Yale Daily News

Updated: Saturday, September 6, 2008 at 8:59pm

Right to agency does not engender right to respect

  • Print
  • Write Editor
Polytechnography
Published Thursday, April 17, 2008
In the past five years that I have spent at institutions of higher education, I have witnessed three visits by Ron Jeremy. That figure alone says something about the cultural impact of pornography. However, Molly Green’s treatment (“Respect women’s right to reasoned, free choice,” 4/10) of the Sex Week debate between porn stars Ron Jeremy and Monique Alexander and two anti-pornography representatives, Craig Gross and Donny Pauling, left much to be desired.
#1 By A.C. (Unregistered User) 4:47am on April 17, 2008

"But that opprobrium is not limited to selling one’s body: I feel just as much contempt, if not even more, for the corporate lobbyist who fights to pass a bill he knows is contrary to the interests of the public. Selling oneself, whether physically or mentally, is justly deserving of contempt."

You try to sneak that comparison by us, but it doesn't make any sense. The lobbyist's actions are immoral, as you say, because they go against the interests of the public. A porn star or prostitute who plies her (or his -- it's not like there's only women in either field) trade is harming...who, exactly? I suppose you could make the argument that they're harming themselves, but, personally, I don't like telling people I don't know what's good for them. And while you can (and do) claim that they're harming society through negative stereotypes, so is 99% of mainstream media and you don't see this kind of moral outrage directed at them. Besides, that argument against porn is basically the same as the argument against violent movies: that we shouldn't show things that might give people the wrong idea and lead them to act in bad ways. So should I assume you also feel "moral opprobrium" towards Die Hard?

In the end, I think Molly is right after all. Your dislike for "selling oneself" isn't tied to any sort of actual negative repercussions like in your lobbyist example. You just think selling sex is wrong. And while you're entitled to that opinion, don't try to equate your distaste for it with the rightful distaste we should all feel towards true injustice.

#2 By strached collar (Unregistered User) 5:14am on April 17, 2008

Mr. Gabriel's "whores r us" analogy falters. Did Boris Karloff demean himself by choosing mosnter roles much of his life? Isn't Mr. Michael really uncomfortable with pronography because he resents its ability to excite him and thereby threaten his self-control? Look at what fools Elliot Spitzer, Bill Clinton and Wilbur Mills (to name three major politicians) have made of themselves when they dabbled in the losing of self-posession,becoming blobs of protoplasm in heat.

Mr. Michael is apparently the latest avatar of the good old fashioned American icon: the stuffed shirt.

#3 By TC (Unregistered User) 12:08pm on April 17, 2008

While you can do what you choose to (becoming a pornstar or prostitute in this case). Nobody has to respect that decision or you for that matter (I certainly don't respect prostitutes). It just so happens that most would consider such a career path as morally distasteful. Argue what you will that "selling yourself" has no negative repercussions (disease), but the moral decay of our nation certainly has negative repercussions.

Add Comment

You are not logged in. We do allow posting without registration, but we encourage you to register or log in to enjoy full access to our comments features!