The Political Problem of Pornography

[ShadowsOfParadox]

If a country made such a law to help promote peace between Muslims and non-Muslims, would it be religious? I mean, it's done for the sake of promoting peace. And Muslims themselves would give reasons for supporting the ban that aren't necessarily religious, such as preventing sexual assault on women.

...apparently "Peace"="Subjugation".... interesting. As for that second one... that is LITERALLY victim blaming "She shouldn't have dressed like that".

 

[The Name of Love]

Alright. The common good will be served best by allowing individuals to make an informed decision on porn consumption (or participation) by themselves.

I disagree. I think the common good would be served best by dissuading individuals from porn consumption, whether that be through social stigmatization or state coercion. Porn is intrinsically wrong and does not contribute to the good of any one individual. Furthermore, it causes people to become irreligious while inhibiting their prospects as marriage partners. Since religion and marriage are required for the maintenance of a stable society, their removal would result in anarchy.

Why is it important for individuals to have the freedom to make the decision themselves? And is this reason more important than making sure society doesn't collapse?

You want to impose your puritanical religious and/or moral beliefs on me.

So a theocrat is just a religious person that wants the state to reflect their values? By that logic, you are a state atheist because you want a secular liberal state.

"Theocrat" is a word used by progressives in a similar way to "racist," "sexist," etc. It has no meaning other than "thing I don't like!" Unless you can prove that I literally want priests to have direct political power over you, then your calling me a theocrat is just you trying shut down any kind of conversation.

...apparently "Peace"="Subjugation".... interesting. As for that second one... that is LITERALLY victim blaming "She shouldn't have dressed like that".

It doesn't matter that you don't think they are good reasons; what matters is that they are "non-religious" reasons for supporting laws mandating that women wear burqas, proving that this entire "religious law/non-religious law" dichotomy is nonsense.

 

[LordSunhawk]

The Boot is here! In this thread! Are you not entertained? The Boot is just poking its toe in to remind everybody about the rules, since things have been getting heated without any actual violations so far (Good on you for letting the Boot rest, the polishing the Boot was getting was SO relaxing). The Boot wants to keep things that way, with everybody paying attention to Rule 2 in all of its wonderful glory.

This post from the Boot is brought to you by the letter P R E E M P T I V and E.

 

[Deleted member]

I do believe they can comport themselves in such a way, but they often choose not to for various reasons. I do think a traditionalist Christian society would have these people go and seek help from a therapist to cure them of their disorder. If there's one thing that's more harmful to a homosexual or transsexual, it's the "LGBT identity" foisted upon them by a destructive political movement looking to use them as proxy warriors. And ultimately, that's the choice all sexual deviants face: either give up their ways and embrace a life of virtue, or become proxy warriors for the Left, either unwittingly or otherwise.

As for my earlier point, I do think the anti-porn law you're referring to that is modeled based on libel laws is probably the most amenable to the fusionist ideal of "virtue must be freely chosen."

First of all, my personal compliments on handling yourself admirably in this latest round. People who are taking on six or seven opponents at once deserve admiration unconditionally.

Secondly, I feel that your attitude is not completely in line with a traditionalist society. I believe a lot of modern traditionalists don't fully appreciate just how much they are infected with bourgeoisie sentiment, and how much that they cannot escape it even when they try to. Normalising, standardising, equalising--these things stem from the same principle, and it's a corrosive one baked into modern society.

Why did traditional Napolitan society tolerate the Femminielli ?

Because that's a very interesting and salient point.

Now, that article is certainly tainted with a modern left-wing perspective. But consider what's going on here -- while taking every measure to discourage this identity, when it is adopted anyway, it is tolerated, and focused into an appropriate presentation which does not harm or otherwise negatively impact society.

This interest in the social outcomes in the organisation of traditional society reflects the crafting of a "Sattvic" or Upward society in which the whole of the society reflects an orientation toward the spiritual--while still permitting deviance within culturally established frameworks which don't impact the spiritual tendency of society as a whole. This is how a traditional society evolves naturally.

 

[ShieldWife]

First of all, my personal compliments on handling yourself admirably in this latest round. People who are taking on six or seven opponents at once deserve admiration unconditionally.

