Question 3: responses continued...
Come, come Trish. (Sorry, no shop talk.) Let's start again. Now, now, Trish, it's me, Dr. Labash. I'm here to help. If there was any doubt that you are in the advanced stages of denial, I think you confirmed our diagnosis with your last post. It became evident when you said, "I can't speak for John, but I don't believe in one night stands." Don't believe in one-night stands? I think the obvious question here is, Why the hell not? Did you just hold hands during the making of California Butt Sluts 2? Did you cut the frisky fella off during Anal Honeypie #1? Did you get a second date after Blowjob Adventures of Dr. Fellatio? Did you go home to meet his parents after Gang Bang Girl #17? Did he slip a ring on your finger after Bush Pilots of Lesbos (I guess she would have slipped a ring on your finger after that one, my mistake). I think you see where I'm going here, Trish. I'm being about as subtle as the titles of your starring vehicles. Why would you be against one-night stands? Are you afraid at least some emotional investment might be involved and you like your casual sex to be purely fiscal?
As for you Rufus (you swear that's not your porn name?), I guess it'd be really swell if your mommy and daddy were porn stars, and Dad caught the bug from a Brazilian transsexual (not that there's anything wrong with Brazilian transsexuals), and when you invited your friend Chaka over for a slumber party, and you popped in a video and it turned out to be "Backdoor Beauties of Discipline" (starring . . . great gawd'a'mighty, isn't that Mommy?), I guess you'd just slink down to your knees and praise Jesus for your level-headed parents who don't bore you with that family-values fatuousness.
John Stagliano (Q3: #22 of 33)
Oh Matt, if I could just be you for one wild weekend! When you walk down a street and see a hooker, maybe female, or maybe male, maybe young, maybe very young! If I could be inside your body and feel that surge of indignation. But I would try not to look at her too long, or too closely. But maybe this once I would fail to turn my eyes away! Maybe this time I'd actually go up and talk to this person, this poor, deluded, misguided, unhappy, ignorant, sensual, voluptuous, half-naked, licentious, erotic, big-titted, round-assed, full-lipped, sultry, seductive and available person! Oh, the delicious feelings. The fear, the confusion, the overwhelming instinctive need in the pit of my groin! No, I can't feel these things! I don't feel these things! But just this once . . .
Ian Gittler (Q3: #23 of 33)
Matt, the volume of your vitriol, name-calling and humor makes it nearly impossible to figure out what you actually believe, and why. I find your muscular way with the written word impressive, but also bruising. I'd much rather be funny with my friends, and at the risk of sounding like a dusty tome on Nerve.com, take this discussion seriously and show a little decorum. Sorry, but I think niceness counts.
Rufus, what I hear in some of your retorts to my views is you figuring out your own way of reconciling your investment in porn. The contradiction of your knowledge of porn's negative aspects and what you are doing as a profession may not be morally incompatible. I'd have to give it more thought.
But please do a better job of summing up my perspectives.
I have never said John or Tricia should feel guilt, shame, anything. When I express my opinions about or write about their world, it is not to single these people out and heave my chest about how much better I am, but to point to the many parallels in that world with so much of what is going on in the rest of society.
I am convinced, having watched many sex scenes filmed, having also been very promiscuous, that a true detachment of emotion and physicality is impossible — for anyone — and that a lifestyle based around attempting that detachment is never simple and always serves far more complicated emotional agendas, and is, ultimately, never worth the inevitable scarring or physical risk — John's or any of his peers' tremendous wealth notwithstanding.
The problems I have with pornography and all things related are not things I have ever suggested be solved in the arena of porn itself. In my dream of a not-so-distant future, changes in society as a whole will, alongside all kinds of other reverberations, result in a drying up of the endless lines of eighteen-year-old kids waiting outside Jim South's office in the Valley on open call day each month.
Pictures of naked college kids (many of whom look far younger) can be very hot, but yes, I would be willing to forgo such a heinous availability of that type of material if it meant that fewer kids were dragging themselves through the emotional mine field and death dare of a career in the sex trade.
I have never held John or his peers accountable for the creation or perpetuation of any of our culture's ills.
It's parents who need be held accountable.
