Michael Blowhard writes:

Dear Blowhards --

I left a comment responding to Peter L. Winkler and Shouting Thomas a few postings ago that I was half-pleased with, so I've dolled it up a bit and am promoting it to its own posting here. Ah, the power of the blog-owner ...

The general theme of the discussion was "Will porn ever be accepted as art?" Peter thinks that porn is too function-oriented a thing ever to be considered art. Shouting Thomas volunteered some observations and questions about sex's role not just in art but in reproduction.

Peter L.W. -- People don't go to action movies who aren't in the mood for excitement. They don't eat a steak if they aren't in the mood for meat. They don't go to Lincoln Center if they aren't in the mood for a "culture-with-a-capital-C" experience.

Wanting a culture/media/whatever artifact that'll suit and/or enhance your mood seems ... I dunno, sensible, likely, unremarkable, and commonplace. So what's different about wanting a culture experience that'll enhance and/or suit a nice erotic buzz?

More generally, I think that part of what's happening these days where culture goes is that a certain kind of familiar expectation is being upended. It used to be that we reached out towards the arts, and that we assumed that this was normal and good. The arts were central and eternal; we individuals were transient moths circling the everlasting flame. These days, it's more about using the arts to suit ourselves. Don't listen to what you should listen to: instead, why not create a playlist or Bookmarks collection that suits you? The person and his/her preferences and whims are becoming central, while the art-things are starting to seem come-and-go.

BTW, I'm not saying this is good or bad, just that it seems to be happening.

If we are indeed entering a universe that's far more "suit yourself" than the old media universe was, that helps explain why porn is becoming more accepted: It's primary among the arts-that-get-used. And if we're comfy with the idea that the arts should suit us and our moods, then many objections to thinking of porn as just another artform dissolve.

Incidentally, I'm a little puzzled by people who consider porn and erotica to be nothing but masturbation aids. Does no one else enjoy leafing thru erotic/sexy images, vids, and stories 1) out of curiosity, 2) just for the pleasant dreamy high of it?

ST -- I'm all for connecting the arts to the basic urges, and I certainly think that if/when we don't the arts quickly become irrelevant. But this is a cultureblog, not a reproductionblog.

Culture after all isn't about bare survival; it's largely a matter of taking basic needs and urges and whipping up artifacts and experiences based on them that have beyond-functional aspects and qualities.

Hunger and nutrition, for instance: We could probably survive on dogfood and mulch. But we'd have no "cuisine." Hearing and sound: we could just listen to nature and grunt, but we'd have no music. Gossip and storytelling: fine by themselves, and crucial to survival, but we seem to be driven to elaborate on them and somehow wind up with this "literature" thing as well.

It's sometimes a mystery why we go to all the trouble of whipping up and maintaining "culture" -- in fact, why we bother at all with anything beyond bare survival -- but there it is. May as well roll with it, and maybe even find it interesting.

Re these porn-and-erotica postings that I put up:

1) I like to observe what's happening in culture generally; the styles-in-sex-and-mating thing is always interesting; and the increasing accessibility of porn has certainly been one hyper-visible part of the culture scene ever since the digital era kicked in. How can anyone be an open-eyed culture observer and not take note of this?

2) The "sexiness" part of culture seems to me 'way underplayed in the American public discussion abut the arts. As you know, many people go into the arts because it at least seems like a sexier life than square life is. And one reason people pay attention to the arts at all is that the arts have a sexy aura. It's not that there aren't other reasons why people dig the arts, of course. Still, sex is and always has been a big part of it. Why pretend otherwise?

3) We whip up "cuisine" based on hunger and appetite, we've created "the craft of suspense" based on our love of tension and excitement, etc. Why do so many people find it bizarre that one might whip up art-culture stuff based on sexual urges and pleasures? I enjoy raising this question.

The need to fill our entrails with organic matter isn't exactly a dignified one, yet we discuss "cuisine" -- the artform we've based on it -- without embarassment. But cultureforms based on the sexual urge? ... Well, despite all the lewdness that's on public display these days, many Americans still seem to find the idea of cultivating and enjoying an art based on the sexual urge to be a bizarre and even upsetting one. Why? Because the sex urge is less dignified than the whole face-stuffing/chewing/swallowing/digesting/crapping-pissing one on which we've based cuisine? I can't see how.

As for your questions about children ... Aren't you mashing together two separate issues? Namely: "the species must reproduce" (a general thing) and "whassup with you about this, MBlowhard?" (A specific case.)

This may be unfair of me but I think I've noticed that Catholics are prone to this -- thinking that the general rules that hold for mankind as a species must also apply to each and every individual. I'm sympathetic to some things about Catholicism (mainly: there's a spiritual context for everything, and let's remind ourselves of this occasionally). But this particular derive-down-from-the-general, one-size-fits-all, my-way-or-the-highway thing I can't buy at all. There may not be an infinite number of different strokes available for different folks, but there are certainly a decent number of options out there. There isn't only one way to lead a decent life.

As for myself -- eh, never liked kids, never found them interesting, probably would have been a selfish and lousy parent, and had other things I preferred to spend time and energy on. Given that human numbers these days are pretty impressive whether or not I specifically contribute -- the earth's population is headed to 9.5 billion, like it or not -- I don't stress about it too much. The species seems secure for a few more generations.

Hey, fun fact for the day: Through most of history, something like 80% of women and around 40% of men reproduced. In other words, "normal" isn't "everyone reproduces and those who don't are weird," "normal" is actually "most people reproduce but a really significant number don't." Despite this, we've made it to well over 6 billion and we're still growing. Since the pattern seems to serve the species well enough, it's OK by me. It also leaves me wondering about the "everyone must do their best to reproduce, and those who fail must feel defensive and abject" crowd. Since it seems like such unrealistic and absolutist attitude to want to impose, I wonder, Whassup with people who try to peddle such a line?

I could rap a bit about the role of "excess" in all this. Culture seems to have something to do with excess, and humans seem to generate a lot of excess, even biologically. Why should this be so? Is it purely a survival thing? FWIW: Since I can't see how that's the case -- other animals manage pretty well despite having no culture -- I think that human culture is largely an enhancement thing. Which prompts a couple of questions: Where does this desire to enhance our lives and our experiences in these ways come from? And why should this desire for enhancement be an aspect of human existence at all?

But I suspect that my musings became tiresome many paragraphs ago ...

Always curious to hear visitors' thoughts and reactions.

Best,

Michael

Michael: The need to fill our entrails with organic matter isn't exactly a dignified one, yet we discuss "cuisine" -- the artform we've based on it -- without embarassment. But cultureforms based on the sexual urge? ... Americans still seem to find the idea of cultivating and enjoying an art based on the sexual urge to be a bizarre and even upsetting one. Why? Because the sex urge is less dignified than the whole face stuffing/chewing/swallowing/digesting/crapping-pissing one on which we've based cuisine? I can't see how.

The analogy with cuisine would be more convincing if we sat around looking at pictures of food or films of people eating and thought we were thereby indulging our culinary urges, or if we went to foodie websites and fired up some pics of dishes in order to work up an appetite before we ate our dinner (or to “enhance” the experience of eating it). But we don’t, and I suspect we’d find it odd if people did those things. The issue is not that people don’t look at photo layouts of otherworldly meals in, say, Gourmet magazine, and even enjoy the experience. It’s that no-one thinks that doing so is actually feeding the person doing the looking. No-one is able to satisfy their hunger by looking at pictures of food, or film of people eating. Not the way they can satisfy sexual urges with porn.

