One Bad Argument Against Porn

I wrote and posted this almost seven years ago. It still holds up. pretty well and is still relevant.




Let me make it clear up front that I know porn is a bad thing, for various reasons. About the only kind of defensible "porn" is produced by a husband and wife with and for each other only – and I'm sure there are people who can make a good argument as to why even that is wrong.

But it doesn't help our cause – well, my cause, which is NOT to outlaw porn but rather discourage people from supporting it – if we use bad arguments that are easily shot down.

One of those bad arguments is some variation of this:

"Porn creates unrealistic expectations or is unrealistic in its portrayal of women and sex."

When you stop to think about it, almost all media creates unrealistic expectations or erroneous or incomplete depictions of people or activities or situations. It is very difficult for any book, any magazine, any film, or any television show to give a complete, in-depth, and unbiased portrayal of anything. (Same goes for theatre.)

Even the Bible (which I consider at the other end of the spectrum from porn… by light years) doesn't give all the details of the events described, or all of the character traits of human beings from years past – just the ones relevant to the message. I believe the Bible teaches us all we need to know to have fellowship with God. But it doesn’t tell us what Jesus had for dinner most nights of His pre-crucifixion ministry.

Getting more mundane – what about romance novels? Jewelry ads? Soap operas? Crime dramas where the DNA is tested within minutes and matched instantaneously and problems are all solved in less than 60 minutes when you ffwd through the commercial breaks? What about sitcoms where husbands are constantly mocked and berated, yet still manage to be cheerful and romantic? The NBA doesn't give a realistic portrayal of most men. Most of us aren’t 6'7", trim with bulging muscles, and able to run for an hour and still make slam dunks while three other giants try to stop us. Even the news doesn't even give well-rounded portrayals of most people covered.

It is kind of silly to tell our sons (or daughters, for that matter) that they should not view porn because it is unrealistic, and then go out and buy them the latest superhero movie blockbuster for them on Blu-ray. I watch "The Lord of the Rings", and nobody from my church says, "You really shouldn't do that. It is unrealistic."

It isn't like porn gives realistic portrayals of men, either, but you rarely hear that complaint. There are women who look like that (especially with surgery). There are women who behave that way, too. So it isn't entirely unrealistic, even if uncommon. But it usually does glorify fornication and adultery and encourage illicit lusts – those are some valid reasons to avoid it.

Notice, I'm not addressing the "degrading" argument in this piece. That is another matter.

Let's not use bad arguments, unless we're trying to get a laugh. Porn is bad, but not because it is unrealistic.

Itches and Scratch

The obsession in Evangelical circles about "porn" makes me cringe, because so many bad arguments are used, which discredit "our" side, and the disproportionate focus on it. I recently sat through a sermon (unfortunately one of my young kids was with me) from someone who was not the church's pastor, but had been doing a sermon series on "first things" when it comes to following Christ. This was supposed to be a sermon on Satan and his tactics. Yes, doctrine holds that Satan is a real, spiritual (not physical) being who interacts with human beings.

Despite supposedly being about Satan, it was more about porn than anything else. One must wonder what Satan was doing before the advent of photography.

Because Some People Care

Some people are finding this blog looking for an update on KFI AM 640, specifically "Thompson and Espinosa." I haven't read any print news about the matter, but from listening to KFI, I know that as of this past Monday 10/12, Gary Hoffmann, who'd most recently been the news anchor for mornings (and host of the 5 a.m. Wake Up Call hour), was teamed with Shannon Farren, who'd been news anchor (and occasional fill-in for John or Ken when one of them was out) during afternoons - to have their own two-hour show from 1-3pm.

Aron Bender, who'd anchored evening news and did the News Bender during Conway's show, is now the morning news anchor and host of Wake-Up Call. During the 5 a.m. hour, he's doing both the show hosting and the news anchoring, which has to be more difficult than it sounds.

So what this means is that "Thompson and Espinosa" got the ax. From what I heard, they might have gotten word about it last Friday 10/9 and briefly said "goodbye" at the end of their show. If an unofficial Facebook group is any indication, KFI fans mostly hated Espinosa. Mark Thompson  (not to be confused with the Mark Thompson who is now the great morning host of 100.3 FM The Sound, after having been half of the long-running not-as-great "Mark and Brian" show on KLOS FM 95.5) is still around, and does appear part-time on Conway's show. Speaking of Conway's show, Doug Steckler, who used to co-host on Fridays, is no longer there and according to what was said on The Tom Leykis Show, he considers himself retired from radio and politely declined to appear on Leykis' show (which is NOT radio, but rather Internet audio).

Some Men Are Masochists

...and I don't mean in the fun, sexual sense.

A picture popped up in my Facebook feed that caused me to laugh out loud and shake my head.

My ex-fiancee and her ex-husband posted a picture in an update that stated they were in a relationship (again). Read that again if you didn't quite catch it.

I've probably written about this before, but I'm not finding the entries so here's the background...