Absolutely. TNoL has taken on multiple opponents (including me) across multiple threads and has continued to make polite well reasoned arguments. He definitely deserves respect.

 

[The Name of Love]

First of all, my personal compliments on handling yourself admirably in this latest round. People who are taking on six or seven opponents at once deserve admiration unconditionally.

Absolutely. TNoL has taken on multiple opponents (including me) across multiple threads and has continued to make polite well reasoned arguments. He definitely deserves respect.

Well, I have alienated some people because I tend to mix people up or get angry at them for presuming my motives. But thank you for the complements. I think it's all a matter of thinking before you post something. If I posted the first thing I posted on here, I'd already be in violation of Rule 2. As a side note, that is actually why I quit using Twitter.

Secondly, I feel that your attitude is not completely in line with a traditionalist society. I believe a lot of modern traditionalists don't fully appreciate just how much they are infected with bourgeoisie sentiment, and how much that they cannot escape it even when they try to. Normalising, standardising, equalising--these things stem from the same principle, and it's a corrosive one baked into modern society.

I think you may have made a good point. I was once a fusionist until I started arguing with a Christian fundamentalist. Said Christian fundamentalist pointed out how corrosive and decadent a lot of traditionalist Catholic societies were, and how this was the reason why they were out-competed by Protestant countries, which had far more puritanical moral codes (the man in question was a great admirer of the Puritans). I was utterly routed in that discussion with him and had to revise my standards. I like to think I'm such a hardliner because I'm taking his critique into consideration. I'm especially hardline on this because of how disgusting a lot of modern practices are ("drag kids" anyone?).

Do you see any flaw in this reasoning?

Why did traditional Napolitan society tolerate the Femminielli ?

Because that's a very interesting and salient point.

Now, that article is certainly tainted with a modern left-wing perspective. But consider what's going on here -- while taking every measure to discourage this identity, when it is adopted anyway, it is tolerated, and focused into an appropriate presentation which does not harm or otherwise negatively impact society.

This interest in the social outcomes in the organisation of traditional society reflects the crafting of a "Sattvic" or Upward society in which the whole of the society reflects an orientation toward the spiritual--while still permitting deviance within culturally established frameworks which don't impact the spiritual tendency of society as a whole. This is how a traditional society evolves naturally.

The practice of Femminielli to me is akin to the human sacrifice practiced by the Aztecs: it is an immoral practice that has become part of custom because the society itself is decadent. This sort of thing was exactly what my Protestant friend talked about with regards to the rampant sexual immorality of Catholic societies like Italy.

Am I, as a traditionalist, supposed to defend all cultures, customs, and traditions? Even those involving sins that cry out to the heavens for vengeance? Can I not point to this custom and say "this is immoral and Italian society would be better off it were done away with"?

 

[The Name of Love]

It's been a while since I last posted, I know. But this is something I'd like to bring up to all of the people who say that banning pornography would necessitate an oppressive state apparatus: why are you not railing against the anti-child porn legislation that is already enforced with gusto?

I'd also like to ask this: does anyone here think it'd be morally wrong to ban pornography? If we could just snap our fingers like Thanos and be rid of it forever, would that be wrong in a moral way? If so, why?

 

[Bacle]

Oh ffs, really, you're going to go at this from those angles to try and justifiy your moral busybody BS?

The answer to the first is obvious: age of consent is still a thing, and you damn well know it. If a person is too young to legally consent to sex in their jurisdiction, then they obviously cannot make porn either. Those laws are not about the 'porn' aspect, they are a natural extension of the 'age of consent' laws. But I expect you already knew that, and were grasping for anything to keep this asinine argument alive.

The answer to the second is 'No, You Busybody Prude'. One, there are beautiful works of art that could be considered 'pornographic' or 'titilating', which you would erase with you 'snap'. Two, pornography is not morally wrong to either make or consume; just because some Judeo-Christian prudes have problems with it does not make it a morally wrong thing.

Why do you continue to waste time on an argument you have already lost in every way possible? Your 'porn ban' will never happen, and you need to get that through your head.