Rufus Griscom (Q3: #24 of 33)
Matt, you're darned tootin' right, if I were a five-year-old walking down the aisles of the Parent Store, I wouldn't select Dick and Muffy, the shiny porn star duo (at least not unless the only other pair in stock were Harmony and Christian, the proselytizing born-agains), but I would sing hymns on a Stairmaster to find out how you have managed to convince yourself that this is relevant. It's interesting that you continually bushwhack back to the objectionability of the lifestyle, as if we should judge cultural products as a country club does aspiring members (don't worry, Tricia is not going to show up at the Chevy Chase Club and jump in your lap, upsetting your mint julep — society is already compartmentalized for your aesthetic comfort).
Ian and Matt, I think you share (impish bickering aside) a romantic and appealing conviction that the path of "monogamy, commitment and fidelity" is the most fulfilling one in life. The most coherent argument you have against porn, in my opinion, is that it encourages deviation from this worldview. That makes some sense to me. No doubt if Matt were to take the risk of exposing genuine convictions, we would find that he also sees the monogamous path as "morally right" in addition to pragmatic, whereas Ian has limited himself to the more forgivable position that it's simply the best means of enhancing happiness.
This raises two questions: 1) Does porn actually discourage monogamy? and 2) Is monogamy desirable (and while we are at it, feasible)?
I don't think porn lures people off the path of righteousness; I think it functions for many people as a sexual catharsis which makes the meat and potatoes of monogamy stomachable. And while I think that monogamy is an appealing ideal to most people, there is little evidence that any society has ever pulled it off any better than we do today. Of course, the readers of the Weekly Standard believe there were golden ages of moral purity, in which married couples skipped down Main Street in matching madras, pink-cheeked from the afterglow of discreet, procreative, loving, bi-annual sex, but under scrutiny those eras when society has been most insistent on monogamy have been accompanied by booming sexual underworlds. In the supposedly cherubic '50s, something like 75 percent of men admitted to having a slept with prostitutes (whereas in the supposedly licentious '90s, that number was closer to 15 percent). Turn-of-the-century London, if I am remembering correctly, had a population of one million and about 100,000 prostitutes. In other words, monogamous societies are pretty much only feasible if you have an army of women blowing guys in phone booths on their way home from work. There will always be a release valve, no matter how tightly Matt and Ian and friends hold hands and wish it were different, and, among release valves, porn is much more innocuous than the alternatives.
(Ian, I don't mean to lump your opinions with Matt's; I am aware of the differences and I think you are far more reasonable. Matt, you rascal you, I like you anyway.)
Ian, I am interested in your comment about "porn's negative aspects" and Nerve.com — do you and Matt see Nerve.com as colluding in any way with the dark forces of dirty-old-man-dom?
Matt Labash (Q3: #25 of 33)
Ian, save the part where you're constantly trying to distance yourself from me and your refusal to apportion any responsibility to the Buttman family, you are dangerously close to being on the team. C'mon pal, you can do it. Just two more baby steps. Let the warm water envelop you. Drink the kool-aid. Sign up with us here at the forces of evil and I'll show you the dance of the low-sloping foreheads, where we make overt pronouncements on yucky moral issues, where we cling to the antiquated notion that there even exists such a thing. I've got your uniform hat and T-shirt sized and ready to go. Call me.
Ian Gittler (Q3: #26 of 33)
Ugh.
Rufus, for an Internet millionaire, you sure talk about the past a lot.
Evolution isn't something that happened, it's something that's happening. You think humans have accessed all our means for getting our shit together and this is the result? I don't. I think we can do a lot better than a world where men go get blown by hookers on the way home from work. And remember, hooker is just another way of spelling daughter (or son).
Mining a relationship with another human for all its worth (and what's great about that is it takes forever) is definitely what this world has to offer. Anyone who's not working in that direction — straight, gay, whatever — is either fooling themselves, lying or just plain stupid.
I'd like to meet that happy fifty-year-old whore-fucking porn-meister you're referring to. The ones I know are miserable.
You seem to see my views as exclusive. I don't understand why. Is your skepticism an attempt at populism? If so, it's a grave underestimation of the hopes and aspirations of your own audience.
