Porn And Not Being Cheery
As blogger and amateur porn creator I’ve found myself indulging in stuff that some people find squicky or at times even horrid. I have any number of reasons for why I feel no need to apologize for my activities. One, easy to articulate, is that it’s just a brute fact that eros is an outlaw. There’s another, though, which has long lingered in the back of my mind which I haven’t made all that explicit up to very recently, when I’ve found someone who did it for me.
Very intense blogger Sister Y, in a post which at the moment is currently my second all-time favorite (after this) rightly calls out people for what she labels “cheery social policy.”
Why are drugs, prostitution, gambling and suicide illegal, when they clearly give so much relief to suffering people? I think it is because, at a societal level, we are deluded into thinking that happiness is possible, maybe even easy or likely, without these things. I have called this cheery social policy.
The fundamental problem with this sort of cheeriness is the assumption that a good life – a pleasant life – is relatively easy to achieve. Cheery people are able to hold such a belief because they are able to ignore – and perhaps can’t even conceive of – the suffering of a significant minority of the population. A good life is not easily achieved for many of us.
There is a majority belief that we need not use extraordinary means to achieve a happy and meaningful life. Behaviors that deviants engage in, perhaps in pursuit of a tolerable life – weird sex with lots of people, say, or using steroids or marijuana or LSD or benzodiazepines – strike cheery people as perplexing and frightening. For a cheery person, these behaviors are wholly unnecessary – life is perfectly tolerable without them. And they increase the risk of harm! Who wants harm?
What the cheery cannot imagine is the importance, the function of these behaviors, and others like them – the pursuit of the interesting, and the temporary suspension of the intolerability of existence, which intolerability (for many) the cheery do not even perceive, and therefore do not properly weight as a problem.
(Read the whole thing, but only if you’re not easily offended by people who aren’t optimists.)
Reading these paragraphs, something clicked for me, because it “squicky porn” could easily fit onto the list with “drugs, prostitution, gambling, and suicide” as stuff that helps un-cheery people keep their heads above water, hedonically speaking. In my own life, during some of the long, dark periods it probably did have that role. Keep this in mind: something you dislike, something you even find revolting, might be to someone else the difference between keeping going and going under.
Half a lifetime of observation confirms to me that we inhabit a society poisoned by optimism. We belittle the problems of people for whom life is suffering by pretending that with a bit of therapy here or a bit of social reform there or turning to Jesus yon that almost everyone can achieve happiness. Wrong. Dead wrong. Many people have very unpleasant lives, and this unpleasantness is pretty much intractable. Ask Sister Y if you don’t believe me.
The mental model of prohibitionists — at least, those who are not just sadists but who have some fragment of compassion in them — appears to be something like this: life is basically good for everyone, and so if we somehow coercively take away what they call “vices,” (drugs and porn and all) then people will be left with good lives, perhaps better lives. Again, wrong. For many people, life is just not good. The very things you call vices might just be what gets them through their days — or nights.
So there’s another reasons, should you need one, to stand up for the stuff you don’t like. It’s not just that if you don’t stand up for the stuff you don’t like then by the time they come for the stuff you do like you will have already lost. (Thought that in itself is an excellent reason.) It’s that if you don’t stand up for the stuff you don’t like, you’ll see not just lives blighted, but lives ended.
Shorter URL for sharing: https://www.erosblog.com/?p=6917
Hey! Just wanted to say I completely agree with the classification of pornography with drugs, prostitution, etc. I think porn and other “superstimuli” (television, etc.) are responsible for a huge part of modern human well-being.
Sister Y, I pretty much agree with you and Faustus on that. Most of the so-called “vices” are popular precisely because they lighten the heavy load of the world. There’s always room for balancing these hedonic benefits against the costs, but the people interested in rooting out vice usually aren’t interested in rational conversations about that balance.
I would add rich foods on the list (not for nothing did Plato classify cookery with pandering), and probably most genre fiction. As I’ve grown older, I’ve become more and more tolerant of the super-stimuli that people use to get through the day, mostly as I’ve become more aware of my own.
Dave, that’s interesting – I hadn’t thought of the welfare consequences of the widespread availability of fatty foods. Obesity seems unpleasant to me, but obviously eating is involved with dopamine receptors and all, and is a source of comfort to countless folks.
“we inhabit a society poisoned by optimism”
I wouldn’t say it’s just that, it’s also that we inhabit a society plagued by lack of empathy.
I don’t know. If life really sucks so much, then why protect it? Sister Y begins her article by saying that she would prefer death, but since it hasn’t worked out for her, trying to be comfortable will do. I mean, I already don’t see what is so valuable about human life in itself, but I think on a more utilitarian tack, that being able to stay in denial is as valuable to those who repress as being allowed questionable vices is to those who prefer to indulge. So really either one person copes or the other does and that is it. Who is to say that what makes one life tolerable outweighs what does the same for another one. I am pretty proud of my overall optimism. I don’t think I am a jerk about it either, but to say that my belief that people can (in general, and that I can, more specifically) make their lives better with healthy and sensible choices is repressive and must be stopped is hard to swallow. Especially this is true as someone from a background of compulsive behaviors who works really hard to keep a positive attitude as a very practical shield against chronic depression. I don’t think many vices are really that dangerous to society at least as long as they are treated in a rational way, (for example prostitution versus sex slavery), but a lot of people struggle really hard to avoid compulsive behaviors and to say that that effort is futile and they would be happier indulging is a bit offensive, as is the idea that a social refuge from these things is of no value.
I think at the very bottom, if I believe in any human right it is the right to create your own narrative for your internal life. That right is at base what I think makes us human, and it means that we can think whatever we want whether it is ‘true’ or not. It means some of us are nihilists, some are narcissists, some are sadists, some are spiritual, some are humanists and some are Koolaid-drinking-sheeple. We decide our own values. I agree, stories are models and not reality, there is no cosmic punchline, but the experience of being a person and parsing that experience into a personal narrative IS reality, or at least it is moment-to-moment human existence. Until we can control people’s thoughts, the intersections of these narratives (on top of the difficulties of survival) are going to cause people pain. I am ok with that. So I guess philosophically I am cool with people agreeing that our society should make vices in general more easy and available. But I disagree that this is to its benefit on the grounds that this article puts forth. Hopefully that makes sense.
Also, I realize that nobody said that optimism should be stopped exactly, and that neither of you proposed that there should specifically be no refuge from vice for people who aren’t into it. It seemed like there was an implication that social policy that is the result of a cheery position was doing more harm than good and that this is bad. I assumed that this was intended to apply across the board and not just in specific situations. Hopefully I haven’t misunderstood. I definitely respect both of your ideas so I don’t want to be too ranty.
but a lot of people struggle really hard to avoid compulsive behaviors and to say that that effort is futile and they would be happier indulging is a bit offensive, as is the idea that a social refuge from these things is of no value
I see those more as empirical questions, and I don’t think empirical data is capable of being “offensive.”
Dob: I take your point, though I add would that I strongly suspect that given the amount of suffering in the world, greater empathy would lead to much less optimism.
Laura & Sister Y: I agree that the issue that you are discussing is empirical. Sister Y’s May 18 post on social pain as an explanans for the “irrational” behavior of people living in poverty is a good example of work in this area. As explanation it might be right or wrong, but I agree that it can’t be offensive.
Dave: Now I’m all hungry.