Andrew Sullivan used to make the “conservative” case for re-defining marriage, arguing that recognizing same-sex sexual partnerships as marriages would spread traditional norms of monogamy and sexual fidelity where promiscuity and “open” partnerships tended to prevail. Of course, he gave that up long ago, announcing in the face of criticism (by Peter Kurth) of such advocacy that he affirmed “the beauty and mystery and spirituality of sex, including anonymous sex.” Anonymous sex, I gather, is sex between strangers who do not even bother to reveal their names to each other, and in some cases don’t show their faces to each other.
So it’s scarcely a surprise that Dr. Sullivan disapproves of the efforts I have undertaken with Shaykh Hamza Yusuf to persuade CEOs of America’s major hotel chains to stop offering pornography to their customers. Why would someone who celebrates promiscuity and casual sexual encounters as a form of “spirituality” think there is anything degrading or dehumanizing about porn and the porn trade? In commenting on our efforts, though, Sullivan oddly claims that Shaykh Hamza and I are “hiding behind the civil rights movement” to take his porn away.
Of course, in our letter to hotel executives, posted here yesterday, we weren’t “hiding behind” anything. We made our argument in an open and straightforward way. Here is what we said:
Pornography is degrading, dehumanizing, and corrupting. It undermines self-respect and respect for others. It reduces persons—creatures bearing profound, inherent, and equal dignity—to the status of objects. It robs a central aspect of our humanity—our sexuality—of its dignity and beauty. It ensnares some in addiction. It deprives others of their sense of self-worth. It teaches our young people to settle for the cheap satisfactions of lust, rather than to do the hard, yet ultimately liberating and fulfilling, work of love.
Later in the letter, having made our substantive argument, we mentioned racial injustice in anticipating and rebutting a possible rejoinder, namely, the claim that there is nothing objectionable about offering pornography in hotel rooms, since offering the material is perfectly legal (assuming that the porn in question, however graphic or violent, does not technically qualify as “obscenity”). We reminded the hotel executives that not all that many decades ago racial segregation, for example, was legal; but that didn’t make it right. Our appeal to the respectable business people who are profiting from porn-dealing today was not to law, but to conscience. We asked them to consider whether they would want their own wives, sisters, or daughters to be depicted as women are depicted in pornographic films and other materials. And we urged them to regard all women as they would wish their wives, sisters, and daughters to be regarded, i.e., not as de-personalized sexual objects or bundles of sexual appetites, but as persons—bearers of dignity who, as such, deserve respect.
Our point was not that the fight against the dehumanizing and degrading phenomenon of pornography is just like the fight against the dehumanizing and degrading practice of racial segregation. There are important and obvious differences. Our point was that something’s being legal does not justify anyone’s doing it, even for the sake of increasing shareholders’ profits in a corporate business (which, as a general matter, management has a fiduciary obligation to do). But since Dr. Sullivan has raised the issue of parallels between the civil rights movement and the struggle against pornography, if only to deride the idea, it’s worth mentioning one important parallel: the sickeningly widespread exploitation of women (among them many troubled or abused teenage girls who have run away from home, and many young women lured from Eastern Europe, southeast Asia, and elsewhere with false promises of honorable employment) who are trafficked into the porn production business (and often into prostitution, as well). No need to trust me or Shaykh Hamza on the reality of this vile and massive abuse of civil rights. Here’s Lara Janson, writing on the liberal Huffington Post.
Surely decent people on the left and the right can agree that the trafficking of human beings into sexual slavery is a horrific evil that we should do everything in our power to oppose. But if we are to make any progress in the struggle, we need to take the measure of the problem and that means recognizing its connection to, among other evils, the porn business. Regarding and depicting porn makers as mere purveyors of harmless “naughtiness” of the sort that it’s prudish and silly for sophisticated people to get worked up about is to abandon victims of exploitation whose fundamental human rights are routinely being violated.
July 10th, 2012 | 7:21 pm
Some good and interesting points were made here. Thinking about the women we love being in pornography is heart wrenching and should be an effective message to send to the CEOs. Thanks for sending the letter, Prof. George.
July 10th, 2012 | 7:39 pm
The accessibility of pornography in hotels reminds me of the accessibility of contraceptives, sterilizations and abortion-inducing drugs for Catholic school and hospital employees; supposedly both would make men and women more “free” in their ability to make life choices for the sake of choice rather than for the protection of human rights.
July 10th, 2012 | 10:13 pm
Sullivan’s “Daily Dish” is not to be taken seriously — he recently posted a number of entries on “the science of pooping” (I kid you not) and devotes a remarkable amount of space to the merits of smoking ganja and the joys of sodomy. He fancies himself as an expert on American politics and political philosophy, but his European perspective reveals itself on a daily basis, with his contempt for traditional American beliefs and his disparaging comments about the heartland of the nation. His opinions are quite the rage in Georgetown and Provincetown, but his libertine, hedonistic vision of the United States will never be adopted by a majority of Americans.