Matt Labash (Q3: #27 of 33)
Rufus, I wasn't ignoring you, I just missed your post after I filed my last; elsewise, I wouldn't have deferred your request to be spanked (I recommend Trish, but if I'm the best you can do . . . ). It may take some space, but let's address each of your mistakes. First, the relevance of the Butt-people as parents was not some straw man I conveniently pulled out of my bag of tricks. I don't know if you actually read Nerve.com (it's this new online publication, you ought to check it out), but Tricia brought up the prospect herself in her #10 and #14 messages, and I was simply helping her think things through to their logical terminus, a service you could have benefited from since you've now turned on Dick and Muffy. So they're not level-headed (your word) enough for you, but some unborn soul is supposed to kick up his heels when his creator assigns him to a dad named after somebody's ass? That's mighty consistent of you.
Second, I suppose, as a brother in the Lord, I should forgive you for relying so heavily on the Honking Clichés Playbook. I realize I'm something of an exotic species to you — you've probably never met a REAL LIVE CONSERVATIVE before (in caps, it looks almost as spooky as it sounds, don't you think?). But maybe it's time to gently correct some of your broad-stroke assumptions. The word "capital gains tax" has never appeared under my byline. I don't own a gun. In fact, I am not in favor of shooting anything that can't shoot back (for instance, I'm against hunting ducks, I'm for hunting self-satisfied New Media entrepreneurs). I live a little far north to favor mint juleps, but I'll occasionally treat myself to a Shirley Temple after beating the slaves, clubbing seals and crunching the knuckles of homeless people sleeping on heating grates. C'mon Rufus, I know you can do better than that.
We all tend to treat with distrust that which we do not understand. I might disparage you because you've dedicated your entire being to publishing articles about sex. (It's not that complicated Rufus, just insert key, turn engine. There are a few additional variations, but we could probably get you up to speed in an afternoon.) And you attack the Weekly Standard because, well, sometimes those dad-blum articles can go on for a full 3,000 words without a single mention of full penetration.
As for your charge that I have yet to clearly state a personal conviction (a charge Ian echoed), I must say, I'm genuinely flattered. You guys are ascribing a level of complexity and subtlety to my loud-and-clear rants that I fear aren't borne out by the material. Sure, I could've told you that I believe in anything goes, belly-slapping, nodule-glistening sex in all its glorious manifestations (and I do). But I also believe within all the wonderfully earthy variants, sex was, at its core, created as a sacred expression of love between two people. While I concede that pornography may, in some instances, ignite the pilot light — it largely profanes the sacred (in most instances on the retail end, and in every instance on the manufacturing end). A little of that might be okay, it's no fun to think of the bedroom as a temple. Of course, no one has gone further to erect a high temple to low sex than you and John — except your worship of the corporeal completely displaces sex's sacred element. I was going to say something like that, but I was afraid it would be too obvious. Then again, since you insinuated that I was a gun-toting, capital-gains tax-cutting, julep-sipping wingnut, I suppose obviousness is the coin of the realm.
Ian Gittler (Q3: #28 of 33)
See what I mean?
Once you connect "conservative" values about physical intimacy as serving the expression of a sacred love between two people who have built up a foundation of trust, with teasing, name-calling and vindictive, intellectual one-upsmanship, I can't help thinking that readers who may actually be open to consideration of a new way of defining their own values will have a difficult time getting past that association between "conservative" values and meanness.
That must have something to do with why the public face of conservatism in America has historically been one characterized by exclusivity and smug moral condemnation.
Matt Labash (Q3: #29 of 33)
Whenever Ian accuses someone of engaging in smug moral condemnation, I'm tempted to defer to his apparently limitless expertise on the subject. Not to sound like a child Ian, but Rufus hit me first. Have you ever noticed when someone working your side of the street ridicules someone they perceive to be on my side of the street (often with "demeaning stereotypes," to borrow a phrase from your ilk), they are soldiers of the light, merely exposing falsehoods? Our boy Rufus had just declared that you were reasonable without really arguing me down on the merits. Instead, he used snarky obloquy much like the kind practiced by, well, me (Rufus, don't go changing to try and please Ian). But whenever someone of my stripe argues you down, adopting the same tactics, maybe even — God forbid — starting it first, they're big fat meanies. Still, I respect your gentlemanly demeanor, which you seem to employ selectively. I yield the floor, Gandhi.
John Stagliano (Q3: #30 of 33)
After reading Rufus's recent post I am a bit embarrassed and disappointed with myself for not strictly dealing with the subject at hand. Thank you, Rufus, for spending most of your time actually talking about the question of monogamy in human societies, and about the apparent use of porno in today's society. Matt and Ian seemed to be so obsessed with how slick their writing can be and don't bother to spend any time formulating thoughts into good arguments for their positions. It's hardly worth discussing anything they say because they don't bother to try and support what they say with facts, studies or references to historical evidence.
