26 July 2010

Like Cornography but with a P

Evidently the number of corn but with a P websites on the Internet number high in the millions. I don't want to spell cornography with a P because it will result in no end of unwanted everything. So many many others have estimated the number of corn sites with numbers that defy imagination. What can we imagine as corn with a P anyway? And what's wrong with corn with a P, by the way, you might ask. If you have to ask, you haven't been paying attention.

Some may have to ask and want to know first what corn with a P is--how do we know it's corn with P? Do we answer, well, we can't define it, but we know it when we see it?

I believe the definition stands to reason. And reason lurks well beyond the corn with a P fan's ability. The surgeon general has a warning on cigarrettes that tells people smoking causes problems for their health. We know it can cause early death and lots of pain. But people smoke anyway. We don't, these days, allow them to smoke in public places. Why? Because it takes away the rights others have to not have their safety and health endangered by nincompoops. Same with corn spelled with a P. Science tells us that corn with a P is dangerous. Harms people. Demeans people. Uses people. Treats human beings as objects rather than persons.

What can lower the esteem and worth and value of a person more than being used for the sheer pleasure of others? Do we have a right to treat others badly? Even if they allow us to treat them badly? What if we pay them cash money to let us treat them badly, lower their worth as human beings? What role do we play in stopping others from treating people badly?

If studies prove absolutely that having a value only for the pleasure of someone else, harms an individual, stunts the ability to form relationships, permeates the very soul of a person who is treated as an object such that he/she fails to see the "self" as worthy of love, would we be horrified? Especially if the object of pleasure has not had time to develop, say, beyond childhood, would we be horrified? Most of us would be. The 21st century corn sources have gone beyond magazines for men, hidden in the garage or bottom drawer. They exist as sexually explicit images, text, and everything in between or in combination all over the Internet and elsewhere. Who dares complain about it? Lest they be called closed minded. Criticized for being prudish. Labeled as uptight. Accused of restraining the artist with a message. Damned for violating the rights of someone else's freedom of speech.

What happened to the right of each human being to be a person, respected for being an individual with value and worth well beyond the pleasure they offer others?

No comments: