Down-to-Earth Philosophy

Steven Dunn of Hellenistic Christendom has posted a reply to my partial defense of the sex industry . The effort he makes to set aside our differences on God and religion is honorable. I also appreciate the charity, open-mindedness, sophistication, and knowledge Steven has brought to the discussion. One example of his displaying these virtues: "if Ben is indeed correct in his perspective, I want nothing held back from what possible ignorance I could be harboring in my understanding of pornography and even of human persons. I hope Ben should feel the same towards me." Indeed, I feel the same. What follows is an answer to the purely philosophical parts of Steven's piece. I'm saving my analysis of his scientific references for later; I plan to publish it along with my analysis of the scientific article my friend Art Alvara shared with me. Blaming Porn Itself In my original piece I sympathized with YouTuber Kane B's thought that most who accuse porn of ...

My YouTube philosophy idol, Kane B, briefly commented on the popular idea that porn (among other things, of course) objectifies women. In a nutshell, he opined that most people who use the word "objectification" are just making noises expressing disgust and disapproval. Their objection to porn doesn't withstand the slightest scrutiny. Kane B's statement resonated with me when I first heard it, and to a degree it still does. I'm very unclear on what many people mean by "objectification." But in this article I address excerpts from one of the most highly regarded popular-level books raising the objectification charge against the sex industry: Matt Fradd's The Porn Myth . Even if I can't tell you what definition of "objectification" Fradd uses, he explains his concern clearly and thoroughly enough to give me some grasp of the concept. To the extent that the charge is meaningful, I conclude that it nonetheless collapses under scrutiny. S...