Is Pornography the New Tobacco?
hoover.org
Is Pornography the New Tobacco?
1–10 of 17 posts
Re: Is Pornography the New Tobacco?
#2This article attempts to draw parallels between tobacco an porn in the promotion, use, addiction, and rationalization of the "substances."
I'm not moved. Tobacco kills and injures people even innocent bystanders. There may be a case for psychological damage, but the author herself admits that the damage may be a learned reaction. At the end she looks at the political aspects and says the the political supporters (by innuendo) are left wing liberals like Obama and Henry Waxman.
Whoa there Nellie! Then I see "Mary Eberstadt is a research fellow at the Hoover Institution and consulting editor to Policy Review." Says it all.
Re: Is Pornography the New Tobacco?
#3No.
Re: Is Pornography the New Tobacco?
#4The only "harm" she shows pornography as causing can be summarized as follows: sometimes people get fired for watching porn at work, and sometimes people get divorced over it.
Neither of those are endemic to porn itself. Divorce can be blamed just as much on prudishness on the part of the non-porn-watching spouse as addiction on the part of the porn-watching spouse.
Re: Is Pornography the New Tobacco?
#5This article attempts to draw parallels between tobacco an porn in the promotion, use, addiction, and rationalization of the "substances." I'm not moved. Tobacco kills and injures people even innocent bystanders. There may be a case for psychological damage, but the author herself admits that the damage may be a learned reaction. At the end she looks at the political aspects and says the the political supporters (by…
I think you only skimmed the article. She makes your same points, particularly that tobacco does indeed directly kill and injure people, and pornography does not.
Her section on politics does not seem to have a particular slant to these eyes:
"It is hard to imagine Henry Waxman, for example — one of the most voracious elected officials in pursuit of the tobacco companies — adopting any similar animus toward Big Pornography. It is equally hard to imagine the Obama administration taking much of an interest in prosecuting obscenity — if indeed its members even believe that obscenity as such can exist."
Do you disagree? Do you think that Waxman and Obama ARE likely to go after "Big Pornography" or start pushing for the enforcement of obscenity laws?
And if you would look more closely, you would realize that this IS the website for Policy Review, Hoover Institution, Stanford.
Re: Is Pornography the New Tobacco?
#6The only "harm" she shows pornography as causing can be summarized as follows: sometimes people get fired for watching porn at work, and sometimes people get divorced over it. Neither of those are endemic to porn itself. Divorce can be blamed just as much on prudishness on the part of the non-porn-watching spouse as addiction on the part of the porn-watching spouse.
Isn't chafing harmful?
Re: Is Pornography the New Tobacco?
#7There's a fictional character called Jennifer in the piece, who finds smoking morally wrong. Is this really a common view? Surely few people object to it if it's done in a way which minimises or eliminates passive smoking...
Re: Is Pornography the New Tobacco?
#8Seems like a lot of wishful thinking on the part of the author. Sure there are a lot of similarities. But the article seems to be pushing her all-too-apparent agenda of taking down the porn industry the same way the tobacco industry was taken down. But she doesn't make the distinction between thoughts that may be harmful and something that causes actual physical harm.
Re: Is Pornography the New Tobacco?
#9This article attempts to draw parallels between tobacco an porn in the promotion, use, addiction, and rationalization of the "substances." I'm not moved. Tobacco kills and injures people even innocent bystanders. There may be a case for psychological damage, but the author herself admits that the damage may be a learned reaction. At the end she looks at the political aspects and says the the political supporters (by…
I think you only skimmed the article. She makes your same points, particularly that tobacco does indeed directly kill and injure people, and pornography does not. Her section on politics does not seem to have a particular slant to these eyes: "It is hard to imagine Henry Waxman, for example — one of the most voracious elected officials in pursuit of the tobacco companies — adopting any similar animus toward Big Porno…
> Unlike tobacco, which was traditionally defended by a coalition of libertarians and politicians from conservative tobacco-growing Southern states, pornography’s most prominent defenders in the public sphere — including its industry spokesmen — associate themselves with the progressive wing of Democratic Party politics. It is hard to imagine Henry Waxman, for example — one of the most voracious elected officials in pursuit of the tobacco companies — adopting any similar animus toward Big Pornography. It is equally hard to imagine the Obama administration taking much of an interest in prosecuting obscenity — if indeed its members even believe that obscenity as such can exist. The recent ascension to the No. 2 slot in the Justice Department of a lawyer who in private practice had numerous times defended Playboy, Penthouse, the largest distributor of pornographic videos, and other pornographers just emphasizes the point.
is the paragraph that I based my innuendo comment on. Fundamentally, most porn is protected as artistic expression, child porn excepted. It's a fools errand to spend resources on prosecution that's going to be overturned. That's probably the position of Waxman and Obama.
I admit that I read the article quickly, but more than skimming. I thought the analogy was stretched, even she seemed to think so at times. But at the end linking liberals, Democrats, feminists, and porn political contributors was just a bit silly. Given that nothing can be done about it legally, the article was just political theater disguised as argument.
Re: Is Pornography the New Tobacco?
#10There's a fictional character called Jennifer in the piece, who finds smoking morally wrong. Is this really a common view? Surely few people object to it if it's done in a way which minimises or eliminates passive smoking...
Whether you agree with them or not, you'll find many people who feel any drug dependence is a "wrong" based on their own values, or more practically, from considering societal costs.