As for the food biz that does satisfy hunger—restaurants, all the rest of it—it could, with some strain, be analogized to prostitution—service providers allowing customers to indulge an appetite for a price. But food is a poor match for porn. Porn is about representations of either the object of the appetite or the activity of indulging it. If the food industry is prostitution, then porn isn’t the food industry, it’s writing about the food industry. (And isn’t some of the more over-the-top writing about food sometimes called “gastroporn”?)

The Greek for “pornography” meant just that—writing [graph] about the activities of prostitutes [porn]. And that’s what porn is today, including “alt” porn (a marketing category, not in any sense a genuine sub- or counterculture) like Sascha Grey’s. Sascha Grey makes money from sex. And that means she's a whore. So her porn--“alt” be damned!-- is the depiction of the sexual activities of prostitutes. Full circle we’ve come!

Posted by: PatrickH on April 21, 2009 1:16 PM

Genetic data can show that 60% of males failed to reproduce but cannot say why. Chances are, it was a combination of (a) high death rates for young men in warlike societies, and (b) polygamy. I would imagine that the relative significance of (a) and (b) differed among societies and across time.

In modern developed countries, (a) is barely relevant, and (b) still exists (in the form of soft polygamy) but in a much-diminished extent. We may be seeing the non-reproduction rates for males and females approaching parity.

Posted by: Peter on April 21, 2009 1:21 PM

PatrickH -- I think you must not live around the foodie set. Real foodies don't just cook and eat. They talk about food and eating, they think about it, write about it, photograph it, compare notes about it, indulge in travel for the sake of it ... It's a big, multifaceted part of life for them. Food professionals are even more deeply immersed in it. Cookbooks, websites, restaurant and market design-and-decor, kitchen-appliance invention and design, food reviewing ... Not to mention the wine thing. (No one *needs* to drink wine, let alone get crazy-picky-rhapsodic about it.) I'm going to be traveling with my sister to go to a cooking school for a few days in Italy this fall, yippee. These are all non-essential but pleasurable activities that we've teased out of the "I need to eat and drink to survive" basics.

As for reaching conclusions about much of anything in ouir world based on the original Greek meanings of words, well, you're certainly in an uncharacteristically fundamentalist mood today!

Posted by: Michael Blowhard on April 21, 2009 1:27 PM

Peter -- Yeah, it'll be interesting to see how patterns evolve and change, won't it?

The one thing I think you may be omitting from your list of reasons why some males don't reproduce is that some of them may have no interest in doing so. I was reading the other day about the history of European lighthouses, for instance. Nearly all of the early ones were manned by guys who not only didn't have kids but wanted to live entirely alone. That's evidence of at least a few guys who had no interest in reproduction. It's also evidence that the development of western civ has depended to some extent on the existence of some people whose main energies weren't taken up with reproduction. Maybe we'd have developed lighthouses anyway, who knows? But the way we *did* develop them relied to some extent on the existence of a quantity of non-reproducing males.

Posted by: Michael Blowhard on April 21, 2009 1:34 PM

The art I enjoy engages my intellect and my feelings together. A movie like "Sunless" for example, leads me through a variety of feelings, but also leaves me with a lot to think about. So also the music of Bach, etc. Porn pretty much leaves out the intellect part, it's pure cave man.

Maybe that only means porn isn't "high" art, but then that's the only kind that interests me. Plenty of low brow styles pull the two together, Raymond Chandler for example, I'm not rigid in defining high art.

Maybe that makes the comparison to rock apt: it's a libido based style that pretty much bores me.

Purely intellectual art of course is a waste of time too.

Also, the art in porn for me is all in the appearance of the women. THEY are the works of art :-)

Posted by: Todd Fletcher on April 21, 2009 2:10 PM

Michael,

Several red herrings in your argument. 30 years ago I'd have bought the Catholic thing. Since I've been married to a Filipina Buddhist and lived in Hindu and Muslim communities in Jersey City, I don't buy that stuff any more.

Those Eastern religions believe, just like Catholicism, that we are engaged in an eternal battle between good and evil. Those Eastern societies are old fashioned and sexually conservative (if not in a way we understand), and the first and most admired priority of Eastern societies is having children and grandchildren.

So, no, you are once again cherry picking religion... a tradition that appears to have stared with the hippies who wanted to believe that traditional Hindus were just another version of hippie. In fact, you are throwing out the very meaning of religion.

The fact is that your attitudes are limited to a racial group, not a religious group. This abdication from the most essential struggles of life is characteristic of white men. Forgive me for saying so, but I don't think there is anything unique in your views. They are the common views of urban white men. It is white men who shrug their shoulders and refuse to care about whether they have children. Among black, hispanic and asian men, this attitude would be viewed as... well, ridiculous... an admission of failure or worthlessness.

I don't think that this is an individual decision on your part. Sterility is the fashion among the urban elite of white males. Mark Steyn writes about it every day.

So, the real question (aside from what I think are all your bogus attempts to characterize your sterility as a thoughtful choice) is: what in the hell happened to white men to cause them to just give up?

And, no, your food argument is bunk. You are not uninterested in the nutritional value of food. This "foodie" stuff is crap. Just as "sensitivity" and "diversity" have become the status battle grounds of the sterile white elites, "foodie" is another status term without meaning. This is why I am so suspicious of organic and health foods. It's almost impossible to divine whether such foods exist, or whether the real point is to pay 3 to 4 times the price for food to prove that you aren't one of the unwashed masses.

Posted by: Shouting Thomas on April 21, 2009 3:03 PM

Oh, and by the way,

Michael, this "it's all just another little bit of culture, and nothing is any more or less important than any other thing" bit...

Horseshit!

No, I don't agree with that. No, I don't think that you developed that as a philosophical treatise. It's part of the shrugging your shoulders and throwing in the towel that is the dilemma of the sterile urban hip white male.

In my experience with black men, their view is that all these attitudes are just different takes on the unhappy reality: white men are balless cowards. In Brooklyn, I suspect nothing has changed. The black tough guys undoubtedly smack their lips when one of those clown outfitted white sterile hipsters walk by.

Another easy mark! You live in Manhattan, and not Brooklyn, precisely because you don't want to be the next victim. Manhattan offers protection to the sissified white hipster.

Posted by: Shouting Thomas on April 21, 2009 3:13 PM

MB: You're forgetting the priesthood. They were pretty much THE intellectual class for most of the medieval and the early modern era, and if they didn't have any mistresses, they didn't reproduce much. Which suggests that the lack of appeal of nerds to women may date back further than anyone thinks; come on, who but a nerd would write an enormous theological treatise trying to prove the existence of God and the Catholic moral view? (Living by a moral code isn't nerdy; writing a huge treatise justifying it is).

Posted by: SFG on April 21, 2009 3:19 PM

Michael, I explicity mentioned Gourmet magazine photo spreads, so don't go evading my point. No-one uses those things to satisfy their urges the way porn is used to satisfy sexual urges. None of the things foodies do around eating food changes the fact that food is actually cooked and eaten. Not even foodies live on photo shoots of food. Your strained analogy about porn and food is part of your refusal to accept that porn will never become mainstream because of its employment as masturbation material. The stigma surrounding porn is part of the stigma that continues to surround masturbation. The fact that pictures of naked women can be admired for their quality changes nothing. "I read Playboy for the articles" doesn't cut it. Even if the articles really were good sometimes.