July 11th, 2012 | 12:58 pm
Publius: Dr. Sullivan studied under Harvey Mansfield at Harvard and was one of Dr. Mansfield’s favorite boys. I understand the argument that Sullivan’s hedonism is out of kilter with America’s Founding principles (though East Coast Straussians like Mansfield believe America was founded by the hedonistic principles of the esoteric Locke). However, it is ENTIRELY possible that the majority of Americans not only will adopt those principles, but have already done so.
July 11th, 2012 | 2:18 pm
Sullivan writes: “Where Kurth invents his
fantasy of my desire to dragoon the unwilling into marital slavery I have no idea.”
Marital slavery, indeed. Is he proposing a new “civil rights movement,” freedom from marriage?
July 11th, 2012 | 2:33 pm
Jon,
I’m aware of Sullivan’s Harvard background. And you are right, it is possible that a majority of Americans, at least on both coasts, have adopted his principles. But while Harvey Mansfield deserves to be taken seriously, Andrew Sullivan does not. Anyone who calls for war crimes trials for Bush, Cheney, and Rumsfeld [while remaining silent on President Obama's use of drones against American citizens] and regales his readers with the merits of beards is not a serious observer of the political order. Sullivan’s blog devotes an inordinate amount of time to the joys of listening to the music of the “Pet Shop Boys”, while at the same time his “views from people’s windows” are about as empty as his “theological” agenda. The latter is informed by his belief that gay marriage and various forms of sodomy are simply divine, and that Pope Benedict and Archbishop Dolan are authoritarian gay-bashers and pedophile-enabling misogynists who are killing the Catholic Church. I read his blog because Sullivan offers a glimpse into the pleasure-oriented, self centeredness that is the hallmark of those intent on destroying the Church, one of the last impediments to the fulfillment of their agenda.
July 11th, 2012 | 3:39 pm
Jon Rowe,
The Andrew Sullivan who studied under Mansfield at Harvard and wrote thoughtful political commentary disappeared some time ago. His obsession with the “true parentage” of Trig Palin (as well as the oddities pointed out by Publius) call to mind the term “jumped the shark”.
The truth is, Sullivan jumped a whole row of sharks, Evel Knievel style.
July 12th, 2012 | 8:30 am
I’m a little puzzled: Sullivan is in favour, inter alia, of pornography, casual sex, & same-sex marriage … how exactly is he conservative? Is he talking about his fashion sense?
July 12th, 2012 | 10:18 am
Excellent article. This is an extremely important issue, and one that can unite (portions of) the feminist left and the traditionalist right. The women in the industry suffer horribly, and countless men and their wives are negatively affected by it even if they don’t realize it.
July 12th, 2012 | 11:09 am
If some women in the pornography industry are exploited and mistreated, that is no argument for abolishing the whole industry any more than it would be an argument to do away with strawberry growers based on the miserable condition of migrant strawberry pickers.
I think it is not inconsistent for a conservative (of the libertarian type) to feel pornography is a private matter that, per se, needs no government regulation, although it is obvious a matter of government concern if people are forced into pornography without full consent. Ron Paul did not oppose pornography in his presidential campaign.
July 12th, 2012 | 12:33 pm
David,
Why should we care about Ron Paul’s position on pornography, and what does that have to do with Andrew Sullivan’s defense of porn? Writing a comment for the sake of writing a comment does nothing to advance the argument.
July 12th, 2012 | 3:01 pm
A couple questions:
Should we ban electronics because they are frequently made by workers in exploitative conditions, “ensnare[] some in addiction” (‘Crackberry’), and encourage “cheap satisfactions”? Should hotels stop offering Internet access, too?
And should Christians and Muslims perhaps look over the financial statements of the hotels, and agree to compensate the hotel owners for their loss of profits should they agree to stop offering porn?
July 12th, 2012 | 6:44 pm
Ray,
Yes, the issue here is hotel profits, pure and simple. What other issues could there possibly be regarding porn?
July 13th, 2012 | 12:18 am
Should we ban electronics because they are frequently made by workers in exploitative conditions, “ensnare[] some in addiction” (‘Crackberry’), and encourage “cheap satisfactions”? Should hotels stop offering Internet access, too?
Except electronics serve a useful purpose. If you tallied up all its real costs, and all its real benefits, it would be a net positive for society.
The cost-benefit analysis of pornography shows it has lots of costs, and they’re really horrific costs. (I can’t wait until the day our economists learn how to capture intangibles such as the changing expectations and attitudes towards what constitutes “normal” sex; if the Congressional testimony about the supposed rise in so-called “throat rape” cases in hospitals following the release of Deep Throat is any indication, we don’t even yet have the tools to accurately gauge all the costs.)