Rufus asks: Is monogamy feasible? What a hugely important question. Lots of studies have been done in this area. Rufus talks about the reality of past societies as opposed to the whitewashed version we often get in school. (I loved reading recently about the Borgia pope and Lucrecia Borgia, his daughter. The conflicts that people had knowing about the hypocritical behavior of the pope is so interesting. But we were never told any of this in Catholic school!) What I was trying to point out with my last post to Matt about how I would like to be sexually repressed like him, was that this idea of monogamy is a big conflict for most men at some time in their lives. In fact, the solution to these conflicting forces has often been to employ a prostitute to release the pent-up tension a man feels so that he will be able to stay with his wife. I'm not saying this is what he should do. I'm saying that this is what men do and have done. Rufus's comment about how porno can make a monogamous relationship more tolerable, from a sexual point of view, is very interesting in the context of human history. This is because we have only had pornography in any significant quantity for the last forty years or so. Before that the average man would have to go to a cheap prostitute. In fact, in the past only the very wealthy could enjoy variety in sexual arousal on anywhere near the level that the average man can today through the consumption of porno or going to a strip club.
Despite what Matt may think or say, the unavoidable fact of human society today is that we are better off in almost all ways. Including in the way we interact with each other as human beings. As a wonderful example, we have the Internet, and this discussion group, where people of diverse opinions can debate ideas about sex. Our ideas are exchanged and analyzed rapidly by other minds. Each of us is forced to evaluate our positions and defend them much faster than with any previous media. It's much easier for the truth to win out.
In the area of sex and porno, people can now see how others live and interact sexually, across societies, in ways never possible before. I believe people are measurably happier for this. They see all the choices of lifestyles they have available to them. New ideas on lifestyles are coming at them all the time and therefore their choice of lifestyle is greatly expanded. And intellectuals cannot ignore the things many people freely choose to do.
Matt, people are happier living in my world, with the choice to consume porno or not. Lots of them like it; it works for them. They are much happier than they were back in the repressed '50s.
In closing, I would like to ask Matt if he has read much economics. An important question that economists have always had to deal with is, What is the determinant of value? In the past it was proposed that the amount of labor put into creating something determined its value. This has since been discredited and economists today — free market, conservative economists — all understand that value is subjective and determined by the consumer. So when I say that people are choosing to consume more and more porno I am saying that this is a net positive value to society. If you say that they are wrong in this choice, then what standard of value would you substitute?
Ian Gittler (Q3: #31 of 33)
You guys and your whores.
And John, what's with the broadside there?
Whatever. I have thought about my positions, and do back them up.
I don't share the positions you've expressed (Question 3, #31).
Call me new-fashioned, but the sad reality of the sexual revolution is that it never accounted for most people's greatest desire: to share their lives with someone who loves them.
I don't buy the argument that the constant burning in men's scrotums need be discharged. It sounds like more of that "if it feels good, do it" stuff that people who don't want the burden or responsibility of having to account for their actions tend to slip into as justification for actions that are clearly not in their best interest.
Part of evolution may be that, rather than acting on these impulses without thinking, we find ways of getting through the day that don't involve fucking multiple partners, paid or otherwise, regardless of the "horrible frustration" that will result from not getting our rocks off each and every time we have an itch.
The rewards, in terms of sustained intimacy with someone one loves and respects, are pretty obvious — unless it's something one has never tried. In that case, yes, it involves a leap of faith.
Rufus Griscom (Q3: #32 of 33)
John, thank you, well put. Of course, people buy crack and anthrax and any number of things that don't necessarily do anyone any good, but there certainly needs to be an objective criterion for value. Your observation about the historically recent democratizing effect of pornography is really interesting. And I agree that were we to rid the world of pornography tomorrow, prostitution would increase. Whether or not one thinks that porn is innocuous, it is at bare minimum the lesser of evils.
Matt, such a pleasant notion, the idea of you ignoring me . . . no, I heard in your silence the ticking rotation of your gun turret . . .
Ian, let me assure you, if I were in fact a millionaire, I would have more time for "snarky obloquy" than I in fact do.
