Studies, Experts & Testimonials

Studies, experts, etc., etc. It seems that one will always be able to find studies, experts and testimonials saying what one wants to claim regarding pornography.

Personally, I am willing to accept the notion that as alcohol can and does lead to nice things, as well as bad things, so too, porn can and does lead to nice things as well as bad things. Just as alcohol arouses passions and lowers our inhibitions, so too pornography arouses passions and lowers our inhibitions.

But, in our society today, there’s no push to banish alcohol, as there is an overwhelming push to banish porn. Yet the banishment of alcohol would not infringe upon any constitutional rights while the banishment of porn would. How do we explain this political circumstance?

One may be quick to point to extremist, such as fire and brimstone religous fanatics and feminazis; but they do not account for the breath of middle of the road support anti-porn measures have.

I suspect it is because more women consume alcohol than consume porn, at least openly, and therefore it is more socially and politically accetable than porn? We tend to incorporate from a very young age the puritanical notions of our ancestors, without much examination, almost as unconsciouly as we inherit DNA passed down from one generation to another. But men have been historically excused more than women from the puritanical shame heaped upon men and women alike for their sexuality.

Nonetheless, I do dare say if one were to compare the totality of the harm caused by alcohol, alone, with the totality of harm caused by porn, alone, one would find the harm caused by alcohol to be significantly more than the harm caused by porn. Why isn't NPN focusing on banishing the consumption of alcohol to the same places that it advocated banishing porn? No bad secondary effects have been associated with drinking establishments, historically?

It’s just another incongruity in our warped, puritanical society where the prison sentences for drug possession in some states can be far more severe than prison sentences for fraudulent business executives of large corporations, even though the harm caused by the fraudulent business executives far exceeds the harm caused by the ordinary drug user. Perhaps with all the best intentions, this is the insanity that NPN nonetheless ultimately serves to perpetuate.

(No, here I'm not advocating one way or another on the issue of the legalization of drugs.)