The Root Chakra

The Final Report March 24, 2006

I scrambled to Google to perform a search on the Meese Commission (formally, the Attorney General’s Commission on Pornography) as soon as Professor Halavais mentioned it in his lecture. The link sends a web surfer to a complete copy of the text online. I took note of part two, chapter five: The Question of Harm. In it, there is a harrowing account of the authors’ philosophy concerning the standard of proof with regard to establishing causality between pornography and social behavior. The article states, “Whenever a causal question is even worth asking, there will never be conclusive proof that such a causal connection exists.”

In a testament to irony, the document notes that a claim of the impossibility of conclusive proof is all too often made by those who disagree with a conclusion. The Meese Commission was established not to delve objectively into the effects of pornography on American culture; rather, its mandate was colored by conservative objectives. The commission was instructed to “determine the nature, extent, and impact on society of pornography in the United States, and to make specific recommendations to the Attorney General concerning more effective ways in which the spread of pornography could be contained, consistent with constitutional guarantees.” (Part 2, 1.1)

It was a maneuver by President Reagan to invalidate the findings of the earlier President’s Commission on Pornography. In 1970, this commission concluded that there was no causal link between the pornography and sex crimes — a finding that abhorred conservatives. One sees from the language of the mandate that adverse effects stemming from pornography were presupposed — not exactly an objective scientific attitude. The impetus for the acquisition for knowledge has always been the scientific mindset. The fuel for the 1986 commission was a collection of preconceived notions and closed minds.

The Meese Commission took pains to define two grades of harm, one of which was “secondary harm.” Material can be deemed to possess secondary harm if it holds a potential for harm. That “secondary harm” is a subjective idea, and thus chaotic, cannot be denied, in my humble opinion. The notion of secondary harm opens the door to rampant abuse of the idea: one can say that a piece of paper possesses secondary harm because it is possible to suffer a paper cut and a possible staph infection. Cars possess secondary harm because they have the obvious potential to kill people, as do guns, knives, cigarettes, and alcohol. Yet none of these products are proscribed in the statutes.

“Few if any judgments of causality or danger are ever conclusive, and a requirement of conclusiveness is much more rhetorical device than analytical method,” the document states. Yet what the Meese Commission does is assert that the harmfulness of pornography is obvious and conclusive! I suppose that one could argue that because it is not possible to determine conclusively whether pornography causes sex crime, it is therefore prudent to err on the side of caution. After all, pornography is found at eighty percent of the scenes of violent sex crimes.

Confronted with this argument, I would respond with the fact that most men, sex criminals or not, have pornography. Some admit it, while others who are keenly aware of social norms keep it private. A brave researcher should randomly select males from two groups: criminals and law-abiding citizens. With the consent of the law-abiders, they should have their belongings searched for pornography. I would even go so far as to guarantee that just as many “good guys” will have smut.

As a proponent of both moral relativism and scientific rationality, I am a conservative’s worst nightmare. I don’t believe that pornography, when displayed to adults who have a benign conception of human sexuality, causes sex crime. I believe that criminals who commit rapes and murders do so because of an inherent flaw in their psyche, not because they watch a few porn flicks. Their watching of violent pornography is a manifestation of their flaws, not the cause. I do believe that criminals can and do model their behavior on what they see on the television, and because of this, I believe that some forms of pornography (such as ‘snuff’) should be proscribed. I believe that pornography should be restricted to the eyes of adults. (Actually, it should be reserved only for those who have cast away their virginity, but we’ll have to settle on a certain age.) I most certainly do believe that we should pay attention to reality without coloring our perceptions with preconceived notions, as the Meese Commission did.

First Impressions Are The Most Amusing. March 12, 2006

In my early years I was naïve enough to believe that I had a strong independence of mind — that any ideas presented to me, irrespective of their source, had as much of an effect on me as I chose. I had come to this conclusion shortly after discovering that Santa Claus, the Tooth Fairy, and the Easter Bunny were nothing but fictions.

This foolish belief is best illustrated with the following example: when I was younger, I believed that women had little interest in sex. Everything that I saw on TV — commercials, teen shows, dramas — presented women as being far more obsessed with being able to attract a partner rather than interacting with one. I always saw women pushing themselves away from men that they kissed, redirecting the paths of wandering hands, telling both themselves and their partners that they “weren’t ready.” I thought that women simply didn’t have the chops to engage in meaningful sexual interaction, and I believed that men’s willingness to do so was the result of a “superior sexuality.”

Boy, was I wrong. But it was a rare instance in which I didn’t mind being wrong.

