Comments on: Defending the Indefensible: “Because it turns me on”

By: Big Ed

Big Ed — Tue, 06 Mar 2012 03:02:31 +0000

Oh, dead on. We’re back to the idealists again, who believe if it’s not visible, it doesn’t exist. The pragmatists see the studies you mention and want to go after the real culprits–which are not porn.

By: Michael West

Michael West — Sun, 04 Mar 2012 18:17:28 +0000

I’m agreeing with all comments here, and adding one against the thought crime police. My argument is that if does NOT turn you on, it isn’t worth reading. All of my literature, erotic or otherwise, hits hard on my emotions or nerves. It is why I read it. Awareness is the entire reason for journalism, so your point about Nabakov is highly relevant. Also, the thought police endanger us, and not just on some moral principle basis. I once wrote a lengthy essay in defence of fantasies, because I’m one of those who carries an uzi in his head during rush hour traffic. I mention this because the article was half opinion, but I did need to research a lot of things. Back in the seventies when all film and literature of a sexual nature was being targeted, as it is again, one consistent fact kept being deliberately ignored here. Countries with the highest sales of porn, and the most liberal boundaries of content, had the lowest rates of sex crimes. Coincidental maybe, but I doubt it. If we try to supress the thoughts, I think we might be inciting to action.

By: Big Ed

Big Ed — Sun, 04 Mar 2012 17:49:49 +0000

Which is a good point.

I made this argument because there’s already an argument out there that if it doesn’t turn you on (i.e., it’s “literature”), it’s okay. This is the counterbalance, but the end point is exactly what you say. It shouldn’t matter at all.

By: Mat Twassel

Mat Twassel — Sun, 04 Mar 2012 12:36:26 +0000

Right. My point (which I guess I didn’t make very well) is that as far as whether erotica (or any literature) should be permitted, protected, whatever, it doesn’t matter whether it turns you on or not.

By: Big Ed

Big Ed — Sun, 04 Mar 2012 03:36:54 +0000

If it turns you on and you never act on it, what does it matter if killing people arouses you? I’m defending the emotion and the thoughts, not any actions that one might wish to attribute to those emotions and thoughts. They’re separate.

By: Mat Twassel

Mat Twassel — Sun, 04 Mar 2012 01:47:50 +0000

“Because it turns me on” is kind of a strange defense. I’m not sure why that rationale alone should justify anything. “I like to kill people because it turns me on.” Okay, maybe I’ve turned your argument on it’s head. I surely don’t disagree with your conclusions.