4 ms·
You're framing of "sex icky" is a common reductionist approach to remove all humanity from the topic and try and make it purely logical. But that's always been
by simplify 1y ago
You're framing of "sex icky" is a common reductionist approach to remove all humanity from the topic and try and make it purely logical. But that's always been a ridiculous way to argue.
The human experience has never been pure reason. A picture of a naked person will have wildly different effects than a picture of a dog, even though you could technically say they're both "just pixels on a screen". Reductionism doesn't get an argument anywhere; it's too commonly an intellectually lazy defense of the vulgar.
- mystraline 1y agoRemember, that the SCOTUS judgement of what obscenity is defined as, is "I'll know it when I see it". I prefer reductionist rather than the current standard of 'whatever 9 fucks think of it'.
- simplify 1y agoOf course you prefer reductionist, because that fits your interest of doing nothing, rather than seeking a solution to the very real destructive consequences of the genre in question. That's what I mean by intellectually lazy. Porn is way easier to define than obscenity, so I don't see that being a problem.