Gentlemen (yes, that includes you too Matt), I think it's time for the resolution phase. I am going to take the risk of being candid, even earnest here: I find the world an eye-wateringly beautiful place. Mining the joy of a lifelong relationship is certainly a significant part of this beauty, but weekend flings can make a pretty hefty contribution as well. I don't want to live in a world in which there is no sex (or even less sex) in the absence of love; that, to me, would be a less beautiful one.
This preference of mine may be adaptive; it is sensible to develop affection for the world as it exists. Ian, I agree that human society continues to evolve (biological evolution, of course, is so gradual that changes over recorded history are miniscule), but, if anything, we are moving towards more societal acceptance of consensual, pre- and extra-marital sex. Pre-marital sex is increasing, sex with prostitutes has been trending down and extra-marital sex is probably staying about the same, but we are lying about it less. Increasing comfort with pornography is part of this increasingly realistic relationship to sex, which I think is by and large a healthy trend.
Based on my experience, incredibly powerful and intimate and human sexual experiences are had between people who don't know each other that well, experiences the memories of which people relish for a lifetime; it;s not just about fucking, its about getting to know another human being in a vulnerable context while watching your underwear spin on the ceiling fan. It's simplistic and foolishly Manichean to see this as irrelevant beside monogamous love or unduly threatening to it. Ian, did you just tie the knot or something? Damn, you are sounding mighty Hallmarky (not to knock it — I am all for whatever brings you pleasure in life, and I look forward to that pleasure again in my own life, just not yet).
Matt, I know you don't own a gun or drink mint juleps (they are tasty, btw), just ribbin ya. I actually was a conservative in high school. I think that disrobed of your snarky obloquy, you are a reluctant conservative, which is my favorite kind; you see yourself as being ruthlessly realistic, and I suspect you will come to see some of your current judgements of other people's lifestyles as coming from a narrow social vantage. Drink the kool-aid, let the warm water engulf you. I am headed for a shameful response to Question #4.
Jerry Stahl (Q3: #33 of 33)
Boy is my face red. I would have been home message-boarding, but there was a local tragedy. My next door neighbor, Jumbo, had to be rushed to the hospital when the missus hot-glued his penis to the keyboard after catching him in rank self-abuse before images of nasty teens performing the sorts of acts that one does not and should not normally associate with the newly pubed. Turns out, after a brief investigation, they weren't near-children at all. They were actually congenital little people (we don't say "midgets" any more, in case you were wondering, and I will refrain from doing so, out of respect, for the remainder of this little missive). The wee folk, as it happens, were tricked out as youngsters, then paid, no doubt, in cold cash, bushels of crack or IPOs in start-up fuck-dot-com sites, to simulate the wantonly lewd positions necessary to arouse the interested viewer. Should the Supreme Court be brought in to set limits here? I mean, these were little people, damn it! Does anybody speak for them? For their exploitation? I didn't think so. And as for the children — and I actually have one, thanks for asking, so it's not like I'm out of the game here — well, if I can't protect my kid from net-happy pederast party suppliers, I don't think there's a whole fuck of a lot Bouncin' Bill Rehnquist is gonna bring to the table. I mean, for Christ's sake, it's not a porn issue — it's a what - the - fuck - is - wrong - with - a - country - where - children - are - craved - and - available - for - demented - sex? issue. You aren't going to quash whatever gives rise to desires we may consider pervaloid by putting more laws on the books. Should there be limits? Is desire, however grotesque, a First Amendment Issue? I don't know. Go look at Japanese comic books. Does Japan, which boasts a booming over the counter graphic kiddie sex market, have more or less kiddie-rape than the proudly moral US of A? Fuck if I know. But pious, knee-jerk reactions to problems that go to depths of the human psyche we can only guess at serve one function only: they make the knee-jerk feel righteous. And meanwhile, the dark hungers which generate entire underground industries just to stay fed remain unslaked, craving ever more rank and available lust-fodder. If computers can generate images and spare flesh-and-blood streetlifers from having to go that route to feed their bellies and their habits, maybe that's the way to go. It's a twisted world. And pornography's not the problem. Not even close.
| Introduction | |||||||||
| |||||||||
| |||||||||
| |||||||||
|
To participate in the virtual roundtable discussion yourself, visit "Men, Smut & Shame" in the VoiceBox folder of NerveCenter Message Boards.
