1. Skip to navigation
  2. Skip to content
  3. Skip to sidebar
Source link: http://archive.mises.org/8427/sex-violence-and-the-culture-war/

Sex, Violence, and the Culture War

August 25, 2008 by

One of the fundamental problems in the social sciences is that correlation is not necessarily causation. Unfortunately, correlations are often reported and causality is inferred based on the predispositions of the analyst without adequately accounting for alternative hypotheses. There is nothing intellectually dishonest about this; indeed, empirical research is extremely difficult. However, it should cause us to view claims about causal relationships with some skepticism. FULL ARTICLE

{ 73 comments }

Deacon August 25, 2008 at 8:17 am

#######
#######

Pornography leads to increases in sex crimes
by teaching the otherwise sexually inexperienced
how to engage deviant and/or violent sex acts.

The studies indicating otherwise are bogus.

In any case, testosterone is the key/link to
understanding why men rape. Read my below
essay on the matter:

©1987

Sexual Dynamics of Lust in Men Who Rape

- why sexual aggression in males must never be about sex but violence -

Men have about 12 to 16 times more production of the HORMONE for sexual interest and physical aggression than women produce: TESTOSTERONE.

It’s a well-established scientific fact that men’s sexual aggression may be visually triggered by, for example, a female’s sexually provocative dress (or behavior), such as wearing a low-cut blouse or miniskirt (or acting out sexually suggestive poses).

That sexual response in men is not voluntary but autonomic; that is, for example, teen-age boys’ erection-response to the sight of pornography is not voluntarily but involuntarily produced in him.

As Natural to Him as His Beating Heart

It is his NATURE to be sexually aroused at the sight of a female body, if his sexual orientation is normal (homosexuality is not a normal sexual response for boys who have successfully passed beyond that “I’m curious” stage of sexual experimentation during puberty—that time of uncertainty when a boy/girl may act out homosexual behavior but, then, becomes heterosexual as he/she matures).

Some males’ testosterone production is so high that they can be driven to rape, as that part of the brain where sexual interest and aggression originates – called the “reptilian” or “old” brain – can pretty much shut down the higher, rational, THINKING brain—resulting from a concomitant sex-drive phenomenon – a scientifically established phenomenon – that when a boy’s/man’s penis is engorged, he suffers diminished mental capacity because of the much-reduced blood flow to the higher brain; that is, he can’t THINK clearly when he’s sexually aroused, and which diminished mental capacity makes him ask himself, after his normal mental faculties have returned: “What in hell was I thinking?” just after his sexual impulse has been acted out upon some unwilling female—or after he has masturbated away his body’s sexual tension.

Add to the above NATURAL facts about males’ sexual mechanics a very low IQ, and you have a very dangerous teen-age boy or adult man whenever he’s exposed to provocatively dressed (or behaviorally provocative) females.

So, while on feminism’s march towards a perfect – but unachievable – equality between men and women, feminists have had to DENY at all costs (particularly at the cost of the safety of females), the above NATURAL facts, so that any male’s sexual aggression against a female is strictly attributed to some penchant for VIOLENCE on his part—not to be attributed in any way – ever! – to NATURE and a females sexually provocative dress and/or provocative behavior.

Sex-Based Power and Politics in Feminism

The underlying purpose of feminists’ denial is both power and politics, as the former allows women to feel powerful in their sexual control of men while the latter is used to denigrate masculinity in the claim that men lack “civility,” which, of course, only women may define and apply to the benefit of society, and which “thinking” on their part results in this pervasive view about rape throughout this feminism-directed criminal justice system: “Rape is never about sex but violence,” as if NATURAL LAWS governing male’s sexuality were mere myth, and feminists’ defense-against-men claim were a universal and irrefutable truth.

The feminists’ MANTRA is this, in the face off refuting and countervailing SOUND LOGIC: “Women may dress however they wish,” as the onus of responsibility must always be on men—again, as if NATURAL SEXUAL IMPULSES in boys and men were mere myth, and that – if a boy or man is driven to sexually assault a teen-age girl or adult woman – it is his conscious choice of VIOLENCE against women, never any degree of sexual drive in him.

Because women – and those “men” who emote like women – do not think very well, it’s been nearly impossible to effect a more reasonable behavior on the part of girls and women, so as to avoid sexual aggression in boys and men suffering, say, both low IQ and high testosterone.

Generally, for men, this is the rule about their sexuality: “OUT OF SIGHT, OUT OF MIND”; that is, if there is no visual stimulation, then, generally, there is a lack of sexual interest (men’s penchant to imagine sexual themes within this post-Sixties-revolution, sex-theme-saturated society notwithstanding). But once that visual trigger has been pulled, it’s extremely difficult to halt the bullet’s natural course, either through actual sexual intercourse or masturbation.

Same Sex Drive in Hetero-/Homo-Sexuals

The same NATURAL MECHANICS operate in sexually deviant men, who may be stimulated by the sight of male or female children, or sight of certain animals, so that, say, a pre-teen boy wearing thigh-high shorts or a TV commercial displaying a naked baby can cause a pedophile to be highly sexually aroused—and hell-bent on acting out his wish for that kind of sexual conquest.

If liberals’ infamous “Twinkie Defense” (1979 trial of Dan White) can be used by left-leaning attorneys, in order to mitigate murderous homosexual rage, then, surely, the NATURE DEFENSE ought to mitigate against harsh punishment in sexual assault charges against low-IQ, high-testosterone male’s, who have involuntarily responded sexually, aggressively towards provocatively dressed (or behaviorally provocative) females.

That’s the sexual dynamics of lust in men who rape—and why sexual aggression in males must never be about sex but violence.

-Founders’ America

#######
#######

Haas August 25, 2008 at 8:22 am

Deacon don’t post up a whole essay like that on the comment page- just because present evidence and all current study show that porn reduces sexual violence and you don’t like it doesn’t mean you have to make us swallow your views regardless- go search the internet and find out what the latest studies say rather than posting up an essay over 20 years old…

Curt Howland August 25, 2008 at 8:30 am

Eeeeww, his laptop has a “made for Windows” sticker!

Now there’s an indication of self-destructive behavior.

Deacon August 25, 2008 at 8:47 am

#######
#######

Attn: Hass

I have a tendency to think for myself,
rather than to swallow drivel-filled
“reasearch”; a trend of drivel-filled
studies coming full-force after
dumb-as-a-post SOCIAL STUDIES
teachers and courses had infected
universities, hatched by socialist/
communist provocateurs during
Leftism’s Sixties Revolution.

I employ Aristotle’s means to under-
standing the world:

EXTRAPOLATION.

