u/after_vice

I was at a large grocery store the other day and went to use the store's bathroom. The doors to the men's and women's rooms were side by side. On the door to the women's room was a police-sponsored poster about consent and sexual assault. It ended by saying "Your body, your choice." There was nothing on the door to the men's room.

Nobody ever says it explicitly, but the message is ubiquitous and unequivocal: If you're a man, you don't matter. Sexual assault is, on the face of it, a gender neutral crime, but even the police are (implicitly) saying they are only concerned when it happens to women. It doesn't matter how many boys are abused, how many men are sexually assaulted by gay men, and yes, how many men are sexually assaulted by women.

This is only one small example, but men and boys see this sort of thing everywhere. But sure, lets all pretend to wonder why men and boys are struggling so much.

From what I see, most of the criticism I see of porn use is focused on the way particular individuals struggle with it (i.e. addiction). From this perspective, it's not that porn is inherently immoral or harmful, it just happens to harm some people. So these kinds of critics want to quit watching porn but otherwise are not troubled by other people watching it.

I personally find this view pretty shallow and naive. My sense of things is that porn damages everybody who watches it, even if they don't realize it, or even if they subjectively experience it as positive. And I think this is the case not only because of what porn itself is (i.e. hedonistic representations of sexuality) but also because of what porn implies: the uncritical celebration of sexual freedom, digital technology, and quick fixes to every minor inconvenience or discomfort.

I suppose this is a more radical critique of porn. To critique unrestricted sexual freedom, digital technology, and quick fixes is to critique much of modern consumer culture. Maybe that seems like overkill to those who just want to help addicts.

But I think that kind of radical critique is actually necessary because, without it, addicts and their advocates aren't really critiquing porn at all: they're just pointing out that some people don't know how or are not able to handle it. It becomes a matter of self-control, personal habits, and personal preferences.

But I think to really overcome a porn addiction requires not just not using it but actually hating it and opposing it. And I think this is only possible if one hates it for what it is, not just for what it has done to oneself. People can learn to avoid or manage temptations, but I think it is more powerful to eliminate the temptation altogether, and I think we can only do this by changing how we perceive the temptation. And I think that means, ultimately, forming a more critical perspective about much of modern consumer culture.

In other words, if what you're after is autonomy, self-control, inner peace, loving relationships, and contentment with life, there's a lot more than porn you'll need to quit.

I appreciate that this group isn't just committed to quitting porn or critiquing porn but actually hating porn. I think of something Ralph Waldo Emerson said about hatred:

"[T]ruth is handsomer than the affectation of love. Your goodness must have some edge to it,--else it is none. The doctrine of hatred must be preached as the counteraction of the doctrine of love when that pules and whines."

Basically, it is better to be honest and truthful than to offer a fake love. To be good requires more than tolerance and agreeableness, but to have moral courage. So when fake love becomes self-indulgent and spineless, we have to have the moral courage to express our disagreement and rejection.

And isn't that the situation with porn? It's celebrated as though it represents bodily autonomy, sexual freedom, and some kind of valuable pleasure. Even those who don't like it themselves put up with it as a matter of inclusivity or tolerance. But using it just is self-indulgent, and tolerating it is spineless. So let us have the courage to say we oppose it and reject it.

You say you're broke because rent and food and gas are expensive. There's barely any money left over from your shit paycheck. Once you add in Netflix or Amazon and a cell phone and the occasional restaurant meal and maybe a shirt or headphones, there's nothing left.

What would you do with more money? You'd buy all that stuff, and then maybe you could buy even more stuff--like a nicer restaurant meal or some steaks or you'd get nicer clothes or maybe even upgrade your phone or buy a watch or take a little vacation.

But then what? Is that really all you're looking for? Just to be entertained and amused and feel some pleasure?

I once worked in a slaughterhouse--a brutal job in every respect. I met a guy there who I overheard literally saying "I can't believe I get paid to do this!" The guy made shit money, but he's not complaining about being broke (even though I'm sure he was) because he loved how he spent his day.

I'm not really saying that you're not broke. You might be. But I don't think that's the real issue. I think the real issue is that you hate how you spend your day. You don't do your job because you love it; you do it for the money, which will buy you the only kind of experiences that make you feel good. But if you loved your job, and you loved how you spent your time, the fun you could buy with money would be much less important to you.

Which would you rather have? Personally, I'd much rather love my work and love how I spend my day than have the money to pay for amusements and comfort. But this seems like way too much for anyone to want or aim for, so people generally don't complain about it or try to do anything about. Much easier to complain about being broke and strategize to earn more. People talk about universal basic income but never universal basic meaningful work.

And if it's just not possible for most people to actually enjoy their work, then maybe it's worth asking why not.