Meanwhile, the only benefit is illusory: the pleasure one gets from enjoying porn is offset by the human body itself. Like all abusive ways of stimulating your bodily appetites artificially, at first it’s a greater thrill than the unassisted fantasy – but the body adjusts, so over time, the overall amount of sexual pleasure is no greater than you’d get from just fantasizing, but you increasingly need greater amounts of stimuli.
It’s no different from heroin, drink, gambling, or adrenaline; you need to consume more to get the same thrill – and if you keep on, you end up addicted. The only way porn is exciting is if you hardly ever use it.
Our body’s appetites exist for reasons. You are welcome to overindulge any appetite you want, as far as I’m concerned, but that doesn’t mean we all have to pretend it’s socially harmless. Promiscuity and overemphasis on sexual pleasure is far more destructive and has far greater costs and burdens put onto the larger society than the Big Gulps and “bad fats” the left wishes to outlaw.
July 13th, 2012 | 8:58 am
Publius – I note in passing that you didn’t address the first two questions in my comment, but no biggie.
But what I was suggesting was a potentially practical strategy. It demonstrates commitment on the part of the people who want the porn gone, and eliminates the profit motive from the equation. The point being, at that point the hotels would have to cite some other justification for offering porn if they chose to do so.
If you want the focus to be on “other issues”, this might be a way to cast a spotlight on them. Just sayin’…
July 13th, 2012 | 10:34 am
Ray,
I didn’t mention your first points because they are somewhat laughable; i.e., the notion that ‘crackberry’ addiction, as determined by Dr. Ingles, is somehow a legitimate and destructive addiction recognized by medical professionals who treat addictions. As for “cheap satisfactions” — checking the score of a baseball game on the internet strikes me as a substantively different form of activity than watching videos of gang rapes. Just sayin’…
July 13th, 2012 | 11:51 am
Publius: Well, my ‘diagnosis’ isn’t quite so idiosyncratic as all that…
https://encrypted.google.com/search?q=site%3Afirstthings.com+video+games
https://encrypted.google.com/search?q=video+game+addiction
https://encrypted.google.com/search?q=social+media+addiction
I’m also kind of curious which hotels offer “videos of gang rapes”. I’d definitely boycott them! Please let me know.
July 13th, 2012 | 12:55 pm
Ah yes, these are killer addictions, sort of like watching too much TV. Re video games — a regular holocaust where cartoon characters are blown up by teen age boys. FYI: the people being killed aren’t real….. You clearly have no idea what is aired on these hotel broadcasts, as your last comment indicates. Usually one submits a comment based on a set of facts, not naive speculation.
July 13th, 2012 | 1:53 pm
Publius – For that matter, there’s certain amount of debate over the prevalence and severity of porn addiction. If you wanna go that route, why should I accept Dr. Publius’s diagnosis that ‘internet addiction’ is less of a problem than ‘porn addiction’?
Well, I accept facts based on evidence. If you could offer some evidence of hotels offering videos of gang rapes, you might be surprised. As of now, I’m simply supposed to take the word of “Dr. Publius”…
July 13th, 2012 | 3:36 pm
Women are victimized on a daily basis, unlike a cartoon character in a video game, or an obese teenager obsessively playing ‘Call of Duty.’ Perhaps you can grasp the difference between these activities and a runaway forced to make a porn film.We are talking levels of addiction and degradation, a point at which you seem completely obtuse. Once you have evidence feel free to comment in an intelligent manner about what occurs in the pornographic industry. That’s usually how it works. Evidence first, then write, not the other way around.
July 13th, 2012 | 9:42 pm
Publius –
Certainly. But people also do porn voluntarily. And electronics and coffee are also produced both in exploitative and non-exploitative manners. The solution is to encourage the latter and attack the former, not to ban them entirely.
Well, absent evidence that something which can be done voluntarily is nevertheless inherently, irredeemably harmful. Whatcha got? Presumably you’ve done the “evidence first, then write” bit, so show your work.
What I said, very specifically, was – and I quote – “there’s certain amount of debate over the prevalence and severity of porn addiction”. If it makes you feel any better, I’ll instead use your vocabulary and phrase it as, there’s a certain amount of debate over the level of addiction that ‘porn addiction’ represents.
Care to show your work on that score? Come on, hip me, or at least point me in the direction of where you you did your research. Don’t you want to help me out?
July 13th, 2012 | 11:38 pm
I didn’t mention your first points because they are somewhat laughable; i.e., the notion that ‘crackberry’ addiction, as determined by Dr. Ingles, is somehow a legitimate and destructive addiction recognized by medical professionals who treat addictions.
