference between the sexes. It's because you're a fucking idiot.

7:35 PM  
Blogger The Dicknotist said...

Wow. That response from "misprint" was just entertaining. I miss Tufts, but what I don't miss is the inability to have intelligent, civil discussion with people in these activist groups without it quickly degenerating into an ad hominem attack.

Time to grow up. One day you'll learn that calling people names won't mask the weak points hidden in your angry diatribe.

7:59 PM  
Blogger Misprint said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

8:09 PM  
Blogger Misprint said...

Oh honey... care to poin out the weak points?

I didn't think so.

You don't deserve civil--and you're the one keeping the discussion from being intelligent, God knows.

I'm 26. A Harvard graduate.

And fuck you.

8:10 PM  
Blogger Tufts Feminist Alliance said...

Thank you for such a wonderful response to our discussion! Can we please continue to use this forum in the spirit of polite, intelligent debate? We respect the opinions of everyone regarding this controversial topic, as long as personal attacks are avoided.

Here is a new discussion question: It is interesting to see the disparity of opinions and reactions to pornography. If pornography does contribute to sexual abuse, does it do so more than the images we see on mainstream television?

11:21 PM  
Blogger Misprint said...

Might I ask a question?

Why might intelligent necessitate "polite"? Or what do we imagine we are valuing when we value "politeness"?

And when is the offensive, or ideologically dangerous, itself intelligible as a breach of the bounds of social decorum?

11:52 PM  
Blogger Max said...

I think Misprint has a point- well, many good ones.. but here I am referring to the last post.

Only by virtue of illustration will I say this: A Jew could not engage in effectively edifying discourse with someone so anti-semitic that he perceives Jews as sub-human. Along the same lines, it is impossible to engage with someone dangerously misogynistic-- even if his misogyny seems to disappears within his peer group (i.e. society at large.)


I do not believe that maintaining polite or civil discourse requires that we "tolerate alternative perspectives" when the alternative perspectives are truly dangerous... Which I, of course, believe Gerard's opionions to be.

-rebecca

12:29 AM  
Blogger The Dicknotist said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

2:04 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Is porn art? Rarely. Degrading to men and women? Sure. But biology and capitalism (two of the most insurmountable forces known to man) dictate porn's existence; the real question we need to be asking is, how do we mitigate its effects? And my answer to that would be, parents in a nuclear family must instill respect for healthy monogomous relationships, and even though that will do more than V-Day, it will still accomplish little.

-P

8:38 PM  
Blogger Rita Skeeter said...

Hi All,

I've enjoyed reading your discussion so far. I would like to add that part of what makes pornography violent and degrading to women perhaps has to do with the characters in porn. Why is it that in many porn movies the woman is constantly saying no and yet the sex continues?(Example: most Japanese porn and lots of American porn) That sends out the message to porn viewers everywhere that non-concentual sex (rape) is ok. Why is it that black woman in porn are always portrayed in a more animalistic manner than anyone else? This is a racist and degrading portrayal of black women. While it may seem that most porn is just libido there are lots of subtle characterizations that send out sexist, racist messages that degrade women. I'm not really sure about how to change that because it's not like porn can be censored. But if there was no demand for such porn the supply might die away...
-Rita Skeeter

12:21 AM  
Blogger Erik said...

I would like to comment on one statement: “men and women are wired differently.” This notion is inherently misogynistic, however, it is not invalid nor should it be parsed over without due consideration. I believe that exploring the idea of ‘wiring’ will help us understand both the origin of pornography and it’s function.

To say “men and women are wired differently” is a grave over simplification. In general, I do not believe that it is valid to discuss any issue in terms of generalizations or universal assertions. Biologically, there are no “species” – there are only tropes of organisms, each serving as a unique experiment in a vast trial and error algorithm. Evolution is a process that necessarily leads to perfection, however, there are no perfect organisms created in the process (it took one thousand tries to create the light bulb). However, for the sake of argument, I will posit a few general remarks about our current existence in this particular spatiotemporal manifestation of evolution.

In the following, I will explicate a few important notions that, in my opinion, will help to realize why porn functions the way it does and why such a debate has arisen.

Pornography is not a biological phenomenon – it is a cultural phenomenon. It is not created by bodies but by minds (that is not to say the two are separate). In order to understand the creation of porn, we can look to the creation of our minds. Humans have what is called a triune brain. It is composed of three basic segments (listed in order of their development): the reptilian brain, the limbic system, and the neocortex. The reptilian brain, commonly called the brain stem, is a tiny bubble that extends from the top of our spine. It is called “reptilian” because it is the only brain that reptiles, one of the most primitive creatures. Have. It controls all basic bodily functions and instincts. It also houses one emotion: fear. This makes evolutionary sense. The only emotion that reptiles can feel is fear – a necessary emotion in order to thwart predators and simply survive. Reptiles lack the capacity to feel anything else. It is likely that they are not even aware that they feel fear, but it simply causes a reflex when danger is present. The limbic system, which controls more advanced bodily functions, harbors the ability to play, to feel happiness, etc.. Dogs, for example, have the ability to feel fear and to understand the notion of “play” (why they chase their tail, etc…). The evolutionary gift to humans is the neocortex which houses emotions such as love, shame, compassion. The key assertion here is that emotions evolve. We too often think of emotions as abstract entities that are not necessary for survival and do not serve a biological purpose other than happiness or some other emotional consequence. However, as fear was necessary for the survival, love and it’s relatives are necessary for our survival. This is why, in older couples, when one dies the other often dies shortly after. Dying of heartache, though it may seem like an ignorant and antiquated notion left over from Shakespeare, is in fact an actual and biological cause of death. Fear eventually evolved into this spectrum of “fear-variations” – each serving a purpose in perpetuating our existence.

