Tuesday, August 15, 2006

To me it's simple

I'm about to irritate quite a few people here I suspect, by drawing a parallel: porn is a bit like smoking. While avid smokers choke over that last statement (and their Silk Cut) let me explain. Being a non-smoker myself, of course, I'm pretty biased, but my argument is this simple: when doing something harms others, and takes away from their freedom to choose, surely the freedom to do those things is superseded by that harm. Smoking - in public places, or in front of children or animals - is harming those who have no freedom to be in a place of their choosing without damaging their health (and making clothes/hair/eyeballs etc. smell unpleasant). Maybe people should have the choice to inflict said damage and odour to themselves, but on others? I don't think so. The same goes for porn. Users of porn are exercising their 'freedom of expression' (and the result of that 'expression' is not worth dwelling upon) in being voyeurs of objectified women. That's their argument, and let's go with it for a second, despite the numerous foolproof arguments against it. Surely their right to choose this is overridden by the emotional and physical harm that may have been imposed on the women involved (not wishing here to get into a debate on sex workers' defence of their trade, it is an undeniable fact that many women in the porn industry are not there of their own free will, and how is the 'consumer' - a horribly apt tag I fear - to know the difference?) and of the damage to the self-esteem of their partners? Not only this, but porn is difficult to avoid for someone who wishes to make an active choice to do so. To avoid porn, you would have to do all one's grocery shopping online, be rich enough to employ a personal shopper, or have a partner stuck well under your thumb to run your errands. Even then, you're limiting your recreational shopping opportunities, and recreational pursuits in general, since TV, film and music are imbued with subtle - and shockingly in-your-face - references to porn. I do not feel I have the freedom to choose to live without porn, because, by my definition, it is all around me. I do not believe that someone can use porn and know that they have not been masturbating at the expense of others' well-being. Therefore, surely, the 'right' to use porn must give way to these more fundamental rights? Usually, where others are hurt by an action, the action is condemned. Otherwise paedophiles, thieves, rapists and the like would have free rein (more than they already do …) because their actions would be their ‘choice’ and therefore none of our business. Why should porn be any different?

0 Comments:

Post a Comment

<< Home


adopt your own virtual pet!