And as for my pointing out the greek roots of the word "pornography", I am at an utter loss as to what that has to do with being "in a fundamentalist mood".

Posted by: PatrickH on April 21, 2009 3:42 PM

In my experience with black men, their view is that all these attitudes are just different takes on the unhappy reality: white men are balless cowards.

ST, i live a few short blocks from some (slowly gentrifying) mean streets. i've walked down those streets at 3AM alone, weaponless. i've learned how to put on my "don't fuck with me" face when passing loitering groups of thugged out night demons shaded under hoods and hands stuffed deep in pockets. in that hellmatrix, your safe bet is to assume every other impulsive 14 year old with a posse at his side and a chip on his shoulder is packing heat. to assume otherwise is folly.
so... you gonna go fists up against bullets, brave man? you gonna start hauling around a handgun every time you want to go out and grab a drink in an edgy hip club? it's easy to moan about sterilized white men when these are your choices. personally, i don't have a problem with concealed carry. and i don't have a problem with snuffing out filth. but be aware of the kind of world you'd be ushering in if you strive to go that "ballsy" route. the laws of the jungle care nothing for honorable duels at dawn.

Posted by: roissy on April 21, 2009 5:15 PM

Michael, the Western (and some other) traditions of painting, poetry, and dance are in one way or another already concerned with the artistic depiction, transformation, sublimation, and decoration of the sexual impulse. Why is this not good enough for you? Because it isn't as direct as arty pornography?

Posted by: aliasclio on April 21, 2009 5:23 PM

A little bit earthier topic than I usually comment on, but here goes.

Pornography is not art because, in the end, it can be summed up: orgasm.

If a device were invented that could instantly and conveniently give the user all the sensations of an orgasm at any point they chose, I strongly suspect pornography would, for the most part, disappear. (So might civilization, but that's a different question :-))

I cannot think of anything that I consider art that can be summarized in such a fashion. No single emotion, no single feeling, no single sensation, no single thought provoked - no goal at all that can be considered the ultimate summit of art. That's what makes art so infinite in its ways.

Of course, I speak as no expert in either art or pornography.

Posted by: Tom West on April 21, 2009 5:28 PM

...Catholics are prone to this -- thinking that the general rules that hold for mankind as a species must also apply to each and every individual... There isn't only one way to lead a decent life.

Actually, Michael, the view you tease here is (or was) endemic of Protestantism, and most extreme in Mormonism.

Rome has always been aware that there are individuals whose contribution is something other than reproduction-- or, to use the Church's preferred word, procreation. An exalted space was carved out for those people. (But as priest, not as porn star!)

Though I think the Darwinian damage done by this is overstated by SFG, and may not be a problem at all. Religious orders were generally filled by religious families, whose other children were happy to make up for their celibate siblings. (And it was the second, not the smartest, son who signed up.)

Today's "priest shortage" is essentially a nephew shortage. Few would encourage an only son into the priesthood.

Posted by: Reg Cæsar on April 21, 2009 5:34 PM

As for making non-reproducing couples feel bad, I suspect it has to do with cultural preservation and duty.

I've rarely found that those who thoroughly enjoyed raising children to be eager to make child-less couples feel bad about their choice (although they are prone to the same attempts to persuade others they'd like-it-if-the-tried-it as hardcore fans of any particular life-style, food, hobby, etc.)

However, the majority (according to various studies I've read), find raising children a tough slog (although not without rewards). If you are in this category and are simply raising children for your own gratification, then perhaps the biggest decision in your life has been a mistake. So, you also consider the other pluses beyond simple gratification, among which is duty to society. Specifically, cultural preservation of that society. (Not species preservation, that's pretty much taken care of one way or another). And in that, you've failed to live up to your responsibility.

The closest analogy I can come up with is the attitude of someone who was drafted and served for a year or two towards someone who was a year younger and said no thanks to a volunteer army. No, you probably didn't enjoy your stint as a whole, but there were lots of good parts, and darn it, you served your country, unlike this kid over here who doesn't appreciate that the country doesn't stay safe without a lot of people doing a hard, thankless job!

Anyway, that's my Pop-psych-101 take on that particular reaction.

Personally, my dander only goes up among those who consider children to have no value to society as a whole.

Posted by: Tom West on April 21, 2009 5:55 PM

Well, roissy, I lived in Ft. Greene Park in Brooklyn in the hell days of the crack epidemic, and I've spent more time in Newark than I care to admit.

When I lived in Ft. Greene Park, I got sick of the thugs chasing me down the street. I got so sick of it that I lost my head.

I'm in the music biz, remember? I'd come home on the subway at 4 a.m. and some lowlife son-of-a-bitch would follow ten steps behind me all the way home, muttering:

"What the fuck you doing here, motherfucking white boy? You want to get your motherfucking ass kicked?"

I got so sick of this treatment that I lost my mind. I don't take well to being pushed around. Your advice is probably the better route to take, but I found myself turning around and threatening right back:

"OK, you fucking lowlife nigger. Let's go right now."

It worked for a few times. Once confronted, the bastards decided to go away. Got a knife pulled on me once. I threw garbage can lids and hit the guy in the head a few times. He decided he didn't want any part of it.

I realized that I was losing control and got the hell out after 3-1/2 years. Otherwise, my kids and I would probably be dead.

Posted by: Shouting Thomas on April 21, 2009 6:55 PM

It is white men who shrug their shoulders and refuse to care about whether they have children. Among black, hispanic and asian men, this attitude would be viewed as... well, ridiculous... an admission of failure or worthlessness.

I'm white, and I agree with them. They're right. It is an admission of failure and worthlessness.

the majority (according to various studies I've read), find raising children a tough slog (although not without rewards).

Yup.

So, you also consider the other pluses beyond simple gratification, among which is duty to society. Specifically, cultural preservation of that society.

I think highly intelligent white folk have a duty to breed and raise their children to succeed as adults. I have nothing but contempt for those who refuse to do so.

Posted by: JP on April 21, 2009 7:46 PM

OK, let's get to business.

Firstly, we have this comment:

Don't listen to what you should listen to: instead, why not create a playlist or Bookmarks collection that suits you? The person and his/her preferences and whims are becoming central, while the art-things are starting to seem come-and-go.

and then we have this one:

The "sexiness" part of culture seems to me 'way underplayed in the American public discussion abut the arts.

How can you have a discussion with regard to "sexiness" when everything is sexy? It's like that comment, when everyone's special no one is special at all. I think the problem you have here is how to talk about something good when the concept of a particular good is forbidden as priori. I'm afraid the reason why there is no discussion with regard to sexiness in culture is because people like you control the debate. As soon as I say this is more sexy than that, you chime in and say, "hey that's your opinion"; discussion over.

Our pleasures are subjective, but if the conversation is merely about what we like, then the conversation is really about ourselves and not about things extrinsic to our being such as "sexiness", "art", "beauty". The underlying assumption in this debate is that there are no transcendental things at all. Of course the arty crowd don't believe this for a second. Right wingism is evil, traditional religion is evil, racism, capitalism and so on. The Left can thunder against these with the same vigour as any fundamentalist preacher. It's only with regard to the Lefts' particular social or cultural objectives that that claim that "there are no objective imperatives" is used to overturn traditional mores.

