Don't Fall For the Fundraising Ploy

Let's look at the legal/political and cultural track record of the "religious right," shall we? Mind you, I'm in agreement with Evangelical Protestants when it comes to theology, and, in a lot of respects, how to live. The "religious right" tends to be comprised of people who identify as some variation of Christian or what are seen as related faiths, including Mormonism, and some Jews, mostly Orthodox and some Conservatives, who are politically active and try to align their political positions with their faith.

They've had a little success with restrictions on abortion, but essentially elective abortion has been broadly legal for 47 years, and many ardent pro-life religious conservatives are saying they just want it to go back to the states, which means just about anyone who wants an abortion will still be able to get one even if it is taken away from the federal level.

They've also had some success with limiting sex ed in public schools. That's a battle that continues.

I don't know if there is any area where they've had more success than religious freedom, but they haven't gotten everything they've wanted and, if we're honest, this wasn't just their cause; there has been broad public support, including from many people who aren't religious, for some basic religious freedom; it's an enumerated Constitutional right.

That's a small list of victories. The list of legislative and cultural failures is far longer.

As much noise as they made about these things, these people were not able to stop:

• Sex, violence, raunchiness, and anti-Christian themes in music, video games, and media in general


• Widespread acceptance and use of sexual toys and aids (and yes, they did try)


• Mainstreaming of sexy lingerie (Victoria's Secret shops in malls, complete with easily visible ads and displays?)


• Decriminalization and widespread acceptance/destigmatization of fornication


• Decriminalization and widespread acceptance/destigmatization of unmarried cohabitation


• Legitimizing and widespread acceptance of out-of-wedlock parenting


• Widespread acceptance and practicing of casual sex, booty calls, hooking up, friends-with-benefits


• Women in more military roles


• "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" for LGBTQ people in the military


• Replacement of "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" with further acceptance


• Adoption of domestic partnership laws for same-sex couples


• Legalization and widespread acceptance of same-sex marriage


• Adoptions by same-sex couples


• Reproductive technologies and programs such as surrogate gestation, in vitro fertilization, sperm donation, egg donation, freezing embryos
  
  
• "Death with dignity" options for assisted suicide


• Increasing acceptance of transgenderism, genderfluidity, nonbinary identity, gender nonconforming, and increasing legal protections thereof


• Gay-Straight Alliances and similar organizations in schools


• Sex week at colleges


• LGBTQ representation in media and theme park events


• LGBTQ pride representation by large companies with prominent brands


• Gambling (lotteries, casinos, etc.)


• Increasing marijuana legalization


• Barring of creationism/intelligent design in public schools


• Denial of public education vouchers

Try as they did, they also weren't able to prevent Bill Clinton from getting elected (defeating Reagan's former VP and incumbent President George H. W. Bush) and re-elected, prevent Obama from getting elected (defeating a ticket with Sarah Palin) and re-elected, prevent Trump from getting the GOP nomination, nor the election of Joe Biden, nor have they been able to stop the House and Senate, over the recent decades, from going Democratic some of the time. 

So what makes them think their latest push will work?

The push I'm talking about is a recent call by a few elected Republicans followed by dutiful columnists, to try to "fight" "porn". It's especially ridiculous considering there is very little agreement on what would constitute victory (what does fight really mean) and what counts as the kind of porn that must be fought.



It ain't gonna happen. These people weren't able to stop all of those things I listed above, much of which should've been far easier to stop or delay than porn.

Porn is ubiquitous.

A lot of people enjoy it, even people who feel guilty about enjoying it.

There is no going back.

While many conservatives religious ministries have long made a regular habit of making "porn" a boogeyman, and at least one guy who claims not to be religious has found he can make a living playing to fears of that boogeyman, cracking down on porn hasn't been a legislative or Administration priority for decades, outside of some silly state legislatures passing silly "public health crisis" resolutions, that have done absolutely nothing other than allow scolds to breathlessly point out that such legislatures have "declared" porn a public health crisis (neglecting to point out it was pretty much just because those same people nagged them to).

This push is probably nothing more than a fundraising ploy. There are some people out there with money who want to crack down on porn. Some of them are people who want to punish others for having fun, or perhaps are women delusional enough to think reducing porn will mean men will have no choice but to pay them more attention. It's not going to go anywhere, and it can't be effectively enforced. Giving money to a candidate or organization with the hope they will be effectively able to force other people to stop making or viewing porn would be wasting that money.

Whether anyone likes it or not, there are people who want to display themselves on camera and perform sex acts on camera, and there are people who want to see these things. And hundreds of millions of people have watched these things without perceiving any serious, negative consequences.

I've read and heard all of the arguments as to why porn is bad. None of them are good enough to warrant increasing government force against it. One can oppose increase government intervention while still disliking porn, based on freedom of speech and expression, privacy, and free enterprise considerations.  I don't need to defend porn. I just need to point out that trying to crack down on it will not be effective and will do more harm than any good, because enlarging government, which has killed hundreds of millions of more people than porn, is usually a bad idea.

I'm not talking about child abuse, mind you. The feds are busy cracking down on that, as they should. Their hands are full doing so and redirecting any of those resources to try to stop adult media would be terrible.

But child abuse imagery is an example of how people will still be able to make and access media even if it is illegal with severe punishments. Pay attention to the busts that the feds make. There are so many images and videos out there, so many people accessing them. Multiply that by millions when it comes to adult media (because far more people want to make and view it, and have), and the absurdity of a ban of adult media becomes apparent on that basis alone.

Republicans are far from unified in the drive to crack down on adult media. Most either don't want to or figure it would be a waste of time and a loser issue, especially because adult media is widely enjoyed with minimal perceived harms. Some, rightly so, figure that if they make a big deal about it, their own viewing habits will be exposed. If any Republicans do make a big enough stink about wanting to crack down on adult media, they could very well suffer some election losses as a result as libertarian/limited-government minded or moderate voters and donors flee or sit on their hands. It's a losing cause, whether you consider that very sad or not. It's the reality.

Feminists are split. There are some who hate that men are getting enjoyment from watching women. Others are very much in the camp of supporting "sex workers". And a crackdown by Republicans will not be enough to get the feminists in the first camp on board with GOP candidates.

I do not deny that there are people who say porn has caused problems in their lives and their relationships. But these cases are far outweighed by the people who have not experienced such problems, and problematic porn viewing is likely a symptom of something else that is going on in the person or their relationship. So when people push for a crackdown by telling people adult media will ruin their relationships and their lives, and it hasn't or doesn't, the crusaders lose credibility. They will have also squandered time, money, and effort.

Almost all guys who are good husbands have viewed adult media at some point in their life, some on a frequent basis. And yet, their wives are happy with them and consider them good husbands, good fathers, and so forth.

So stop pushing for a panic. Stop hustling hysterias. Mind your own business, and deal with the fact that life isn't perfect and some people are going to do things you consider immoral, but that's part of living in a free country. Parent your own children better if you have to. Don't view it, or don't associate with people who do, if you're so convinced that it is such a problem. Those are your choices for you to make. Let other people make theirs. Don't throw your money at people on the basis of this unless you want to waste it.