It is UTTER NON-SENSE to argue that
porn doesn’t lead to sex crimes.

http://worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=51289

http://worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=59953

http://worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=67871

http://www.mercurynews.com/ci_10267978?source=most_viewed

http://worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=54471

#######
#######

fundamentalist August 25, 2008 at 9:16 am

I was disappointed that Art puts so much emphasis on empirical research to prove his point when Austrian economists have spent you many years proving that empirical research cannot prove or disprove a theory; it can only lend support or not. The research Art cites doesn’t start with a sound theory to interpret the evidence, but tries to build a theory from the evidence, which is exactly what Austrian epistemology warns against.

Psychologist Dr. James Dobson (Focus on the Family) spent many years working on a congressional task force on pornography and probably knows more about the subject than anyone. His theory of why men rape is that boys enter a very vulnerable stage when they first enter puberty. Their sexual orientation is not fully formed and can turn in several different directions depending on influences. For example, they turn toward homosexuality when recruited by older homosexuals. They turn toward rape not because of hatred of women, as is commonly assumed, but because of experiences with sex during this vulnerable period.

Dobson doesn’t credit all pornography for contributing to rape, but blames pornography that mixes violence with sexual satisfaction. This shows that one of the potential flaws of the empirical studies might be too much aggregation of data. They need to look at different types of pornography. Also, their theory that rape is a form of aggression may be popular, but contradicts Dobson’s research. If you start with a bad presumption, you’re theory is still bad even if you find empirical evidence for it. Besides violent pornography, some rapists are recruited into the practice by older boys or men who are addicted to it.

Dobson’s point about pornography is that young men are very vulnerable and need to be protected from unhealthy influences at that age.

Instead of using highly aggregated data as the reported researchers have done, I would think a better approach would be to interview rapists about the progression of their experiences into rape as a means of sexual satisfaction. Dobson has done a lot of that kind of research, for example with Ted Bundy. Then if you want to apply some statistics to it, use text mining and markov chains on the interview data to demonstrate the progression.

Also, this brings up the issue of rationalization that Hayek treats in his “Fatal Conceit.” Hayek argues that false reasoning, or rationalization, jettisons all traditional values and history and tries to create new ones from pure reason starting from the limited personal experiences of the philosopher. This type of false reasoning gave us socialism. Hayek’s warning applies in this case because I can’t think of a time in history, particularly Western history, when pornography was not perceived as a threat to social cohesion and morality. As Hayek might say, we ignore collective wisdom of this sort at great peril.

Deacon August 25, 2008 at 9:16 am

#######
#######

Read and learn, dear
pro-porn posters:

http://worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=51289

#######
#######

Theblob August 25, 2008 at 9:32 am

Puritanism: The haunting fear that someone, somewhere, may be happy.
H. L. Mencken

Deacon August 25, 2008 at 9:49 am

#######
#######

Attn: Theblob

Libertarians fear that his/her deviant
sexuality won’t become as acceptable
as what constitutes “normal” behavior,
which acceptability-demand in them
originates from a psychological
drive in every person: an innate need
for a majority-held consensus that his/
her deviant behavior isn’t deviant; a
need in all of us to feel welcomed,
included, accepted, loved…normal.

-Deacon

#######
#######

Curt Howland August 25, 2008 at 10:00 am

I think Theblob puts his finger on exactly why anyone discusses pornography at all, save as a profit angle for new technologies.

Lucas Engelhardt August 25, 2008 at 10:27 am

Sorry, Deacon,

Though I agree with your anti-porn stance… in the sense that I don’t think porn can be considered a “good thing” morally speaking, the empirical work in the World Net Daily article is awful. For example, interviewing rapists and finding that 1/3 viewed pornography immediately before their crimes doesn’t give evidence for much of anything. In fact, the most striking part of it to me is that 2/3 DIDN’T view pornography immediately before their crimes. Anyway, to be meaningful, you’d have to show that this number is signficantly different from the relevant “non-rapist”, controlling for all the other characteristics. In other words, you have to compare people with the same education, income, geographical location, religious belief system, etc., and have the only difference be whether or not they raped and whether or not they viewed pornography. Then, you have to compare the two. If 1/3 of rapists viewed pornography before they raped someone and 1/3 of non-rapists view porn on a regular basis, then there’s no empirical reason to believe that porn has any connection to rape at all. Actually, according to some estimates, about 35-40% of men view X-rated movies in any given year, so the 1/3 number isn’t startling at all. (Actually, with a broader definition of “porn”, the number of viewers jumps dramatically… though I haven’t actually found good, solid numbers on that one. Most numbers I see run in the 70-80% range.)

Personally, I think that Art’s point here is more libertarian than Austrian. That is: banning pornography is somewhat likely to increase rape.

Now, from my perspective (which does see porn as wrong for a number of reasons), the question is “what do you do about it?” Banning it is the simple, evangelical conservative Republican answer. However, that doesn’t mean that it is the correct answer. This Art-icle suggests that it isn’t, and actually suggests a more effective alternative: moral education. From a Christian perspective, that should appear significantly better.

Alan August 25, 2008 at 11:20 am

Deacon, without footnotes what you’ve got there is an op-ed. I realize Dr. Carden doesn’t have any either, but it would be possible to google those reports he references.

C. Evans August 25, 2008 at 11:57 am

I must disagree with Richard Land’s assessment. The greatest moral threat to the US is the State. The State wants to be the Alpha and Omega of our lives and does everything it can to undermine rival institutions, especially the Church and families. The State has been quite successful in its efforts. Most Christians in the US, conservative and liberal, fully embrace the violence of the State to create their universal vision of morality. The results of such actions have led the people to look to the State as the originator of morality. Moreover, the State can exempt itself from the very laws it imposes on the rest of us and we accept this cognitive dissonance. Thus, we decry robbery in the private sphere yet tolerate the same actions of the State in the form of taxation. We decry murder in the private sphere yet we tolerate the same actions of the State in the form of offensive wars to promote democracy. We decry slavery in the private sphere yet tolerate the same actions of the State in the form of conscription. The moral health of the nation will not improve as long as Christians continue to look toward the State as the panacea. We already have the Balm in Gilead; we only need preach it. In the meantime, we will have to endure actions we deem sinful, but this is the nature of the Gospel, for God does not use violence to compel humanity to obey Him.

Curt Howland August 25, 2008 at 1:43 pm

I have to disagree with the anti-porn stance, if only because what one person considers porn is not what another person thinks is porn.

