Saturday, March 17, 2012

Rick Santorum on Pornography and "Sexual Union"

In recent days, Mr. Santorum has decided that war is a good thing, particularly when it's a war on pornography.  On his website, Mr. Santorum rails against the damage that pornography is wreaking on American society as a whole and on individual Americans.

Here are a few quotes:

"America is suffering a pandemic of harm from pornography.  A wealth of research is now available demonstrating that pornography causes profound brain changes in both children and adults, resulting in widespread negative consequences. Addiction to pornography is now common for adults and even for some children. The average age of first exposure to hard-core, Internet pornography is now 11. Pornography is toxic to marriages and relationships. It contributes to misogyny and violence against women.  It is a contributing factor to prostitution and sex trafficking."

A wealth of research indeed.  One such "researcher" is Dr. Judith Reisman.   Automatically, one would thingk that she is a psychologist, psychiatrist or someone similarly qualified, however, Dr. Reisman has, in fact, both a Masters and Ph.D. in Communications from Case Western Reserve University.  In her biography, she claims that "she has been engaged in a lifelong battle against pornography and since 1977 has fervently exposed the fraudulent sex science of Dr. Alfred Kinsey.".  Here is a link to her website where it quickly becomes apparent that she certainly has a decades-long fixation on both pornography and Dr. Alfred Kinsey's research.  Dr. Reisman maintains that viewing pornography will cause a chemical change within a person's brain that will create physical deterioration.  If indeed that is the case, would not the same chemical changes take place during the arousal that takes place during "real-life sex"?  I'm not disputing Dr. Reisman's research but, contrary to what Mr. Santorum states, the very existence of pornography addiction is still hotly disputed among qualified mental health practitioners and researchers.

Mr. Santorum continues:

"For many decades, the American public has actively petitioned the United States Congress for laws prohibiting distribution of hard-core adult pornography.

Congress has responded.  Current federal “obscenity” laws prohibit distribution of hardcore (obscene) pornography on the Internet, on cable/satellite TV, on hotel/motel TV, in retail shops and through the mail or by common carrier. Rick Santorum believes that federal obscenity laws should be vigorously enforced.  “If elected President, I will appoint an Attorney General who will do so.” 
Mr. Santorum goes on to inform us that the Obama Department of Justice favours pornographers over children and families.  As did the Department of Justice under the Bush Administration etcetera.  One would like to think that an Attorney General would have better things to do than taking up arms against pornography (excluding child pornography of course).  Like the battle against the drug trade, this battle would cost taxpayers untold billions of dollars and the outcome would be far from certain.  Governments seem very, very slow to learn that banning so-called "sins" like alcohol, drugs and now pornography simply don't work, they are just driven underground.  Let me rephrase that, such laws do work, for the country's lawyers.
Here is the last paragraph of Mr. Santorum's missive:
"I proudly support the efforts of the War on Illegal Pornography Coalition that has tirelessly fought to get federal obscenity laws enforced.  That coalition is composed of 120 national, state, and local groups, including Morality in Media, Family Research Council, Focus on the Family, American Family Association, Cornerstone Family Council of New Hampshire, Pennsylvania Family Institute, Concerned Women for America, The Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission of the Southern Baptist Convention, and a host of other groups.  Together we will prevail."
Quite frankly, using the very notion of a battle against pornography is blatant political pandering to a subset of American voters.  If Mr. Santorum is truly serious about this battle, the quickest way to end the fight would be to disable the "tubes" that make up the internet, forcing purveyors of pornography skulking back to magazines wrapped in plain paper or, alternatively force us back to the 1990s when we all had to use dial-up access, rendering online video pornography absolutely unobtainable.  In this era of ultra-high speed internet connections, I think Mr. Santorum is urinating into the wind, short of unplugging us all.   
To put all of this into context, we need to remember that this is the man that said this about contraception within marriage in this interview:
"One of the things I will talk about that no President has talked about before is I think the dangers of contraception in this country, the whole sexual libertine idea. Many in the Christian faith have said, “Well, that’s okay. Contraception’s okay.”
It’s not okay because it’s a license to do things in the sexual realm that is counter to how things are supposed to be. They’re supposed to be within marriage, they are supposed to be for purposes that are, yes, conjugal, but also unitive, but also procreative. That’s the perfect way that a sexual union should happen. We take any part of that out, we diminish the act...all of a sudden, it becomes deconstructed to the point where it's simply pleasure."
Now we can't even have fun having recreational sex within the bounds of marriage!  Mr. Santorum certainly has a very rigid (weak, weak pun) outlook on the sexual act.  Perhaps he should reconsider his position on running for the President of the United States and submit his name as a replacement for Pope Benedict XVI.  He's pretty much spouting the official Catholic Church line on contraception and procreation so he might be a shoe-in. 
We have to ask ourselves before it's too late - is Mr. Santorum's America the America that the majority of Americans want?

