Philly.com: XXX-tra. Read all about the sociology of the porn scandal

    November 6, 2014

    Click here to see original article.

    A PORN witch hunt is driving the story of 30 horndogs using state time and computers to have a virtual frat party. It’s being called Porngate for a reason.

    Reporters wouldn’t be sweating for more details if the guys had just swapped emails and videos from Modell’s.

    The use of state time and computers seems subordinate to the content. Although pornography is legal, many people have a problem with it.

    But not everyone. Brigham Young University reports that 20 percent of men view porn at work, plus 13 percent of women. In contrast, only 29 percent of Americans say watching porn is morally acceptable, according to the Public Religion Research Institute.

    Earlier in the week, my colleague John Baer covered the politics of Porngate, how the emails came to light. I’ll cover the sociology, which starts like this: Men are dogs. Not all, but many guys have a little pooch in them.

    The waste angle: Facebook is the No. 1 on-the-job time waster, followed by Twitter, says the website CIO/Insight. Online goofing-off costs American business $544 billion in lost productivity annually, according to Salary.com and America Online. That’s 1.86 hours each day.

    “It is a clear problem, not just the porn but shopping for shoes on Amazon,” says Debbi Casey, assistant professor of human-resource management at Temple University’s Fox School of Business. Anyone going after shoe shoppers?

    Facebook is the No. 1 blocked website by employers, 14.2 percent. The most blocked porn site is RedTube, a tiny 1.9 percent. More than70 percent of porn viewing occurs between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m.

    It’s been reported that personal use of computers violates state policy, but that’s not entirely true. I read the exhaustive Management Directive that covers all executive branches. (Other agencies use similar language.)

    The directive says that “reasonable use for personal purposes is permitted,” excluding personal business. Also a no-no is material “construed as discriminatory or harassing, including sexually suggestive, pornographic or obscene.”

    Such use “may” result in disciplinary action.

    As described by the few reporters allowed to view the X-rated material, some seems hard-core. Some, like satirical “motivational” posters, supposedly demean women by putting them in subordinate employment and sexual roles.

    If your fantasy-football team were being demeaned, no one would care. This becomes n-e-w-s because of s-e-x.

    Are we that puritanical?

    It was poor judgment by the horndogs, no doubt about that.

    That it was done on state time is the point to me, not the porn.

    But, really, how much time? If it was fleeting, can I complain without being a hypocrite? Is it worse than hanging out at the water cooler or flirting? Don’t we all sometimes waste time online by tiptoeing through the online tulips? Casey says a “cultural shift” has blurred the line between job and play because “employers have increasingly infringed” on personal time.

    “It would be ridiculous to enforce a policy that prohibits personal use,” says Ethan Wall, a lawyer and an adjunct social-media professor at Nova Southeastern University in Florida. That’s because almost everyone does it, even when we know we can be monitored.

    Back to sex. Some fear that the porn and posters demeaning women reflect a mind-set that might be exercised in the workplace. It’s about not sex, it’s about power.

    Acting on those impulses would be illegal. As Freud supposedly said, sometimes a cigar is just a cigar, and not a phallus.

    Sometimes porn is just sexual titillation, implying no deeper, darker psychological aberration.

    If I’m wrong, we have a lot of sick people in America.

     


    Contact Us Today for a Free Consultation

      [id^="om-"]
      [id^="om-"]