Is a male-model calendar explicitly marketed to those who are gay porn? Does it magically become porn if they are nude, yet the poses are otherwise exactly the same? (thinking of the movie _I Now Pronounce You Chuck & Larry_)

I know of nothing as beautiful, to me, as the nude human female form. I enjoy seeing them at every opportunity, as limited by my own sense of morality.

But I’m sure my sense of morality does not exactly match anyone else’s. Lock me up, officer, I guess someone thinks I’m a latent rapist.

Prosecute abuse. If there is no victim, there is no crime.

Deacon August 25, 2008 at 2:56 pm

#######
#######

This scribbler defines “pornography” as
any written or pictorial presentation of
thoughts and/or actions which lead the
reader/viewer to sexual excitation – lead
to thinking about engaging masturbation
or sexual intercourse of whatever kind –
and which presentation has as its
purpose to titillate and seduce towards
that outcome in the reader/viewer—for
profit-making; that is, any material
which has as its underlying purpose the
acquisition of profit by using sex as the
hook, for payment of money to read/
view the pornographic material.

Like you, Curt Howland, I know it when
I see it–when what I’m reading/viewing
prompts me to get-off, by whatever
means.

#######
#######

Michael A. Clem August 25, 2008 at 3:09 pm

Okay, I’m convinced: Deacon’s a troll.
But seriously, while Art’s points about causality and the social sciences are good, pornography’s a simple issue. The majority of people who view porn don’t commit rapes or other sexual crimes. Thus, there is no justification for outlawing pornography to minimize rape.
Once again, we have people who mistakenly think that civil society can be created and maintained by decidedly uncivil means.

robpo August 25, 2008 at 3:44 pm

Look out, I just saw porn walking down the hallway!

But how do I know if her purpose was to titillate? Should I ask her, so I can know for sure if she is porn?

Porn doesn’t make people into rapists, just like heavy metal music doesn’t make people into killers.

Wow, an article on Mises actually treats a position as hypothesis and uses statistics to prove/disprove it, versus taking an ideological position and cherry-picking statistics to prove it and every other facet of economic and social behavior that is in line with the ideology. Kudos.

Owl August 25, 2008 at 9:09 pm

I’m guessing Deacon regularly rapes his wife whenever he sees her naked? Or is that “natural impulse” either lacking or under control in those circumstances? I wonder if he can be married at all, or if his parents chose his wife for him, since he could not possibly have gone out on dates, or even have seen her before the wedding night, out of concern for his and her safety. Maybe that is why the rape impulse is suddenly missing when it comes to seeing his wife, assuming his parents strove to select the “safest” choice. The type of “man” he describes, without an ounce of self-discipline should be excluded from the part of society that doesn’t want such impulsive animals around.

His logic leads to societies like Afghanistan under the Taliban and Iran under the Ayatollahs. Or Saudi-Arabia, where a woman can’t even venture out on the streets without a male family member. A rule that, as recently reconfirmed, makes rape “ok” in Saudi-land, according to the exact same reasoning as mr. Deacon uses: if a woman goes outside amongst non-family members (even inside her “demure” dress) that is basically the same as saying: you may rape me. Although to be fair to the fundamentalists, those countries probably don’t recognise marital rape either. Since marriage gives license to have relations with your wife whenever you please, headaches or not. How is that for “objectifying” women?

Also, on a related note, this last week a Dutch middle-aged couple on a cycling holiday in Italy set up camp in the middle of nowhere, near Rome. The kind Romanian shepherds that showed them the place to set up camp, then came upon them in the night and robbed them, raping the middle-aged woman. The response from the mayor of Rome? “They had it coming”, as no sane person should go camping in an abandoned spot like that.

Welcome to the insane upside-down world where the victim is the culprit and the culprit the victim. And where “morality” is apparently whatever personal preferences (religious or otherwise) people wish to rationalise and turn into some kind of “Nature agrees with me” argument. As if we are some kind of beasts that must do whatever the monkeys do. But you cannot derive such morality from Nature. Apart from the is-ought problem, natural science should be value free: it must investigate the facts of nature, and nothing else. Interpreting it, giving it some positive or negative moral value, is a different field. Just “wanting” a certain result to come out (like both sides of this pornography or the climate change debate) is childish magical thinking. If there is a link between pornography and rape (either positive or negative), if there is a link between human life and climate change, that does not mean there is a moral law. Or should we also make pornography mandatory if it really does reduce rapes?

The article itself is also somewhat biased, since for no other reason than the personal opinion of the author, “pornography” is somehow considered “wrong”. Calling for “moral education” sounds rather pedantic, especially if such “morality” has not been grounded on anything but that personal opinion. And however are we supposed to define that pornography anyway? Since even wearing a burka can still not protect you from being “titillating”, as many muslim women can tell you. Men and women will have sex. In some cases (prison or boarding school) people will even turn to the same sex for gratification, with of without porn, even if their orientation is otherwise. This cannot possibly be the result of “provocation”. Unless we are all bisexual and equally turned on by men and women, which I doubt.

And would the same “safety” or “provocation” argument as some make against pornography also apply to other fields? Does Deacon also want to ban guns, cars, or even the Bible if they can be shown to lead to death or personal damage? Since obviously, if society was capable of totally banning all those things which increase the chance of an accident or a crime, it would be a lot “safer”, which is NOT a synonym for “moral”.

Of course society is not capable of such total control, and I hope to God it never will be. In the case of pornography you are luckily not capable of even defining it, let alone controlling what goes on in someones head. Although apparently some people are dying to do just that…

Brainpolice August 25, 2008 at 10:18 pm

“The culture war”? *palmface*

Lucas M. Engelhardt August 25, 2008 at 11:46 pm

Owl, I think you miss one of the points of the article (though this point is more implied than stated). The author isn’t trying to prove that pornography is wrong. So, the author’s belief that pornography only matters because it gives a certain emotional strength to the fact that he’s giving the conclusion which is opposite his beliefs regarding the morality of pornography. By adding the context of “Even though I believe that pornography is wrong…” the argument gains a certain emotional strength because we know that it’s not, say, Larry Flynt just trying to make something up to support his livelihood. Naturally, both arguments are “ad hominem” to some degree, and are technically fallacious in as far as they make the author matter. But, there’s more to rhetoric than just logic. Speaking of fallacies, the whole “You can’t even define pornography” is technically an example of Loki’s Wager. Just because we can’t draw a clear line that everyone will agree on doesn’t mean that we can’t talk about pornography as a meaningful category.