9 comments:

  1. Santorum's view is a very sex-negative view, in that sex is viewed with suspicion if it isn't within marriage and potentially procreative.

    For most of our lives, the procreative aspects of sex are superfluous or unwanted. I disagree with Catholic Church philosophy on this point, but that's because I place more emphasis on the scientific viewpoint than on odd conceptions of "Natural Law," which we break all the time with lighting, air conditioning, refrigeration, and the many benefits of modern medicine.

    So, I believe, by all means, subtract the procreative aspects from the sex act. You're not hurting the world or yourself or God. The absence of worry will probably do a great deal of good in your relationship.

    Another scientific point is that the world is already supporting a vast number of humans, and there definite benefits to limiting the surging growth. Countries with unrestrained growth due to religious and cultural teachings against birth control include Egypt, Haiti, and the Philippines, which aren't examples I'd want to follow.

    Mr. Santorum's campaign has been a reminder to many people of the benefits of self-determination when it comes to contraception. He can be against contraception, just as Reagan was against abortion, and it won't affect most people's rights or decisions.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I realize that I've already written a lot, but this addition greatly deserve mention. Not all people in the US are unaffected by changes in policies about abortion and contraception. Those with money can readily obtain what they need or want. Those without much money are the ones who suffer.

      Delete
    2. My wife and I happily contracepted the first 5 yrs of our marriage (with the blessings of our priest) When we discovered that was totally contrary to the purpose of the marital act and put God first, we went from the verge of divorce to the happy parents of 9 kids. Rick S is correct about the evils of pornography and the harm that altering the act of love causes to your marriage.

      Delete
    3. Shame on you, Anonymous, for adding to our gross overpopulation problem. I'm sure now that they are here that your 9 kids are wonderful, but you acted very selfishly in having more kids than our world can manage. Given the global politics of today, your kids will probably get theirs and the resources they use will mean others suffer and starve. You have no objective way to know what your "God" thinks of sex — you're just going with whatever some cultural institution (your church? some particular religious preacher folks?) are telling you.

      Delete
  2. Just as it has always been - those with money can always get what they need.

    Several decades ago, Canada had a Prime Minister (Trudeau) who once quoted a Canadian newspaper columnist by stating that "There's no place for the state in the bedrooms of the nation" (December 21, 1967). Perhaps Mr. Santorum needs to pay heed.

    MP - I always enjoy your outlook and commentary.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thanks, PJ. Right back at you.

      Delete
    2. Wow your a PET lover...maybe you should run the numbers on his Gov. spending plans,locking us in for the long term ...but your bias will show it's all lying Brian .

      Delete
  3. Seems to me that America's prudish and puritanical official attitudes towards sex in general are what drives the pornography trade and Republican states seem to be the biggest users of on-line pornography.
    Also his so-called research is full of shit.

    ReplyDelete
  4. The same way that the banning of alcohol during the Prohibition drove the bootlegging business!

    ReplyDelete