Porn In The U.S.A.
Published in newspapers the week of October 10, 2004.
Upcoming events at my old alma mater are sure to arouse passions.
On October 27 the Ideas and Issues Committee at Middle Tennessee State University is spending two-thirds of its annual budget to sponsor a debate on the merits of pornography. The debate pits Ron Jeremy (star of 1800-plus adult films) against feminist author Susan G. Cole.
When I was on that same committee (circa 1981), we had our share of red-hot topics (“Pac-Man Fever: A Job For The World Health Organization Or Trapper John, M.D.?”), but things are really heating up in 2004.
I suspect this will be livelier than the classroom debates I had at MTSU. Instead of “That’s a good question,” you’ll hear “That’s a good question -- a really good question. Yes! Yes! Oh, yesssssssssss!!!!”
From what I’ve read of earlier stops on the Jeremy/Cole tour, the rowdy campus audiences tend to view Cole as the “heavy” and Jeremy as a hero. My, didn’t heroes used to be made of sterner stuff? At one time heroes introduced themselves with “I freed mankind from the grip of polio” or “I busted open a Nazi concentration camp,” not “I liberated a village of naughty librarians—six times, if you count the sequels.”
Jeremy and his forces view “fornicating for dollars” as just plain old entertainment. Commented one Sunday school teacher, “If he thinks whips and chains are entertaining, he’ll have a ball with pitchforks.”
Entertaining or not, porn does raise unreasonable expectations about the frequency and magnitude of sex. (“So, the delivery room isn’t romantic enough for you now, eh, Your Highness?”)
Jeremy contends that porn doesn’t, in and of itself, degrade women or force men to be creeps. The feminist view is that porn exacerbates existing problems by sending the wrong message to men. A woman’s “No” is interpreted as “Let me phone my five stewardess friends.”
The smut superstar scoffs at contentions that porn leads to violence against women. Still, he can’t explain away the growing number of men whose “little black books” are not alphabetized but carry the legend “Nuke ‘em all and let God sort ‘em out.”
The pro-porn forces wrap themselves in the First Amendment, citing documents from the Founding Fathers (whose slogan was “You can’t prove we’re Founding Fathers without the DNA evidence.”) I speak of phrases such as “All men are created (*snicker, snicker*) equal” and “the pursuit of life, liberty, and contraceptives.”
Porn defenders bring out the “slippery slope” theory, contending that the curtailment of one form of expression will lead to the censorship of others. Porn opponents mostly just try not to imagine what the slope is really slippery with.
Jeremy is quick to cite happily monogamous couples (“Porn: it’s not just for pathetic dateless losers anymore”) who are able to explore exciting new options through porn. (“Mike, let’s explore the exciting new option of dividing the house and bank account in half.”)
Jeremy just wants to help people shake off the shackles of puritanical restrictions and experience being fully human. Apparently he has already achieved this for my neighborhood dogs, because I see them being fully human quite often.
Rest assured of one thing about this one-on-one debate between Jeremy and Cole. Somehow or another, President Bush will manage to lose the debate. (“Down with pornoscolators!”)
Note: Danny Tyree, a 1982 graduate of MTSU, welcomes e-mail at tyrades@localnet.com.
Upcoming events at my old alma mater are sure to arouse passions.
On October 27 the Ideas and Issues Committee at Middle Tennessee State University is spending two-thirds of its annual budget to sponsor a debate on the merits of pornography. The debate pits Ron Jeremy (star of 1800-plus adult films) against feminist author Susan G. Cole.
When I was on that same committee (circa 1981), we had our share of red-hot topics (“Pac-Man Fever: A Job For The World Health Organization Or Trapper John, M.D.?”), but things are really heating up in 2004.
I suspect this will be livelier than the classroom debates I had at MTSU. Instead of “That’s a good question,” you’ll hear “That’s a good question -- a really good question. Yes! Yes! Oh, yesssssssssss!!!!”
From what I’ve read of earlier stops on the Jeremy/Cole tour, the rowdy campus audiences tend to view Cole as the “heavy” and Jeremy as a hero. My, didn’t heroes used to be made of sterner stuff? At one time heroes introduced themselves with “I freed mankind from the grip of polio” or “I busted open a Nazi concentration camp,” not “I liberated a village of naughty librarians—six times, if you count the sequels.”
Jeremy and his forces view “fornicating for dollars” as just plain old entertainment. Commented one Sunday school teacher, “If he thinks whips and chains are entertaining, he’ll have a ball with pitchforks.”
Entertaining or not, porn does raise unreasonable expectations about the frequency and magnitude of sex. (“So, the delivery room isn’t romantic enough for you now, eh, Your Highness?”)
Jeremy contends that porn doesn’t, in and of itself, degrade women or force men to be creeps. The feminist view is that porn exacerbates existing problems by sending the wrong message to men. A woman’s “No” is interpreted as “Let me phone my five stewardess friends.”
The smut superstar scoffs at contentions that porn leads to violence against women. Still, he can’t explain away the growing number of men whose “little black books” are not alphabetized but carry the legend “Nuke ‘em all and let God sort ‘em out.”
The pro-porn forces wrap themselves in the First Amendment, citing documents from the Founding Fathers (whose slogan was “You can’t prove we’re Founding Fathers without the DNA evidence.”) I speak of phrases such as “All men are created (*snicker, snicker*) equal” and “the pursuit of life, liberty, and contraceptives.”
Porn defenders bring out the “slippery slope” theory, contending that the curtailment of one form of expression will lead to the censorship of others. Porn opponents mostly just try not to imagine what the slope is really slippery with.
Jeremy is quick to cite happily monogamous couples (“Porn: it’s not just for pathetic dateless losers anymore”) who are able to explore exciting new options through porn. (“Mike, let’s explore the exciting new option of dividing the house and bank account in half.”)
Jeremy just wants to help people shake off the shackles of puritanical restrictions and experience being fully human. Apparently he has already achieved this for my neighborhood dogs, because I see them being fully human quite often.
Rest assured of one thing about this one-on-one debate between Jeremy and Cole. Somehow or another, President Bush will manage to lose the debate. (“Down with pornoscolators!”)
Note: Danny Tyree, a 1982 graduate of MTSU, welcomes e-mail at tyrades@localnet.com.
posted by Danny Tyree at 5:52 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home