 

[Deleted member]

I think you may have made a good point. I was once a fusionist until I started arguing with a Christian fundamentalist. Said Christian fundamentalist pointed out how corrosive and decadent a lot of traditionalist Catholic societies were, and how this was the reason why they were out-competed by Protestant countries, which had far more puritanical moral codes (the man in question was a great admirer of the Puritans). I was utterly routed in that discussion with him and had to revise my standards. I like to think I'm such a hardliner because I'm taking his critique into consideration. I'm especially hardline on this because of how disgusting a lot of modern practices are ("drag kids" anyone?).

Do you see any flaw in this reasoning?

A very big one: It leads directly to Atheism. Directly. Protestantism is next to atheism. Protestantism created the modern atheistic worldview. Puritanical moral codes are part of the thought process which next leads to the denial of God. You must read René Guénon's The Crisis of the Modern World to fully understand this argument, but I at least make the assertion here and encourage you to do so; I am not the Master himself, I cannot make his argument for him, I can only repeat it and encourage you to read it at the source. Protestant cultures didn't outcompete Catholicism, they started a wildfire, a terrible wildfire which turned back on them and has destroyed them utterly and in the process almost fatally damaged the Catholic world as well. They unleashed a destructive creativity of modernism which demolished traditional society in most of the world. The "decadence" was actually wisdom, the wisdom not to disturb custom, and understand that our ancestors, closer to creation, were wiser than we are, and that practices long established should not be foolishly disturbed.

The practice of Femminielli to me is akin to the human sacrifice practiced by the Aztecs: it is an immoral practice that has become part of custom because the society itself is decadent. This sort of thing was exactly what my Protestant friend talked about with regards to the rampant sexual immorality of Catholic societies like Italy.

I would say that it is the great virtue of traditional societies, that they found a place to fit everyone in, because the condemnation of classes of people who cannot be compelled to fit in with the rest of society, and perpetuate spontaneously (like homosexuals and transsexuals, who are created by fundamental defects of the spirit which cannot be undone), is the worst kind of moral trap. Fitting them into sectors of society where they do not damage society is the traditional solution, duplicated in countless cultures around the world, and is far wiser, because it creates a moral framework in which demanding their adherence to society requires no impulsive moral guilty or shame. Puritanical laws are simply too brutal for the human spirit to impose upon your fellow citizens for sustained periods of time. The Puritan world had completely destroyed itself by the 19th century, it took only three hundred years for the descendants of Calvin to turn themselves into Unitarian Universalists. The conflict between human nature and harsh application of moral law destroyed them in the blink of an eye. There are other cultures which have maintained their customs for thousands of years ... Because Tradition provided them with safety-valves and because the system was total, integrative, it included everyone in their place.

Am I, as a traditionalist, supposed to defend all cultures, customs, and traditions? Even those involving sins that cry out to the heavens for vengeance? Can I not point to this custom and say "this is immoral and Italian society would be better off it were done away with"?

As a traditionalist you should say "our ancestors were wiser and more learned than we are, and closer to the Truth, and we should not dispense with this custom, for we may soon find ourselves with something much worse". And we did. The tighter you clench grains of sand in your fist, the faster they slip away.

As Guénon says:

Protestantism, like the modern world, is built upon mere negation, the same negation of principles that is the essence of individualism; and one can see in it one more example, and a most striking one, of the state of anarchy and dissolution that has arisen from this negation.

Once you focus on the enforcement of individual morality, you are creating a religion of individualism, and that leads to negation:

As it was impossible under such conditions to come to an agreement on doctrine, this was soon thrust into the background, and the secondary aspect of religion, namely morality, came to the fore: hence the degeneration into moralism so patent in present-day Protestantism. There thus arose a phenomenon, parallel to that to which we have referred in the case of philosophy, as an inevitable consequence of the dissolution of doctrine and the disappearance from religion of its intellectual elements. From rationalism, religion was bound to sink into sentimentalism, and it is in the Anglo-Saxon countries that the most striking examples of this are to be found.

