What more do I need to write? Anyone who has followed this blog knows that this attitude of mine has been beaten into the ground all semester long. Of ignorance, Plato wrote that it is “the root and the stem of every evil.” Perhaps that’s a bit hyperbolic, but it conveys the idea. When children start asking where babies come from, parents should not feel so embarrassed as to say that they are next to the cold cuts section in Wegman’s.

COM497 certainly qualifies as one of the most interesting courses I’ve ever taken. It has helped to give me an accurate idea of the sexually explicit material that is available on the internet. It has also refined my idea of pornography – of what I consider to be offensive to my personal sexuality. Being a huge proponent of self-determination, I consider to be pornographic anything that depicts a participant performing any sexual act without complete and uninfluenced consent. I believe that anyone who engages in sexual activity must do so entirely of their own accord, and any depiction to the contrary offends my stance.

What does that mean? It means that any sexual acts are permissible, provided that both (or all) participants are willing and able to perform said acts. It means that nude photography and masturbation videos and sex videos in which every act is performed consensually are not pornographic. Beautiful Agony is not pornography. Annie Leibovitz’s nude art is not pornography. It means that child pornography, rape and snuff videos, and any imagery that is produced without the fullest consent of the subject is pornography – the kind of stuff that is to be proscribed and prosecuted. Rape.tv, hence, is pornography.

Some men apparently get off to having such dominance that they can induce others to have sex with them. I, on the other hand, am into capturing the hearts of others and inspiring them to dive headfirst into sex. Who commands more respect? The man who demands sex from a woman? Or the man who inspires a woman to demand sex from him? Which man does a woman want? The man who makes her have sex? Or the man who makes her want to have sex?

There’s an anecdote of a newly married Chinese couple which believed that they could make a baby simply by sleeping in the same bed. They had tried for years and years before going to a sexologist for help. I’ve heard of women in the south who have no idea what a clitoris is. There are millions of people all over the United States who don’t know what a condom is. When I try to have a serious and profound discussion about sex with my friends, no matter how subtly, I can see trepidation flash across their faces. This needs to stop.

Reality is a thing that demands the utmost respect. We must pay close attention to it and adopt attitudes that allow us to live in harmony with it. So let’s pay attention to the reality of sex. It is a beautiful thing. It has two purposes: to produce babies and to produce orgasmic ecstasy. It is something that many people do outside the context of marriage. (I refer to both pre-marital sex and infidelity.) It is something that most people prefer to experience in the context of a loving relationship. It is a central part of being human, and it is something upon which our lives quite literally depend. It permeates our existence, and thus it cannot be ignored. It, more than many things in life, deserves an academic treatment. There should be departments of sexuality at any serious research institution. (Imagine that! “John Doe, Professor of Sexuality at SUNY Buffalo.”) COM497, so far, has come close to that. Maybe one day we won’t act like sissies about this ever-so-important subject. Until then, I’ll stay silent until I can identify those people who can handle some serious sex-talk.

The trust and security that is required to produce and conceal a sex video (apparently) is substantial. Only when the best interests of those making the video are intertwined can both parties rest assured that their privacy will not be breached. I can’t imagine the anger I would feel if my partner were to attempt to profit from my sexuality, as Nicole Narain attempted to do to Colin Farrell.

I sympathize with Debbie Anderson. It’s such a shame that she was so grossly violated when she decided that it was time to express her sexuality. It is so important for us all to have positive experiences with our first partner, and fortune did not grant her that privilege. More revolting than the act of his friends recording the sex was Jeff Cooper’s complete lack of remorse. He was not a lover, and he did not deserve to share himself with her.

Let this be a lesson to us all: don’t record sexual images of yourselves, lest they find their way into the computers of strangers.

Before I spiral into pseudo-philosophical discourse, let me simply share my disgust at Republicans for scalding pornography as though its harmfulness were an essential truth. It depends. This is the refrain of the relativist. It depends.

My girlfriend makes a strong argument for the utility of modesty. According to her, modesty contributes to the sexual mystique in a wholesome way: allowing men and women to sexualize each other makes sex (which, in her words, is to be conducted always in the proper loving and/or marital context) all the more enticing. Enforcing a convention of modesty is one of the most invasive means of influencing one's personal constructs. Keeping penises, vulvae, buttocks, and breasts shrouded underneath clothing leads one to construct a reality in which these parts are "special" and "private." This is a fundamentally absurd notion, however, as every man and woman in this world possesses these parts.

In the Junk for Code archives, the October 2nd article addresses pornography in a manner similar to that of Prof. Halavais in his introductory lectures. The author presents two nudes and asks whether they are pornographic. There is a lovely image of a twenty-something woman and another of a girl.

Shakespeare wrote that "there is nothing good or bad, but thinking makes it so." This is a testament to constructivism. Neither image is inherently pornographic. Pornography is not a property of the image that exists independently of human experience. It arises from the interplay of perception and cognition. Hence, it can be argued that one who upon viewing these images finds them pornographic is oneself the pornographer.