Assume then for a second, that perhaps there is such a thing as objective beauty. Then what does that say about people who deliberately choose the lesser version of it? What do we say about people who choose McDonald's over a nice restaurant meal? Do you think the their tastes may be debased? That they lack refinement and sophistication? I know what my irreligious foodie friends would say. They would have no hesitation in labeling a habitual junk food consumer as a prole, a lesser man, an unsophisticate and a brute. My foodie friends define a man by the food choices he makes. According to them the good man eats well.

As I have said before, porn is to Eros what McDonald's is to food. If there is a "better" with regard to eating, why is there no "better" with regard to sexuality? Now when the proles are ridiculed for their bad choices, the usual riposte is that the foodies are "snobs", out of touch with the "common man", "who are you to tell me what to do?". The food proles give the same argument as the sex proles; there are no objective standards, there are only opinions.

We whip up "cuisine" based on hunger and appetite, we've created "the craft of suspense" based on our love of tension and excitement, etc. Why do so many people find it bizarre that one might whip up art-culture stuff based on sexual urges and pleasures? I enjoy raising this question.

What exactly are you whipping up? Cuisine is different to junk. Is Burger King a gourmet restaurant? Or am I a Food snob for asserting it isn't? With regard to sexuality at the moment, there is no "art culture" going on , rather a whole bunch of McDonald's, Burger Kings, Pizza Huts, Taco Bills etc serving up formulaic shit and claiming that its "high cuisine". Anyone who goes against the grain is dismissed by the "Hey, everything is cuisine crowd". Tension and excitement only come from separation and restraint. You can't enjoy a good meal when your stomach is full, you've got to be a bit hungry.

We were better in the past at "art-culture stuff based on sexual urges" than we are now. Lauren Bacall clothed is far "sexier" than Jenna Jameson naked. I've got some turn of the centrury Jugend magazines which shit over todays porn, not in graphic depiction but in what they allude to. Klimt and Schiele were far better erotic artists than today's modern porn producers.

Posted by: slumlord on April 21, 2009 8:02 PM

Oh, and while I'm at it, this is how it was done in the old days. Eve Marie Saint. Now there was a HOT woman.(notice, all her clothes are left on)

Posted by: slumlord on April 21, 2009 8:21 PM

STThey are the common views of urban white men. It is white men who shrug their shoulders and refuse to care about whether they have children. Among black, hispanic and asian men, this attitude would be viewed as... well, ridiculous... an admission of failure or worthlessness.

My darling shouting Thomas , I have no idea where you got this from. It's fairly common for a Black man in my age group to not want children. They see them as unnecessary burdens or in DA's words expensive pets.

Posted by: chic noir on April 21, 2009 9:06 PM

"These days it's more about using the arts to suit ourselves."

A perfectly legitimate stance. But there is a price to be paid. When both the audience for art and the artist float free from adherence to a particular tradition, become smorgasbord consumers and producers, you're going to get less developed, less realized art and a lesser experience of the art produced under that ethos. You can have ego or you can have super-ego (to use Freud's not quite satisfactory term). You can't have both.

Posted by: ricpic on April 21, 2009 9:12 PM

ST,
"It is white men who shrug their shoulders and refuse to care about whether they have children. Among black, hispanic and asian men, this attitude would be viewed as... well, ridiculous... an admission of failure or worthlessness."

I second chic noir. Black men who abandon their children are commonplace. The American underclass, of whatever race, have kids because they mess up their birth control not because they see childlessness as failure. Asians and Hispanics seem to have more instinct for fatherhood, but look at Japan's birthrates. Singapore and South Korea aren't far behind. Socially pressuring guys like MB to have kids is probably easier than getting underclass folk to stick to birth control, but I'd like the white middle class way of self-consciously having or nor having kids to be equally distributed throughout the races. Dream on!

JP,
"I think highly intelligent white folk have a duty to breed and raise their children to succeed as adults. I have nothing but contempt for those who refuse to do so."

I won't argue with you, but I must ask why American parenthood must be so unaesthetic. In my travels I've seen French and Italian families where parents gave their kids toys but still kept attractive homes and where both parents dressed well and introduced their kids to art, music and culture. Well-off American parents, on the other hand, seem to think they'll be arrested for child abuse if they don't fill their homes with mountains of tacky kid stuff including more toys than the kids could ever play with and a gadget for every aspect of the kids' lives.

Both husband and wife let themselves go and the moms start dressing in play clothes like the kids. And instead of making time for their interests every single weekend is devoted to taking the kids to movies, shows etc. geared towards kids. Now a lot of avant garde culture is inappropriate for kids but it is quite easy to find exhibits, concerts etc. that enrich and adult's mind and are appropriate for kids. Hell, I have better memories of wandering around various churches during my mom's choir practices than I did at any puppet show and when I was my dad's sidekick as he repaired his rental properties he'd sometimes take me to my favorite place in town: the train station.

My mom is a gourmet cook, but many parents I know make proper meals for adults in the family and give the kids fish sticks and pizza, or worse tailor the menu of the entire house to the mild, sweet tastes of a toddler. Instead of nudging a child beyond his childish tastes many parents coddle them and incorporate them into their own lives and produce infantile adults. I want to have kids but the idea of spending half my income on junk they never use and spending 20 or so years in a state of regressed childhood isn't exactly appealing.

slummy,
I'd add Sophia Loren to the list. No modern actress or model comes remotely close.

LINK

Posted by: hello on April 21, 2009 11:01 PM

Wow, Shouting Thomas really brings it !

And the decline of the two parent household is our biggest domestic problem, just ahead of baby boomers and the entitlements crunch.

Posted by: jonathanjones02 on April 21, 2009 11:48 PM

I find it superfluous to comment on your post, Michael, because, in this instance, Shouting Thomas, PatrickH and aliasclio have nicely expresssed what I would have written in reply to you post.

Thanks, all.

Posted by: Peter L. Winkler on April 22, 2009 2:54 AM

Sorry about the link.

Here's Eve Marie Saint: LINK 1

Here's Lauren Bacall: Link 2

Here's Bogie and some girl I don't know: Link 3

hello, I agree, Sophia was hot.

Posted by: slumlord on April 22, 2009 8:51 AM

I am quite skeptical of all the claims as to the enormous popularity of pornography. Oh sure, we hear all the time that online porn sites are making billions upon billions of dollars, but there are unverified claims from an industry built on deception. My guess is that porn is a far smaller industry than most people think.

Posted by: Peter on April 22, 2009 9:42 AM

The thing I find most interesting about many responses here is the inability or unwillingness to deal with the "is" question, namely "IS this development happening or not? IS it likely to go further or not?" Instead, most commenters seem unable to resist pushing the discussion into "I like/dislike, I approve/disapprove," "OUGHT" sorts of directions. A good discussion in its own right, but not the one I proposed.

Still, it's an interesting phenom: Porn is such a charged topic for many people that they can't set personal opinion and moral concerns aside and deal with factual developments straightforwardly.

For everyone: Please refer back to JV's comment in the previous comments-thread, where he makes the point that for many young people porn is ALREADY just another option on the legit-cultural-artifacts menu. (Whether or not this should be the case, whether or not you like it or disapprove, etc.)

Small reminder: Young people replace older people, and the attitudes young people have slowly replace the attitudes older people have. (Like or not, approve of it or not, etc.)

In other words: The development I'm describing and wondering about is already a done deal.

Whether or not this development takes a further step -- whether or not someone steps up to the plate and makes a case for porn as art, the way the Boomers made that argument for rock music -- well, we'll see. Maybe, maybe not. Today's young people don't seem as eager to rub their arguments in their parents' faces as the Boomers were. So maybe they'll skip the intellectual battles and just let their parents keep fooling themselves into total irrelevancy.