What remains is therefore no longer even a dwindling and deformed religion, but simply 'religiosity', that is to say vague and sentimental aspirations unjustified by any real knowledge: to this final stage correspond theories such as that of the 'religious experience' of William James, which goes to the point of finding in the 'subconscious' man's means of entering into communication with the divine. At this stage the final products of religious and of philosophical decline mingle together and 'religious experience' becomes merged in pragmatism, in the name of which a limited God is stipulated as being more 'advantageous' than an infinite God, insofar as one can feel for him sentiments comparable to those one would feel for a higher man. At the same time, the appeal to the 'subconscious' joins hands with modern spiritualism and all those 'pseudo-religions' characteristic of our age. In another direction, Protestant moralism, having gradually eliminated all doctrinal basis, has ended by degenerating into what is called 'lay morality', which counts among its adherents the representatives of all the varieties of 'liberal Protestantism', as well as the open enemies of every religious idea; fundamentally, both groups are guided by the same tendencies, and the only difference is that not all go equally far in the logical development of everything that these tendencies imply. Actually, religion being essentially a form of tradition, the antitraditional outlook cannot help being anti-religious; it begins by denaturing religion and, when it can, ends by suppressing it entirely.

 

[ShieldWife]

It's been a while since I last posted, I know. But this is something I'd like to bring up to all of the people who say that banning pornography would necessitate an oppressive state apparatus: why are you not railing against the anti-child porn legislation that is already enforced with gusto?

I do understand certain laws against child pornography when the creation of that pornography involves the molestation of a real child. Anybody who participates in that, including people who financially reward its production, should be punished.

Though as Tim Pool might say, it's complicated.

I am very wary of knee-jerk reactions to child pornography or draconian measures to prosecute people for it, because they could easily be abused.

I think that simulated child pornography should be legal. This includes artwork, cartoons, very young looking adult actors, and digital alterations. I may find it distasteful, but if no minor is involved in the process, then I can't justify outlawing it.

There are other issues, like naked pictures or movies of kids that relatives might make. If some toddler is running around naked and acting adorably, we don't want to put the parents in prison and destroy the toddler's childhood because they decide to take out their cell phone and get some pictures or video of a naked kid doing cute stuff.

Also, there is the issue that people can be charged with possession or distribution of child pornography even when they are engaged in otherwise legal and relatively innocent behavior - sometimes even minors themselves. If you have a boyfriend and girlfriend, she is 17 and he is 18, then in most jurisdictions they can legally have sex. In fact in my home state, the age of consent is 16, so she could legally have sex with a man of any age. Anyway, she sends a nude picture of herself to her boyfriend, her parents discover it and call the police. The girl could be charged with distribution of child pornography, the boyfriend could be charged with possession of child pornography and he is a legal adult to boot. This young couple could theoretically spend years in prison and become second class citizens for the rest of their lives, on a sex offender registry, for sometime relatively innocent.

Also, if people can be charged with only possession of child pornography, then it is entirely possible that an innocent person might meet the legal definition of guilt even without taking any improper action. Someone could stumble across child pornography by accident or someone could send a person child pornography in order to frame them. The mere act of opening an unknown computer file could lead them to being convicted on child pornography charges. I wouldn't be surprised if such laws could, or have, been used to frame political dissidents. Just send someone the child porn file and then call the police.

When ever we consider whether or not a law should exist, we should consider what corrupt, malicious, and/or incompetent people are going to do with this law.

So for these reason, I would error on the side of not prosecuting for child pornography alone, though the child pornography could act as evidence for prosecuting the child pornographers if it can be proven that they abused a child.

I'd also like to ask this: does anyone here think it'd be morally wrong to ban pornography? If we could just snap our fingers like Thanos and be rid of it forever, would that be wrong in a moral way? If so, why?

I wouldn't do that. I don't feel like I have the right to force my preferences on everybody in the world. I don't think that pornography is universally bad, though even if I did, I would feel uncomfortable using such cosmic power to control the lives of others to that extent.

 

[Deleted member]

...apparently "Peace"="Subjugation".... interesting. As for that second one... that is LITERALLY victim blaming "She shouldn't have dressed like that".

Women shouldn't dress like that. That doesn't excuse male behaviour, but society long ago found a solution to allow us to overcome our base, animalistic impulses, and it was called "modest dress and comportment".

 

[Bacle]

Women shouldn't dress like that. That doesn't excuse male behaviour, but society long ago found a solution to allow us to overcome our base, animalistic impulses, and it was called "modest dress and comportment".

