In the 1990s some thought Eminem should be banned. In the 1980s it was The Beastie Boys and ‘video nasties’. There’s a new threat to the moral fabric of society every few years.
There have been many ‘threats’ to the moral fabric of society. Blacks marrying whites was one of them; same sex marriage was one of them.
Who could watch the debate between Douglas Wilson and Andrew Sullivan and not wince with embarrassment when Mr Wilson was asked to point to one bad thing in society which had happened as a direct result of same-sex marriage in some states of the USA? He couldn’t do it because there was nothing.
When will humans realise that what they argue for on grounds of ‘decency’ or ‘obscenity’ is no more than their personal preference or a form of denial. There is no objective measure of what is ‘obscene’ – therefore it is always a matter of personal taste.
And yet self-important, repressed posers continue to give themselves little injections of superiority by pretending they are oh-so-sensitive to literature, art and are refined in their tastes in matters of sex.
Isn’t it odd how many humans who are passionate about things such as diversity and tolerance are oddly intolerant about diversity of opinion?
It’s almost as if a person who is intolerant (and jolly well knows it) chooses to disguise themselves as tolerant because the disguise is the opposite of their true nature.
Given this well-recorded psychological phenomenon, what could be said of all those persons who strongly object to the ‘shameful’ idea of anal penetration and pornography and all the rest?
Could it be that a person who rails against a behaviour might secretly want to engage in that behaviour?
There are no ‘filthy words’ – only words. The ‘filth’ is projected (imagined) onto them.
If a person doesn’t think novels should be banned (and they shouldn’t, ever) then it was the Chatterley ban which was an obscenity – not the book.