We are developing the social individualist meta-context for the future. From the very serious to the extremely frivolous... lets see what is on the mind of the Samizdata people.
Samizdata, derived from Samizdat /n. - a system of clandestine publication of banned literature in the USSR [Russ.,= self-publishing house]
|
Dale Amon is someone with whom I actually have an unusually high degree of agreement on many many issues. In his article Free love or fight! however, I find myself agreeing with his conclusions only partly and even that for rather different reasons.
Whilst he is quite correct that there are elements of the Republican Party in the USA which are supportive of profoundly repressive actions by the state regarding sexual freedoms, I am not sure the issue of abortion comes under the category of ‘sexual freedoms’ at all. It is a contentious issue pertaining to definitions of life and death rather than sex, which whilst the proximate cause, is a separate issue.
Similarly I know many Republicans who are very libertarian regarding matters of sexual liberty… profoundly so in fact, taking the view that provided possible results of sex such as disease and pregnancy are treated responsibly and of accepted consequence, then the fact a person might like to have wild monkey sex is none of any one else’s business. The ‘Ashcroft’ faction does not define the entire Republican Party’s views on sex.
Of course there is indeed a certain paleo-conservative constituency within Republicanism in the USA which is inimical to libertarian values on many issues… but then I would argue they are just as inimical to neo-conservative values. Similarly there is a large and just as toxic ‘anti-sex’ element within the US Democratic Party, largely drawn from their still large number of paleo-feminist supporters. In reality I suspect the Democratic Party’s infection with Political Correctness is probably the greater threat to sexual freedoms (abortion is another issue entirely) than the Republican Puritan elements will ever be.
I am convinced that libertarians can indeed find significant elements within both the Democratic and Republican Party with whom to work, based on the inherent contradictions of these philosophically fuzzy groups that make a subversivist approach both practical and productive.
My worry about whether libertarians can actually find any common ground in the short term with mainstream Republicanism is more due to the fact it is becoming clear that George Bush is just another economically incoherent crypto-Keynsian. For all his talk about free trade, he has added not just steel tariffs but also wood tariffs against Canada, honey tariffs against Argentina, textile tariffs against Pakistan and sugar tariffs against Mexico… never mind that Mexico and Canada are NAFTA members.
I shall blog another article soon about the economic and political harm being done by the US government not just in their own country but also elsewhere, as they undermine the very people they should be supporting.
In his Weekly Standard article Condi Crazy, Lee Bockthorn goes straight to the heart of why I never have and never, ever will vote for a Republican:
But no matter how much these pro-choice Republicans whine, the GOP will always be a pro-life party. Why? Because the abortion issue goes to the heart of what both major parties are about. For Democrats, it’s a proxy for their entire worldview regarding sexual freedom and unfettered moral autonomy. For Republicans, being pro-life is about remaining the party of Lincoln: Just like slavery, unlimited abortion on demand threatens equality (and thus liberty) by denying a class of human beings their inalienable rights and equal dignity merely because it is convenient to do so.
It is not even the abortion issue per-se that angers me. Libertarians are split across the issue. I’m solidly pro-choice: others are not. That’s fine so long as we all agree to keep the State out of it. What is key is Mr Bockhorn sees Republicans as inherently anti-sexual. I am profoundly pro-sexual freedom and unfettered moral autonomy… within the limits consensual activity and personal responsibility for the results. Some libertarians may prefer a more “traditional” family, but they would never consider ramming it down my throat.
The quote shows how fundamentally flawed it is to ever think we as Libertarians can accomplish anything at all with the Republicans.
We just don’t have all that much in common.
Sometimes I leap to defend libertarian ideas with a glad cry, filled with the joy of battle. And sometimes I do it with a peg on my nose, scarcely able to believe that it is my fingers doing the typing. In the latter spirit do I second the Brian Micklethwait line in an earlier post. Incest between adults falls into the category of wrong (and in my view impious, and, no, I am not joking or posing when I use that word) actions that nonetheless should not be illegal.