But porn becoming a matter-of-fact, not-morally/intellectually-fraught (at least for many young people) part of the general cultural landscape: almost certainly a fait accompli.

Incidentally: A few of you might want to give a moment's thought to the old "don't shoot the messenger" thing. I don't know how to emphasize more than I have already the fact that I'm not arguing FOR this development, I'm just taking note of it and musing out loud about it.

JP -- Do you normally make a habit of telling the hosts of the parties you attend that you're contemptuous of them? Sheesh, some people. You're banned, of course.

Posted by: Michael Blowhard on April 22, 2009 10:01 AM

Michael, you say in the first lines of your most recent comment that many of your readers aren't dealing with the cultural and social acceptance of porn by the younger generation. Then you state that whether we accept it nor not, porn has triumphed: it's a part of the culture of the young whether we like it or not, a done deal.

First, I can't understand why you think we disagree with you. Second, why ask for our opinion and then announce that it doesn't matter anyway? What gives?

In response to your comparison of porn and the food cult, some of us tried to pursue the analogy further. We've aimed our discussion at the artistic merits of porn, or its lack of them. Yet our response here seems to make you impatient. Is it because several of us have argued with the analogy?

You say that you're not interested in moralizing about porn. Fine. I haven't given you any on this occasion. Neither have Peter, Peter Winkler, PatrickH, or Tod Fletcher, or at any rate the moral issues raised by porn aren't a central element of our comments. But you focus instead on the comments from ST, respond rather irritably to PatrickH, and don't address Mr Winkler's latest comment at all.

Ricpic makes a good - and non-moralizing - comment about the price to be paid for the ubiquity of porn from the aesthetic point of view. You ignore him. Slumlord makes one of his best comments ever, one which really addresses what he sees as the problem with the aesthetics of porn. You ignore him, too.

What kind of discussion, exactly, are you looking for from your readers? You clearly want more than a mere "yes, porn is ubiquitous" answer, but beyond that I'm at a loss to understand.

Posted by: aliasclio on April 22, 2009 10:49 AM

Clio - As a blog-host, I don't like playing teacher-running-a-class, let alone prof-at-the-lectern. I'm faaaaarrrrrrr happier playing restaurant owner, hovering enthusiastically if necessarily somewhat distantly over an establishment that I hope some people will enjoy visiting.

As for comments ... I'll stop by your table occasionally and maybe pitch in too. But I'm most certainly not trying to control which ways the conversations go. Y'all are interesting and fun to read quite without any help from me. If logjams happen or fistfights break out (or someone, like JP, starts acting like a dick), I may step in. Sometimes restaurant owners have to.

But generally speaking it gives me a nice warm feeling to watch people having a good time. Then I have to hurry back to the kitchen to make sure the next posting is on its way ...

Posted by: Michael Blowhard on April 22, 2009 11:07 AM

"Instead of nudging a child beyond his childish tastes many parents coddle them and incorporate them into their own lives and produce infantile adults. I want to have kids but the idea of spending half my income on junk they never use and spending 20 or so years in a state of regressed childhood isn't exactly appealing."

And your sanitizing your prurient interest in films of naked people doin' it qualifies you as a mature, sophisticated adult? Just admit you're too selfish and lazy to raise a child. Heaven forbid, you might have to block your xxx websites when little MB jr gets old enough to use the computer.

Posted by: lynx on April 22, 2009 11:18 AM

All we have from JV is an assertion that porn is a legit part of the arts/culture landscape among sub-30s in a way that is different than its legitimacy among older gens (the fogies like me, and apparently according to JV, you! That we old fogies seem to have some different opinions about porn's legitimacy does not appear to have caused him to retract or even modify his thesis. I guess "old fogies" are just the oldsters who disagree with him).

Disagreements with JV's factually unsupported assertion have constituted the bulk of the comments on this thread (and the previous), comments about what porn IS, what its significance IS, what the purposes of those who produce and consume it ARE.

I should point out that I consume and enjoy porn, for the, ah, purpose I have ascribed to it. I have simply disagreed with your claims that porn is becoming legit. I am arguing it IS not, because it IS associated with masturbation, there IS still a stigma about that subject, and that FACT about porn will continue to mean that porn IS not mainstream or acceptable the way art or rock music or foodism ARE.

Porn is mostly produced for men to jerk off to. It features prostitutes, mostly women, doing sexual things for money paid to them by their customers.

Oddly, Michael, it is you who seems to feel that this is not okay, because it is you who is constantly trying to legitimize porn by talking about its artistic merits, its similarities to foodism, its legitimacy among the young. Why, I'd almost think you have a problem with masturbation! Or with prostitution!

I, on the other hand, ahem, have no problem with either. I just don't think that porn needs to be defended by the claim that it isn't what it is.

Long live porn! Long live masturbation! Yay for prostitution!

And for the continued relegation to the private realm of all of those things.

Posted by: PatrickH on April 22, 2009 12:10 PM

Michael,

Might I suggest that you rescind your ban of JP, maybe after a couple of weeks of banishment? He's been a generally thoughtful commentator over the years, despite his rudeness on this thread.

Besides, he is onto something: there is a certain, latent... contempt might be too strong a word, maybe dismay would be better... in the ways in which parents and childless couples regard each other. Is this necessary? Can the two factions just get along, respecting each other's choices, or is there a basic conflict? To put it another way, can a society function with two incompatible sets of norms, without one set pushing the other to the margin, the way childlessness and sexual hedonism (not the same thing, obviously) once were?

Posted by: intellectual pariah on April 22, 2009 12:13 PM

hello,
About your depiction of parenting today. I've often seen comments about these kind of parents (are they called Helicopter Moms?), but I have never met anyone like that. I have kids and know many parents. They all seem pretty much like me: just muddling through and trying to maintain sanity. To be clear, anyone who does the things you talk about is an idiot.

I'm sure there are people like you describe. Maybe it's a coastal/north east US thing? Maybe I just hang with the wrong (right) crowd? Maybe it's a high income thing?

Posted by: Todd Fletcher on April 22, 2009 1:12 PM

Tom West: "Personally, my dander only goes up among those who consider children to have no value to society as a whole."
Wow, I haven't ever heard that. Sounds like gay/lesbian yammering of the nuttiest kind.

"So, you also consider the other pluses beyond simple gratification, among which is duty to society. Specifically, cultural preservation of that society. (Not species preservation, that's pretty much taken care of one way or another). And in that, you've failed to live up to your responsibility."
The duty to society thing makes some sense to me when the society is an extended family, such as if one is living in a genetically homogenous country. It's a tribal thing...but in a country like USA? C'mon.
Furthermore, it appears to me (sadly, needless to say) that Western culture (respect for objective reality, willingness to allow professional handling of violence via police/courts, aggrandization of achievement, tolerance of peaceful eccentricity, etc.) is on the way out (could take centuries of course). The problem isn't the priests and the Michael Blowhards, it's the political class and its magnetism to those who are mentally miserable and who wish to prevent others from being happy. There are other factors, I know (like simple pandering to get power), but I'm pretty confident there are plenty of "open eyes" among the types who strive so hard to support/import savages and tear down Western values. I met one once who was drunk and surprisingly frank: "I think people should all be living in mud huts." This was a white-collar person. Anything that helps (importing difficult-to-assimilate cultures, destruction of the dollar via trillions in deficits, laws against offending non-Christian religions, bans on mineral extraction, punitive taxes to discourage private capital), that type of human is all for it. So, no, I don't believe that white males' deciding not to procreate is the cause. I think it's largely the effect of decades of escalating neo Marxism, which is in large part a war on white males, Ward Cleaver being the archetype. Any white male marrying in the West now is taking a massive risk (though it's somewhat safer marrying an immigrant such as ST did). Fifty years ago, a man could support a family, and his wife didn't hold a legal mallet over his head. And so he did, on average, have plenty of kids.