How is this pertinent to pornography? Well the problem with this biological innovation is that, unlike lizards, we assume that we can act based on a wide range of emotional causes. Actions can only come from emotions. Actions cannot perpetuate from knowledge itself, but only from emotional reactions to knowledge. Because humans can act (I will not enter into the debate about free will at this point) based on a large palate of emotional causes, the same action can be viewed in a number of ways based on its motivation.

There exists two extreme motivations for sex – one born from instinctual urges (namely fear – the fear of becoming extinct) and love (the need to feel love in order to continue existence). In either case the actual act is the same – however, because we have the ability to reason and judge due to our neocortex, society values the different types of sex in different ways. Necessarily we place sex based on the need for love about sex based on primal instincts of fear because love is a much higher evolved emotion and is unique to our species. Biologically, we want to perpetuate our more advanced emotions over our primal and outdated emotions. Why do you think we have skin and not scales? Evolution moves forward. Our sense of morality is a biological phenomenon – not a subjective one.

Consider the following: it has been scientifically shown that most criminals have in their reptilian brain less neurotransmitters of hormones that cause fear than non-criminals. In other words, they commit crimes because, biologically, they lack the ability to fear consequences of their actions as much as most people. The impulse is to argue “how can we praise or punish them, then?” This notion is absurd. People assume that our social constraints are somehow separate from our biological development. By punishing criminals, we prevent their genes from perduring further into the future, thus leading to a more advance neo-human.

It can be argue, then, that, since our physical nature is a direct result of the evolution of our genes, our culture evolves correspondingly through the evolution of memes – or “cultural genes.”

Porn is constructed from such memes – and is a direct result of our genes. With the advent of the neocortex and our ability to create (something unique to humans) and our ability to create artificial substitutes for the regulation of our bio-emotional systems (prozac, adderol), porn is a necessary advent. This is not to say, however, that it will continue to exist. Look – love, respect, shame, dignity are all recent innovations in existence. Fear is much older. Porn is rooted in fear – it is a created substitute for our need to continue our existence, for our fear of extinction. No one gains love from porn – but people do orgasm from porn – and our bodies don’t know the difference between ejaculating into a towel and ejaculating into a vagina. As the neohuman continues to develop and fear becomes gradually eradicated, substitutions for fear will also gradually fade.

Of course porn is degrading to women. It could not be, scientifically, any other way. Men and women do not have identical gene construction, thus the evolution of male memes and female memes will not be the same. Men and women are not biologically equal, thus they are not culturally equal and cannot be. To separate our culture from our biological is unfounded and utterly ridiculous. Our actions are rooted in emotion, our emotions in the physical workings of our brain, our brains in evolution. Porn is rooted in fear, men are far more prone to exhibiting larger amounts of fear neurotransmitters than women, thus porn will necessarily be focused on helping men ejaculate and will be focused on women and thus be viewed as degrading.

This is NOT to say that this justifies degrading women. Remember that fear is a much more primitive emotion than respect and dignity. Our sense of respect is simply behind our more primal feelings of fear. It is this differend, this constant tension between fear and our more advanced emotions, that is causing evolution to stagnate. It is my opinion that porn needs to be (and inevitable will be) completely eradicated. It is slowing our ability to evolve. The emotions we are currently able to feel is not all the emotions the neohuman will be able to feel. We cannot have any concept of what greater and more evolved feelings of dignity and love the neohuman will harbor – but every effort should be made to speed the process and porn is simply slowing us down.

Does porn lead to violence? Porn does not necessarily lead to violence, however, those people who are prone to watching porn (those with higher levels of fear hormones in their reptilian brains) are also those more apt to commit violent acts.

Our concept of morality should have only one base – that which is moral is that which speeds evolution at the greatest possible level. Any meme created that inhibits this growth by exemplifying or feeding some primitive emotion needs to be nullified. Porn is necessary but not helpful. To use our “primal instincts” as an excuse is absurd. Why would we want to restrain ourselves to our “primal instincts” when we are so much more advanced than that? Leave porn to the lizards. We are humans. We have the ability to alter the speed and direction of biological evolution. Giving into the primal emotion of fear will only lead to more injustice, more violence, and eventually leading evolution backward and the annihilation of our own species.

12:53 AM  

Post a Comment

<< Home