Joseph K August 26, 2008 at 12:16 am

I’m going to comment on the connection between porn and rape, since there might be another factor to the correlation which I see. Hate to bring the discussion down a notch but this topic reminds me of the “clean the pipes” concept from There’s Something about Mary. Namely, that if a man masturbates before a date, it decreases his sexual desire and makes him more like a woman, thus making him more appealing to women. Despite the farcical context of this concept, there is something to this. Men do experience a drop in sexual desire following ejaculation. This serves to give their body an opportunity to replenish their depleted stores and bring the sperm count back up. So, for a while afterward, men aren’t really all that interested in sex.

As to the connection between porn and rape, we must remember that the men looking at porn aren’t just looking at the porn. Fundamentalist brings up some outlandish semi-Freudian theory of rape based on pubescent development by Dobson but the reality is that the basic cause of rape is sexual desire and the sexual frustration attendant on being denied such desire. Reduce the level of sexual desire and you may reduce the incidence of rape.

In addition you might also the serious possibility of porn addiction reducing rape. As harmful as porn addiction may be to the addict himself, it tends to consume a lot of his time and make other types of direct person-to-person sexual interaction less appealing. Since the availability of porn increases the level of porn addiction it may decrease the level of rape in that way as well.

Personally, I’d have to say if you don’t like porn, then argue against it for direct reason. If it degrades women, then say porn is bad because it degrades women. Don’t try to confabulate some tenuous connection between porn and some other evil. It damages your credibility.

Miklos Hollender August 26, 2008 at 2:55 am

I think that social conservatives such as this Mr.Land are not totally off the mark, they just miss the most likely explanation of correlation: when phenomena A and B are correlated, but there doesn’t seem to be a causal relationship, the case is ususally that there is phenomena C which is the cause of both A and B.

Browsing for pornography (A) doesn’t increase the likelyhood of committing a sex crime (B). However there (C) which is the cause of both A and B: a certain way of thinking. A way of thinking that goes like this: if it feels good, it’s good. If it feels bad, it’s bad. It’s OK to be slaves of our desires. It’s bad to try to suppress or control desires. Every whim should be fulfilled at once. Having to wait a bit to fulfill a desire is bad, because it’s uncomfortable, it feels bad, therefore it’s bad. In other words, the typical way of thinking of a spoiled child. Apparently, in the modern world a lot of people manage to stay spoiled children during their whole lives.

In other words: time preferences as high as a mountain. A high time preference is the common cause behind more or less everything social conservatives tend to criticize.

What is the cause of high time preferences?

A) The welfare state that tries to protect us from the consequences of our choices, thus tries to keep us children,

B) Certain intellectuals, generally, the ” ’68-ers” or liberals in the modern sense, like Herbert Marcuse, who taught a philosophy of high time preferences to the masses.

Owl August 26, 2008 at 3:11 am

Lucas M. Engelhardt,

I see what you mean about the author trying to basically “absolve” himself, setting himself up as “against porn” to make himself more credible. I don’t know if he did that on purpose, or if he was sincere. But in both cases, I still think that he is basically calling for an “education”, or maybe if I put it more harshly, indoctrination of children with false moral values.

Of course, as someone with libertarian leanings, I support the right of parents (or anyone else for that matter) to communicate their own subjective values to children, especially since “neutral” moral values are hard to define or possibly even non-existent. But I find it somewhat dishonest to tell your children that “porn is wrong”, when basically there is nothing to argue against it, apart from personal distaste and arbitrary selection of which risks one considers acceptable to take and which not.

I had never heard of Loki’s wager, so I looked it up on wikipedia. Isn’t the point of that story of him and the dwarfs that they couldn’t separate his head from his neck, since both were intimately connected and it’s impossible to define were one ends and the other begins? I think that actually strengthens my argument, because it is impossible to say were “pornography” begins or ends, if you see it as “anything that may cause sexual arousal”, which is an inseperable part of the argument Deacon made against porn. Then any type of visual image of a woman, even a bare ankle or two smoldering eyes under a burka, can be “porn”. Even seeing your wife naked could be considered porn, because it should certainly have the same effect, if you are sexually attracted to your wife.

Simply stating for example that it’s “arousal outside of wedlock” is an arbitrary distinction, and even makes it impossible to select your own partner, since this selection would involve arousal. Assuming you don’t just go for the first person that turns you on. Then porn becomes completely subjective, literally in the eye of the beholder. One woman could walk around naked because she is so unattractive that she arouses nobody, while the other would have to stay indoors for her entire life. All depending on the character and fetishes or predilictions of the men in her society. Strangely, most religious doctrines don’t make the argument that this means it is just as logical that those men without self-control should be the ones restricted in walking around freely, only women.

And of course, such an arbitrary line still doesn’t give any distinct argument why arousal outside wedlock is “bad” or arousal in wedlock is “good”. If both can lead to rape (and indeed most rape and abuse occurs inside families), and if they really consider “safer” as synonymous with “moral”, both should be banned. Which is of course ridiculous, but still religious people use safety as an argument when it suits them (against porn, prostitition, promiscuïty, polygamy, drugs, etcetera), and ignore it when it does not (against marriage, family, guns, cars, refusing vaccinations or medical treatment for their children, swimming, mountain climbing, alcohol, childbirth, etcetera). Like they would argue against gay marriage and adoption of children, because they claim it could give the child a(n unproven) higher risk of something undesirable. But they don’t use the same argument against adoption of procreation by blacks, or people with less than average income or education, even though there is a proven statistical link with risks and such factors. They must know it exposes their hypocrisy to a reductio ad absurdum.

Basically, for Loki, no matter how the dwarves decide to take their winnings, he would be dead. Or as a God, he might not die, but having intercourse would be difficult no matter how they slice it. The same would be true no matter where you draw the line between “porn” and “normal arousal”: it’s a useless and undesirable seperation for most people involved.

Deacon August 26, 2008 at 5:34 am

#######
#######

Attn: Owl

You opine:

“Then porn becomes completely subjective,
literally in the eye of the beholder. One
woman could walk around naked because
she is so unattractive that she arouses
nobody, while the other would have to stay
indoors for her entire life.”

Stop looking for exceptions to a general
rule, which in the study of logic is one of
the 200-plus fallacious arguments people
commonly make, according to logicians;
the general rule in this case being:

Boys/men are generally
turned on sexually by
sight of the female body.

Exceptions to a good rule never can
adequately refute it; that is, a good
rule is good BECAUSE it is GENER-
ALLY true and good!

Generally, males’ strong tendency towards
sexual aggression must be corralled to
some degree, which corralling allows men
and women to live peacefully in community
–and protects children from males’ sexual
predation.

Pornography is, generally, an antithesis
to healthy male/female relationships, as,
generally, females view pornography to
be degrading towards their sex, because,
generally speaking, it objectifies them;
and because, generally, men who feed off
porn are feeding their lust at the cost of
developing a mental maturity about sex
and HEALTHY male/female relationships.

