Comments Posted By Transplanted Lawyer
Displaying 11 To 20 Of 45 Comments
MEN AND WOMEN AND PORN: A LOVE STORY
News flash: women have sex drives, too.
Men have enjoyed pornography for centuries; there's porno up on the walls of bathhouses and bedrooms in Pompeii. And who's to say the ladies didn't enjoy it back in ancient times, too? As for our society, seems to me that women consuming porno is really just the endgame, or at least the next iteration, of nearly a century of female sexual liberation taking place across Western society. So I don't think that we can call pornography any thing new; it's as ancient a form of art as exists, and conservatives should understand that.
Now, I can see conservatives having caution about the erosion of social institutions -- that is the essense of conservatism. Reasonable conservatism assesses actual evidence, though, instead of scare stories. So the evidence shows that despite the prevalence of pornography, people continue to be faithfully married, continue to have kids, and continue to behave normally in public despite what we presume to be all the masturbation and non-procreative sex inspired by the porno. So after nearly ninety years women behaving in an overtly sexual fashion can be called "mostly harmless."
One thing I would add -- sex in general, and porno in particular, is a whole lot more fun when it's a little bit naughty, something that "nice people" don't do (but which you do because it's fun and feels too good not to). So we all have social conservatives to thank for keeping the whole subject a little bit taboo. But at the same time we should keep in mind that this is really not a big deal.
Aside from a couple of gratuitous slaps at conservatives, I generally agree. I personally don't view pornography as a problem at all. I also think it an outmoded concept that porno as an "art form" or simply an adjunct to partner sex undermines anything. I wrote a piece a while back on why conservatives could support gay marriage and pointed out the changing definition of marriage over the years and how society's mores change with them. What was once taboo - gay sex - is now viewed as "normal" by the vast majority. As far as I can tell, this hasn't toppled the republic or created a "moral crisis" that so enamors those on the religious right.
Bottom line; nothing more personal or private than sex. And while the making of porno may exploit and harm some men and women, it is still an individual choice made by performers to participate in the industry. Sensible restrictions relating to age as well as some self-regulating guidelines in the industry regarding violent imagery and the like are about as far as I would go in limiting what anyone should be able to view in the privacy of their own home.
ed.
Comment Posted By Transplanted Lawyer On 31.08.2009 @ 11:35
WHELAN APOLOGY LEAVES QUESTIONS UNANSWERED ABOUT BLOG COMMENTERS
I do appreciate the difference, Rick, but thank you for making it crystal-clear. I was under the impression that publius is both a blogger and a commenter and uses his pseudonym for both purposes, making all blog activities part of his persona. I obviously failed to make that portion of my point clear; I'm sorry about that and apologize for any inadvertent disrespect taken from my earlier post (none was intended).
Like you, I'm sure Publius comments on blog posts at other sites. But people like you and Publius get a pass in my book simply because you are bloggers and your work is much easier to find than a troll whose comments are difficult to discover using a search engine. This makes them invisible - and reckless, in my opinion.
ed.
Comment Posted By Transplanted Lawyer On 9.06.2009 @ 10:46
Rick, have you never heard of the phrase "Dooce"? People do sometimes suffer real-world consequences for blogging.
Now, I entirely agree with your proposition that some people will use a pseudonym or anonymity to assist in behaving terribly. But I submit that a significant proportion of them would behave terribly anyway.
Personally, I blog, and comment on other blogs, using the same pseudonym. I do so for reasons not dissimilar from those cited by publius back during Whelan's snit. Quite a lot of practicing lawyers who want to hobby-blog do this, too (e.g., Ken at Popehat). Bear in mind that the vast majority of pseudonymous bloggers write in a reasonable, responsible, and mature fashion.
Excuse me but are you having difficulty in delineating the difference between a "blogger" and a "blog commenter?" The whole point of the piece is that there is a significant difference. Holy Jesus, I spent 1200 words yesterday taking Whalen to task for outing publius for exactly the reasons you mention above. My point is that blog commenters using their real name rarely get "dooced" and if they do, I've never heard of it. They certainly don't expose themselves - be they reasonable or not - to the same perils as bloggers.
Your case is different because you have a blog and an established online personae. Most anonymous commenters are too lazy or cowardly to start their own blogs and, as I said yesterday, glom onto large sites so that they have an audience for their idiocy. Since the danger to blog commenters who use their real name is unproven to me, the only possible conclusion I can reach is that they fear having their thoughts rejected - which would be a rejection of them rather than the thoughts of some fictitious character.
ed.
