Professorial Purveyors of Porn

America’s universities are becoming increasingly pornified. College professors are offering more and more courses in pornography and students seem to be signing up for them.

It beats literature and art history.

A Christian website called The World says:

A growing number of scholars are pushing the study of porn in a variety of academic fields, from literature to film, law to technology, and anthropology to women’s studies. Last year, 50 schools offered courses that included in-depth pornography content. The list of schools promoting porn in the classroom includes many of the nation’s most prestigious secular colleges-NYU, Yale, Harvard, Columbia and Berkeley.

The Blaze reports that students and faculty rationalize it by defining pornography as art:

Despite some push-back against porn in the classroom, many students embrace it — as do their faculty — as a form of art.

For reasons that are too easy to understand, these supposedly educated individuals cannot tell the difference between pornography whose purpose is to elevate the genitalia and art whose purpose is to elevate the soul.

This tells us the real reason why professors are inducing their students to watch porn: that’s all they know. If they had been called upon to teach serious art or literature they would be lost.

Professors compensate for their intellectual inferiority by teaching a subject that will distract students to the point where they will not notice that they are not learning anything.

If pornography, taken in large doses, becomes addictive, then these professorial purveyors of porn are pushers. Give them some credit for having found a way to have universities pay for their addiction.

When asked to justify their activities, they offer up lame arguments.  The Blaze reports:

While these courses may seem bizarre, the idea behind them is that they allegedly help prepare students for a world in which they will encounter graphic art, ideas and other related phenomena. By exposing pupils to these ideas early on, the notion is that they are then better prepared to contend with them in the real world.

When a real world prospective employer glances over your college resume and sees that you have been taking courses in porn, what effect will it have on your real chances of landing a real job?

Writing in Jezebel our friend Katie Baker justifies the enterprise by adding that pornography is big business and that the Los Angeles City Council just passed an ordinance about it.

She forgot to add that these courses might well teach students that porn can be a gateway to professional opportunities.

If porn is art, why work in an art gallery or a museum for no money when you can express yourself artistically by making porn and make some real money.

Let’s unpack this silliness.

Those who are going to watch porn, mostly young males do not need an incentive to do so. Porn is a little like wine. In moderation, it can clear their arteries. In excess, it will rot their livers.

As for the idiot notion that porn prepares you for the real world, in truth it removes you from the real world where real people have real sex.

Moreover, the more time you spend watching porn the less attention and focus you will have for your real work.

Remember that when the staff of the Securities and Exchange Commission was supposed to be regulating the financial system and investigating Bernard Madoff its members were watching porn.

Worse yet, porn desensitizes people to sexual stimuli. The more young men watch porn the more they will be desensitized to the kinds of subtle signals that a woman might be sending them. A woman will then find that she needs to amp up the vulgarity to attract a man’s attention or whatever else she wants to attract.

Young men who have been fed a steady diet of porn often want to act out what they see. Their girlfriends are rarely very happy about having to imititate the latest and hottest porn star.

Baker ends her column with this observation:

Sure, we'll concede that there are enough reasons not to mandate that all students everywhere watch hours of porn as a basic freshman requirement. But we also can't effectively criticize the problematic aspects of pornography if we don't study the theory and history behind the industry. So let's stop getting our panties in a twist about the "porn curriculum" and call it what it is: real talk.

It’s big of Baker to accept that we might not want “all students everywhere” to be force fed a steady diet of porn.

As she sees it, our task is to “criticize the problematic aspects of pornography,” and she believes that we cannot do it without watching lots of it.

In truth, nothing in God’s universe requires you to criticize the problematic aspects of porn. It is not encouraging to see that those who pretend that their indulgence has helped them to provide such a critique believe that porn is art. This tells us that watching too much porn has compounded their ignorance.

Only God knows what Baker means when she says that the pornography curriculum is: “real talk.” Perhaps she and her friends talk porn all the time. Perhaps she thinks that when they are not talking about the vulgar dance of organs and orifices they are not being real.

Maybe, she's making an oblique reference to the highly real world of phone sex.

I will leave it to others to contemplate her reference to twisted panties.