Δαφνη Ευτυχια Αρθουρος

From "10 Ideas for 2008":

Practice this line: "You keep saying 'morality' but really you're just talking about sex." Homosexuality, promiscuity, and obscenity are just sexual issues. Even abortion turns into a sexual issue if your real goal is punishing promiscuity rather than saving fetuses.

Sex barely scratches the surface of morality. If your moral code instructs you to bring honesty, integrity, and compassion into all your human relationships, it's not clear that you need any special rules about sex at all. When Jesus listed the admission standards for Christians to get into Heaven (Matthew 25), not one of them concerned sex. The key idea was "Who did you help?" not "Who did you sleep with?"

We shouldn't abandon the word morality to the neo-Puritans."

-- Pericles of DailyKos, 2004-11-29

Thoughts on watching the noon news on the telly

1) That piece about how there is "a deeper divide in our country than that between Democrats and Republicans" and drawing all sorts of Great Significance from the decision whether to put up a real or artificial Christmas tree ... look, that would've been pretty cool on Saturday Night Live or in The Onion, or even if they'd pushed it the tiny bit farther to make it obvious it was a joke, but as it was it just pissed me off. It sounded as though the reporter actually believed that people who put up artificial trees are ANTI-TRADITION, for example ('Scuse me? Wouldn't anti-traditionalist Christians just not put up any tree at all?), or that nobody decides year by year which type of tree to use. Either that the reporter (and apparently the editors/producers) believe these things, or that they believe they can "sell" the story so as to make their audience believe that the Eternal Struggle Between Tree Growers And Tree Manufacturers is a bigger deal than the issues that actually affect how we vote.

I'll cut them some slack for conveniently forgetting that not all Americans celebrate Christmas. First off, it was a Christmas story specifically, and secondly, between the Christians, the apathists and agnostics who follow our traditions lemminglike without thinking about them, the agnostics and atheists who play along consciously because it's the dominant cultural meme and deliberately ignore the religious aspects, and the capitalists who stand to make money by keeping Christmas as big a deal as possible, it's a good bet that an overwhelming majority of their audience identifies with some aspect of the story.

But it smells like a conspiracy to me. No, not a Federal "please air stories that distract your audience from the real issues they might otherwise protest, write letters, or vote about" conspiracy, as tempting as it is to cast it in such a light. More likely the local "This tree-farmer (or tree-merchant) I drink with occasionally was complaining about the popularity of artificial trees, and asked me to do a story that plays up the Traditional, Wholesome, Values-Oriented, Did I Mention Wholesome memes on behalf of real trees" conspiracy. Oh, but it's probably simpler than that. It's probably a "make this molehill big enough to hold someone's attention long enough to get to the commercial" thing.

2) Wow, yeah, I can see what that ... uh, one of the groups with "family" in their name as a euphemism for something else ... group wants people to boycott Target. I mean hey, if they're singling out the Salvation Army to kick the bell-ringers away from their stores, why that's mean and unfair and anti... Oh, what? They're not singling out the Salvation Army? They're just telling them they now have to play by the same rules as everyone else after having gotten special treatment before? The company says, "because it would be unfair to other charitable organizations" to give special treatment to the Salvation Army? How ... blatantly ... uh ... un-unfair?

Note, of course, that in light of the stunning quality journalism in the tree story, I'm not actually counting on the television news to be giving me more than 10% of the story here, so there may be important details I'm missing, but that's the impression I've gotten so far. Anyone else have information to change that impression?

Thoughts on the much-discussed "erototoxin" BS

"Pornography really does, unlike other addictions, biologically cause direct release of the most perfect addictive substance" (opioids naturally produced by the brain -- in fact, the ranter quoted use the phrase "naturally occurring" later in the quote).

*ahem* So does dessert.

This, if nothing else, demonstrates that intentionally or otherwise, these people are Anti-Pleasure, not even limited to being anti-sex, much less confined to anti-porn. Do something your body likes, you get endorphins. Do something your body needs to protect you from the pain of, you get endorphins. What is a "runner's high"? What endorphins are released during masturbation (the <<shudder>> great evil that results from porn) that are not released during sex in the dark in the missionary position with one's lawfully wedded spouse? <snark> Uh, assuming either partner is any good at it... </snark>

Logically, if they're going to justify an anti-porn position on the basis that it leads to the release of endorphins, then they need to ban soccer. And comedy. And dessert.

Many years ago I was thinking about the differences between "drug use" and "drug abuse", and what the phrase "recreational drugs" meant, especially since many abused drugs are also used medically. And I was struck with the realization that it basically comes down to this: a recreational drug is a substance which, when taken into the body, produces pleasurable changes in brain chemistry, and is being taken for that reason and not for medicinal purposes.

Now pretty much anything we enjoy will produce some pleasurable changes in brain chemistry. But dinner is not a recreational drug because the pleasure can be construed as a side-effect if you consider the primary intent of dinner to be nourishment and therefore a medical purpose[*]. Dessert, on the other hand, is the "just for fun" -- i.e., just for the pleasure -- after-dinner dish, and is quite often not even good for you medically at all. So dessert is a substance taken into the body for the explicit purpose of producing pleasurable changes in brain chemistry, not for medicinal purposes.

Ergo, dessert is a recreational drug.

Obviously, not all recreational drugs are intrinsically Bad Things, though all are subject to possible abuse and some are more dangerous (in different ways) than others. And obviously, some substances jump between the medicinal drug and recreational drug categories depending on the intent of the user. When I take chocolate for its medicinal effects, the pleasant taste is a side effect. When I eat good chocolate and savor it, any medicinal effects are the side effects and the intended effect is recreational.

(Note that this is an academic argument -- when discussing the essential nature of recreational drugs, dessert is a drug. When questioned by a doctor or a potential employer about drugs, I mention chocolate because I use so much of it, but I don't bother to list cheesecake and apple pie because I don't have a pie habit. Though I'm starting to wonder whether I should list capsaicin as well.)

But I digress. Today's point is that the "OhmyGodpornleadstomasturbationwhichleadstoENDORPHINS" horror reveals that these people are at their core anti-pleasure and/or [expletive]ing ignorant. If I had to put money on it, I'd bet on "both". Call 'em on it. Point out that by their logic they have to ban jogging. And singing hymns in large groups. And Tex-Mex food. And apple pie.

Then there's this whole "pornographic images stay in the brain forever" thing ... that's the nature of memes in general. You can change your mind, but it's pretty damned hard to unthink an idea, to unimagine something, or to unhear a statement. But I think I'll save the rest of that train of thought for a separate rant, later.

[*] Yes, I'm oversimplifying hugely by pretending for the sake of argument that dinner is nothing more than a refueling stop. The point is that one can argue that dinner is medically neccesary and ignore the spiritual and psychological benefits of enjoying a good meal and bonding with friends and family around the table. Dinner can be completely medicinal in intent even if in an ideal world it ought not to be. (Dessert, by its nature, doesn't get that excuse in an anti-pleasure analysis.) Part of the problem we have in addressing certain types of issues is that we tend to draw false dichotomies and pile things on one side or another of some imagined and arbitrary line, then try to make judgements or pass laws based on "this side good, that side evil". I hope that my portrayal of dinner as medically utilitarian, and the expected reaction of "but a good meal should be more than that!" will, in addition to helping define "recreational drugs", also encourage people to see past "if it's this then it can't be that" thinking that we so often fail to question. One must eat, but if one chooses to go out for fine food with good friends instead of downing a can of Slim-Fast, does that make dinner purely recreational, or is it recreational in addition to being medical?