And pornographers have utilized the relatively new medium of the Internet to take their trade to a whole new level. Significant sections of Paul's book explore what is probably the most dangerous aspect of pornography. Users have a strong tendency to become addicted. As with most addictions, porn users need more, bigger, better, and faster to achieve their high. Paul interviews men who relate how they "graduated" from still photos of naked women to videos of women with one partner to videos portraying multiple sex partners and so on. Eventually, some of these men found themselves "getting off" on video scenes involving abuse and rape of women. Obviously the ultimate threat to society is that porn addicts will engage in child pornography. And some of Ms. Paul's interviewees discussed how their addictions ultimately led them to do just that.
On the supply side, men like Larry Flynt (founder of Hustler Magazine, self-anointed guardian of the First Amendment, and pioneer of "pink shots") have made vast fortunes and taken porn to the level of "respectability".
Flynt once said, "I believe in the First Amendment (freedom of speech) very strongly ... and there's no reason to quit now ... All the support has been extremely amazing."
I don't blame him for his substantial interest in preserving the First Amendment. Under its application (which has allowed pornographers to produce and sell virtually anything short of child pornography), he has amassed a fortune in excess of $400 million. According to a recent report by CBS News, the pornography industry now generates about $10 billion in annual revenues.
So let's not kid ourselves into believing that those who have scrambled to the top of the United States' version of the Capitalist pyramid scheme by degrading those they exploit to make their product, severely damaging women's psyches, and feeding pathological male addictions are selfless martyrs for the cause of our freedom of religion, speech, press, assembly, and redress of grievances to our government. The deep resolve of pornographers to protect the First Amendment begins and ends with their cynical devotion to making profits through exploiting human beings.
Pornography is detrimental to the psychological, emotional, and spiritual well-being of the subject, the consumer, and the family of the consumer. While Paul stays fairly objective in her book, she provides plenty of anecdotal evidence supported by data from surveys and polls conducted by entities as diverse as the Kinsey Institute, Elle Magazine, Zogby, Focus on the Family, and Harris, to make the case that pornography is a significant detriment to our society.
I realize this it is anathema to the true believers in the "free market ideals" of the United States' sacred cow of Capitalism, but injecting some "Socialistic" governmental regulation into our economy in the past has helped protect many workers and consumers from the likes of the meat-packing, alcohol, and the tobacco industries. And once again the need has arisen.
Not unlike tobacco and alcohol, pornography causes grievous harm to human beings. Pornography comes with its own precipitously high social costs, including severe psychological damage to women, addiction, covert perpetuation of the subjugation of women, our children's premature sexual awareness, and child pornography.
Censorship is not an option I favor to deal with the problem of pornography. While the US Supreme Court has ruled that obscenity is not protected by the First Amendment, like beauty, obscenity is often in the eye of the beholder. Besides, if adults want to engage in self-destructive behaviors or exceed the limits of moderation, laws are not going to stop them. Prohibition demonstrated that clearly enough.
However, pornographers are enjoying a virtual free ride. There are almost no limits on the depraved garbage they produce and pipe into homes, schools, businesses and libraries via the Internet. Magazines like Hustler now look like Sesame Street relative to many Websites. For instance, in her book Paul refers to a site called "the Home of the a**hole Milkshake" which "treats" viewers to see how "multiple men can anally penetrate a woman and then force her to drink the ejaculated semen extracted from her own anus."
This is the point where I can assure you that your moral compass is probably broken beyond repair if you don't see the need for some measure of legal restriction on pornographic activities. Banning child pornography is a nice start. However, the Internet has made a joke of the Supreme Court's decision for each community to determine its own tolerance for obscenity.
Human beings pay a price for choosing to engage in immoral and self-destructive behaviors. It is critical that as a society, we protect our children and innocent by-standers from sharing in that cost to the extent that we are able.
If adults want to make and drink semen milkshakes, or watch other people do it, more power to them. But as we do with cigarettes and alcohol, let's tax the hell out of pornographers' products to offset the social costs they create and make it more difficult to access reprehensible filth (like the milkshake example) than simply making a few keystrokes on a computer.
I would also encourage each individual to consider joining me in boycotting pornography to help weaken a dangerously powerful industry which engages in a highly profitable form of legal human exploitation.