Leftism has taken the sacred out of sexu-
ality by making pornography ubiquitous
in Western societies.

When the sacred is removed – when the
means of procreation becomes mere
sport for self-gratification – then women
and children become VICTIMS of the
violence that NATURALLY follows from
sexual objectification; a GENERAL truth!

Western civilization’s rules – the traditional
ones you appear to despise – were (are)
product of thousands of years of humans’
experimentation on what works and what
doesn’t in keeping peace in community.

Generally, the Old Testament is a pretty
good encapsulation of what works and
what doesn’t for keeping peace.

One could write volumes about how the
now near-lost traditions of courtship,
marriage, family and community are
time-tested traditions for keeping the
peace, and which traditions we
abandon at the risk of total collapse
towards social chaos.

Generally, those who defend the pro-
duction and sale of porn are not deep
thinkers, if they care anything at all
about keeping high-culture civilization;
a time-tested and GENERAL truth.

#######
#######

Deacon August 26, 2008 at 5:56 am

=======
=======

Owl:

Logicians call that
kind of fallacious
argument:
“FALLACY OF THE EXCEPTIONAL CASE.”

=======
=======

Deacon August 26, 2008 at 7:23 am

=======
=======

P.S.

Owl:

Civilizations rise upon fidelity
to general truths and fall by
their abridgment. You, dear
sir, work hard at felling the
general truth of the purpose
for human sexuality:

PROCREATION.

As for your evaluations/
speculations about my sexual
character (married or single),
I’ve been married to my wife
for 36 years, with one very
successful son between us.

A bit of advice: NEVER,
EVER resort to personal
attacks, as it is ALWAYS
sign of either low IQ or
inadequate argumentation,
or both.

=======
=======

Lucas M. Engelhardt August 26, 2008 at 7:56 am

Hi Owl,

Actually, Loki’s Wager is identified as a fallacy, not as a proper form of argument. So, the argument that pornography cannot be clearly defined, and therefore no action can be taken regarding it is fallacious…. Hardly a “strong” argument.

And you have an underlying assumption regarding whether or not “porn is wrong”, it seems. That is: “Porn is wrong if and only if it leads to some worse evil.” From my experience, there are a number of religious arguments that argue against porn for reasons other than “it makes people into rapists”. So, it’s hardly dishonest to teach children that porn is wrong for those reasons. (Actually, I’d say that it’s not even dishonest to teach that porn turns people into rapists if that is what the person teaching honestly believes… at that point, they’re wrong, but not “dishonest”.)

Also, the call for moral education (and, actually, I’m not uncomfortable calling it indoctrination… because I don’t think that indoctrination is necessarily “bad”) does not seem to be compulsory. In fact, I’d be shocked if Art intended it to be. And, once again, I think you stray from the point of the article. The article wasn’t written to say that we should use moral education. It was written to say that the “porn produces rape” argument is no good, empirically, and that outlawing porn is probably not a good idea. The call for moral education is really just offering a reasonable alternative to those who think that pornography is wrong (the author appearing to be in that category). Naturally, if you don’t think that pornography is wrong, then there’s no need to do anything about it. I think that Art recognizes that the natural human response in the face of (perceived) immorality is to try to do something about it. So, he’s offering a positive outlet for that response. That is, try to persuade people that pornography and rape are both wrong and teach them how to deal with using neither… in short, “moral education”.

J D August 26, 2008 at 8:25 am

A similar article and group of comments could be made if an author took this position:

“One should not argue for making marijuana illegal on the basis of it leading to heroin addiction because far more pot users never try heroin than become heroin addicts.”

David Ch August 26, 2008 at 8:41 am

SPeaking as an agnostic ( with an atheistic leaning), I must admire the sense of proportion and reason in Mr Carden’s article, the more so for him being a Christian himself.

When are the Deacons of this world going to realise that moral behaviour is an individual choice, and that the harm done by coercively forcing moral standards always outweighs any good that can come of it?

Some time ago, I ( an enthusiastic if monogamous heterosexual) wrote a piece defending homosexual marriage, when the debate reched fever pitch in my country . what follows is an extract from that article, which I believe sits rather well here: If anyone wants the full article which carries the rest of th eargument, they are welcome to drop me a line and Ill send it.

‘In a multicultural, multi-religious society such as ours, morality can not be more than a personal conception of right and wrong that informs an individual’s own choices. On the other hand, the law should govern a person’s behaviour only in so far as it impinges on the rights or property of other, non-consenting parties. These are two different concepts, albeit that the law has a long history of violently enforcing moral viewpoints, and has only recently started to discard its criminal sanctions against private behaviour: For example, laws that used to criminalise sodomy, even between consenting parties, and even between husband and wife, are no longer effective. Granted, the law still has some way to go to deal with many remaining criminal sanctions that originated from theocratic moralism, for example those relating to prostitution, or retailing wine on Sundays.

Our individual moral views on these activities are beside the point: if our society is to be at all free, none of us is entitled to prescribe whether others may indulge in them or not, however distasteful we may find them. Liberty demands that the law must be wholly secular, and hence cannot decree behavioural standards between consenting parties acting between themselves. Ironically, this principle is the only guarantee of religious freedom for a co-existing multitude of faiths: if any one religion is permitted to use the law to force its particular moral views on others, no religion will itself be safe from persecution, as history has so clearly shown. It is a pity that so few of the ‘religious right’ remember this.

In the light of this constitutional distinction between morality and law, the same-sex marriage issue becomes a lot clearer.

Much of the emotive resistance to same-sex marriage seems to arise out of moral disgust at the thought of sex among the same sex, as it were. While the religious dimension of marriage is commonly interpreted as a licence to have sex and procreate, as far as the law is concerned, marriage does not legitimise sexual activity. Consensual sex between any two (or more) people, of any sex, married or not, is quite legal – and very common indeed. Likewise, the absence of offspring does not invalidate a marriage, nor does the existence of children by itself confer married status on the parents. So as a basis for objecting to legal same-sex marriage, the sexual and procreational component is irrelevant. …’

Deacon August 26, 2008 at 8:50 am

#######
#######

Attn: David Ch

You opine:

“When are the Deacons of this
world going to realise that moral
behaviour is an individual
choice, and that the harm done
by coercively forcing moral
standards always outweighs any
good that can come of it?”

As as 40–years student of
anthropology, sociology,
psychology and the history
of civilizations (Will Durant’s
volumes), I must inform you
that MORAL STANDARDS
are product of cooperative
individuals – at least two -
living in community.