I did not enjoy writing that, but it got me thinking. Might a libertarian society be more, not less conformist than our present one? A favourite theme of mine is the coming return of the age of the verbal oath made in person. For the last few hundred years we have leant on the crutch of documentary or camera proof but the time is coming when technology will allow us to fake anything. Then, my friends, a man’s word had better be his bond, at least if he wants to borrow money. The only way of telling who is creditworthy will be personal recommendation. Well, in a similar way, we have leant on the crutch of law to regulate our social relations. Should that crutch be removed, a man or a woman’s reputation may once again be his or her most precious possession. And since reputation is decided by others, public opinion will matter more.
No, Marie Claire is not my supermodel younger sister. She’s a British woman’s magazine, and a lady writing a piece for Marie Claire rang today asking about the libertarian line on incest (which she knew, either from the Libertarian Alliance website or via that from Sean Gabb’s Freelife website, that Sean had done a piece about, many years ago).
I told her (a) that you need to distinguish between morality and legality (legitimacy of social pressure, etc.), (b) that it ought to be legal if both parties consent, (c) that the consent principle meshes nicely with the fact that the police are powerless to catch people if no one is complaining – and thus telling them – about whatever it is, but that (d) the consent principle comes under severe strain as soon as a weaker party is on the receiving end of an inescapable power relationship, as is almost invariably the case where children are involved. It’s tricky to get things like this right, but she seemed sympathetic. Consent lead us on to the mass of consenting relationships (e.g. between the “Metric Martyrs” and their customers, all happy to trade in feet and inches) that are now being busily illegalised by our pathologically meddlesome government.
A nice illustration of how the willingness to assert libertarian principles, even (especially) when what follows from them is deeply disreputable, leads directly to mainstream media attention, and not just in the men’s pages.
She said she’d ring back if a piece does materialise in Marie Claire which refers to any of the above, and I’ll keep you posted.
Sorry, but if Kevin Holtsberry can come up with the wonderful title Pornucopia, then I must say that writing about the subject again makes him a porn again Christian.
Natalija and Kathy’s point that two women are on the ‘pro-porn’ side while two men are on the ‘anti-porn’ side has interesting connotations.
Forty or fifty years ago it would have been different. Nice girls were prim and proper and never thought of such things so guys read Playboy… or so guys were brainwashed. But then came the Berkeley Free Speech Movement, Tom Lehrer, Supreme Court Decisions, Free Love and Feminism.
Radical Left Feminists have always been basically anti-pornography. Because of it, they have often found themselves in bed with the Extremist Right Christians. This has caused a role reversal. Women were liberated from old stereotypes and seem to have promptly used their new liberty in the pursuit of happiness. Meanwhile, Left men were brainwashed by the feminazi’s that porn is demeaning to women and should not be allowed. Right men were just beaten even harder with the same Old Testament whip.
This time around the girls get to lead the charge against the establishment.
I think our lasses have already started rolling up the left flank…
Well if the boys can have Inter-blog Gun Wars, why not Inter-blog Porn Wars? And contrary to what one e-mail said, I do not write these things just to wind people up…
 …well, I must confess I do rather enjoy seeing Kevin leap up and down every time the subject comes up again.
But in truth I do think the issue lies on the edge of some very fundamental questions about human society and what makes it work, or not. Kathy Kinsley has joined the battle, giving William Sulik a forceful handbagging. I agree with Kathy and digging out my Oxford dictionary find a much more straightforward definition of pornography:
pornography n. 1 the explicit description or exhibition of sexual activity in literature, films, etc., intended to stimulate erotic rather than aesthetic or emotional feelings. 2 literature etc. characterised by this. [Gk pornographos writing of harlots f. porne prostitute + graphos write]
As Kathy also mentions, it is interesting to find that women seem to be the ones who tend to the ‘pro-porn’ side of this argument. Last time I wrote about this issue and, as has also been the case this time, generated a big spike in e-mails, women overwhelmingly agreed with me whereas men were more evenly divided.
Also I do address the matter of the more extreme forms of porn in my latest pro-porn frolic. Like many others I have poked around the Internet and seen some of the more alarming stuff but I cannot help thinking that it is much less significant that many seem to insist. It is a fact that people are capable of astonishing brutality and cruelty, but having seen that first hand on a large scale, I cannot see how people can then conclude when the same things happen on a small scale elsewhere, it must be due to pornography. Why not vodka or anything else you care to think up?
I will try to make some time later to answer more of the e-mails and bloggings on the subject that have sprung up overnight. I have a feeling these issues are going to have a long shelf life.
