Comment: The writer clearly has issues

(See in situ)

The writer clearly has issues

This is one up-tight guy.

If I may indulge in some dime-store psychology: I'd say the writer is deeply conflicted about his own sexual impulses versus the religious ideal that he espouses. He's trying to force a square peg (sexual humans) into a round hole (anti-sexual religious philosophy).

I reject his thesis on many levels. Most importantly, porn cannot even be defined. Is Victoria Secrets catalog porn? Or is it only necessary to show a bit of ankle, as was once true? Perhaps the Muslims are onto something with the full burka outfit? Whatever it is, does it merely need to stir sexual desire to be pornographic? Perhaps men and women should be kept separate, as they were in some religious societies in the 1800's.

I can't believe I'm bothering to even discuss this stupid article.