ST, your bloviating about Courage is almost as tiresome (and less amusing) than Peter's "guys who like it smooth are pedos" thing. Not too helpful to the guys being crushed in divorce court. Besides, didn't you say months ago you were quitting this blog? Don't Real Men mean just what they say?

As to the mainstreaming of porn, I doubt it will happen because of the more conservative mindset that is about to occur due to the need to make ends meet. The coming wrenching economic adjustments are going to take the Western world back to the global norm, in which families live under one roof and the girls lose it on their wedding night. The spectacle of the last half century has been based on the United State's ability to have its fiat treated like gold by foreigners. That is ending soon, and the cultural/political climate it fostered will go with it.

Posted by: James O. on April 22, 2009 1:56 PM

I'm unclear as to whether MB is actually, seriously, banning JP for expressing contempt for white intelligent adults who choose not to have children. If so, I am surprised and disappointed for two major reasons. The first is it would seem (dare I say it?) childish on Michael's part to wield power this way over such a relatively innocuous second hand insult; the second is, as a "guest" I've been subjected on various threads to numerous, vile, personal, and direct attacks that occasionally seemed to me to cross the line between "heat of the moment" insults and downright creepy, "should I have used a nom de blog to avoid real life harassment?' potential. Most of the time I'm content to let them go as part of the price to be paid for expressing opinions that are sufficiently out of step with the dominant POV here. A very few times I've suggested that certain comments cross a line and deserve having a host step in and block them, as individual comments. To the best of my knowledge no host here has ever done so when the personal invectives have been flying fast and furious, either at me or others. I have never suggested a ban on anyone who as personally and often egregiously insulted me, nor would I. And push come to shove, I'd rather read a vile insult than ban anyone from expressing an opinion, however much that opinion may insult or offend me.

So, Michael, was that just a sarcastic put down meant to reign in JP or have you actually banned him? I certainly hope it's the former.

As for the actual topic at hand .... why does alt-porn or the mainstreaming of porn hold such fascination? Porn has been with us for millennia. It ebbs and flows in terms of how repressed or accepted it is by average citizens in society. The internet age has shifted the public/private paradigm making porn more easily and readily available while maintaining at least the illusion of privacy and anonymity for the audience of porn. This is nevertheless a far cry from being either dramatically more socially acceptable or an aesthetic movement reaching toward the grail of becoming an art form. To try and compare it with Rock and Roll seems to misunderstand the nature of both.

Posted by: Chris White on April 22, 2009 2:07 PM

Setting aside the whole reproduction argument (please)...

Food as art--definitely true for a particular subculture.

Porn as art--also true for a particular subculture (and that's not a new thing--Playboy had its aesthetic, and adopted a slight snooty attitude toward its more downmarket competitors).

But probably for a majority of people, the point of food will always be yummy nourishment and the point of porn will be a satisfying orgasm. So long as they satisfy those basic urges most people won't bother looking to them for much more than that. Whereas the urges satisfied by what most people would typically consider "art" are, I think, more nuanced and complex.

The fact that porn is more ubiquitous in the digital age--and it certainly has become a more accepted part of the cultural landscape--doesn't make it more artful. Any more than the ubiquity of food in modern society makes it more artful.

As for me, I'm perfectly prepared the see the artfulness in some food and some porn, just as I'm prepared to see the artfulness in, say, some B-movie action flicks or dimestore thrillers, cultural creations which also were originally designed to satisfy fairly basic urges. But most examples of all of those things don't rise to the level of art, and I don't typically turn to them for an "art" type of experience.

Posted by: Steve W on April 22, 2009 2:48 PM

This blog describes itself primarily as a discussion of art. This particular discussion whether pron will become a legitimate form of art or not. Personally, I think not simply because watching porn gets boring after the first 3 minutes or so, at which time, I would rather read about the latest attempts to duplicate cold fusion, life extension advances, or some other techno-nerd thing. Others may differ.

However, I noticed that the discussion here has degenerated into another one of those tedious "breed or not to breed" ranting and ravings. If you want to talk about linking porn (as a form of art) to reproduction, thats fine. But what makes these arguments do tedious is this obsession that some people have with "converting" others into having kids.

Presumably, all of us here are intelligent, competent adults. Does this not suggest that whatever personal choice we have made work for us and that there is no point in discussing them?
To suggests otherwise is both offensive and just plain dumb. Whatever choices I have made are personal to me. I'm not about to take any advice from total strangers on the internet. So, such argument about kids is a completely inappropriate, especially when it has no relationship to the subject at hand.

Take such discussion somewhere else more appropriate.

Posted by: kurt9 on April 22, 2009 3:11 PM

Wow, I haven't ever heard that. Sounds like gay/lesbian yammering of the nuttiest kind.

Nope, nothing to do with gays. Google "childfree" (NOT "childless"!) to find dozens of sites that are more or less supporters of that position.

Most parents are under the hope/delusion that they will transmit their values and culture to their children. It's one of the major rewards of parenting. So, I'm doing my part to help urban-middle-class-liberal culture to continue another generation. Others are doing their part to help suburban-middle-class-conservative culture continue.

Of course, it may all be delusion, but it helps us keep focussed on the job on those days that it's a bit rougher around the edges :-).

(As for 'preserving' up the race, I have nothing but contempt for those who worry about preserving the 'white race'. It's what people *do*, not what they *are* that defines us. I don't care if the people that uphold my values are white, black, green or purple.)

p.s. Thank you aliasclio for what I think are the most succinct and relevant (I know, redundant) comments on this thread.

Posted by: Tom West on April 22, 2009 3:17 PM

Patrick, I can't point to any (ahem) hard and fast statistics on the popularity and general acceptance of the subject (ahem) at hand. But having been somewhat involved in it during the late 80s/early 90s, wherein playful and innocuous photos (of girls AND boys, but not in the act) in our 'zine were greeted with outright hostility within the punk scene, and then looking around now where certain websites trafficking in EXACTLY the same stuff we were doing in print makes millions of dollars and is trumpeted within the punk scene as a success, and in fact appear in their own show on HBO, I feel confident in saying that the mainstreaming of it is a fact.

As for fogies, I'm probably one myself. I'm 40. I worry daily about what kind of world my kids are growing up in. For that reason, I like to be aware of what's going on in areas that might interest them, or at least they probably will come across.

MB, I'm also surprised at your ban of JP, mostly because I remember making a comment about how I found childless couples mostly boring. And some of them are my best friends! :)

Posted by: JV on April 22, 2009 3:54 PM

Michael,

Three comments:

1. You really do have a talent for getting people involved in your blog. Congratulations. It's a unique skill.

2. I did not state the objections to porn that you have attributed to me. What I did state is this: Something is seriously askew when porn seems to be the focus of your sex life and you have no interest in children. It is revealing that you consistently refuse to discuss porn in any other way than to attribute any reservations about it to puritanism and discomfort. Times have changed. 70 years ago, the problem was a puritanical society that denied sexual pleasure. Today, the problem is a society that has lost all direction and is descending into infantilism and masturbation as its chief form of sexual expression.

