I have to say, I am smiling ear to ear after reading the new Washington Post article: The Case for Banning Pornography

Instead of the cautious fence-straddling approach taken by most journalists who dare to even take on the subject, journalist and editor Matthew Schmitz courageously charges right into territory normally so defended by aggressive pornography apologists that even the hardiest of journalists have had to don armor in order to write about it in the mainstream press.

Mr. Schmitz invites his Washington Post readers to retire the old "freedom of speech" trope in defense of pornography use (right, because there's so much speech to protect in pornography) and to actually- gasp— have us consider seriously the misogyny inherent in pornography! I think I might be in love, but I digress. 

One aspect of the pornography discussions I have been involved with (which has frustrated the hell out of me) is that the anti-obscenity laws that are currently on the books are just shrugged off in most discourse. Why is that? I have not been able to figure out if the general population I'm generally speaking to just isn't aware these laws are on the books- or if, in the planned obsolescence of the pro-pornography camp, those laws have been subversively shoved down and out of public consciousness.

So I'm grateful this journalist takes on the First Amendment argument from a unique perspective most of us probably haven't considered before.

Perhaps most exciting of all, this Washington Post article, one in a series on the topic, feels like the solid beginning of a welcome sea-change in which it is becoming more acceptable, even popular to denounce pornography. Imagine that?

No one can argue the success of the pro-pornography movement. How did they do it? Simple. They created a blitzkrieg of highly positive branding around it, using ubiquitous product placement (which portrays pornography use as a normal, de facto, expected activity that is simply a daily part of the lives of the famous characters on popular TV shows, in trendy movies, in glamorous ads, etc)…. plus the use of all the other smoke and mirrors that highly-paid marketing strategists employ to influence consumers on a massive scale. Then lobbyists are put on the payroll to go to Washington, D.C. and protect the interests of that lucrative industry. Lastly, they go on the offensive and publicly humiliate anyone who dares to speak up against any of this.

Until very recently, very few dared oppose the loud voice of anyone pro-porn, but slowly this is changing as witnessed by more and more articles starting to question pornography use. I'm thrilled that this Washington Post article joins other bold journalistic voices in arguing against pornography from a strong, unapologetic position. Matthew Schmitz does an admirable job here of articulating some unpopular truths, braving a readership that apparently includes a high number of the porn-besotted, judging from the many who are busy leaving acrid comments at the end of his article.

We want to give him a lot of credit for offering up not one concession whatsoever for why some pornography, in some cases, some of the time, in some universe somewhere, might just be acceptable. Nope!

When was the last time you read a mainstream article that didn't include what seems like the mandatory nod to the pro-porn camp?

I have even read articles by some "sex addiction" therapists (especially those who are also sex therapists) who apparently conflate being "sex positive" with the need to be open-minded about pornography use, so their writing cites only compulsive use as a problem.

This is the thorny but compelling intersection where psychology meets human rights issues.

On the "use versus over-use" issue, we still feel it is imperative not to allow our attention to veer away from the underlying issue of misogyny and human usury central to pornography. The entitlement to use others for personal benefit is at the heart of all pornography use and we see that same dynamic of self-centeredness generalize into how spouses and partners are treated in so many of the porn-infested marriages and partnerships we hear about and work with here.

Now— can you imagine ways in which your voice matters in all this? You, most of whom have lost almost everything (and I include myself here) to this pornographic scourge and all the damage it has wrought in our lives, what are your thoughts on taking back your right not to have pornography be a big part of the unquestioned fabric of your daily lives? Can you imagine it?

How do you feel about writers and journalists planting the idea-seeds for the possibility of a pornography-free world?

Please consider adding your thoughts, daydreams and wishes to the PoSARC community conversation below (in Comments):

Commenting Anonymously
Note that you must enter a name and email below in order to submit a comment. The name you enter will show up along with your comment (your email will not), so if you'd like to comment anonymously, please enter a name such as "guest" or use your initials.