Did you even read the exchange that preceded that post?

Can you give an example of what you'd consider to be a religious law? Your definitions seem to be unhelpful.

requiring a woman to wear a burqa.

If a country made such a law to help promote peace between Muslims and non-Muslims, would it be religious? I mean, it's done for the sake of promoting peace. And Muslims themselves would give reasons for supporting the ban that aren't necessarily religious, such as preventing sexual assault on women. So is it not a "religious law" anymore?

See, this is what I have a problem with. This entire concept of "religious laws" is kind of vague. Instead of speaking in terms of "secular" or "religious" as if we can actually separate the two, let us instead talk about the common good - that is, what is good for everyone.

...apparently "Peace"="Subjugation".... interesting. As for that second one... that is LITERALLY victim blaming "She shouldn't have dressed like that".

Here they are discussing non-Muslim women being forced to were a burqa in the name of 'peace' as an example of a 'religious' law.

It has nothing at all to do with 'modesty' and everything to do with religious people forcing their laws on people of other religions.

And the 'modesty' that you are going on about is an artifact of Judeo-Christian/Muslim views on the human body/nudity as a shameful thing. There are plenty of societies which did not follow those views on 'modesty', but yet did not devolve into continuous rape and 'debauchery' simply because people were not wearing/acting with 'modest' clothing or deportment.

Edit: This thread has been a continuous reminder that moral busybodies on both sides want to shove their views on everyone else, only difference is which philosophical end of the spectrum they are using to justify it.

 

[Deleted member]

Did you even read the exchange that preceded that post?





Here they are discussing non-Muslim women being forced to were a burqa in the name of 'peace' as an example of a 'religious' law.

It has nothing at all to do with 'modesty' and everything to do with religious people forcing their laws on people of other religions.

And the 'modesty' that you are going on about is an artifact of Judeo-Christian/Muslim views on the human body/nudity as a shameful thing. There are plenty of societies which did not follow those views on 'modesty', but yet did not devolve into continuous rape and 'debauchery' simply because people were not wearing/acting with 'modest' clothing or deportment.

Yes, I read it, and you're simply wrong. Modest dress was an expectation in many societies which had sacral temple prostitutes. Essentially every society in the world has a standard of modest dress and comportment, even if it varies according to history, culture, custom and climate, and violating those rules is considered in bad taste at best. I dressed according to local standards of modesty in Thailand just as I uphold the standards of the rural conservative West in my personal dress in the United States, since that's the society and culture I was raised into. Again, this is nothing about the sacred nature of eroticism, of which there is no doubt in any religious tradition. Indeed, as I have argued on this website before, to be modest in your comportment is to use your sexual power wisely instead of being a spendthrift.

 

[Bacle]

Yes, I read it, and you're simply wrong. Modest dress was an expectation in many societies which had sacral temple prostitutes. Essentially every society in the world has a standard of modest dress and comportment, even if it varies according to history, culture, custom and climate, and violating those rules is considered in bad taste at best. I dressed according to local standards of modesty in Thailand just as I uphold the standards of the rural conservative West in my personal dress in the United States, since that's the society and culture I was raised into. Again, this is nothing about the sacred nature of eroticism, of which there is no doubt in any religious tradition. Indeed, as I have argued on this website before, to be modest in your comportment is to use your sexual power wisely instead of being a spendthrift.

And what of those societies that do not think the human body needs to be covered?

Say what you will about some tribal societies, but there are ones that have been able to go basically completely nude and still function. The 'modesty' you are arguing for basically doesn't exist in those, yet they still function without falling into rape epidemics and 'debauchery'.

Or do you think missionaries are right to try to force newly contacted or existing tribes to wear clothing, simply because they're background sees human nudity as a bad thing and the tribal's do not?

 

[Deleted member]

And what of those societies that do not think the human body needs to be covered?

Say what you will about some tribal societies, but there are ones that have been able to go basically completely nude and still function. The 'modesty' you are arguing for basically doesn't exist in those, yet they still function without falling into rape epidemics and 'debauchery'.

Or do you think missionaries are right to try to force newly contacted or existing tribes to wear clothing, simply because they're background sees human nudity as a bad thing and the tribal's do not?

