Rants and Rambles

[Sorry that this is so long]

There seems to be a lot of pictures showing naked children showing up in my pornography these days. While the regular contributors to the sites and newsgroups I visit generally seem to be trying to put a stop to it I still find it distressing. I find it distressing because I worry about the harm to children and I find it distressing because the mere act of accessing the photos (which is sometimes hard to avoid when you, in fact, are surfing for porn) is something that is illegal in Canada.

Years ago I was working on a Master’s Thesis tentatively entitled “Pornography, Hate Propaganda and Canadian Jurisprudence”. I never finished my thesis (or the Masters program) partly because I moved on to other pursuits and partly because I had become tired of life in “The Academy”. The primary reason that I was unable (or, at least, unwilling) to continue was that I had become extremely disheartened with the idea that there was actually any reasonable way to choose one set of views over another.

At that time I had been formally studying and thinking about thought (the history of thought, the logic of thought, the psychology of thought and the underlying beliefs about thought) for almost 7 years. I was, and I hope I do not sound too boastful, not a half bad thinker myself. The problem was that I became so adept at dismantling the ideas of others that I was virtually unable to substantiate a basis for any ideas at all. Not even my own.

Sure, in my regular, everyday life I still had opinions but these were more like gut instincts than any kind of idea founded on a solid belief system. For example, intellectually I became pro-life and pro-choice. Similarly, I was against the death penalty but could see no solid, rational argument to support that position. I was against America’s conquest of the world while, at the same time, wondering how I could justify it as wrong.

I had (and I still suffer from this) lost any sense of having a moral measuring stick upon which I could support or condemn the actions of myself or others. The supposedly reasoned arguments of the centrist left, which I tended to agree with (and still do), became, in my mind, no more rational than those arguments from the extreme right, which I came more and more to empathize with even if I didn’t agree with the conclusions.

The root of the problem was my realization that, to take any stand on any issue, there are certain basic things you have to believe to be absolutely true. The Christian Right, with their anti-abortion position, believe it to be true that human existence begins at conception. This, in turn, is based upon their belief in God the Almighty and certain other unalterable “Truths”. The pro-lifer’s, on the other hand, believe in variety of humanistic rights based systems which place the value of a human life as something that occurs somewhere closer to the time of birth. While pro-choicer’s have the longer argument, the length of your argument is not a measure of its truth and neither side’s argument is more “rational”.

The bottom line is that, forced to justify their beliefs, those in the pro-choice camp eventually hit some basic beliefs that cannot be logically proven and are just as unassailable by reason as a belief in God and His word.

Human rights, whether I agree they “should” exist or not, are simply an unjustified belief. There is no moral ruler upon which we can measure the value of existence. I personally believe that there is a basic value that is intrinsic to human (if not all) life. I have no rational justification for that. It is not written down anywhere. In fact, on the basis of external proof, those who believe that the Bible is the Word of God at least have something to point to. As a rational humanist (I guess I would be that), I have nothing to support my beliefs at all.

Which is a long-winded way of explaining why the Porn vs. Obscenity problem became so vexing to me. Like everyone else, I wanted to be the one who decided what was obscene and what was not obscene. Unlike everyone else, I was writing a paper on the subject and needed an argument to support my position.

I could not find one.

You see, I like porn. I just do not like all porn. I do not like bestiality, child pornography or violence. I do not think that the possession or distribution of these sub-categories or erotica should be legal. But how to justify my position? There are, after all, a great number of people out there whose tastes are tamer than mine. People who feel that there should be no pornography at all and people who feel that pornography should be limited to the glamour-type images that one finds in Playboy. On the other side of the coin there are people who think that absolutely nothing should be taboo. People who see nothing wrong with man-boy love and hard-core S&M.

Whether I agree with them or not, who am I to tell either group that they are wrong?

There are a myriad of arguments to support those on either side of the debate. There are absolutely hundreds of books and thousands of articles which explain in great detail why pornography is either harmful or helpful to us. Granted, most (but a far cry from all) pro-pornography activists argue that it is not so much that pornography is good for us but that the alternative (indiscriminate censorship) has such negative consequences that it can not be tolerated in a free and democratic society. Then again, those arguing for pornography from the bastions of our Universities and Political Forums are hardly in a position to argue that jerking off simply makes them feel good.

Women also argue both sides of the debate with some stating that pornography is liberating and inherently gives women power and others arguing that it is degrading and perpetuates the stereotype of woman as sex object. Libertarians argue that pornography is merely a less than particularly useful (but nonetheless necessary) aspect of freedom of expression. Religious groups everywhere argue that it is just wrong and point to the exploitation and bad manners that seem to go along with it.

I could argue any of these positions. I could not argue them as well now as I could when I was reading about the topic every day, but, to me, none of these positions is definitely right or definitely wrong.

Forced to choose a manner of justifying my own position I think I would use one that involved “harm” as that would provide me with a lengthy and rational sounding argument, justify my position reasonably well and garner the support of the liberal elite who in general populate our universities and are amenable to arguments formed upon that basis.

In the end, however, how far would I get? Is a cow actually harmed by being sexually assaulted by a man? I doubt the cow even notices. Is there a definite harm only in pictures of pre-pubescent children? Computer generated kiddie-porn? Stories? What about the harm in consenting adults living out a rape fantasy on video?

Before you get yourself all in a knot of deep moral outrage, keep in mind I personally think there is harm in all these things. My problem is figuring out how to unequivocally demonstrate that harm while, at the same time, claiming that the porn I do want to be able to look at does not carry with it the exact same (or similar) harmful effects.

Really trying to justify your own moral position becomes untenable unless you have a God who hands down rules that can not be challenged. I have to believe that porn is not inherently harmful because I like pictures of naked women but I do want to draw a line somewhere. How do I condemn the hedonistic assholes who appear to enjoy pictures of young girls without in the same breath justifying the bible-thumping bastard who wants to condemn my tastes?

You would think that drawing the line would be easy. Maybe drawing the line is easy for you. Certainly I have no problem condemning a person who molests a child or the guy who takes pictures of little kids. I have a harder time condemning someone for viewing the final product, mind you, but generally I would be willing to punnish anyone involved in the manufacturing process or dissemination of obscene material.

It is the justification for these beliefs that I have a problem with. I believe very strongly that children can not give consent (real, informed consent) to anything more socially complicated than whether they want to play on the swings or the slide. I am adamant in my belief that even older children should not be allowed to make all those decisions that could affect their entire lives until they are old enough to at least partially understand the consequences of those decisions. Young kids and even teenagers often need to be protected from themselves.

As soon as I try to justify this position, however, even just to myself, I get caught up in issues of consent and autonomy that are so mind-boggling infinite that there is no place upon which to rest my beliefs. What age can kids start giving consent? Can adults truly give consent? Can all adults or just some? What about people who have been conditioned to think poorly of themselves (think the poor, uneducated masses) and, therefore, are easily exploited? Does the mere act of exploitation remove the possibility of consent? If we take away the ability to grant consent, how do we hold people responsible for anything?


AAAAAAARRRRGGGGGGGGHHHHHH!!!!


In the end, I would just like to be able to look at the porn I like without downloading a bunch of the obscenities that, apparently, others enjoy.

Is that too much too ask?