The idea pornography is responsible for rape is just plain silly. Of more interest is the very strong case that arming women decreases rape by a huge factor (see Multiple Victim Public Shootings, Bombings And Right To Carry Concealed Handgun Laws: Contrasting Private And Public Law Enforcement“ by Lott and Landes).
The gist of this seminal (no pun intended) study is hidden carry laws substantially decrease crimes against persons and decrease rapes by an even larger amount. Even a small number of woman with concealed weapons is enough to cause a significant drop in the rape statistics.
Many of the e-mails I got as a result of my last remarks about pornography raise the same points, some politely and some very rudely. As all the objections came from conservatives, I will address them. One of these objections to pornography is that it is ‘harmful to family life’ or ‘is responsible for causing divorces’. I in turn have several objections to this approach.
Firstly it is impossible to know if that is true with any certainty. Regardless of anecdotal evidence that I am sure I can match to the contrary, the truth is relationships break up for many and varied reasons. I very much doubt pornography is the actual source of those sort of problems. They are just pictures for goodness sake and to blame such things is usually going to be a gross simplification.
Secondly, even if it were true, so what? Whilst socialists might not have a problem with the idea of the state interposing itself between the most personal of relationships, is that really what conservatives want? If the state can restrict what a person reads or watches on their video player because it might damage the institution of marriage, then I would suggest banning all televised football, both American and Soccer, as that has probably caused more marital tension than 1000 copies of Playboy. And if you accept the principle that the state has a role in family matters, why stop there? I hope it is clear where this leads. It is not a slippery slope, it is a cliff.
Not all the letters to me were advocating legal suppression of pornography however. Many just wanted to discourage it socially and in that I have no problem. I personally would tend to ignore those sort of pressures but that does not mean I regard the social norm I may be ignoring as being an inherently bad thing. One person said that ‘no one would read a Playboy in public and that was a good thing’. Well maybe not where he comes from but that is not the case everywhere, even within a single country. In America I have only ever been to New York City yet I suspect what is fine socially in some parts of New York might not be fine in Utah. But in truth I do not think that social customs are a bad thing as most enduring customs have an objective, even if fuzzy, basis for their existence. I will touch again on that point at the end of my article.
Another point made by several people was that pornography leads to sexual violence, by which I assume they all mean the non-consensual kind. Once more I think that this is a simplification. I think that people who rape have what we all have, a sex drive, but lack any objective moral capacity and empathy. They do not really require a motivation beyond the physical urge, just an opportunity. On that basis it occurs to me pornography, particularly violent pornography might actually be a useful outlet rather than a cause, though that is just a logical supposition on my part. I have seen what large numbers of people do when a state has partially or completely collapsed and taken the values of a state centred society down with it. When that happens young men kill helpless civilians and they rape even more of them. It does not require pornography to make that possible but rather a collectivised view of the world and a subjective sense of morality. Nothing more and nothing less is required.
Even the few with latent sexually violent urges who might be somehow triggered by violent pornographic images do not provide any justification for banning these things however. Look at a bottle of vodka: most people can drink from it, enjoy the drink and then get on with their lives. Yet a few will drink it and then start a fight or drive a car and kill someone or rape a woman afterwards while drunk. Would you therefore ban all alcohol?
If you would ban violent images, quite apart from the impossibility of doing so in the Internet era, where do you draw the line? How about pictures that are just suggestive of sexual violence? Well you can find those even in women’s magazines occasionally. For example there was a photo shoot of lovely Dutch model Karen Mulder in the French edition of Glamour that was clearly playing on sexually threatening and potentially violent themes. But guess what? I think those are quite exciting pictures. That does not mean I personally want to be chased for real through the Paris Metro but the pictures ‘work’ for me with their frisson of sexual danger.
My whole point here is that I think when people worry about pornography, they are worrying about the wrong things. Pornography is just an expression of what goes on in people’s heads and the vast majority of people who look at it are no more harmed by it than by a glass of red wine. War movies do not cause wars either. The things that cause violence against women and relationships to break up are complex and inter-relative. Social pressures to not do things are just fine by me. I like the idea that attacking me when I am walking down the street is frowned on by society.