If you fail to wear a loincloth in Polynesia or for a man, a penis-gourd in the Papuan Highlands, you are violating modesty. They naturally have developed a more congenial culture to nudity because of the pressure of climate. We are not Polynesians or Papuans. That is not our custom.

 

[Bacle]

If you fail to wear a loincloth in Polynesia or for a man, a penis-gourd in the Papuan Highlands, you are violating modesty. They naturally have developed a more congenial culture to nudity because of the pressure of climate. We are not Polynesians or Papuans. That is not our custom.

What of the entirely nude tribes found in, say, the Amazon?

And whether it is our custom or not has no relevance to the question I asked, which gets to the heart of this whole 'modesty' bit.

Are missionaries who seek out those sorts of tribes, and try to force western views of what is 'modest' onto them, in the right?

 

[Lanmandragon]

Women shouldn't dress like that. That doesn't excuse male behaviour, but society long ago found a solution to allow us to overcome our base, animalistic impulses, and it was called "modest dress and comportment".

Big old difference between dressing modestly and wearing a garbage bag.

 

[Deleted member]

Big old difference between dressing modestly and wearing a garbage bag.

Oh, certainly! Before Wahhabism came along, women in Arabia wore much nicer clothes:

One is a puritanical excession, the other, what you see here, is tradition.

 

[Deleted member]

What of the entirely nude tribes found in, say, the Amazon?

They certainly have very strict standards of behaviour around sexuality, collectively called taboo in Polynesian societies. Also we have evidence that the Amazon is essentially a post-apocalyptic wasteland, so I am not sure how typical it is.

And whether it is our custom or not has no relevance to the question I asked, which gets to the heart of this whole 'modesty' bit.

Are missionaries who seek out those sorts of tribes, and try to force western views of what is 'modest' onto them, in the right?

As part of encouraging Christianity, they do have the right to also teach Christian standards of modest dress... But once an established Christian Church exists in those places, it has every right to modify those standards according to local tradition and interpretation of the Bible and the examples of the Saints. Perhaps a perfectly modest Christian society wearing only tank-tops and short skirts and for men, shorts, could exist in Polynesia for instance. They don't have the right to force their views on anyone, however, that was wrong of them.

 

[The Name of Love]

The answer to the first is obvious: age of consent is still a thing, and you damn well know it. If a person is too young to legally consent to sex in their jurisdiction, then they obviously cannot make porn either. Those laws are not about the 'porn' aspect, they are a natural extension of the 'age of consent' laws. But I expect you already knew that, and were grasping for anything to keep this asinine argument alive.

To enforce "age of consent" laws requires an oppressive state apparatus. Therefore, you aren't actually against such "oppression" when it's your morals on the line.

The answer to the second is 'No, You Busybody Prude'. One, there are beautiful works of art that could be considered 'pornographic' or 'titilating', which you would erase with you 'snap'. Two, pornography is not morally wrong to either make or consume; just because some Judeo-Christian prudes have problems with it does not make it a morally wrong thing.

If there does exist pornography that is beautiful, it'd be like a beautiful woman whose heart is wicked; the beauty only serves evil.

Also "porn is not wrong because I don't have a problem with it" is not a good moral argument. But the reason I asked that question to differentiate between people who, like me, see the problems with porn but may disagree with me on how best to solve them, and people like you who see nothing wrong with it.

Oh ffs, really, you're going to go at this from those angles to try and justifiy your moral busybody BS?

Why do you continue to waste time on an argument you have already lost in every way possible? Your 'porn ban' will never happen, and you need to get that through your head.

This isn't a good look for you. How about, instead of acting offended that I dared have a different opinion, you tone down the insults and discuss things with me like an adult? Alternatively, you can continue to make petty attacks at me so that I can block you. Your choice.

