Porn Doesn't Rape People

The First Amendment is not in that order by coincident. And that it covers speech (the amendment was delivered by Madison in written form), as the spoken and written word, assembly, religion, press, and petition also are important to remember. These were the very first consideration by Madison perhaps because they are the only way to effectively control the government without tossing it out and beginning again (i.e., revolution and/or insurrection). These provide the common person a way to be heard and to hear about what is going on that will affect him.

Another reason that Madison was willing to go head to head with Jefferson on the issue of the need to amend the Constitution and chose these five freedoms as the first (and thus by implication, the most important) was the times. This was the end of the Renascence, which had begun in Italy and spread through Europe to the British Isles before jumping across the Atlantic. Interestingly, the focus of thought was art and science at first, but had changed to religion and the social sciences or government by the time the great upheaval of ideas reached the new world. Have no doubt, this idea of a government of, by, and for the people was British and herein may lie a problem...the class system and the reaction to that social structure.

Many of the brilliant minds that were caught up in the tide, also were sexually outside the professed norm of their times. That Franklin enjoyed the company of ladies (a womanizer) and that Jefferson had a long established relationship with a slave are but two examples. Although denied by the trustees at Mount Vernon, we have the persistent rumor of the Father of Our Country catching the cold that progressed into grip (a choking sore throat) when he slipped from the mansion to the slave quarters one "dark and stormy night."

Hamilton and Burr had differences over wives that led to a duel in which Hamilton was murdered. I can't imagine that most of these men didn't commit some act of sexual gratification that our current regime wouldn't find morally repugnant...at least from a public political perspective.

Madison was a man of his times. Despite the rhetoric and intentions, a "man" meant a human of the white (Caucasian) race who owned land or had at least a moderate amount of wealth. Even within a single family, the first son by right took all the land, money, and power (title). Society was exclusive and structured by class. To "free slaves" was thinking outside of the box. Much too far outside the box for consideration. There were "free white men" who were bound into almost as much servitude. To even consider women capable of serious thought was counter to accepted thinking of the times despite contributions from such beacons of brilliance as Dolley and Abigail Adams.

Slaves were not actually considered simply in a different class of citizen or human living in the land (as was the case in Classic and Biblical times), but were considered a form of human sub-species, inferior to the white ruling prime-species. Even in this pre-Darwinian age, perhaps to justify the unspeakable horror of slavery in the country, the assumption was that this "sub-species" was incapable of any but the most rudimentary of thinking. Perhaps it is this consideration of non-humanness between races that is so titillating sexually for some people today...a hint of the bestiality taboo. Laws later reflected the thought of the delicate nature of the precious "white" blood in that 1/64 would contaminate to the point of uselessness for social purposes. Of course at the beginning of the Renaissance, men were being excommunicated for their views on the number of angels that could dance on the head of a pin.

Interestingly, Native Americans were not considered at all, even to be as animals.

Madison was, in his way, attempting to protect not only the governed, but also the government from itself. He proposed to do this by allowing...mandating even, an openness that had time and again been crushed by those in power. (Gee, why does that sound familiar?)

So...how far we as a people, as a government have come. If I may paraphrase Larry Flint, "If I am allowed to say this, then how much safer (from the government) is what you want to say?"

Another quote drifts across my mind, "Guns don't kill people, people do." Is it such a stretch to hold people responsible for their crimes of violence and perversion...and not to focus on the messages themselves? Or do we give ideas and guns equal power? Finally, when two ideas are fairly and equally presented, doesn't the better prevail?

These freedoms are much like sexual stamina in that we either "use it or lose it."

So whether you agree or not...let me know.

It seems to me that pornography is most often the signs sexual stimulation that are seen on the countenances of people (mostly men) viewing the horrors...of war...torture, public decapitation and dismemberment, flogging, stoning, child sexual slavery, genocide...to simple child malnutrition that stunts brain development. Of course, I'm not speaking here about America...am I?

Pornography is about the abuse of power...not consensual pleasure. The forcing of prisoners to crawl naked while led on a leash is not about sex. It looks like a sexual act, but it is the shadow of one. Torture, genital mutilation, tattooing, branding are not sexual acts...these are expressions of power and possession. Any appearance of these and other such acts being sexual are shadows.

This does not suggest that any of the above cannot have a symbolic element in a sexual relationship. The key is the power factor. Money, it has been said, is power. In many ways these two are indistinguishable.

When the censorship of free speech, no matter in what form, no matter how extreme it may seem becomes a question, we are wise to question the power motive.