Ergo, you’re above opinion is
PERFECTLY wrong.

#######
#######

Deacon August 26, 2008 at 9:06 am

=======
=======

P.S. David Ch:

Your above opinion is
really stunning!, and is
the very CRUX of why
libertarianism fails:

It takes individual choice as the BE-ALL and END-
ALL of life, where any degree of COERCION
(( there’s that magical code word for libertarians’
“I can do whatever the hell I like to do, so long as
I don’t harm anyone” )) is REALLY, REALLY
BAD.

Can you and other liber-
tarians not see the deadly,
civilization-wrecking out-
come of that libertarian
“moral standard”?

=======
=======

newson August 26, 2008 at 9:58 am

i love the cornflower blue colour of the burkha.

David Ch August 26, 2008 at 10:17 am

Deacon said :

‘As as 40–years student of
anthropology, sociology,
psychology and the history
of civilizations (Will Durant’s
volumes), I must inform you
that MORAL STANDARDS
are product of cooperative
individuals – at least two -
living in community.’.

Ergo, you’re above opinion is
PERFECTLY wrong.

To which I must ask: what of a third and fourth person whose agreed standard differs from that of the first two? Does either pair have the right to override the other? who arbitrates and decides who all four must behave?

I may quite possibly be wrong, but I doubt Im PERFECTLY wrong. Unlike you, I dont have much truck with certainty ( Or with arguments from authority for that matter) , on the grounds that the moment one thinks one’s RIGHT, one invariably stops thinking at all.

Anyhow, returning to the subject of Mr Carden’s article. The empirical finndings on the connection between pornography and rape do not surprise me at all. This is why:

Based on an evolutionary understanding of the genetic differences between men and women, and the respective costs of procreation, and hence their respective optimal breeding strategies, there is a genetic hardwiring in males that predisposes them to as much sex as possible with as many females as possible, without committing to stay with any of them. Because the sperm investment in offspring is inconsequential and the genetic benefits of having many offspring are large. WOmen, by contrast, are far more discriminating in that their investment in a single offspring is colossal (9 months plus at least 13 years of care and feeding) and the optimal requirement for procreation is a male with good genes, who will commit to staying around to assist in providing for her and the child. (#). Of course, if strong genes are evident a woman may not be averse to cheating, with the optimal mix being a tame cuckold to help care for the offspring, which is made with the strong genes of the desirable male (strong, symmetrical in appearance, aggressive, awash with testosterone, and often a right bastard, but this profile seems to attract women like honey attracts bees).

In any event, with our modern social structures having led to an institutionalised monogamy as the optimal form of pairing *, we are left with males contractually and socially bound to strict monogamy, which is at odds with their ‘hardwired’ er, desire for variety and lots of uncommitted sex.

This conflict explains why pornography is so staggeringly popular (and has ever been, at least as recorded since the invention of the printing press, photography, and the internet all of which technologies started turning the stuff out by the ton almost as soon as they were invented). It provides males with a synthetic alternative to unrestrained sex with multiple partners, and resolves the social/genetic conflict, such that no physical infidelity need emerge.

So, rape aside, It would be interesting to run some studies on the correlations between infidelity and pornography readership – I would predict that lower rates of infidelity would likely be found among those married males who read pornography, than those who do not.

If I could make one final point, relating to pornography being axiomatically defined as an ‘exploitation’ of women. This might well be a deep socially problematic issue in some cases ( Mostly where drugs are involved, not least because of their illegality…whoops thats a whole nother debate), and particularly in generations past ( what could be more disgusting than the 19th century practice of photographing the inmates of mental asylums for porn manufacture, for example…), but in th emodern world, many of the women who willingly work in the porn industry are not stupid and they are not coerced either. Indeed, they strike deals and employ agents with canny savvy, some become celebrities in their own right, and retain the rights to their images and collect huge earnings off their exposure of their own naked flesh. It could quite easily be argued that it is they who are cynically exploiting the male sexual response. Still, if it lowers the predisposition to rape, who’s complaining?

In the last analysis, the rights and wrongs of pornography are the same as the rights and wrongs for everything else. If you are forced to participate against your will, its wrong. If you choose it without coercion, who am I to stop you? Do what you will, its your life, not mine.

#: This difference in predisposition to sex is amplified when examining the sexual behaviour of homosexuals : Male homosexuals are astonishingly promiscuous, often accumulating thousands of partners in a lifetime, and not even knowing the names of most of them. Because there is no moderating influence from female partners. Lesbians, by contrast, tend to form monogamous relationships that last for decades, with very little infidelity.

* with some exceptions , ranging from polygamy which emerges mostly in societies characterised by a heavily skewed distribution of wealth and power, to polyandry, in societies with sparse populations and very unproductive land. Interestingly, where polyandry emerges, the males married to the woman usually tend to be brothers, and even then there are high incidences of violence between them…. but I digress, thats a fascinating subject all on its own) .

Ron August 26, 2008 at 10:19 am

Hmm…I’ve been looking at porn since I was old enough to know what it was, but for some reason I’ve never raped anyone. Come to think of it, I’ve never even considered it or felt any desire to do so. I always knew it was wrong and was able to deal with those urges in other, nonviolent ways. I wonder why that is?

Maybe it’s because my parents taught me the difference between right and wrong. Perhaps it’s because I was raised in a Christian family. The interesting thing is that even though I long ago renounced the Christian faith in favor of agnosticism and reason, the urge to commit violence (sexual or otherwise) against another person hasn’t materialized. Likewise, you would think that all the violent video games I play would give me some urge to kill or maim, but that hasn’t happened either.

I’m sure I will be handily dismissed as an exception, or perhaps my mention of a Christian upbringing will be misconstrued as an endorsement of legislated religious morality. Neither could be further from the truth. I lay the responsibility for my well-adjusted character at the feet of my parents, who were good people and did an excellent job of raising me and my sister. Would that we expected the same of all parents, rather than expecting the state to relieve parents of the responsibility of raising their children.

newson August 26, 2008 at 10:23 am

to deacon:
i’m completely unconvinced by your simplistic linkage of rape with testosterone.
chemical castration of paedophiles hasn’t been successful in combatting child molestation.
besides, i find your concept of the low iq, high-testosterone male as somehow being an automaton insulting.
what is iq anyway? something that separates the wise from the unwise?

you clearly don’t subscribe to libertarianism, so what exactly are you prescribing to combat pornography, censureship?