3. No, I don't agree with your statement: Isn't it just a fascinating cultural bit of info about the kids? I'm an adult. My job is to be an adult. I'm not supposed to be as stupid as the kids. Kids are stupid. That's their job.

So, yeah, the kids are stupid and screwed up. I don't find this fascinating. That's pretty much the norm. As to whether porn is the "new rock and roll" (whatever the hell that is supposed to mean), I certainly hope that that is not the case. Porn is a vice best kept in the dark.

Posted by: Shouting Thomas on April 22, 2009 5:37 PM

I second Hello's comment to JP. I want to add that during my time in Paris it was vary rare to see children act out around thier parents. Even children as young as 3/4 had it togeather.

Posted by: chic noir on April 22, 2009 6:18 PM

Michael, you run a good blog. The restaurant analogy is particularly apt. But you gotta remember that when the shit is flying around sometimes your gonna get hit in the cross fire, like it or not. But it's your place and you make the rules, still, I'd urge a bit of a thicker hide if you're running a public establishment. Just a suggestion.

Is porn becoming mainstream amongst the young?
Yes.

Is this going to go further?
Yes, and then after a period of intense unhappiness there will be a violent reaction back to traditional mores.

Are parents fooling themselves about their kids?
I doubt it. Many parents are living vicariously through their children.

Got to go to work.

P.S. Michael what do you think is Art?

Posted by: slumlord on April 22, 2009 6:18 PM

slumlandlordMichael, you run a good blog. The restaurant analogy is particularly apt.

hehe i agree

Posted by: chic noir on April 22, 2009 6:39 PM

chic, I had the same experience in Spain. Parents took their little kids everywhere with them, including really nice restaurants at 11pm, and I did not once see a kid act up. We had our then 8-year old with us, and I think some of that rubbed off on him because he was amazingly well-behaved the whole trip.

I have theories on this subject, but I don't want to go too off topic.

Posted by: JV on April 22, 2009 7:03 PM

lynx,
Was your comment about being too lazy and selfish to raise a child directed at Michael Blowhard or me? My own tastes run more toward Slumlord's and I find most Internet porn to be far more tacky and ugly than a toy-strewn living room. ST made a comment a while ago about how disgusting and repulsive people who post to sites like youporn are and I agree.

MB,
About 8 years ago I knew film undergrads who got in trouble for using the school's equipment to make porn and when someone posted adds around campus looking for for a girl to act in a porn movie as a joke with someone else's phone number on it that guy got a call from an art student who was interested. So this development has been building for a while. How far will it go? Fact is that for a woman having videos of herself having sex floating around can be very damaging in every aspect of her life. Artists and arty types will find more forgiveness in those environments but an arty chick who quits the scene and marries an average Joe can really get bitten in the ass by that. So I have trouble seeing this extending beyond that milieu.

Posted by: hello on April 22, 2009 7:24 PM

By the way, I want to make it clear I am not in favour of prostitution, masturbation (at least as the sole form of sexual gratification), etc. I wanted to deprive my discussants of the option of dismissing my points as those of a fundamentalist or puritan. My objection to Michael's characterization of porn was its factual inaccuracy.

And no, slumlord, his restaurant analogy was not a good one. It was terrible.

Posted by: PatrickH on April 22, 2009 7:25 PM

Quoting JP: "I think highly intelligent white folk have a duty to breed and raise their children to succeed as adults. I have nothing but contempt for those who refuse to do so."

It's a big web. JP is free to comment elsewhere.

Quoting lynx: "And your sanitizing your prurient interest in films of naked people doin' it qualifies you as a mature, sophisticated adult? Just admit you're too selfish and lazy to raise a child. Heaven forbid, you might have to block your xxx websites when little MB jr gets old enough to use the computer."

lynx -- I'm cutting you slack only because you were goofing up. That was hello's comment you were responding to, not anything of mine. All that said, you might want to give the self-righteousness a little reconsidering, or at least start disguising it when you visit this blog.

Good lord, who raises these people?

Posted by: Michael Blowhard on April 22, 2009 8:52 PM

Chris -- I assume you're talking about Shouting Thomas. I've met ST in person, and he's a good guy, if a very rowdy one. Besides, every restaurant/bar needs a few characters, and ST is nothing if not that.

Posted by: Michael Blowhard on April 22, 2009 8:55 PM

Maybe a small clarification of policy from your humble blog-host would be a propos here:

We at 2B love your company, thoughts, and energy. We're tickled you drop by at all. Vigorous discussion is especially prized and encouraged, even if we'd often like to see people participate with a smidgen more humor, class, and mutual appreciation than is sometimes evident. Jesus Christ, Americans, learn how to disagree without being slobs, OK?

All that said ... Your ability to comment at 2Blowhards is ENTIRELY at the discretion of the bloghosts. We make no pretence at being objective, fair, or reasonable, though in practice we may sometimes appear to live up to those standards. Don't be fooled. We reserve the right to ban any IP address we damn well please at any moment that damn well suits us.

If you're looking for guidelines: Telling your bloghost that you view him with "contempt" is likely to get you banned. Describing a bloghost you've never met as "selfish" and "lazy" is likely to put you on probation.

If in doubt, keep the restaurant and/or bar analogy in mind. Drop by and have a good time, that's what we're here for. If a yakfest at your particular table gets rowdy, you're on your own (I assume you're a grownup and can take care of yourself) -- at least until the furniture starts to get broken. Then, god only knows how we'll choose to handle it.

As for what'll happen if you go up to the establishment's patron and insult him ... Well, if you did this in a bar or a restaurant, would you *really* be surprised to be shown out to the sidewalk?

Posted by: Michael Blowhard on April 22, 2009 9:09 PM

One final note, and to make this one I'm going to put aside my usual suave 'n' generous persona for a few secs ...

(Note to the irony-challenged: That was a carefully-measured semi-sorta joke/nonjoke. Clear?)

While I'm pretty happy with my "2Blowhards=a neighborhood bar" analogy, there's one way in which the comparison fails. It's this: Unlike a bar owner, your bloghosts are unpaid. We don't charge you anything for our services (such as they are, of course).

A few more aspects of this blog that may bear pointing-out:

* We pay for our own bloghosting
* We don't run any ads
* We conduct no fund-raising appeals
* None of us are using the blog to audition for big-media positions

We create and offer a very clean and independent blog, in other words. That's not an accident, by the way. It's deliberate policy on our part.

Far more important, though, is this fact: The existence of this blog represents thousands of hours of unpaid work on the part of the bloggers who post and have posted here.

Let me repeat the key bit there: THOUSANDS OF HOURS OF UNPAID WORK.

Now, we do what we do here mainly because it's a blast, and god knows that we aren't expecting or asking to be festschrifted for indulging in a lot of mischief and carrying-on. We have our own reasons for doing what we do, and we get a tremendous amount out of expressing ourselves and (even more) out of meeting and interacting with visitors.

But keep in mind that if you patronize a bar and the drinks are watered down, or the waiter is rude, the reason you get to complain is that you're paying for a service.

Not true at 2B. Everything we offer here is free. And everything we offer here represents a lot of unpaid volunteer work.

The conclusion? If you don't like the product on offer at 2B, or if the service at 2B gripes you ...? Just go somewhere else. Seriously: You aren't paying, we are. You aren't putting hour upon hour of work into maintaining this blog, we are. All of which means that you don't get to complain, let alone insult the hosts.