But when we start involving the state, rather than society and reason, then we enter a realm of downward spiralling consequences. If the only reason a man does not attack and rape me is that he fears the state and its laws, then if he encounters me alone in a remote place, what is to stop him now? So I think that societies which encourage reason in people rather than just fear of the law, are surely going to be safer. To try and legislate away all the possible influences that cause perceived ills is not only going to fail, soon we are back heading in the direction all state-centered orders eventually end up going, which is the replacement of society itself by the state. Trust me when I tell you that does not turn out to be the better route to a safer society. It is in fact the end of society all together.
The notorious Lagwolf comments on another tale of ‘older woman’ syndrome and replies to his detractors
Giles Brandreth confesses a “Mrs Robinson” liaison as well in today’s Sunday Telegraph. He, like the boys in the recent UK case, bragged and got his seductress in trouble. Although he does wobble a bit at the end of the editorial, it is mostly positive towards this sort of liaison. Truth be told both cases say more about men and boys who are wont to brag, than they do about the evils of older women/younger men liaisons.
My first set of scribblings on the subject of “Mrs Robinson” caused one Samizdata reader to write in. She begins:
“Lagwolf’s writing really fails to deal with the problems in either case.”
There is little doubt that the humorous twist to my rant was entirely lost on this reader. She then goes on to state:
“Lagwolf addresses none of the somewhat serious issues that arise from what is a relatively silly case.”
Serious issues, excuse me please, but the case is about a couple of women ‘streakers’ who got caught and defended themselves. One can only hope the transcript to the trial gets released.
While it is rather disturbing that men risk prosecution for participation is this collegiate right-of-passage, this is still daft. What foolish policeman decided to prosecute these two young women? Surely he should have known that he would have come up a cropper, made an arse of himself, the law of the state and the State of Maine? It is possible Maine will follow a town called Locust, PA in the US which has outlawed anything sexual in a public place. (Thanks to Instapundit for this link.)
She then takes me to task for my “its good for the boys” comment about the recent case in the UK (see above). She gives me a right drubbing for making light of the issue. Entirely ignoring my points in praise of older women liaisons, the second paragraph reads like it was written by a pressure group that has decided there is no difference between boys and girls.
The email continues:
“Should we likewise be encouraging young boys to have sex with men? Or young women to be having sex with older men? Or younger women with older women? If so, why? If not, why not?”
I make it clear in my post that I believe it is a good thing for young men to loose their virginity to slightly older women, but not for girls. The Daily Telegraph agrees with me on the grounds that boys can’t get pregnant, need to be “interested” to perform and generally stronger than women. In other words, it is impossible for a older woman to rape a teenage boy. It is possible, despite what some pressure groups say to address a particular issue, by itself.
It is worth keeping in mind that it is only in the “enlightened” West that anyone even suggests that a 14 year old is a “child.” It was appalling to see The Independent calling for the Canadian teacher to be charged with paedophile.
I never set to write an expose on all types of underage sex. It is a shame that some readers can’t take humour for it’s worth. I wasn’t dealing with problems, I was making fun of uptight puritanical types who see everything in black and white. The letter in response makes the post even more apt.
Lagwolf
Porn has been around longer than written language. It has been around since humans first started drawing on cave walls. If porn is unnatural, then so is writing and agriculture and high heels and teddy bears and antibiotics. As for causing emotional and physical damage, you could just as easily be describing most close personal relationships, or football, or being a war correspondent or riding a horse come to that. Are these also things to be ‘discouraged’?
One big trouble I have with so many conservatives is the implicit arrogance that underneath it all, people basically see the world the way they do and feel as they do. Now I am as guilty as them of seeing the world through the filters of my own experience and emotions, but at least I do not claim that I think most other people secretly agree with me when it is quite clear they do not. Conservatives can claim that there is deep meaning in sex and certainly that can be true. But the truth is that sometimes sex is the banquet at the wedding feast and sometimes it is just a quick trip to MacDonalds.
The evidence is clear that much of the time people see sex as an end in and of itself. You do not have to even read Playboy to see that. Look through Vogue and you will see page after page of exaltations of female sexuality… not female commitment, female sexuality, with a strongly bisexual/sapphic overtone at that. It is all about elegant, lovely, lustful and largely unobtainable sexual perfection. We all want to look like exquisite Christy Turlington wearing Hervé Leger, Bulgari and exchanging enigmatic eye contact with Linda Evangalista. Of course we all know in our heart of hearts that the only person who can actually do that is Christy Turlington, not us. Yet I still buy Vogue every month… Italian edition, German edition, Russian edition, British edition.