We most certainly should be concerned about how our children interpret what’s being shown in the media. What confuses me, though, is what we do and do not allow to be shown on national television. On a recent episode of 24 (one of my favorite shows, by the way) the protagonist Jack Bauer is attacked by a professional hit man. He’s thrown against a wall and a pair of scissors is thrust just above his neck. Jack overpowers his would-be killer and drives the scissors into his neck. We see the scissors go into his neck and blood ooze out of his mouth. This is the stuff that I would expect from an R-rated film, but the censors at Fox decided that it was kosher for TV. What would a child think of this?

Even better, why is this appropriate for a national network, while a loving, married couple in a nude sexual embrace is inappropriate? Does this make any sense? (Not that I would expect any culture, least of all American culture, to make sense . . .) A child could conceivably learn that one way to kill a person is to shove a sharp object in a person’s neck. According to social mores, this is more acceptable than allowing the same child to learn that taking a woman’s clitoris into his mouth can make her feel pleasure. Child-logic would produce this inevitable conclusion: it is more permissible to kill than to give sexual pleasure. To be fair, I’ll admit that this reasoning is absurd. We as adults know better. My point, however, is that children don’t. Children think for themselves — sometimes in mysterious ways. After all, I once believed that women couldn’t handle sex . . . not exactly sound reasoning.

Once again I repeat my wish for positive, educative sexual material. Perhaps we can produce cartoons that depict couples that make love in what society considers an idyllic context: a happy, productive marriage. (I personally don’t believe that pleasure-giving should be restricted to the confines of marriage, but for the sake of sex-ed, I am more than willing to make this compromise.) I do remember seeing a European cartoon where two “Martians” had sex. Maybe we should feature idyllic Martian-sex . . . what would the children think of that?

Intimacy March 11, 2006

Ever since I discovered what an orgasm feels like, I’ve always yearned to delve academically into what sex means to other people. Since this typically is a private issue (especially for teenagers and those in their early twenties, as they are commonly novices in this arena), most are keenly reticent. As O’Toole notes, modern-day sex films deal with displaying carnal knowledge rather than contemplating or discovering it. Hence, I can’t appeal to intellectually bereft pornography. The best resources thus far have been the books of Nancy Friday, including My Secret Garden and Men in Love.

I’ve yet to see any movies that, when dealing with sexual matters seriously, ultimately carry a positive message. The movie Closer, while compelling and refreshingly prosaic, consists of four characters hurting each other deeply. Basic Instinct serves simply (and successfully) to titillate. Sex, Lies, and Videotape portrays James Spader’s behavior, which involves interviewing women about their sexual experiences, as being the manifestation of deep personal troubles. I’ve yet to see Mike Nichols’ Carnal Knowledge; although based on what I’ve read, it’s as much a sobering experience as Closer. All I can do is shake my head at this wasted opportunity to explore who we really are.

While I read O’Toole’s insights, I came up with a movie idea. “Intimacy” is the title. In the style of When Harry Met Sally . . ., it follows the sexualities of a couple that we learn is happily married at the end of the film. The man and woman are interviewed, both separately and together, about what they think sex means. They share what it means for them to give pleasure and to have pleasure given to them. The movie explores “everything that people who have sex do,” as Julia Roberts said in Closer.

Perhaps pornographers should consider finding talented actors and producing a picture like this. I am of the opinion that films like “Intimacy” would greatly increase the credibility of the industry. It would be a picture that would excite the senses as well as allow its viewers to identify with the characters. Doesn’t that sound like a winning combination? People always love a well-told story.

Thralldom March 6, 2006

My girlfriend and I watched the Frontline special on sex slavery. As the show began, she railed against the sexual depravities of men in general and pimps and sex traffickers in particular. She, along with Dance Like This, was shocked to hear of the woman that trafficked in the market for sex slaves. The shock, obviously, comes from the presumption that only men disparage the sexual rights of women. One must think of those mothers who lambaste their daughters and call them sluts upon discovering the sexual activities of their children. (Never will such behavior distinguish mothers in the annals of diplomacy.)

This earth-shattering example of a woman who traffics in sex slavery lies in the vein of those who refuse to identify with their own groups in the usual fashion. Witness any person who buys into a culture not of their own — like a stereotypical computer nerd who is obsessed with J-culture. This woman is capable of dealing other women to men because, in my humble opinion, she cares only about herself. She is self-serving to such a degree that the broader implications of women being used as sex objects do not concern her. This is the only argument that makes sense to me.

State of the Blogging March 5, 2006

Throwing social niceties to the winds, I’m going to say that the quality of my entries is not in question. The quantity, however, certainly is. I’ve had difficulties with maintaining the quota of two entries per week, and I have posted irregularly to maintain the total number of expected posts. I would say that is because not all of the material in this course commands my attention. For instance, reiterated ad infinitum throughout the first weeks of the course was the thesis of pornography as a motivating force for the introduction of new communication technologies. While it was initially quite fascinating, I eventually tuned out. I had hoped for a more thorough discussion of the humanistic issues surrounding pornography, and sex in general. (I adored the lecture in which Professor Halavais repeatedly asked the class, “Is this pornography?”) I expect these considerations to become more conspicuous in the coming weeks, as we are due to address “social and legal questions.”