Respectful and helpful tips and suggestions are always appreciated, of course.

But do remember: When you visit 2B, you're attending a party that WE're going to a lot of trouble (and to some not-negligeable expense) to throw.

OK, now back to the usual appreciative-and-jolly routine ... And hoping that we're all capable of enjoying ourselves ...

Posted by: Michael Blowhard on April 22, 2009 9:50 PM

So long as I'm in commenting mode ...

Watching some of these commentsthreads dissolve into name-calling and insults, I sometimes feel as though I should write a series of postings entitled "How To Disagree." It only takes putting to use about a half a dozen strategies for debate and discussion to become much more enjoyable and rewarding activities ...

Anyway, my first (and most valuable) tip:

* You don't have to respond at all.

If someone goes after you, or ridicules you, and you feel the blood pressure rising ... By all means, take a little break. Go away. Leave the computer for a few minutes. Surf elsewhere.

But, as your overheating brain occupies itself with trying to come up with devastating responses, remind yourself that YOU DON'T NEED TO RESPOND AT ALL.

Not-responding isn't a sign of weakness -- it's often the best response possible. It can really deflate the attacker. It can function as a kind of backhanded, semi-invisible insult. And by letting your opponent's attack just hang out there on its own, un-responded-to, you may well have the effect of exposing him in a ridiculous posture.

Best of all, though? If your attacker is someone who's prone to go after you, simply not-responding will probably make him quit. Do it three or four times -- just proceed about life and blog-commenting as though nothing's happened -- and your attacker will likely turn his energies elsewhere. Problem solved.

An attacker is most often looking for a fight, after all. If you give him one, then he has already won. Deny him the fight he's looking for and ... Well, you may not win, exactly, though you may. But you'll almost certainly send him elsewhere.

So please, folks, keep that move in mind. It's always a possibility for you. Always remember that you can simply overlook goading, taunting, and insults.

Not-responding is one of the better -- and easier -- strategies available to every debater/discusser. Amazes me, the number of people who don't make use of it.

Posted by: Michael Blowhard on April 22, 2009 10:07 PM

Admit it Michael. Your porn posts are unusually arousing.

P.S. I think Chris White might also have been referring to me insulting him. I accused him of having a personality disorder, which was excessive, I admit. Chris is mealy-mouthed and evasive to a sick-making degree, but he is not so evasive as to be sick himself. I regretted the misdiagnosis and withdrew it, and will take your advice to heart and ignore him from this point forward.

P.P.S. C'mon Michael, admit it. You know your porn posts are going to get people going, don't you? I love you like a brother, but you've always had this sh*t-disturbing side to you, and I'm convinced you know perfectly well that a Perfect Storm of Storminess is going to start blowing at 2Hards within minutes of you posting.

Posted by: PatrickH on April 22, 2009 10:44 PM

Michael,

I can remember so well when I was younger and I discovered whoring and porn, in the way that some people find Jesus.

It seemed like the answer to everything. I felt like I'd found answers that were hidden to other people who weren't willing to take the chances and pay the price.

I'm not saying that I would go back and change anything.

The whoring and porn was, in some way, part of the answer. I had to satisfy my curiosity and my lust there, and so the journey through that netherworld was part of the deal.

I can see that you believe that you have found some answers in that world.

You won't care much for this, but the pride that I felt over finding answers in that netherworld... well, that was the temptation of the devil.

Years ago, I was a much more sophisticated person and I didn't believe in such things as being tempted by the devil. What can I say? I'm not so sophisticated any more.

Posted by: Shouting Thomas on April 22, 2009 11:23 PM

PatrickH -- The art-or-porn postings definitely bring out a certain vehement je ne said quoi in some of the visitorship, that's for sure.

Chris -- PatrickH, though, I've never met in person. Can't vouch for him. I suspect he sometimes falls in love with his verbal fireworks and prowess, and that's all there is to it. But for all I know he might be completely insane. Be careful!

ST -- You're reading a lot into me. 9/10ths of what I do here is take note of things, no editorial content added. I'm a cultural radar screen -- I pick stuff up and pass it along. But always fun to watch you do battle with your projections.

Posted by: Michael Blowhard on April 22, 2009 11:48 PM

I can remember so well when I was younger and I discovered whoring and porn, in the way that some people find Jesus

Now this is why I come to this site!

Posted by: slumlord on April 22, 2009 11:54 PM

Michael,

Why do you keep up the outrageous effort necessary to keep this blog going?

I am keenly aware that it's a ton of work, returns no money and must be, at times, a pain in the ass.

What motivates you to continue to do it? Are you just caught in the cycle of having readers and provoking controversies, or is there something in it that you need?

I'm glad 2Blowhards exists. But, I can also see that it must be an enormous pain in the ass to keep it going. As you can see if you occasionally look at my blog, political and cultural controversy is not that important to me. More an occasional diversion than a necessity. I walk away from it whenever I get tired of it. You can't and that exposes you to endless irritation at the hands of assholes, including me.

Why are you doing it?

Posted by: Shouting Thomas on April 23, 2009 5:27 AM

MB:

Sound words on blog post arguments. I haven't gotten into it with my bete noire in a long while. About three weeks ago I thought about it and was like "Nah, I'm tried of that shit." He's so much more fun to just watch quietly. You know, like watching a four way car wreck between Humbert Humbert, Dr. Bronner, Harold Bloom off his lithium and a severely Asperger's afflicted Enoch Powell...

And that's the last half-assed joke I make on *that* subject.

Posted by: Spike Gomes on April 23, 2009 10:06 AM

If we are indeed entering a universe that's far more "suit yourself" than the old media universe was, that helps explain why porn is becoming more accepted: It's primary among the arts-that-get-used. And if we're comfy with the idea that the arts should suit us and our moods, then many objections to thinking of porn as just another artform dissolve.

I suppose that you're right about trends, in that the modern definition of "culture" is hedonic, in the sense that anything which gives us pleasure is "culture". I mean, if taken to extreme, this definition of culture leads to the conclusion that a vibrator is just as "cultural" as a Jane Austen novel: Both deliver the hedonic goods. It's a pretty creepy definition of culture but it probably provides a good understanding with regard to porn's rapid uptake amongst the young. It's a thing they use to give them pleasure and hence is a means to an end. Of course then "art" then becomes more about satisfying basic urges than a means of communication. It becomes purely functional becoming the "organic matter and manure". By this view of art, some moron is quite right put down any artform which doesn't give him pleasure. Ice T and Tchaikovsky are culturally equivalent, indeed Ice T may rank higher on the artistic merit scale, since his art satisfies the bovine masses better than the old Russian.

where does this desire to enhance our lives and our experiences in these ways come from? And why should this desire for enhancement be an aspect of human existence at all?

The above conception of culture as erroneous as the feminists conception of society: It is unnatural. Civilisation is all about restraining basic urges, building on them and refining them, so as to maximise the pleasure in them; it's in our nature. Man was born for things higher than "organic matter and manure", culture was meant to civilise and hence increase his enjoyment of life. But our contemporary culture is no better than our contemporary cuisine, its all about feeding the flesh while starving the soul.

Posted by: slumlord on April 23, 2009 11:11 PM

I have theories on this subject, but I don't want to go too off topic.

Posted by JV
JV, I'm curious to hear your theories. Do tell.

Posted by: chic noir on April 25, 2009 5:03 PM






Post a comment

Name:


Email Address:


URL:


Comments:


Remember your info?