Michael A. Clem August 26, 2008 at 10:27 am

Can you and other libertarians not see the deadly, civilization-wrecking outcome of that libertarian “moral standard”?
Frankly, no, I can’t see the harm in a society where people don’t harm other people! And as I said before, it’s a mistake to think that civil society can be created and maintained by the decidedly uncivil coercion of government.
Of course, when we say that people can do whatever they want if they aren’t harming other people, we’re just saying that it shouldn’t be illegal, not that people can’t dislike it. See, there’s this thing called society, and social mores, and people who do something that most people don’t like will find themselves ostracized or quarantined, or disassociated from the majority of people, even if it’s legal. If anything, peer pressure is even more important and effective without the power of the state to back it up.
Of course, it’s not up to you to say what the majority of people like or dislike, only the majority of people can say that. You can simply say what you like and dislike, and form your voluntary associations with other people based upon them. Unless, of course, there’s a law against such discrimination! In which case, we evil libertarians would all be in favor of doing away with said law, so that even you would be free to choose. ;-)

fundamentalist August 26, 2008 at 10:38 am

Michael: “I can’t see the harm in a society where people don’t harm other people!”

I agree completely, but if Dr. Dobson’s analysis of why men rape is correct, isn’t violent porn harming young males?

Michael A. Clem August 26, 2008 at 10:41 am

As as 40–years student of anthropology, sociology, psychology and the history of civilizations (Will Durant’s
volumes), I must inform you that MORAL STANDARDS are product of cooperative
individuals – at least two – living in community.

Whoops, I overlooked this! This is perfect, Deacon. If you believe that moral standards are the product of cooperative individuals, how can you disagree with me when I say that moral standards are like a voluntary certification program, and that people associate based upon those standards. And that, because they are voluntarily chosen, they are that much more effective than when morals are dictated by law? After all, supposing pornography isn’t banned, gay marriage is legal, discrimination of various kinds are illegal, and drug use is decriminalized? You would then be a criminal for disliking such things, and you would not be free to discriminate based upon your own moral preferences.
It is for these reasons that law should not be based upon moral judgements, but upon specific harm to individuals, i.e. violations of individual rights.

Vanmind August 26, 2008 at 10:45 am

Pornography is ambrosia. Help yourselves to seconds.

Michael A. Clem August 26, 2008 at 10:50 am

…if Dr. Dobson’s analysis of why men rape is correct, isn’t violent porn harming young males?
Dobson’s talking about influences, not aggression. Even if he’s right, that just stresses the importance of raising children properly, and of being able to raise children properly, without legal interference, not a justification for outlawing pornography, even violent pornography.

Deacon August 26, 2008 at 11:01 am

#######
#######

Attn: Michael A. Clen

All laws are based on MORAL
STANDARDS, as the State finds
and identifies those standards,
then assumes the moral authority
- by democratic means in our
society – to apply them through
police and judicial systems–to
apply the rules which the ma-
jority of cooperative individuals
have deemed to be morally
correct behavior.

How, sir, have I agreed with
you?: The laws are product
of moral standards a majority
of cooperative individuals
wish to apply, COERCIVELY!;
else, WITHOUT COERCION
(without threat of punishment)
everyone would just do what-
ever they wished to do.

************************

FYI, newson:

The burkha and concomitant sex-
restriction rules imposed on Arab
women had evolved over many
generations of accommodation to
the heritable sexual character of
Arab men, as learned and imposed
by those within any generation who
have studied what works in keeping
peace in an Arab community.

Consider the sex-drive differences
between, say, Asian males and
African males, where research com-
paring testosterone (T) production
in both groups show black males’
T to be much higher, probably re-
vealing a ROOT CAUSE of certain
differences between their respective
cultures and racial character; that
is, genetics – as it relates to normal
T production in both groups – may
explain their different cultural man-
ifestations, to include how women
may or may not dress in any gen-
eration.

The evolution of how women dress
themselves, in any culture, is a
product of adjustments to what has
been learned about how dressing
affects men’s behavior.

By our Western standards, such
restrictions appear to be barbaric
–even forms of savagery!

What has been learned, then
applied, may be right or
wrong. And the burkha, right
or wrong, is an adjustment that
had beem applied within the
time-frame – the social, cultural,
racial, political, and even
environmental conditions – of
its inception.

In other words, don’t judge the
burkha by Western standards
of evolution of how women
dress–or: When in Rome, do
as the Roman’s do.

#######
#######

Michael A. Clem August 26, 2008 at 11:11 am

The laws are product
of moral standards a majority
of cooperative individuals
wish to apply, COERCIVELY!;
else, WITHOUT COERCION
(without threat of punishment)
everyone would just do what-
ever they wished to do.

Moral standards are created by society, not government; government co-option of moral standards, just like government co-option of common law, removes all the benefits of said moral standards, and creates a tyranny, not a civil society.

Deacon August 26, 2008 at 11:33 am

#######
#######

Attn: Michael A Clem et al

View LIBERTARIANISM as an
upside down pyramid made of
bricks, where the massive
weight of individual bricks – of
ideas and papers and books
and reports on libertarianism -
rests upon one, fragile, strain-
ing, cracking, soundly illogical
PREMISE:

ALL FORMS of COERCION
- no matter how cloaked in
a desire to do good for the
individual and the community
within which he/she lives -
ARE BAD.

Well, that premise collapses
- along with all the above
mentioned bricks – on this one
irrefutable FACT of HUMAN
LIFE:

Coercion is as necessary for
adults living in community as
it is for children living in family.

Without coercion, children may
suffer pain and/or death for
lack of external guidance/control
- COERCION – such as a time-
out or a slap on the hand.

I had put it this way to libertarian
Gary North, who had challenged
my thinking on the idea of the
need for some degree of STATE-
oriented coercion:

How do you, sir, run your family household as
a parent/provider? Various operations of the
family household are the models for every
form of government, or lack thereof: Either
your children are family members – citizens,
so to speak – or merely consumers residing in
your household. Do your children hold a
particular status in relation to your and your
wife’s authority? Do your children view you
as a tyrant by your authority or as a
democratic arbiter, or some combination?
Such must be the nature of any State–an
expression of some particular form of family
dynamic within the household, as someone
must be in charge – either autocratically or
democratically – because there exist
inherently bright adults and dumb adults,
inherently bright children and dumb children.
Ergo, some kind of organization – some
degree of combination of cooperation and
authoritarian control – is necessary for
people to live in peace in family, community
or nation-state, as nature has dealt unequal
abilities to adults and children alike. Or do
you decide who is in charge in your family
by the one with the most money? Does
the money flow in an elitist sort of way,
with you as provider and taxpayer and,
ergo, decision-maker? Or does it flow willy-
nilly for purposes of maximum consumption?
Is your family a dictatorship, kingship,
democracy, oligarchy of two, or libertarian
commune? All political affiliations are
understood by examining family dynamics–
by examining the various psychological
dynamics of how members within the
nuclear family may relate to one another,
according to the abilities nature has dealt
to you and yours.

