1965 anti-porn propaganda opens with the exact same arguments anti-porn feminists, anti-porn nuero”scientists” and more make today, thinking their argument of distribution is novel. The other arguments are all the same, too - only the homosexual aspect has been largely (though not totally) dropped.
Almost no arguments against porn are thoughtful, complete, or worthwhile.
Camille Paglia, from her excellent new essay on how academia distorts and dilutes sex and kink. In it, she also says, rightly, ”…natural voices (about sex and kink) have been squelched by the dreary protocols of gender studies.”
“I would venture to say we cannot prove anything by one experiment or even several experiments together, that nothing is more dangerous than the desire to prove some thesis directly through experiments…. Every piece of empirical evidence we find, every experiment in which this evidence is repeated, really represents just one part of what we know…. Every piece of empirical evidence, every experiment, must be viewed as isolated, yet the human faculty of thought forcibly strives to unite all external objects known to it….
We often find that the more limited the data, the more artful a gifted thinker will become. As though to assert his sovereignty he chooses a few agreeable favorites from the limited number of facts and skillfully marshals the rest so they never contradict him directly. Finally he is able to confuse, entangle, or push aside the opposing facts and reduce the whole to something more like the court of a despot than a freely constituted republic.”
Johann Wolfgang von Goethe - writer and scientist, from ““The Experiment as Mediator Between Object and Subject”
Michel Serres, philosopher
If the organism is a whole and each section of it functions normally within that whole, then in the analytic experiment, which isolates the sections as it studies them, the properties and functions of any part must be modified by their isolation from the whole of the organism.
Thus, they cannot reveal the function of these parts in normal life.
There are innumerable facts which demonstrate how the functioning of a field is changed by its isolation. If we want to use the results of such experiments for understanding the activity of the organism in normal life (that is, as a whole), we must know in what way the condition of isolation modifies the functioning, and we must take these modifications into account.
We have every reason to occupy ourselves very carefully with this condition of isolation.”
Kurt Goldstein (1878 - 1965) from The Organism.
Goldstein was a neurologist and philosopher.
Above, Goldstein is trying to show that dissecting something - whether an animal or an idea, and isolating one aspect of it (examining the evolution of an animal by consider how a certain part of its body evolved, for example. or pulling the DNA out of a mouse to learn about mouse genetics) disrupts the very thing we seek to study and learn about - the whole organism or the whole phenomenon.
To pull a petal off a flower creates a dead petal. We can study it, but we must be cognizant that it is not a part of the dynamic whole of the flower anymore. So we must at the same time observe how the isolation changes the subject we’re studying at the same time as studying the subject itself.