Rebuilding Gomorrah on Reality TV

I have created a new tag on this blog called Rebuilding Gomorrah. Many people, I think, don't quite comprehend the depths of depravity our society has reached, and how near it is to all of us. Click the link to see what I mean.

Today's example comes from the Czech Republic but will soon be on a screen near you...

Jan. 10 (Bloomberg) -- If you want to watch Nick having sex with a prostitute, he's happy to let you.

The 36-year-old bank-security technician drove eight hours from his home in Metz, France, to Big Sister, a Prague brothel where customers peruse a touch-screen menu of blondes, brunettes and redheads available for free. The catch is clients have to let their exploits be filmed and posted on the Internet.

``Sex is no taboo,'' Nick says, though he asked that his last name not be used. ``You have to free your mind.''

Big Sister is marrying 21st-century technology with the world's oldest profession to profit from the public's appetite for ever-more graphic reality TV. Since 2005, more than 15,000 men have taken up the offer of free sex in return for 15 minutes, or less, of fame, according to the brothel. Big Sister is now expanding into the U.S. with a local version of its Web site.

Visitors to the virtual brothel pay 29.95 euros ($43.88) for a one-month subscription to a smorgasbord of sex listed by position, preference and number of people. Big Sister also produces cable TV shows that air on Sky Italia and the U.K.'s Television X, as well as DVDs such as ``Sex Hyenas'' and ``Voyeur's Eye.''

``Our goal is to attract as many people as possible to catch the first reality sex TV,'' says marketing manager Carl Borowitz, who goes by the name Carlos. ``This is National Geographic for adults. Everyone's curious to watch their neighbor.'' [more]


(How, you might ask, did I happen to find this story? It was at the top of the Bloomberg "Most Read" list today. It's happened before.)

I'm not sure who is more depraved: the people who manage this enterprise, or its customers. A liberal-minded person might argue that it's all voluntary and no one is harmed. I beg to differ.

Consider poor Nick, who is quoted above (something tells me that Nick isn't exactly a Don Juan back home in France.) This 36-year-old, unmarried "bank security technician" isn't doing himself any favors with this activity, especially if he has any visions of ever settling down with a woman. And there is probably a woman in France who would like to settle down with a guy like Nick - but she won't get to do so because he has taught himself that women are nothing but sex objects. She's a victim, too.

Then there are the prostitutes. They may be well-paid, but at what cost to their dignity, their health, and their self-image? Finally there are the thousands of people, mainly men, who view this material and become addicted. Many marriages are destroyed in this way, leaving wives and children shattered into pieces. From there the trail of destruction expands geometrically.

Yes, pornography has been around for a long time. The difference is that now it travels at the speed of light. It's a big problem in society, in our churches, and in many families. There are some good resources here and here for people who are touched by this evil. And make no mistake - it is evil.

7 comments:

nissa-loves-cats said...

Why isn't the women's movement fighting atrocities like this instead of shilling for the abortion industry and getting women the right to pay alimony to slacker ex-husbands?

Patrick said...

Good question, and I don't have an answer. It is very sad. Thanks for your comment.

KipEsquire said...

"They may be well-paid, but at what cost to their dignity, their health, and their self-image?"

But isn't that the point: That you are utterly incompetent to measure such impacts, and to weigh them against the autonomy, independence and yes the money that comes from having an occupation -- even if it's prostitution? Are you really so pompous as to think you are better equipped than the competent consenting adults involved to make such decisions?

I was under the impression that the sort of limitless, arrogant hubris you are exhibiting here was a sin. My bad.

Patrick said...

Hi Kip. Certainly everyone has the right to make a living, but not to harm others in the process. It is not legitimate, for example, to be a slave trader who captures and sells other human beings.

Actually, whether they are prostitutes is not the point. I was trying to say that this activity is harmful in itself. Whether they are paid for it or not is irrelevant, in one sense.

Those involved in prostitution and pornography hurt both themselves AND other people. The fact that this harm is not always immediately visible does not mean it doesn't exist.

KipEsquire said...

"It is not legitimate, for example, to be a slave trader who captures and sells other human beings."

What part of "competent and consenting" was unclear to you?

Patrick said...

It's perfectly clear to me. It was not so clear to the guys who grabbed people out of African jungles and shipped them to the New World. They convinced themselves that the blacks were not truly "human" and therefore had no rights.

I looked at your blog, Kip, and I think I get your perspective. It's unlikely we are going to agree on this issue. I'm glad to continue the conversation if you wish - but I don't respond to snarls or insults.

Best wishes and have a nice weekend.

East Coast Libertarian said...

Patrick,

Got your response.

I don't disagree that harm doesn't exist, but we must be careful where we draw a line between what may be harmful and what is illegal.

Prostitution may be deemed by some as harmful, but as I mentioned, if two consenting adult are engaging in the activity, no one's rights are being violated.

Once we step away from the making wrongful acts illegal on the basis that they violate the rights of others into a more nebulous area of "harm" (which typically involves making very subjective, central-planner type judgments toward people (or reifying society)), then you allow government the means to legislate against not only activity you may find offensive but activity others may offensive and you do not.

I may take exception with certain activities and behavior, but I am not willing to accept the sort of womb-to-tomb regulatory environment that would result from any attempt to ban any behavior any legislative majority decided not to like on a given day.

It's a dangerous path to be on.

Have a good weekend.