Posted on 06/08/2005 10:35:04 PM PDT by Crackingham
The annual President's Dinner, a Republican Party fundraising event featuring President Bush, could get an extra dash of spice this year with porn actress and former California gubernatorial candidate Mary Carey planning to attend. The porn industry and Republicans may seem like strange bedfellows, but Ms. Carey said she sees Tuesday night's dinner as a good opportunity to learn more about their policies and do some networking. She plans to run for lieutenant governor of California as an independent next year. Ms. Carey acknowledges that some people just think of her as a busty blonde who does porn films.
“I also have a brain and political aspirations,” said Ms. Carey, whose priorities include legalizing gay marriage.
Carl Forti, a spokesman for the National Republican Congressional Committee, which is co-hosting the dinner, had no qualms about Ms. Carey and her boss, adult film executive Mark Kulkis, attending.
“Their money was donated to the NRCC. The NRCC's job is to elect Republicans. We'll take that money and use it to elect more Republicans,” Mr. Forti said.
Ms. Carey was one of 135 candidates on the California ballot to replace Gray Davis in the 2003 recall election. Voters picked another actor — Arnold Schwarzenegger.
Mr. Kulkis, a self-described “Schwarzenegger Republican” who is fiscally conservative and socially liberal, was invited to the dinner by the NRCC and paid $5,000 for his and Ms. Carey's plates.
Ms. Carey and Mr. Kulkis said they want to prove stereotypes of porn workers wrong.
I'd argue that anything designed to deliberately arouse sexual desire other than the arousal you experience with your spouse, is destructive. Why? Because it weakens your exclusive sexual bonding/attachment with your marriage partner. And it constitutes a temptation toward fantasy and masturbation, which is to say, a disordered diversion of the sex drive.
I exclude from the definition of porn --- of course --- mere descriptions or depictions of nakedness or sex, which might be perfectly OK for purposes other than prurience.
This may cast some light on the subject: I've had to do a lot of thinking about where to draw the line, because I wrote a novel which included some sexual description --- necessary to show why the characters thought and (re)acted as they did.
Three friends who read the manuscript thought it went too far. One e-mailed me that, for him, it sparked fantasies which he'd been trying to tamp down; two said they thought it was emotionally overwrought (but not arousing to them.)
But a dozen friends who read it thought the sexual/romantic sequences were "just right" in that they depicted experiences by way of suggestion and somewhat veiled language, without going so far as to sprinkle erotic itch-powder on the reader's mind (or other sensitive parts.) All of these "approvers" were sexually wise, sound, conservative people who were wide and deep partakers of literature and the arts, so I trusted their judgment.
And I would now resist any suggestion that I delete or change those passages. They were not arousing to 95% of my manuscript-readers, and thus they were not porn.
"The line" between artistic depiction and porn, then, is certainly at different places for different people. I suggested to my singular, somewhat-bothered-friend that if such depictions bothered him, he should stop reading right there, and no hurt authorial feelings.
And thanks for the links to other Internet sites where I could go to get an insightful critique of pornography. Very helpful, very intelligent stuff. Dr. Jeffrey Satinover has written some in-depth credible arguments against pornography, too.
I think it's important to encourage more moral reflection on this topic. Because it all goes back to, "What are our sexual gifts --- our longings, drives, appetites, memories, imaginings, dreams, attractions, organs, the physical ability to copulate, and so forth--- all about? How can we help each other live our sexuality lovingly, wisely and well?
I'd counter your argument thusly: porn may very well help some marriages, in that porn might inspire them to be more creative in their sexual relationship, leading to more excitement, and more satisfaction, and thereby strengthening the marital bond.
And I find your example very interesting: above, you say that "anything designed to deliberately arouse sexual desire other than the arousal you experience with your spouse, is destructive." Now, you said you included the erotic parts because it was the only vehicle by which you could convey what certain characters thought, or how they reacted. Yet some people who read the piece found your eroticism pornographic, even though that was not your intent. Does it bother you, as an artist, that there are those who'd seek to censor and prohibit your work based on their interpretation of it as pornographic, when creating a pornographic work was not your artistic intent?
Interesting point.
I don't know of anyone who would seek to censor or prohibit my work. It is far (REALLY far) from what anybody would call legally pornographic.
I myself would not want it in a high school library, though, and that still causes me some consternation.
At present, the novel is only available as a read-only CD, distributed by me. So I've been able to control its distribution myself. I want to get myself organized enough to sell CD's via magazine ads and eBay, and use the money to fund an interactive website --- but then how would I discourage teenagers (for instance, my two young adolescent boys) from accessing it?
Only by the way I market it, I suppose. If I don't advertise in teenage venues, and the introduction has a fair warning of (mild) sexual content, I think I've done my duty.
Flannery O'Connor --- whose novels and short stories some people found disturbing --- was told by her confessor that she had no moral obligation to limit her writing to the level appropriate for 15-year-old girls.
O'Connor also says that if the writer has good previewers who will vet the unpublished work --- and has satisfied herself that the writing has moral integrity --- she is not responsible for the reactions of every imaginable (possibly emotionally unbalanced) reader.
If that were the case, no writing --- in fact, no communication --- would be possible.
If someone wants to ban my CD from their high school, though: quite frankly, I wish they would.
