Interesting. "Because we have to go to work, commit ourselves to relationships, care for our children and explore our own minds, we cannot allow our sexual urges to express themselves without limit, online or otherwise; it would destroy us."
A Secular Argument Against Pornography
8 responses to “A Secular Argument Against Pornography”
-
De Botton handles an easy task fairly well — explaining why pornography is a bad thing. What he strikingly does NOT do is offer a plan of action for mitigating pornography’s noxious effects on the individual and society. One might read his essay as a rationale for censorship, but he does not call for censorship himself. In fact, he doesn’t call for anything specific.
If I have decided, for the good reasons de Botton enumerates, not to look at sexually arousing images, what is my obligation then to encourage others not to look at such images either? More importantly from a political perspective, what right do I (or a majority of my fellow citizens) have to limit another person’s access to such images for his own good? Those are both important questions. De Botton seems to promise an answer to them when he asks “What is freedom?” But he never comes close to answering his own question.
Maybe he thinks — and maybe correctly — that in today’s society he has made a radical enough contribution to the public discussion simply by arguing that pornography IS a bad thing…. -
Your last sentence is exactly what I thought that he thought he’s doing. Whether he would advocate actually doing anything (legally or otherwise), I don’t know (I’d never heard of him before I ran across this), but at this point I think it would be a victory to convince large numbers of people that it is in fact bad. Not just a bit naughty but really quite destructive.
-
I wonder if he tailored that article for the Wall Street Journal audience. My reading of it is that he’s against pornography per se, but this interview shows he’s not. Rather, he wants to create “Better Porn” by bringing “together leading figures within the porn movement and the arts to identify a ‘new pornography’ which is more socially acceptable and is ‘fit for thoughtful, good human beings’.”
-
You know, I’m always talking about how at the root of every problem we have is this proclivity to divide that which should be united, first and foremost being body and soul. Marianne’s comment sort of shouts out that there is a co-lateral inclination to unite that which cannot really be united. I’d like to think about this some more, but I have to quit thinking and start working. 😉
AMDG -
Okay, Marianne’s quote indicates that he’s an idiot. A nice well-meaning idiot, probably, but still an idiot.
I suppose every instance in which we try to hang on to our favorite sins is an example of that attempt to unite the un-unite-able. -
I shouldn’t say he’s an idiot. Just a very naive person. “bring together leading figures within the porn movement and the arts”. Good grief. Yes, I’m sure “leading figures within the porn movement” really want to introduce a more thoughtful and tasteful quality to their products.
-
They just read the articles.
-
It’s like usury: good usury is quite different from bad usury.
Light On Dark Water 
Leave a reply to janet Cancel reply