From 2000 on, I have been addressing the medical and church institutions about sexuality. Their reactions have a common denominator: their fear from porn and nudity. From their part, they were not including porn into their conferences (or other meetings), or they were reducing it to minimum, and to my questions (concerning at least the HIV-prevention) they were arrogant.
The tragicomical response to my effort was the essay by E. Haeberle, “The Future of Sex Research?“, admitting that the Internet search engines know more than the scientists and that the machines will not give the big data gathered to the scientists for free.
The presence of the sex on Internet is no novelty, so we must understand this situation as a confession that (1) the scientists were omitting one sphere of reality, having left us in the lurch.
(2) Since they were paid as scientists, we must be more vigilant concerning the money flowing to the science. (3) In the same time, we must observe with whom from among the scientists will the new rulers of sex (i.e. the search machines) cooperate and whom will they hire. They could manipulate us and brainwash us. They are not under any oath concerning our benefit. (The medical persons are , yet they did not operate properly.)
(4) Either we will operate as the watch-dogs extremely efficiently, or we must interpellate and control our governments, since to benchmark with the search machines will need to join resources.
For the while, we cannot count on the establishment’s distinguishing between the good and the evil in porn. (5) There is no test for the sexual IQ. So, we do not have any hit-parade of the sexually creative individuals, neither any aesthetic criticism. (If not spoken about the commercial porn-Oscars.) (6) In the same time we do not have any reliable warning concerning the border of the consumers’ psychical damage, porn often packed into one bad package. (7) Therefore, there is neither a set of healing features of the porn on the spontaneous remission plane. (8) The lack of the HIV warning we have mentioned above.
It is obvious that there are not any porn-studies in the universities and so we cannot complain that we were not accepted: the studies themselves do not exist. (Nevertheless, it gives us independency, as well.)
As for me, the author of the text, it is evident that if I am quite active in one of the items mentioned (say, in the aesthetics criticism) – which I cannot, since I am in my pre-pension period – I could arrange some nifty www-page, yet, one person is unable to catch so many hares, counted above.
And so, the only sure output of this text is that a comparable counterweigh against the manipulation from the side of the search machines’ Big Brother is only to gather the social resources, be it via persuading the establishment, or as the watch-dogs.
The medical persons and the priest are namely often ashamed, while the Google never.