Well, see, therein lies the rub. There are those---many who post on FR, by the way---who see no distinction between pornography and obscenity (i.e., that which doesn't enjoy 1st Amendment protection), and would ban your work outright. What might be mildly erotic to you would be outright obscenity to others, and you would have no market, and no artistic voice whatsoever, if they had their druthers. When you make blanket statements like "all pornography is destructive," you give those folks all the ammunition they need to carry the day.
No. One of the major (and, no matter what your age, ongoing) projects of sexual maturity is to direct and channel your sometimes anarchic sexual appetite toward your spouse and nobody else. Porn, by definition, gets you buzzing over a print image or a written description or a video image of somebody other than your spouse. That's a problem in itself --- a misdirection of the drive.
I sometimes wonder about people who are already somewhat damaged by pornography before they get married, and then as a consequence find they can't get very excited about sex with their spouse. One could ask: what if they're already so porn-addicted that they need regular doses of it to get set up for marital sex?
Sad case. I'd say no, this person needs a patient spouse who will start all over with him from the beginning. I daresay marital satisfaction doesn't need more creativeness (defined as what? Different positions? Orifices? Devices? Costumes?) as much as it needs more focused attentiveness towards EACH OTHER, and more mutual trust.
It's precisely that --- focused attention and trust --- that's directly undermined by pornography.
There have been several fairly big surveys that showed that sexual satisfaction correlates positively with marriage and religious belief/practice. It's interesting to ask why. Couple-to-Couple League (Natural Family Planning group, overwhelmingly married and substantially religious) reports a divorce rate of around 2%. It's interesting to ask why there, too.
I'm fairly sure the divorce (and thus overall dissatisfaction) rate of pornography users is somewhat higher than that.
Can you describe the difference?
Then we disagree fundamentally. I believe marriage does not require than one cease to be a sexual being---it simply requires that one remain faithful to the vows he or she made to his or her spouse.
The former is the depiction of erotic behavior intended to cause sexual excitement; the latter is a legal distinction for expression that does not warrant First Amendment protection.
You can see from my posts so far, that I'm talking about deliberate sexual arousal. Christ said that if you "look at a woman to lust after her," you have "committed adultery with her in your heart"--- and he knows more about male humanity than anyone who has ever lived. He knows maleness. He loves maleness. He experienced maleness. He invented maleness.
So if you deliberately set yourself up to trigger a sexual reaction with Video Voom-Voom Vivienne, you're violating your marital vows with her whether you ever get your realtime hands on her or not.
I'm not talking here about spontaneous, involuntary sexual attractions, feelings and reactions. I have gone through periods of my life where fantasies were persistent, penetrating, and pert-near persuasive. I struggled to be free of enslaving, burning thoughts; it was difficult; but I didn't pour gasoline on them in the form of pornography.
I'd simply caution you against applying your religions beliefs vis-a-vis proper human sexuality as those that best define proper human sexuality for everyone. I'm glad that they work for you, but because they do does not mean they work for, or should apply to, everyone else as well---just as you would not presume to interfere with or manage someone else's marriage.
Those would be PRINOS presumably.
In olden days a glimpse of stocking was thought to be shocking. May have been porn to that era. Then there were the cultures where women were topless wasn't porn to them. When I was a kid kissing scenes on tv were very embarassing now its men kissing.
Well, that's perfectly true. The culmination --- you can see it from here --- is that porn will be working every oriface, creaming every surface, fully mainstreamed, mass-produced and virtually unavoidable--- and men will barely be interested enough to touch real women anymore. Or look them in the eye.
"No. One of the major (and, no matter what your age, ongoing) projects of sexual maturity is to direct and channel your sometimes anarchic sexual appetite toward your spouse and nobody else."
"Then we disagree fundamentally. I believe marriage does not require than one cease to be a sexual being---it simply requires that one remain faithful to the vows he or she made to his or her spouse."
One thing that neither of you have mentioned is that the people who make the pornography engage in behaviors that are degrading at best, and in consuming their product you make yourself a party to that degradation.
Fruit of the poisoned tree.
Dr. Reisman is so good that I wrote her one of my very rare fan e-mails. Got a very nice response, too.
Everybody ought to read her stuff.
Dr. Reisman is so good that I wrote her one of my very rare fan e-mails. Got a very nice response, too.
Everybody ought to read her stuff.
Everybody ought to read her stuff.
You're right. She commands the field; thanks for introducing me to her. She and Dr. Jeffrey Satinover are the best. BTW, whatever happened to the feminists who used to criticize porn? I know Andrea Dworkin died recently (but she's hardly arguing from a perspective of good sex or moral sanity) and same goes for Catherine MacKinnon. Too crazy to quote. And as for Germaine Greer, didn't she recently write a book of soft-focus soft-erotica about underage boys? Or is my description wrong? (I've never seen it.)
Way back in the old days, I had a soft spot in my heart for the anti-Playboy feminists. When you're angry because somebody else is actually being degraded: that's a holy anger.
Very good point. You're right. It's a bit of a stretch for someone (I won't mention any names) to say that porn is OK because it gives you ideas of fun things to do with wifey and thus enriches your marriage; and at the same time accept that the porn actor and actresses (is that really what they're called?) --- the prostitutes --- are actually engaging in degrading and anti-marital behavior, for money, for your sexual gratification.
Or don't the porn-advocates believe that women have souls?
Of course, it's degrading for the men who perform in porn, too, although men seem less likely to understand that.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.