Artists who depict children in the nude would agree with this assessment. As would nudists. The latter's argument is that being nude inhibits people from sexualizing the body (cf. any argument for nudism). No one who presents an idea that another deems pornographic — without oneself ever seeing the idea as being pornographic — can be said to be a pornographer.

One day the parent carelessly leaves the gun out for all to see — or allows the child to discover where it may be hidden. Into untrained hands falls a dangerous weapon, and into a naïve brain lodges a stray bullet.

Children who accidentally shoot themselves with their parent’s firearm fall victim to the gun’s mystique. It is a seductive idea — one that compels a person to lift away the cloak. Once exposing someone to a mysterious idea, the erstwhile secret-keeper has assumed duty of demystification. Either one can positively supplant another’s ignorance, or one can allow that ignorance to be replaced with whatever ideas may come forth.

It is most unfortunate that society’s discomfort with carnal knowledge prevents it from seeing the above as an analogy to sex. By dodging a thorough education about human sexuality, one makes an invitation for dire consequences. Planned Parenthood makes a case for the ill effects of abstinence-only education, which in my humble opinion is a stunningly puerile way to deal with sex. This bereft type of “education” is akin to tucking away the handgun. It contributes to the sexual mystique, and eventually leads to clumsy, uninformed explorations.

For the homosexual community, ignorance comes in two flavors: the usual imposition from social conservatives and that from all the homophobes of society. It is so sad that gay pornography has become an important source of learning for homosexuals. If I were in front of Mr. Lucas, I would ask whether he has shed any tears over the methods of learning that our culture has forced upon homosexuals.

I know in my heart that homosexual promiscuity is a stereotype. Yet out of all my gay friends and acquaintances, only one is a virgin. This must be a product of the gay culture. The silence that is imposed upon the community doubly hinders its ability to learn about sex. There is a want of direction, and children and teenagers are given the dubious freedom to discover sex entirely in their own way. Several of my gay friends have each told me stories of multiple rapes. A congressman would claim that this is evidence of the inherent evil of homosexuality. I would counter that it is the result of a dearth of positive sexual direction — and an overwhelming mystery that begs to be uncovered.

Silence is not always golden. We need to stop being cowards and start talking about sex in a meaningful way. No more dirty jokes and shallow discussions about techniques. It’s time to brandish scholarly texts such as Understanding Human Sexuality.

My girls will be coquettes who will be able to attract, ensnare, and make loyal those men (or women) who they find worthy of their attention. They will be capable of playing either an active or passive role in the mating dance, and they will have supreme confidence and a strong sense of deservedness. They will be proud of their sexualities and not ashamed, enabling them to communicate their desires quite forcefully.

My children's skill and invention will be legend and will spark jealousy in others. To do this, I would have to assume a pro-sex attitude as well as insulate them from harmful sexual imagery.

Listening to the On Point program about pornography on the internet made me wonder whether most people regard any sexually explicit material as "pornographic." Certainly some do, but I no longer believe that the word is used for all erotic material. Instead, I think it refers only to material that satisfies Diana Russell’s definition of pornography.

I really hope that this is true, because there are certain types of sexually explicit material that I will not keep from my children. I would, for instance, allow them to see many Hollywood sex scenes, as they typically portray an idealized notion of intercourse. Most people refer to this as "movie sex." I would allow them to watch the people portrayed on Beautiful Agony, as it is an honest portrayal of orgasm. Of course, they would be barred from more hardcore stuff, and certainly from sites such as Rape.tv. I do, however, want them to know what sex is, and that one of its two purposes is for giving and receiving insane amounts of pleasure.

Joseph Farah from WorldNetDaily echoes the calamitous attitude of senators in the congressional hearing. Pornography is evil . . . pornography will tear away the moral fabric of this great nation . . . how dare anyone explore sexuality in this Puritanical nation, etc, etc. I always fail to underestimate the choking conservatism of America. Going to school in Buffalo opened my eyes ever so slightly. A summer in the midwest made me feel as though I were in danger of spontaneously combusting and embarking on an eternity in hell.

We have to remember that most of these senators are people who distort reality by telling their children that they were delivered to them by a stork. Or purchased at the mall. Or magically created with the snap of a finger. What is it about the sexual experience that would traumatize a child to know that babies come from mommy and daddy?

When I was three years old, my father was careless enough to leave a porn tape in the VCR. I, in my infantile wisdom, decided to press the play button for no reason. With no one around, I watched as some guy stuck his index and middle finger inside some woman . . . all this amid a strangely Indian-looking set. (I remember this quite well.) After about two minutes of this, I turned off the machine and thought little of it. No deep psychological damage. No strange urges to sex up other girls my age. I turned out quite fine, if I say so myself.

Prof. Halavais made an insightful comment that gave me serious pause. He said that laws which proscribe false advertisement constitute a limit of free speech. Now, some of us would admit to a certain contempt for advertising firms. (Example: during spring break, I made a trip to a corner store and snatched up a pint of Guinness Irish Stout. As soon as the first sip touched my tongue, I spewed it across the room. I did this because aside from expanding my appreciation of beer, I love the commercials. There's nothing like two mustachioed Irishmen shouting at each other.)