And so it is with pornography. Maybe we need to look at unobtainable uncomplicated thrilling sex for the same reason we want to look at unobtainable expensive sophistication in Vogue. For the same reason preliterate man made sexual cave paintings and extravagantly male outlines on hillsides, we still need to experience the animal side of our existence. Do you think the conservatives roaring fiercely as they watch their favourite sportsman on television are getting in touch with the spirit of Aristotle? So why do they find it so hard to understand the nature of pornography? It is impossible not to trip over people’s true attitude to sex every time you walk down the street or turn on the television or pick up a magazine. People do not use marriage as a marketing devise, they use sex, because that is what people actually think about much of the time. Pornography is just the essence of that. In reality most well adjusted people do not get porn and real life confused, keeping them in different boxes in their heads.
Yet I don’t read Vogue primarity for the articles anymore than most people read Playboy for the articles (which are mostly crypto-socialist drivel anyway). I read them both for the sex. I don’t have a problem with pornography because unlike many conservatives and their socialist-feminist friends, I do not have a problem with the reality of human nature. I just wish those conservatives and their statist allies on the left would stop trying to use the force of law to impose peculiar world views on everyone else.
The notorious Lagwolf writes in with his views of streaking and joys of older women
For some odd reason both Maine and the UK, two places I hold dear, are both in a tizzy over silly sex stories. I have been resisting to write about these two stories, but they do seem to be getting many a knicker in a twist. Both involve 20-something women doing things, they ought not to, but in perspective not too egregious.
In Maine two women have successfully defended themselves (Judge rules women can jog naked in Maine) against the charge of public indecency. In seems that these two “streakers” were not breaking the law because no genitals were shown. Having done their research, the arresting officer was asked if he say any genitals. He said “no.” Case dismissed, and the state of Maine has wasted oddles of money prosecuting two women for doing something college students have been doing since Rome. This does mean the law is sexist of course, because men’s genitals are exposed they may not streak. You would almost think the law in Maine is encouraging women to streak.
There are those who want to ban “streaking”. As Maine Goes has a whole thread dedicated to who is more childish, those defending these women’s right to run around nude or those against it.
The case is the UK is a bit more serious, but just as daft. A woman has been found not guilty of “sexually abusing” two boys over the age of 14. Of course, the Independent is screaming that she raped these boys. The Telegraph and its columnist Boris Johnson have quite rightly poo-pooed this notion. That is not to say that pressure groups have not fired off a few terse letters to the paper for their “callous” disregard for the case.
We get to read how one man became a drug addict, socially maladjusted and a loner after he was “raped” at 15 by a woman twice his age! Oh give me a break, this guy was all of those things before he got his cheery popped.
Another letter fails to realise, as the Telegraph clearly stated, that there are big differences between girls and boys. Boys cannot get pregnant, have to be “interested” to perform and were no doubt quite willing.
The woman involved, the ‘Mrs Robinson’, was a 25 year substitute teacher. It could be argued she took ‘lessons’ a tad too far, but rape? The only reason the woman got busted was the two boys involved bragged. No doubt one of their mates who was not getting any, ‘told’ in fit of pique. For what its worth the woman involved has been sent back to Canada and won’t work as a teacher again.
There are, of course, advantages to boys having flings with older women. The women are more likely to insist on a condom, choose somewhere discreet and less likely to have guilt pains afterwards. Far from discouraging this sort of behaviour amoung young men, we should encourage it. The older woman might knock some sense into these testosterone fueled young boys. Worked for me.
Lagwolf
|
Who Are We? The Samizdata people are a bunch of sinister and heavily armed globalist illuminati who seek to infect the entire world with the values of personal liberty and several property. Amongst our many crimes is a sense of humour and the intermittent use of British spelling.
We are also a varied group made up of social individualists, classical liberals, whigs, libertarians, extropians, futurists, ‘Porcupines’, Karl Popper fetishists, recovering neo-conservatives, crazed Ayn Rand worshipers, over-caffeinated Virginia Postrel devotees, witty Frédéric Bastiat wannabes, cypherpunks, minarchists, kritarchists and wild-eyed anarcho-capitalists from Britain, North America, Australia and Europe.
|
