Pornography, contempt, and aggression. The West becoming like Islam ?

In my previous article I quote Ely Harman who notes that  "There are some specific causal reasons to suppose that Muslims, and particularly recent immigrants from Muslim countries, are especially violent, criminal, and prone to rape and sexual assault."

He mentions three. One is that a large portion of Islamic men, because of polygamy, are denied access to women and sex, and this breeds a large amount of sexual frustration that can erupt in violence. In my previous post I note that something similar is happening with Western men.

Here I'd like to take a look at Harman's second reason for Islamic violence against women :

"2) Strict sexual morality and modesty. According to prevailing standards in those lands, western women (who are already other, and infidel and therefore unworthy of full moral protection) are also licentious, immodest, whores, lacking in virtue or dignity. Why not rape them?"

Do we not see this contempt for woman, in our advertising and society, also at work in the West ? Of course, as the original feminists argued, pornography has become rampant in society, and it influences men toward ever greater extremes in sexual excitement.

The great cultural critic Chistopher Lasch astutely notes:

‘Democracy and feminism have now stripped the veil of courtly convention from the subordination of women, revealing the sexual antagonisms formerly concealed by the “feminine mystique”. Denied illusions of comity, men and women find it more difficult than before to confront each other as friends and lovers, let alone as equals. As male supremacy becomes ideologically untenable, incapable of justifying itself as protection, men assert their domination more directly, in fantasies and occasionally in acts of raw violence. Thus the treatment of women in movies, according to one study, has shifted “from reverence to rape”.’


Aaron Kheriaty, MD, Associate Clinical Professor of Psychiatry and Director of the Program in Medical Ethics at the University of California Irvine School of Medicine, researches how BSDM, popularized by 50 shades of gray , and now widley experimented with by college kids, effects our sexuality says :

“With BDSM, a person is fusing distinct neural networks that were meant to operate separately.

Sexual Arousal, Aggression, and Fear.

These distinct neural networks and brain maps become fused according to Hebb’s principle: neurons that fire together wire together. Once this happens, aggression automatically triggers sexual arousal. Or fear and anxiety automatically trigger sexual interest.”


Feminist Katrina Forrester has written :

“The feminist campaigns of the seventies against rape and violence against women condemned pornography not on the ground of obscenity but on the ground of harm. It wasn’t a private matter but a political expression of male power. As MacKinnon wrote, with the anti-pornography feminist Andrea Dworkin, pornography was “the graphic sexually explicit subordination of women.” Dworkin described it as a form of sexual slavery.

“Lovelace was her slave name,” the protest banners of anti-pornography feminists read, after Lovelace published her memoir, “Ordeal,” in 1980. Pornography, they said, sexualized subordination, dehumanized women, and tricked them into objectifying themselves to please men. Not only did it depict and provoke violence but it was, in itself, a violent act, committed not just against the women involved in its making but against all women.

“Our flesh arrives to us out of history, like everything else does,” Angela Carter wrote. “We may believe we fuck stripped of social artifice; in bed, we even feel we touch the bedrock of human nature itself. But we are deceived.” Today, our flesh comes to us from the Internet, and not only what we consume but how we consume has changed since the porn wars. Porn is abundantly more, in every way: there are more people, more acts, more clips, more categories. It has permeated everyday life, to the point where we talk easily of food porn, disaster porn, war porn, real-estate porn—not because culture has been sexualized, or sex pornified, but because porn’s patterns of excess, fantasy, desire, and shame are so familiar.

Pornography isn’t hermetically sealed from the rest of culture, and today it sits on a continuum with other problems of technology that we don’t yet know how to address.”

Of course our pop culture degrades both sex and women :

“....we debase sex—we debase ourselves—when we treat it as a game or an entertainment.

The word "slut" indirectly expresses this traditional view. It is a term of derision. It suggests contempt for the woman who treats sex, and herself, so carelessly. It suggests that she lacks self-respect and deserves no respect from others. The connection between sexual licentiousness and contempt for women is certainly not unique to the boys in that high school. The culture of promiscuity is nowhere celebrated more than in certain kinds of rap music, and no other kind of music is so saturated in contempt for the women that it views as nothing more than sexual playthings,” saysCarson Holloway.

It’s also tied to human trafficking as this recent article points out :

Saner people will point out the obvious: if you sexualize a culture, and deconstruct sex from a sacred role, you’ve created an addiction to sex and a culture of permissiveness where rape and slavery soon get normed:

“We really need to end the demand for this. Guys in our city, guys in our state, thinking that this is a normal thing — that it’s normal to go to a sex club, it’s normal to call an escort service. Those are the things that really prompt a lot of this demand for children, for young prostituted girls — it’s this demand that we perceive as normal in the city of Houston that really is not normal.”

http://uaht.org/kuhf-human-trafficking-houstons-hidden-problem/ 

And as marriage is dissolved relationships become unstable, messy, emotions run high when it comes to sex freed from the "constrictions" of traditional marriage, from Charles E. Corry, Ph.D. :

“The available evidence shows that many seriously-assaulted women are "shacking-up" with their boyfriend and that "domestic violence" should really be referred to as "shack-up violence" in at least half the cases. That is also the case with child abuse.”

John Maguire has pointed out that:

"Although the words 'domestic' violence are commonly used, some commentators say that a better description would be 'shack-up' violence, because violence is most common, especially where children are involved where the woman is living with a boy friend. In a piece in the Weekly Standard last December by John A. Barnes, he cited four studies which show 'that the incidence of abuse was an astounding 33 times higher in homes where the mother was cohabiting with an unrelated boyfriend than in a stable nuclear family.'"

In examining the influences of race, ethnicity, gender, and place, Lauritsen and White (2001, p. 53) state that: "...the proportion of households with children that are female-headed was the strongest and most consistent community predictor of risk for all forms of violence."

If your curious how feminism brought us to this dark state, see here :