* http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0805077456/102-5107207-7174508?v=glance&n=283155
Jason Miller is a 39 year old sociopolitical essayist with a degree in liberal arts and an extensive self-education (derived from an insatiable appetite for reading). He is a member of Amnesty International and an avid supporter of Oxfam International and Human Rights Watch. He welcomes responses at willpowerful@hotmail.com or comments on his blog, Thomas Paine's Corner, at http://civillibertarian.blogspot.com/.
On the supply side, men like Larry Flynt (founder of Hustler Magazine, self-anointed guardian of the First Amendment, and pioneer of "pink shots") have made vast fortunes and taken porn to the level of "respectability".
Flynt once said, "I believe in the First Amendment (freedom of speech) very strongly ... and there's no reason to quit now ... All the support has been extremely amazing."
I don't blame him for his substantial interest in preserving the First Amendment. Under its application (which has allowed pornographers to produce and sell virtually anything short of child pornography), he has amassed a fortune in excess of $400 million. According to a recent report by CBS News, the pornography industry now generates about $10 billion in annual revenues.
So let's not kid ourselves into believing that those who have scrambled to the top of the United States' version of the Capitalist pyramid scheme by degrading those they exploit to make their product, severely damaging women's psyches, and feeding pathological male addictions are selfless martyrs for the cause of our freedom of religion, speech, press, assembly, and redress of grievances to our government. The deep resolve of pornographers to protect the First Amendment begins and ends with their cynical devotion to making profits through exploiting human beings.
Pornography is detrimental to the psychological, emotional, and spiritual well-being of the subject, the consumer, and the family of the consumer. While Paul stays fairly objective in her book, she provides plenty of anecdotal evidence supported by data from surveys and polls conducted by entities as diverse as the Kinsey Institute, Elle Magazine, Zogby, Focus on the Family, and Harris, to make the case that pornography is a significant detriment to our society.
I realize this it is anathema to the true believers in the "free market ideals" of the United States' sacred cow of Capitalism, but injecting some "Socialistic" governmental regulation into our economy in the past has helped protect many workers and consumers from the likes of the meat-packing, alcohol, and the tobacco industries. And once again the need has arisen.
Not unlike tobacco and alcohol, pornography causes grievous harm to human beings. Pornography comes with its own precipitously high social costs, including severe psychological damage to women, addiction, covert perpetuation of the subjugation of women, our children's premature sexual awareness, and child pornography.
Censorship is not an option I favor to deal with the problem of pornography. While the US Supreme Court has ruled that obscenity is not protected by the First Amendment, like beauty, obscenity is often in the eye of the beholder. Besides, if adults want to engage in self-destructive behaviors or exceed the limits of moderation, laws are not going to stop them. Prohibition demonstrated that clearly enough.
However, pornographers are enjoying a virtual free ride. There are almost no limits on the depraved garbage they produce and pipe into homes, schools, businesses and libraries via the Internet. Magazines like Hustler now look like Sesame Street relative to many Websites. For instance, in her book Paul refers to a site called "the Home of the a**hole Milkshake" which "treats" viewers to see how "multiple men can anally penetrate a woman and then force her to drink the ejaculated semen extracted from her own anus."
This is the point where I can assure you that your moral compass is probably broken beyond repair if you don't see the need for some measure of legal restriction on pornographic activities. Banning child pornography is a nice start. However, the Internet has made a joke of the Supreme Court's decision for each community to determine its own tolerance for obscenity.
Human beings pay a price for choosing to engage in immoral and self-destructive behaviors. It is critical that as a society, we protect our children and innocent by-standers from sharing in that cost to the extent that we are able.
If adults want to make and drink semen milkshakes, or watch other people do it, more power to them. But as we do with cigarettes and alcohol, let's tax the hell out of pornographers' products to offset the social costs they create and make it more difficult to access reprehensible filth (like the milkshake example) than simply making a few keystrokes on a computer.
I would also encourage each individual to consider joining me in boycotting pornography to help weaken a dangerously powerful industry which engages in a highly profitable form of legal human exploitation.
* http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0805077456/102-5107207-7174508?v=glance&n=283155
Jason Miller is a 39 year old sociopolitical essayist with a degree in liberal arts and an extensive self-education (derived from an insatiable appetite for reading). He is a member of Amnesty International and an avid supporter of Oxfam International and Human Rights Watch. He welcomes responses at willpowerful@hotmail.com or comments on his blog, Thomas Paine's Corner, at http://civillibertarian.blogspot.com/.
(Note: You can view every article as one long page if you sign up as an Advocate Member, or higher).