Overall, I would say that a grade of “B” would be in order. I have learned a great deal from the material that has thus far been presented. It was a pleasure to research Stanley v. Georgia. I never would have guessed that pornography essentially decided the battle between VHS and Betamax. Nor would I have guessed that straight male porn stars would engage in homosexual acts because of the promise of money.

I wish that the video quality of the lectures were better. That is, I wish that Professor Halavais had had his lectures recorded by a Minidisc player or some other voice recorder. Then the audio would be a bit more palatable.

Anatomy of a Thumbnail Gallery Post March 5, 2006

In light of lectures fourteen and fifteen, I would like to examine one method that “entreporneurs” use to generate profit. We begin with a trio of definitions. A thumbnail is a smaller-sized version of an image. A thumbnail gallery is a website that features links to images by using thumbnails of the images as the hyperlinks. A thumbnail gallery post is a website that features links to thumbnail galleries. Asian Thumbs is an exemplar of an esteemed thumbnail gallery post (TGP.)

A considerable problem that comes with any enterprise is that of marketing. An entrepreneur must convince people to engage the enterprise in some way, lest the business fall to dust. Internet pornographers are no exception. One must find a way to advertise one’s offerings; otherwise a webmaster will receive no traffic. An option is to create thumbnail galleries that preview the website and then be listed on a TGP.

A typical TGP has a main page on which a catalog of hyperlinks to thumbnail galleries is presented. Along with the links, advertisements are plastered; a TGP webmaster has money to make himself. Links to other TGPs are usually present as well — webmasters maximize exposure for their advertisers by trading traffic in this manner.

The disadvantage to hosting a TGP is that there is only one place to feature advertisements: on the main page. To circumvent this, some webmasters create fake TGPs. There are several ways to do this. A webmaster may craft a site in which all of the links point to thumbnail galleries on the webmaster’s own web space. Thus, any puff pieces on the galleries are in fact advertisements hosted by said webmaster — extra ads that provide the webmaster with money. Another method is to exploit ActiveX and JavaScript by writing links that purport to send a web surfer to a thumbnail gallery but instead direct a user to another TGP. A third, and more insidious, method is to place scripts that upload malware (e.g. spyware and adware) to an unsuspecting user’s console.

Whether a thumbnail gallery post is in fact genuine does not change the fact that these websites are here only to exploit the carnal needs of web surfers. TGPs are opportunities for advertisers to be heard, and thus TGPs are tools of the businessman.

The Kinsey Scale February 28, 2006

The Kinsey Scale is the most accurate measure of human sexuality of which I am aware. Yet it does not come close to describing the complexities of any given person’s sexuality.

This post is a response to the statement that heterosexual males engage in homosexual encounters in front of the camera. I was stunned at first to learn that this was true. A few minutes later I laughed in amusement at this manifestation of open-mindedness.

Sexual orientation is much more complicated, in my opinion, than the Kinsey Scale. For instance, one must also consider orientation to people of varying age, to animals, and to inanimate objects. All these orientations are best described in percentages, rather than in discrete units as is done with Kinsey’s invention.

Matters of gay-ness and straight-ness are not quite so clear-cut; however, social mores dictate that we segregate individuals (especially males) into one camp or the other. According to social mores, it’s impossible for a man to make-out with another man and yet be heterosexual, an idea that is presented in this entry by Boston Sucks. Self-proclaimed bisexual males are invariably regarded as homosexuals in denial. True heterosexuals could never be aroused in any way by members of their own sex. These notions are simply fallacious. There is far more to sexuality than what society gives credit, a fact which is evidenced by the sexualities of the male performers. Their unique sexual beliefs (and sense of practicality) enabled them to sleep with other men.

Social mores, as usual, are arbitrary nonsense. This arises from wholesale ignorance of the subtleties of human sexuality. Consider, for instance, American society’s relative acceptance of female homosexuality. Many men report being fascinated by the prospect of women having sex. How many of us can remember a party at which drunk girls began making out with each other for attention? How many of us would automatically conclude that said girls were in fact lesbians? We must realize that social attitudes are arbitrary and are imposed upon us. It is the only way to engage in a complete exploration of our sexualities.

Masturbatory Musings February 28, 2006

Kmackee writes about women’s indignance at their male partner’s infatuation with pornography. I don’t think that it’s much of an exaggeration to claim that very nearly all men possess pornography in one form or another. It’s part of the male culture. Some of us are open about it, to the point of watching videos with fellow males at guys-only-parties, while others keep their collections consigned to secrecy.