#######
#######

Michael A. Clem August 26, 2008 at 11:57 am

Yeah, you’ve used that before. But I don’t agree that a nation should be run like the family is run–they are two entirely different types of organization, with different goals and purposes.
I’m also wondering if you’re using COERCION in the same way as libertarians. As you know, we agree that the use of force for defensive or retaliation (properly justified) is okay, only the initiation of force is unjustified. So when you say COERCION, do you mean coercion as in stopping a criminal from committing a crime, or do you mean forcing people to conform to some moral principle that they may or may not agree with? Children are a different case–how a family treats a child is not, and should not be the way a government treats its citizens. So your family = government analogy is flawed.

David Ch August 26, 2008 at 12:11 pm

Having just read the jaw-droppingly racist and completely unfounded comments from Deacon referring to Arab male sexuality, and the testosterone levels in Black Africans, I can only shake my head in amazement. Verily, moral chauvanism and bigotry in the same mind is a frightening combination, and one shudders to think what such a mind would do were it to gain political power. Pogroms against the ‘immoral’ , no doubt. I’m reminded of these quotes:

‘with or without religion, good people will do good things, and bad people will do bad things. But for good people to do bad things, takes religion’.

- Steven weinberg, physicist.

‘Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as when they do it from religious conviction’

Blaise Pascal

Deacon August 26, 2008 at 12:20 pm

#######
#######

Attn: Michael A Clem

I mean this:

“forcing people to conform
to some moral principle that
they may or may not agree
with…,” such as when a
child wishes not to wash
his/her hands; or wishes
to play outside for as long
as he/she wishes; or to
cross the street without
looking both ways.

No, there’s no difference
between family dynamics
and the various forms of
STATE-oriented govern-
ment.

All types of STATES
evolve from various
forms of nuclear (and
extended) family
dynamics.

BTW:

“Government” and “society”
are synonymous terms with-
in democracies or, as in our
case, a democratic republic.

P.S.

I have to leave this board
for a time.

Have at it!

#######
#######

Deacon August 26, 2008 at 12:39 pm

#######
#######

Attn: David Ch

Oops!

I can’t exit now, after have
read your attack against me,
raking me over the coals for
merely citing medical findings,
and my having drawn soundly
logical conclusions from them.

So, David, you like to
commit the fallacy of an
APPEAL TO AUTHORITY
by quoting others, to
support your attack.

Okay, here’s one for you:

“The danger of free speech does not lie

in the menace of ideas, but in the menace

of emotions. If words were merely logical

devices, no one would fear them. But

when they impinge upon a moron they set

off his hormones, and so they are

justifiably feared.” -H.L. Mencken

Now I can
exit in peace.

#######
#######

Michael A. Clem August 26, 2008 at 1:55 pm

I mean this:

“forcing people to conform to some moral principle that they may or may not agree
with…,” such as when a child wishes not to wash his/her hands; or wishes to play outside for as long as he/she wishes; or to
cross the street without looking both ways.

Exactly! You want government to treat adults as children. And since government is made up of the people in the society, you want CHILDREN to control other CHILDREN! Or another way to put it is this: people who you claim are irresponsible and need government to coerce them are the ones deciding (in a democracy) which irresponsible people will be in government, and thus coercing the rest of society. This is quite contradictory with your statement that the morals of society are created by cooperative people.
Or, if you truly believe that government is an extension of family, then that would be a good argument for anarchism, which I don’t think you favor.

rtr August 26, 2008 at 2:42 pm

Don’t forget the “other” free trade side to all cultural “norms”. In a free market, you are free to “boycott” individuals in the exact same manner as one boycotts businesses. You can refuse to trade goods to “deviants”, blacklisting them.

It’s only because of government interference in the market that things such as homosexual “marriage” are coercively “recognized”, compelled to be subsidized by the State (same of course with heterosexual marriage).

Such cultural factors can be and often are partial inputs in the price of trade. But they only increase net society subjective wealth when they are voluntarily chosen by individuals, not when they are coercively compelled by outsider groups like the State.

Only the free market can ensure peaceful reciprocal behavioral “norms”. As Mises observed, people are either freely trading with one another, or they are not. There is no in between third way. Peace only exists when free voluntary trade interaction exists.

Others are of course free to deviate from cultural norms, and other others are of course free to deviate from interacting with said “deviants”. And said deviants can of course boycott back. In each case, the economic benefits of trade from vastly different cultural groups living together closely in the same local level communities will be weighed against living further away from each other in different local level communities versus some in between areas of third party trade “ports” which minimize coerced co-mingling of of vastly different cultural values whilst still allowing each other of the different cultural groups to benefit from division of labor trade.

But forcing businesses (that don’t want to) serve homosexuals is no less intolerant a culture war than passing laws outlawing sodomy. Forced diversity is intolerant, and ill-conducive to peace and the creation of wealth.

Gourmet Swinger August 26, 2008 at 5:30 pm

Boys and men do not naturally turn to violence; we do not naturally violate people, places, or things. Violence is a combination of cultural factors, biological (including nutritional) factors, and social mood.

Violent people are an offspring of decadent society which breeds such behavior. Violence is not as aspect of higher human intention. Violence is a return to lower brain functions of the limbic system (the lizard brain) where the perpetrator knows no compassion or empathy for the people around him.

Are rapists still at fault? Yes. Could the creation of those rapists have prevented through a peaceful, caring, compassionate parenting and schooling that expands on a person’s humanity? YES. Does decadent society that celebrates drugs, pornography, violence through mainstream media want to admit any fault? No.

If parents are not ready, willing, and able to imprint their moral values on sex to their kids, then they shouldn’t have kids. It takes a deep, caring, loving person to have kids, but most people are too shallow.

We have this thing called “pornography” exactly because of the shallow attitudes towards sex in decadent society.

newson August 26, 2008 at 8:16 pm

to deacon,
i’d like to see where you get these racial profiles. eugenics was always a tricky one. the germans tried terribly hard to construct jewish profiles, and the same would go for blacks. how black is black?

human nature is far less cartoon-cutout-simple than as you’ve presented.

as for the burkha, i’m not at all sure that there are less rapes as a result, just less reporting thereof. in many countries the victim is the culpable party.

western mores haven’t always favoured flaunting; if we are more licentious today, are you suggesting there has been some population-wide change in testosterone?

Comments on this entry are closed.

Previous post:

Next post: