More on Porn! Now Chock Full of Double Entendres!

The article that I wrote about porn for Metro aroused many passions amongst readers. Five letters to the editor were published in the three days that passed since the article came out. Three basically said that I was full of shit, and then went on to site things that had nothing to do with my argument calling for more, but better quality, porn. Two got the point and said I got them off with my argument.

From yesterday’s Metro:

Society obsessed with wrong porn
MATT EMOND
Regarding “Porn: It just might cure what ails us” (Nov. 16): I agree with Suzanne Reisman’s view that our society is brutally obsessed with the wrong kind of porn. Our porn, as well as our pop culture, expresses the view that dominance, violence and inequality are essential to our human nature, while it is more likely that humanity originated out of community, mutual respect and open sexuality.

Monday’s Metro had one pro and one con letter. (The con was very long, so I’ll fast forward to the money shots.):

World needs healthy sexuality
ELIZABETH PRIEST
Regarding “porn: It just might cure what ails us” (Nov. 16): I think Suzanne Reisman’s column on decent pornography was right on. This city, country, and world need more people with happy and healthy sexual relationships. We all want it – I don’t think anyone can argue that – but there are so many social restrictions places on sex. Between the controversy over homosexuality, the idea that sex is a sin if two consenting partners are not married and the age-old idea that women don’t enjoy sex as much as men do, sex is looked down upon. In a world without sexual tension, I have a strong feeling we would find a good number of people getting off every night in front of their television, watching happy, healthy pornography.

Porn is sexuality in its lowest form
STEVE HOLT
A healthy dialogue about sexuality is needed in our country, but I vehemently disagree with Suzanne Reisman…Porn is counterfeit… It is to sex what O’Doul’s is to beer… It creates unrealistic expectations. Men who view porn enter long-term relationships… with expectations that their significant other simply cannot meet… Finally, porn treats sex as if it means nothing. Contrary to Reisman’s opinion, it actually devalues sex... Porn declares that any person with whom you come in contact at any point of the day or night is a potential sexual partner. Porn declares that sexual chemistry – not unconditional love – is the real meaning of human interaction. Porn is sexuality’s lowest common denominator.

You gotta admit that Elizabeth rocked the double entendres, but that Steve’s O’Doul’s crack was zesty. I’d say that the weakest argument in Steve’s very well written letter is that he assumes that only heterosexual men watch porn. What about women porn watchers? Gay porn consumers? I had lunch with a friend today who confessed that another friend of hers is a “gyne-friendly” film star. She must have very unrealistic attitudes about her partners. I’d love to meet her.

The other two letters Metro ran mostly sucked, in my esteemed opinion. One was blathering, sort of like I am doing now, and the other insisted that any guy who watches porn becomes an addicts and it destroys marriages and families. Again, a very heterocentric view, and also sort of hilarious. Alochol and prescription drug addictions destroy relationships as well, so probably we should ban them. You know how it goes down.