A very big one: It leads directly to Atheism. Directly. Protestantism is next to atheism. Protestantism created the modern atheistic worldview. Puritanical moral codes are part of the thought process which next leads to the denial of God. You must read René Guénon's The Crisis of the Modern World to fully understand this argument, but I at least make the assertion here and encourage you to do so; I am not the Master himself, I cannot make his argument for him, I can only repeat it and encourage you to read it at the source. Protestant cultures didn't outcompete Catholicism, they started a wildfire, a terrible wildfire which turned back on them and has destroyed them utterly and in the process almost fatally damaged the Catholic world as well. They unleashed a destructive creativity of modernism which demolished traditional society in most of the world. The "decadence" was actually wisdom, the wisdom not to disturb custom, and understand that our ancestors, closer to creation, were wiser than we are, and that practices long established should not be foolishly disturbed.

One of the most tired tropes I hear is how Protestants created the modern world, and if all of Europe were still Catholic, then there wouldn't be problems. This ignores how many of the modern mistakes in intellectual philosophy originated Catholic thinkers like William of Ockham and Rene Descartes; it ignores the role Catholic repression the Leftist uprising in Catholic countries like France; and it ignores the special role non-Christian religions like Freemasonry and Judaism played in bringing about the modern world. Ultimately, the problems of modernity are the fault of the Catholic Church because they were the ones in power at that time, so they have the ultimate responsibility for not handling the problems. This entire "blame the Protestant" narrative comes from disgruntled reactionaries that are jealous that their preferred regimes (such as Prussia or the fascist states or the ancien regime) collapsed under their own weight. To me, they are throwing stones through glass houses. The blame for Atheism is not found in the contradictions of Protestantism (for every false religion must lead to Atheism), but the failure of Catholicism. Only when we Catholics are able to accept modernity as a result of our failures will be able to avoid making that mistake.

I apologize for the small rant, but I hear too much of this cliché within traditionalist Catholic circles, and I am tired of it.

I would say that it is the great virtue of traditional societies, that they found a place to fit everyone in, because the condemnation of classes of people who cannot be compelled to fit in with the rest of society, and perpetuate spontaneously (like homosexuals and transsexuals, who are created by fundamental defects of the spirit which cannot be undone), is the worst kind of moral trap. Fitting them into sectors of society where they do not damage society is the traditional solution, duplicated in countless cultures around the world, and is far wiser, because it creates a moral framework in which demanding their adherence to society requires no impulsive moral guilty or shame. Puritanical laws are simply too brutal for the human spirit to impose upon your fellow citizens for sustained periods of time. The Puritan world had completely destroyed itself by the 19th century, it took only three hundred years for the descendants of Calvin to turn themselves into Unitarian Universalists. The conflict between human nature and harsh application of moral law destroyed them in the blink of an eye. There are other cultures which have maintained their customs for thousands of years ... Because Tradition provided them with safety-valves and because the system was total, integrative, it included everyone in their place.

I understand where you're coming from: such safety-valves in traditionalist societies have served the wider order of things. I fail to see how a custom that encourages mental illness in the population could act as that safety valve though. Similarly, I don't see how a traditionalist could defend the current state of affairs involving more and more young men masturbating their lives away. I see that as a problem that needs addressing, and the best way I think to deal with an addiction is to use coercion. If people hit rock-bottom because they get in trouble with the law, then they will be forced to re-evaluate their life choices.

--------------------------------------------

Also, with regards to @Bacle and @Captain-General's discussion over the burkha. The entire point I was actually making was showing how any so-called "religious law" could have a "secular" function (because said secular function is stated within the religion in question), thus showing the entire religious law/secular law dichotomy to be a false one. The discussion of whether the actual argument ("women ought to wear burkhas to not tempt men") is a good one is entirely irrelevant to my actual point.

--------------------------------------------

I do understand certain laws against child pornography when the creation of that pornography involves the molestation of a real child. Anybody who participates in that, including people who financially reward its production, should be punished.

I'm glad you agree with me. But ShieldWife, banning child porn involves a state apparatus invading people's privacy. Such a thing can be used for evil. You wouldn't want a state apparatus to do such a thing, right?

I wouldn't do that. I don't feel like I have the right to force my preferences on everybody in the world. I don't think that pornography is universally bad, though even if I did, I would feel uncomfortable using such cosmic power to control the lives of others to that extent.

I don't share your discomfort. Anti-child porn laws already control people's lives to such an extent. There's no reason why just expanding the scope of such an apparatus would be any more harmful.