Down-to-Earth Philosophy

The biblical story of Onan in Genesis 38.6–11 is one that has traditionally been used by Christians, especially Catholics, to show that God detests contraceptive sex and masturbation, or at least male masturbation (since the loss of sperm leads to loss of life, i.e. loss of a substance with the potential to produce offspring). Not just masturbation accompanied by sexual fantasy, visual aids, etc., but any self-stimulation of one's genitalia without reproduction as its end goal. But I'm partial to another interpretation of the biblical text, one that Catholic Answers says  has become the orthodoxy in contemporary biblical exegesis. According to this standard interpretation, Onan's sin was failing to perform his duty to impregnate his widowed sister-in-law—nothing more, nothing less. This Israelite practice that Onan failed to follow was known as levirate marriage . Had Onan's brother not died, Onan could have engaged in as much masturbation and contraceptive sex as he pl...

Sir Roger Scruton is a well-known conservative philosopher. He is frequently cited by philosophically inclined anti-porn activists. So naturally, I've started reading Scruton's work on beauty, sexual desire, and pornography. Scruton is an excellent writer, and I've found that he and I actually have a decent amount of common ground. But I'm unpersuaded by the case against sex work that I have seen in his writings. Even if we recognize and respect the kind of beauty Scruton emphasizes, we need not abolish sex work. I explain why that's the case in this post, where I reflect on some passages from Scruton's book  Beauty  that caught my attention. Beauty: The Centerf–... err, –piece of Scruton's Anti-Porn Ethic On p. 47, Scruton writes: There is a distinction, familiar to all of us, between an interest in a person's body and an interest in a person a s embodied . A body is an assemblage of body parts; an embodied person is a free being revealed in the fle...

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...