Comment Posted By Transplanted Lawyer On 9.06.2009 @ 07:43
BURRIS WHINES THAT 'MEDIA AND REPUBLICANS ARE ALMOST DESTROYING MY CHARACTER'
Bob is right -- having bought the seat, Burris will now be obliged to whore rent it out in order to keep it.
Comment Posted By Transplanted Lawyer On 17.02.2009 @ 12:06
DAVID FRUM, THE BIG TENT, AND SPLENETIC CONSERVATIVES
The sorts of Republicans you're talking about would elevate social wedge issues into matters of dogma. "Dogma" in the sense that those who deviate from it are heretics who must be punished as an example for others. The danger in challenging dogmatics with the "force feeding" you describe is that dogmatics are often willing to become schismatics in order to protect ideological purity. But that does not entitle them to dictate everything that happens in the party, either; at some point it stops being worth it for other kinds of Republicans to make common cause with them.
What I think has to happen is that these sorts need to recognize that they have overreached and doing so has caused a heavy political price to be paid -- best seen in the form of a President whom they detest. It is up to them to dial it back and, if they do so, then it will be up to us to recognize that they have done so and recommit to the coalition. But I think they have to take the first step and recognize that stunts like the Terry Schiavo debacle and the deification of Sarah Palin were mistakes.
Comment Posted By Transplanted Lawyer On 23.01.2009 @ 13:40
WISHING THE GAY MARRIAGE ISSUE WOULD JUST GO AWAY
I'm a strong advocate of extending marriage rights to same-sex couples. But I have to agree with you that we're facing much more significant problems than that one at the moment. We SSM advocates need to keep on making our case, but at the same time, we need to confront the other issues facing society. Here in California, gay couples can still register as domestic partners and while I don't think it's the same thing, I do think that DP's are useful to demonstrate that gay people can live together with legal recognition to their relationship without causing anyone any harm.
Meanwhile, we're up over our eyebrows in debt (at the Federal and state levels), our exhausted military is about to be eviscerated by the incoming Administration, taxes appear likely to increase in the near future, three octogenarians are entering their twilight years on the Supreme Court, and as Rick points out, we're likely to be on the receiving end of a geopolitical power play in the very near future. It's time to move on to other areas for a while; we will have the ability to revisit same-sex marriage through the democratic process soon enough.
Comment Posted By Transplanted Lawyer On 23.12.2008 @ 17:31
TORTURE: A MATTER OF OPINION OR A QUESTION OF LEGALITY
It's a very simple rule. No torture. Ever.
Comment Posted By Transplanted Lawyer On 20.12.2008 @ 16:24
It seems obvious that as a practical matter, technological and infrastructure reform have to take place at the same time as issue reform. In theory, we ought to find a good message first and then use the power of that message as a foundation to build something new. But in practice, there isn't going to be time to do that. Half a dozen candidates are already starting to jockey for the 2012 nomination.
So to rebuild the party into something politically effective again will require entrepreneurs, people like Ruffini, to offer their visions for what the future of the GOP should look like and see how the audience responds. I've thrown out a few ideas on the issue reform side of things but Rick is 100% right that organizationally, the party is well-suited to win the elections of 1980 and 1982 right now and that must change unless we enjoyed the dusting we just took from Obama. I'm glad guys like Ruffini are out there thinking along that track.
Agree about Ruffini but am less sure a two track approach is possible. Your "ideal" that they take place together would presuppose an intimate connection - don't see that happening at the present.
ed.
Comment Posted By Transplanted Lawyer On 26.11.2008 @ 13:43
IF ELECTED, OBAMA WILL BE MY PRESIDENT
This is, as usual, spot-on. We should ready ourselves to be the loyal opposition, not the cry-baby spoil-sports leftists have been for the past eight years. We should do this not because we want to give up fighting for the ideas we think are right and not because we want to make ourselves into Lite Democrats (tm) to siphon off middle-of-the-road votes. No, we should do it because it's the right thing to do and doing the right thing will, in the long run, produce better political results.
Comment Posted By Transplanted Lawyer On 13.10.2008 @ 11:12
I concur, but do not agree, with CT. I think the time has come to understand that social conservatism is fundamentally different from economic conservatism, and the policy directions that these two wings of the party would pursue if in power have diverged to the point they cannot be reconciled. Eight years of social conservatism in the White House has produced the economic results we see -- a GOP that has lost credibility on issues of taxes, spending, and deficits. And as we are seeing played out on the national stage, when the GOP loses those issues, the results are devastating.
Comment Posted By Transplanted Lawyer On 6.10.2008 @ 09:23