I had subscribed staunchly to the absolute freedom of expression. To a slightly lesser extent, I still do. But just as the principle of censorship lends itself to abuse, so too does that of free speech. In seeking to ensure an honest and robust exchange of ideas, liberals open the door to the spread of egregious notions. (Like rape porn or torture videos or snuff films. Things that fly in the face of supposedly universal human conceptions.)

The problem is in coming to some sort of agreement as to what must be censored. It's a problem that will never go away, simply because people believe in different things. I'm sure many senators and congressmen would banish to high hell a simple video of a woman masturbating privately on her bed — despite the fact that many (if not most) women do this, despite the fact that not excoriating such an idea would relieve the isolation and guilt of millions who will do it anyway, and despite the knowledge and insight into human character that could be obtained by it.

Maybe there's a better way. Maybe there is a way to preserve both the freedom of speech and the moral center of this august culture. Maybe we should consider the institution of graduated access to material that social norms deems unacceptable. Material deemed offensive by the state would be clearly marked as such. One would have immediate access to a written description of the material, vague enough to merely hint at its contents. Then one could turn a page (or click a link) to a thorough discourse that completely describes said material. Only then could a person bear witness to the materials.

Softer Than a Porn: The Kitty Porn entry alone is enough to rocket this blog to the top. (The other entries are good as well!)

Excuse me sir but your balls are showing…bumblebeetuna.: Aside from having the most outlandish title of all the blogs, this author’s humorous ramblings actually have points that should be considered.

1. Each person needs appreciation for those qualities that distinguish them from others. In short, both people need to feel special.
2. Both need a deeply intimate emotional connection with the other.
3. Each person needs to feel beautiful and sexy.
4. Both need hot, passionate, and loving sex.

Pornography sabotages each of these four points. Because of this, it is necessary to eradicate all sexual material that destroys these fundamental characteristics of healthy relationships. I believe that anyone would agree that we as a society need to promote households that are as stable and robust as possible. Therefore, we need to impart to our children those values that foster relationships which satisfy the above criteria, and, necessarily, we must shield them from anything which would imply otherwise.

Most ubiquitous about pornography is that it de-individuates both the men and women portrayed. This is more often true for women, but when considered globally, de-individuation applies to men as well. None of the “actors” and “actresses” in pornography are portrayed as special. Any beautiful woman suffices for any scene; any erect penis plunging into any artificially lubricated vagina will do. Watching this, a viewer may, consciously or not, infer that virtually anonymous sex that is outside the context of any meaningful relationship is the most fulfilling.

This is a destructive notion for us all, as it inevitably leads to feelings of abject isolation. One finds in the landmark Meese Commission report endless tales of sex workers who have been driven to depression (and in some cases, suicide) from the long hours of anonymous sex which they endure. As for those who are not entangled in that industry, ask yourselves whether you’ve been truly fulfilled by a one-night stand or a casual relationship. Ask yourselves whether you’ve found happiness in a sexual relationship that is outside the context of respect and admiration.

That (most) pornography features physically attractive individuals is not in question. However, any beauty that is featured is tarnished. The Myths of Porn website dispels the idea that individuals (men especially) watch pornography to appreciate the beauty of the nude figure. One quote illustrates the type of judgments that men make: “I have to say that she was better with the smaller chest… Fact is… Once you’ve sucked on big boobs, they’re not as exciting as they were before you got to suck them… or something.”

The ruin of the first three criteria leads to the utter annihilation of the fourth: pornographic sex is not actual sex. Those who watch it, however, assume that it is. (The blame cannot be placed squarely on pornography, as we have reservations about displaying sex in an honest and positive light.) Boys, girls, men, and women learn from smut and then attempt to repeat what they see in the bedroom. That pornographic sex is not loving is all too obvious, and the mechanical repetition of pornographic sex acts is anything but passionate.

I propose, then, to censor the following:

1. Sexual material that depicts any type of sexual act outside the context of a happy, loving relationship.
2. Sexual material that has no educational value or appeals solely to prurient interest.
3. Sexual material that exhibits nonconsensual physical or psychological abuse.
4. Sexual material that features children, animals, or inanimate objects.

I must also be quick to mention that most of the pornography I watch is not professionally produced. Productions from the likes of Vivid Video are totally unrealistic and hence unsuitable for study. I tend to amateur and (stolen) personal pornography. In such videos, the participants actually are having sex.

But it is not merely the act itself with which I am concerned. My curiosity spans all of human sexuality. For example, how many of us know that a considerable number of women masturbate while in a tanning bed? It’s an idea that actually makes very much sense; what else is there to do in a tanning bed? It, however, is not a thought that easily occurs to people who don’t tan. I learned this from videos from Voyeurtan, and because of it, I have even more insight into all our sexualities. (The sheer power of a woman’s sexuality is a force to be reckoned with. Knowing this makes me wonder how many women wish that they could tell someone of such endeavors . . .)

Materials such as the books of Nancy Friday have been integral to my sexual education. I don’t even consider them pornographic, in the sense of the negative connotation of the word. Call it desensitization if you will, but these are testaments to humanity. The ideas in these volumes are held by nearly all of us; I don’t dare reject my nature, and nor should anyone else.