Play Ball?

Katherine Blakeman wrote at Townhall to blast Sports Illustrated and praise someone who is harassing his employees, because sexy women make her feel insecure, or something.

This defensive article is not too surprising since Sports Illustrated Swimsuit Edition is nothing more than the peddling of hypersexualized, objectifying nude or nearly nude images of women—it's their most financially profitable issue of the year.

"Hypersexualized" is her opinion. A lot of people would disagree.

"Objectifying" is a word I wonder if she or most of the women reading this piece can explain without looking it up. All media is objectifying. And yes, men look at women as sex objects. If it weren't so, none of us would be here. Women look at men as success objects. 

But with this article, Sports Illustrated is criticizing the smart decision by Kansas City Royals General Manager Dayton Moore to educate his team on the detrimental impacts of pornography consumption.

I haven't read the article. I haven't even clicked on it. Subjecting his players to what is likely hysterical panic about depictions of nudity and sex is silly and smacks of sexual harassment.

Does Blakeman have a clue what life is like for professional baseball players in the Major League? Young, hot women are constantly throwing themselves at these players, many of the women hoping to get pregnant by the players. Unless the players are especially restrained, they are having casual sex right and left with a variety of women. They could be doing far worse than spending their time, energy, and semen on porn. Want to lecture them about their penises? Tell them to get vasectomies, use condoms, and not let their penis prompt them to marry, and certainly not without the tightest prenup possible.

It's unclear which rock he's been living under, but he may not have noticed there is an epidemic of porn in our broader population.

By "epidemic" she means that people can view a variety of depictions of naked people and people having sex.

It is not inconceivable that this epidemic has affected athletes, too.

How, exactly? Other than getting their rocks off?

According to Porn Hub’s own data, the world watched 4.6 billion hours of pornography in 2016, with the United States leading the pack, accounting for 40 percent of the site’s traffic.

And yet the world keeps turning.

This would be a superb time for him, and others in his camp, to explore the very real connection between pornography consumption and sexual violence.

And yet rape has declined. I'm sure I could dig up a critique of the study or studies at that link, but as always, it is important to remember that the appearance of correlation is not proof of causation, and terms should be clearly defined. If "sexual violence" includes consensual BDSM or a light slap on the rump, it's silly to link that to, say, rape.

The fact is, what is "bizarre" is to think that people who consume racist, violent, incest-themed and teen-themed porn can do so and remain unaffected.

This is a common tactic and it's a diversion. Blakeman thinks porn that doesn't fit into any of those categories is wrong. But she knows "vanilla" porn doesn't get people upset. So what she's hoping is that readers will go "Racist? Oh, no, I don't like racism. So it ALL must be banned!" Meanwhile all forms of media can and do have racist and violent themes. By "racist" she might mean things like well-endowed black men with white women, by "violent" she might mean a slap on rump, by "incest" she might mean characters who meet when their parents marry (thus becoming stepsiblings) or young men lusting after their father's young new wife, and if you don't think that's a common thing in real life I have a bridge to sell you. As far as "teen" themed, see this.

Mainstream pornography today is violent, degrading, and hateful.

Just how much has Blakeman watched? Surely she must have seen a lot to make such a judgement. Or is she one of those people who thinks media depictions of sex are inherently "violent, degrading, and hateful"?

In our #MeToo culture, replete with sexual harassment and assault, it's time we stop treating this awful material with kid gloves and expose it for what it really is.

Sexual harassment and assault were going on long before photography was invented. And they'd probably be worse if depiction of sex in media were banned. There are countries where "porn" is officially banned. And guess what? Women tend to be treated HORRIBLY in those countries.

The Kansas City GM is well within his rights to conduct business as he sees fit and shed light on this problem.

Well, you'd think so, but again, if it can be seen as sexual harassment (and I think there's a good case it can be), then... nope. Don't buy the panic. Stop with bad arguments in a battle that makes you look silly. There really are more important things to do than worry that people are lusting after pixels.