The indignance comes from the inevitable shots to women’s sexual esteem. Those who succumb to the blows do so from insecurity, which in turn stems from a lack of validation as a sexual being. When dealing with a partner who watches porn, an insecure woman feels the same trepidation that an insecure man feels when dealing with a partner who uses a vibrator. Both wonder whether they are being replaced. In most cases, porn videos or vibrators act at most as supplements, not as substitutes. We all would live under the delusion that we are so enticing that we consume our partners to the exclusion of all others, but such is not the way of human sexuality.

Women who worry whether they are being replaced by pornography should take a look at themselves and discover whether they truly are comfortable with their sexual potency. One who is not comfortable with one’s own sexuality cannot possibly be comfortable with another’s sexuality, and in this way one cannot serve as an effective lover.

Too Broad a Definition February 26, 2006

In his ninth lecture, Professor Halavais states that we are applying a broad idea of what constitutes pornography. That is, pornography is defined as “the intersection of sex and the internet,” although for the sake of completeness I hasten to note that he most likely meant “the intersection of sex and communication technologies.” This more inclusive definition subsumes art, books, films, television, and the like. I believe this to be a fallacious notion.

Few would dispute the negative connotation of the word “pornography.” The American Heritage Dictionary defines pornography to be “pictures, writing, or other material that is sexually explicit and sometimes equates sex with power and violence.” Educational material such as books on puberty satisfy this definition, but does such material also inherit the connotation of the definition? Once again, the thorny issue of defining obscenity is raised.

The notion is a fallacy because sexually explicit material that is presented outside of the “power and violence” context (and especially educative material) does not merit classification as pornography, as the penumbra of obscenity does not hover over it. Otherwise, any art in which Venus’ unclothed body is featured would constitute pornography. Michaelangelo’s David is obscene. The Joy of Sex most definitely would satisfy the definition, as would any high school health course that discusses sexually transmitted infections. The all-inclusive idea of pornography is unacceptable.

Sexual Relativism: A Testament to Diversity February 13, 2006

In my first entry, I identify myself as a moral relativist. The American Heritage Dictionary defines relativism as being “a theory that conceptions of truth and moral values are not absolute but are relative to the persons or groups holding them.” I believe that to truly learn about sex, it is necessary to adopt the anthropological standpoint of methodological relativism — a stance in which a person sets aside familar cultural biases as one attempts to comprehend beliefs and behaviors in their contexts. This is what I mean when I say that people should not take one particular view of reality too seriously. Subscribing to relativism can free a person from the confines of a single, narrow worldview.

Some people believe that sex can be had only in marriage. Others believe that one should indulge in it at any stage of life. Neither group of people should blind themselves to the worldview of the other. Some believe that the sole purpose of sex is to procreate and that it should not be had for any other reason. Others think that sex is meant only for experiencing pleasure. Both groups would do well to try and understand the other’s beliefs. Some people have sex to express love, while others abstain from it as an expression of respect and love. Which perspective is “better?”

Given two diametrically opposed beliefs, sexual or otherwise, the question that immediately comes to mind is which of the two is “correct.” If one is “right,” then the other must necessarily be “wrong.” If this be so, then the one who holds the “incorrect” belief must abrogate that belief in order to stay in touch with the truth of the world. I am far more willing to accept that in fact both beliefs are “wrong,” in the sense that they are relative to each other, with neither belief possessing more “truth” than the other.

The websites presented in the eigth lecture are a testament to the diversity of human opinion. Without Professor Halavais’ lecture, it never would have occured to me that the Nostril Exhales website is a fetish site. None of the pictures or videos gave me a rise, but apparently other people find exhaled smoke arousing. As a man, I myself feel pain whenever I see another man suffering the agony of having his testicles hit. I also felt cold chills when I saw photos of models rolling around in snow. Beautiful Agony would qualify to most people as a certain type of exhibitionism, though it does not satisfy the canonical definition, as the viewer sees no genitalia. Eurobeach and Ilovethebeach.com feature videos of topless women on nude beaches in Europe. Is this pornographic? The women in the videos would probably not think so, as they obviously do not consider their breasts to be “private parts” that must be covered up. (To strengthen this point, I once saw a video from Eurobeach in which a topless woman stares right at the camera in downright confusion as she applies suntan lotion. She soon ignores the camera and continues rubbing lotion on herself.) One contrasts this last attitude with that of Muslims, who believe that only the husband of a woman may see her in the nude. Such a casual attitude toward a woman’s body would be regarded as unconscionable.

One cannot underestimate the diversity of thought and opinion that this world offers. No one should dare to quash the spectrum of human expression.