Can Porn be Really More Dangerous Than War? For Who?
So many people believe that porn is immoral while war is holy. So many others believe that war is immoral while porn is fine.
Interestingly, people sense of morality, in regards to porn and war, tend to be negatively correlated. Peace protestors are often naked, which would offend highly (self declared) righteous people like Osama Bin Laden and George Bush.
The religious militants, on the other hand, would often kill a lot of civilians, which would offend civilians a lot.
So, which one is right?
Perhaps, rather than trying to decide which one is right or wrong, it’s better to just observe and understand how different humans’ interests motivate different algorithms to classify right from wrong.
With guns, swords, and chainsaws militants can commit massacres against civilians. Those with capability to strike or harm can motivate others to submit to their agenda by hitting those who do not.
For most part of history, that’s how morality really got developed, namely, to protect the interest of the strong.
The (good?) old days were filled with strong honorable Knights, Samurais, and Ksatriyas. There were no rich greedy businessmen. There were only rich greedy Emperors, Sultans, Khalifahs, Maharajas, and Warlords.
Nowadays, civilians are gaining power. With democracy, basic peasants with paper poking “talent” can outmatch the military power of a knight’s long years of sharpened bashing, horse raiding, shooting, whatever talents.
With democracy, civilians can drive militants out of the gene pool too. To survive in the gene pool, a person needs a sex partner. A male would definitely want at least several. There are essentially two ways to get sex partners. You can force, like in rape, or you can consensually attract.
Raping has huge political costs nowadays.
In ancient time, an army could just rape women gloriously. Nowadays, rape is simply the most politically incorrect acts any army can do. An army can still get a way with murders, bombing, suicide bombing, and rocket launching. There is no way you’ll gain sympathy through mass rape.
In
With the raising political costs of rape, sexual attraction becomes far more important for gene pool survival.
When all sex is completely free, consensual, and unregulated, those who cannot attract sex partners will be out competed from the gene pool. The most attractive males will mate with all the females and the prettiest females will get the richest smartest males super alpha males leaving the rest extinct producing.
The militants can have nukes, guns, swords, or whatever. They are no match for the meek (and naked) peace protestors, who then, should the trend continue, will inherit the earth. Jesus will be proud.
Now, is porn or war, right or wrong? Where, it’s subjective and relative, in a sense that you will get different answers from people that represents different political interests.
If you ask a militant, knight, samurai, or ksatriya that still want to cling to their golden age where they were honored, then yea, you’ll get an answer that porn is so wrong.
Just look at here: http://www.law.com/jsp/article.jsp?id=1125318960389
6 Responses to “Can Porn be Really More Dangerous Than War? For Who?”
You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
Khaled Khalil
Said this at 6:23pm:i still can’t find any relation, but really all peace activists i know concider themeselves as conservators only for this point of view, i don’t know (exactly) what you meant about “righteous”, but much of them are religeous (some of them are activists in this way too).
when it comes to authorities, they always have to say that they do the right, depending what is the right in their people’s eyes, but i guess there isn’t much difference between the definition of “right” in ancient rome and usa and israel, in any case their authorities will confirm that they do the “right”
Khaled Khalil
Said this at 10:55am:lock the comment if you want just comment from your side, but that is not respectful to ban comment you don’t agree with
Jared Spurbeck
Said this at 10:18am:When all sex is completely free, consensual, and unregulated, those who cannot attract sex partners will be out competed from the gene pool. The most attractive males will mate with all the females and the prettiest females will get the richest smartest males super alpha males leaving the rest extinct producing.
Well, that certainly sounds like something we should all aspire to. ^.^;
Perhaps when Jesus told the multitude that to stare at a woman you’re not married to is immoral, it was because he knew that promiscuous behavior not only makes people miserable, but also decreases their survivability as a species.
webmaster
Said this at 6:08am:Actually Jesus didn’t say staring at women you’re not married is immoral. Staring at women with lust is immoral. That seems to include your wife if she’s a woman
Whether it’ll make people miserable or not, I am sure individuals can decide what’s best for them self. Who are we to decide what’s best for others anyway?
Jared Spurbeck
Said this at 6:39am:Actually Jesus didn’t say staring at women you’re not married is immoral. Staring at women with lust is immoral. That seems to include your wife if she’s a woman
He said “That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart.” Adultery, sir, by definition, is extramarital intercourse.
Whether it’ll make people miserable or not, I am sure individuals can decide what’s best for them self. Who are we to decide what’s best for others anyway?
The thesis of Wendy Shalit’s A Return to Modesty, linked to above, is that people (especially girls) are miserable these days because they’ve been left to decide for themselves. She cites many examples of girls who’d been given no guidance at all, and compromised personal boundaries that they hadn’t known even existed. And she describes how helpless it feels to live in a world where not only is rape taken for granted, but most girls end up giving in to their boyfriends anyway because they have no excuses left for saying “no” anymore.
Everyone’s free to make choices, sir, yes. But nowadays we have millions of “liberated women” who are absolutely miserable, because everything in the world is urging them to make one, specific choice; from their peers, to their boyfriend, to the magazines at the checkout stands. And they might feel very uncomfortable about it, but they feel like they have no socially acceptable grounds for refusing that choice anymore. Because these days, saying “no” to your boyfriend is a personal insult, and not a request that he back up his infatuation for you with commitment.
Khaled Khalil
Said this at 6:05pm:i still doesn’t see it as either or
they are exclusively different, they doesn’t even have anything in common !