Look what happened to Chic-a-fil yesterday. It had to virtually repudiate the words of its founder and CEO even though its market would be largely unaffected by any gay boycott. A hotel chain? Can you say financial suicide?

I’ve said repeatedly now that I’m all in favor of George and Yusuf’s project, merely that I doubt it will have any significant effects. Why is it so important that I sign off on a level of optimism I consider unwarranted?

RTM

Legitimizing and stigmatizing are, as it were, inverse operations.

Changes of behavior follow changes in attitudes. Attitudes change slowly, and behavior even more slowly. Ending hotel porn would, perhaps, have little immediate effect on the amount of porn watched. But who is to say that many small steps like this, over time, could not have an effect on behavior?

Moral decline did not happen automatically, but as the cumulative result of many small surrenders. Moral progress will happen through many small acts of moral courage.

Steve

So the point is not to stigmatize porn but to stop legitimizing it. Ok, fine, I suppose that if hotels stopped selling porn, one social force legitmizing porn would be removed, and that is all to good.

Still, the point of stigmatizing or legitimizing porn is important primarily–perhaps only–because we want people to watch less porn. Since we’re all agreed that this issue of hotel pornography is unlikely to have any effect on the total amount of porn created and viewed, I think I’m right to not get very impressed by this victory, if such it be and if it in fact occurs.

I am not claiming that people will notice that porn isn’t offered in hotel rooms anymore and say to themselves, “Gee, it used to be offered, but isn’t any longer, because society disapproved and put a stop to it.” That is not what I meant at all.

Here is what I did mean: For a long time now, people have turned on the TV sets in their hotel rooms and seen porn not only offered but advertised in such a way that the hotel seems to approve and encourage its viewing. That serves to some degree to legitimize it and make it seem socially acceptable. It is no longer the kind of thing that was done in dark corners and sleezy parts of cities, but rather in the nicest establishments! I would like to see that end.

In other words, it is not that I see the act of ending hotel porn as stigmatizing porn; rather it is the continuance of hotel porn that helps legitimize it and erode whatever social stigma remains, and I don’t want to see that continue.

In short, you misunderstood me.

Steve

If the hotels stop offering pay-per-view porn because some people morally disapprove of it, then, yes, this would to some extent stigmatize pornography, and that would be a moral victory, even if total porn viewing were unaffected. But if the hotels stop offering pay-per-view porn because it has become unprofitable (because porn viewers want internet porn and not pay-per-view), then there is no stigmatization of pornography involved when the hotels stop offering porn.

More accurately, I suppose that, for stigmatization purposes, what really matters is not why the hotels stop offering porn but why people *think* that they stopped offering porn. So, if we could fool the public into thinking that hotels stopped offering porn because a significant portion of the population thinks it’s immoral, then, even if the real reason they stopped was that it was unprofitable since porn consumers had switched to internet porn, then there might be some stigmatization effect. But I don’t think we can pursue a moral victory based on a lie, though, can we? As long as the real reason that the hotels stop selling porn is that changes in technology have made selling pay-per-view porn unprofitable, I don’t see how we get even a moral victory here. That said, if I am wrong and there is a victory to be had here, I’ll be happy to take it. But you know me, Steve: I’m a real dollars and cents, cash on the barrel, kind of guy. For a merely theoretical victory, I’ll muster merely theoretical excitement.

It is true that getting hotels to stop supplying porn would not put a dent in the viewing of porn. But it would serve to remove one symbol of the social approval of porn. To take an analogy: college students will view porn anyway, but I don’t think universities should provide it to their students in such a way that they appear to be approving it. The goal is not just to limit its use, but to stigmatize it as much as possible, so that it will be considered a shameful thing.

The American Constitution is remarkable for its simplicity; but it can only suffice a people habitually correct in their actions, and would be utterly inadequate to the wants of a different nation. Change the domestic habits of the Americans, their religious devotion, and their high respect for morality, and it will not be necessary to change a single letter of the Constitution in order to vary the whole form of their government.

We Christians need to somehow make non-Christians jealous of what we have.