The introduction of the proposed ICANN .xxx adult content Internet domain suffix was delayed last week when conservative groups, such as the Family Research Council, complained to the Department of Commerce, saying it could lead to more pornography on the Web.

The Family Research Council "promotes the Judeo-Christian worldview as the basis for a just, free, and stable society" with the claim that "God exists and is sovereign over all creation. He created human beings in His image."

Well, as long His image is covered by a loincloth, I guess. And since there is no mention of a Her in any of their Web site propaganda, you wonder why they even care about naked women having sex on the Internet?

You'd have to be a rock-ribbed, fish-on-the-car, "What Would Jesus Do?"-tee-shirt wearing, abortion-hating, His-way-or-the-highway, dues-paying member of something like The Family Research Council to not know that there is enough porn already on the Internet--that it is inconceivable that .xxx would encourage more.



The old Lone Star Café slogan "Too Much Ain't Enough" not withstanding, there really is a limit to how many pix or videos of people having sex (with each other, with inanimate objects, with others of His creation that don't walk only on two legs, with lots of others of both sexes, in private, in public, and everywhere in between) you can consume in a 24-hour day.

(In the interest of accurate reporting, I have sacrificed myself to this arduous task, and can fairly say that it gets pretty boring after about 40 minutes.)

But I think the larger task ahead for the fine folks at The Family Research Council is not porn sites--it is getting the American public to stop posting naked pictures of themselves online. While I am not naive enough to think that every naked person who claims to be an "amateur" is in fact the kid next door, you don't have to be a connoisseur of hard-core porn (jeez, that research was tough) to see that millions of ordinary citizens think it is pretty cool to get naked on the Internet. There are sites with thousands of photos and videos of essentially nobodies (which believe me, can really mean NO bodies) having sex with each other posted just for whatever weird thrill they get out of seeing themselves online.

What is that all about?

Moreover, you don't have to even agree to be naked online. If you sunbathe topless anywhere in the world or dress with your window shades up, or think that it will be your little secret that you tossed down a dozen jelly shots and lifted your shirt at Mardi Gras last year, darlin', your naked body WILL turn up on a Web site sooner or later. Uh, and that private video you made with your boyfriend three years ago (you know, the one where you both swore that the two of you would be the ONLY ones ever to see it)... well, he didn't give you the only copy when you broke up. I must say, I like how you decorated your bedroom; you can just see it in the background.

I suppose you have every right to take cell phone shots of your significant other (or, what the hell, a complete stranger) performing an intimate act on your person and upload them to the Internet to share with the world--and I have every right NOT to bookmark, uh, I mean stumble across those pix. But I cannot for the life of me understand what the incentive or thrill is to do so. Have we arrived at the moment in the downward spiral of our mores where, "If it's OK with Paris, it's OK with me?"

Finally, there are just some people who ought not to take their clothes off in front of anybody, much less the world. Now, that is an issue I think The Family Research Council's time might be better spent on.

Next story loading loading..