If there ever is enough evidence to suggest that electronics addiction is a real thing – real enough that there is a real threat to individuals and/or society – I think it would then be right and appropriate to discuss whether a solution is necessary.
But there is indeed a burden of proof involved.
Also, the least drastic solution is to be preferred – which might be related to why it is taking so long to find a solution to the problems presented by pornography (??)
July 16th, 2012 | 8:39 am
Blake –
Hmm. While people who can ‘recreationally’ use heroin are rare outliers, there’s quite a number of people who indulge in things like ‘drink, gambling, or adrenaline’ without getting addicted. I’d say probably the majority of people, actually.
So, is porn more like heroin or more like gambling? And how do we tell?
July 16th, 2012 | 8:13 pm
Ray,
Your lack of understanding about the pornography industry, i.e., ‘there is no gang rape in pornography’, is matched only by your assumption that underpaid third world electronics workers are somehow on par with women who are forced to work in the international porn mills. But your matter of fact attitude toward porn is typical of many males who have little concern for the women in this industry. It is common for male teenagers and juvenile male adults who write breezy comments such as “hip me” to dismiss porn as a non-issue, a simple commercial transaction between consenting adults. Ignorance really is bliss.
July 17th, 2012 | 2:35 pm
Publius –
I’m frankly astonished at your level of reading comprehension. At no point did I say anything remotely like ‘there is no gang rape in pornography’. I’m quite aware that such things happen and videos are actually made of that. And it’s a real problem.
But what I asked you to provide is evidence of hotels offering up such videos. So far, you’ve come up with no evidence whatsoever. A fair amount of indignation, sure; but no evidence.
Yes, violent porn exists. And yes, many hotels offer porn for viewing in their rooms. But – and here’s the key point you don’t seem to want to grasp – not all porn is violent porn.
So, please offer me evidence (and at this point I’ll settle for practically anything beyond ‘because Publius heavily implies it’) that hotels, particularly large hotel chains, are offering violent porn for in-room viewing.
(To spell things out further… if hotels aren’t offering “videos of gang rapes”, then asking them to stop offering pornography will have absolutely no effect on the production of violent, abusive porn, since that would mean they weren’t supporting or consuming such trash.)
July 17th, 2012 | 4:41 pm
Raymond,
Your cute distinction, “violent, abusive porn” vs. clean porn, is another example of your lack of understanding of the pornography industry. Could you define for the readers of “First Thoughts” (especially its female readers) the Ingles definition of what constitutes clean porn? I love your splendid male euphemism for good porn, the ‘non-violent’ porn — that allegedly predominates in the hotels of our nation….. Be sure during your research that you save enough money for the back surgery you’ll need after you twist yourself in knots trying to distinguish the good porn from the bad.
July 17th, 2012 | 11:29 pm
Publius – I don’t have to define anything yet, beyond ‘videos of gang rapes are violent’.
You made the positive assertion that hotels were showing – and here I’m quoting your exact words, note – “videos of gang rapes”. And I’ve been asking you to back up what you claimed.
And you haven’t even attempted to do so. Not even in the tiniest way. Let me know if you ever decide to do the whole “evidence first, then write” thing you bragged about. I think at this point absence of evidence is pretty decisively becoming evidence of absence.
July 18th, 2012 | 11:29 am
Raymond,
You are going to have to spend your own time and money looking for gang rape videos. Do you need me to give you a specific time and channel and a hotel address? I’ll leave that up to you. BTW, you didn’t answer my question about how you define good or “non-violent” porn. It’s great to just keep asking questions, but you never seem to answer any questions asked of you, especially regarding your defense of ‘non-violent’ porn. Let’s hear the Ingles ‘good porn’ standard since it’s an important part of your defense of allowing hotels to continue to show this unobjectionable material. . . .
July 19th, 2012 | 8:29 am
Publius –
Note the progression. You accused hotels of showing “gang rape videos”, I asked you for evidence that actually happened… and you not only failed to even attempt to provide such evidence, now you’re claiming that I need to prove a negative, show that they aren’t doing so.
Boy, am I glad our courts don’t work on “guilty until proven innocent”. I decline to prove a negative. And you clearly can’t prove your positive, so we’ll have to declare that point moot.
If your questions were remotely relevant to what I’ve actually written, that might be important. So far, in fact, the only question you’ve asked me is about the distinction between violent porn and “clean porn” (a phrase I didn’t actually use).
I would have thought the distinction between violent porn and non-violent porn should be pretty obvious. In any case, in the interest of furthering the conversation… non-violent porn doesn’t contain, and isn’t produced via, violence. (Just to save time, I’ll even define violence for you; click here, and check out (2) and (3).)
Links
Blogs
Find Us
Contact