How to combat porn?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Charlemagne_III
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
How does that happen? in light of the focus you indicated in #4 I’m trying imagine someone stumbling upon subscribing to a channel that serves porn.
This is a valid question. Our cable server has a screen that pops up called On Demand and delivers choices of categories to pick from. One of them is labeled “Adult.” Any child could click into that area and read all kinds of salacious titles and film descriptions.

Then there is the schoolyard where older kids can (and most likely do) share with younger kids what they have learned about porn.

I would tell you how there are other more sinister ways, but, other than the two I’ve mentioned which are obvious, I’m not into suggesting gateway approaches to porn, whether deliberate or unintentional.

Nor do I want to continue this line of posting. You may rebut what I have said, but I won’t be answering you if you do as I suspect the exchanges are just going to end up very ugly. 🤷
 
I think this is the important point. I would rather not see people making out if I just select a random TV channel. But I have no objection to it being available if I did want to see it.
Would you explain to us why it would be necessary for people to want to see it if it were not available to see? :confused:

In other words, wouldn’t they normally find something more healthy and productive to while away the hours?
 
Nor do I want to continue this line of posting. You may rebut what I have said, but I won’t be answering you if you do as I suspect the exchanges are just going to end up very ugly. 🤷
And that’s perfectly fine. So just take this as commentary.
This is a valid question. Our cable server has a screen that pops up called On Demand and delivers choices of categories to pick from. One of them is labeled “Adult.” Any child could click into that area and read all kinds of salacious titles and film descriptions.
This sounds like a problem for which a solution may be within reach. Assuming that the only thing needed to make an on-demand purchase is access to your remote control it there’s an argument that could be made that by default children living within the house have the ability to do things that would cost you money without your authorization (money angle) and that they also have access to material not appropriate for their age by default (once again making an assumption here, that the set-top boxes are distributed with access to this content with no additional steps being required). One might counter-argue that parental controls could be enabled to protect children as needed. Arguments on making the set-top boxes (and the money one can loose through them) secure by default or argue with at least providing a certain level of protection to children by default in the set-top boxes before delivery.

If there’s enough people within your area that share your concern you might be able to make a difference locally with the primary TV service provider for your area.

This may also be a concern to share with the F.C.C. or possibly the F.T.C. Apple ran into a problem related to the money issue when children were performing in-app purchases without their parents knowing sometimes resulting in expensive charges. The F.T.C. looked into it. Apple ended up refunding money and implementing additional protections; though I don’t know whether the F.T.C. directly encouraged them to do this or if this was a response they decided on their own from the problem.

Note that all TVs larger than 13 inches sold in the USA after July 1999 have a feature that can be enabled to prevent the TV from showing content beyond a certain maturity rating.
Then there is the schoolyard where older kids can (and most likely do) share with younger kids what they have learned about porn.
Exchanges among school kids about content that a parent might not want them to have is another unique issue. As long as their are social connections (whether in person or electronically) information will work their way through them. Concerns about the type of information may vary by geography, but the concern I’ve heard expressed the most locally is a person of school age sending sexual pictures of themselves (sexting) the consequences of which can be quite harsh when the person that does it is a minor (those the communication is considered trafficking child porn) but the person is prosecuted as an adult potentially resulting in the child being considered a sex offender.
 
How sad… you don’t even know the difference between ethics and aesthetics.

That is the voice of Big Brother.
Every society has a Big Brother. The laws are enacted to protect the little brothers.

Those who want to see porn protected by civil laws rather than discouraged by civil regulation need to mount a defense other than “I like porn because it tickles by sensibilities.” If that were the only grounds for the consumption of porn you would really need to explain why a person’s craving for sexual entertainment takes precedence over the thousands of lives ruined by the production and distribution and consumption of porn.

Do you know the difference between the ethics of hedonism and the ethics of self control?

Give us some indication that you do by admitting that just possibly the flood of pornographic filth throughout our society is a recent development, and not one that is essential to the sexual thriving of any well conducted society at least up until the 1950s.
 
Every society has a Big Brother. The laws are enacted to protect the little brothers.

Those who want to see porn protected by civil laws rather than discouraged by civil regulation need to mount a defense other than “I like porn because it tickles by sensibilities.” If that were the only grounds for the consumption of porn you would really need to explain why a person’s craving for sexual entertainment takes precedence over the thousands of lives ruined by the production and distribution and consumption of porn.

Do you know the difference between the ethics of hedonism and the ethics of self control?

Give us some indication that you do by admitting that just possibly the flood of pornographic filth throughout our society is a recent development, and not one that is essential to the sexual thriving of any well conducted society at least up until the 1950s.
Starting in 1952, the pressure began to allow strippers, who, in some cases, posed as models in publications designed for artists, to be legally acceptable. The fight kept gaining ground in the US over the decades. I recall seeing a photo display of what strippers in certain states were “legally” allowed to wear in the 1950s. The “outfits” varied from what might called lingerie to “swimsuits” today. Sad that the pornographers kept spending money, going to court and pushing for immoral perversion. Until the 1970s when Porn (Adult) Bookstores, strip clubs and topless bars appeared everywhere. It is so sad that so much money was spent and so many lawyers invested their time to turn partial or full nudity into the sick graphic porn we have today.

Continue to encourage others to stop watching.

“Adult” is a lie. They mean Porn, so why don’t they just say it? Being an adult does not make it OK.

Ed
 
Every society has a Big Brother. The laws are enacted to protect the little brothers.
Nonsense. No decent society attempted to install a “thought police” - or a “porn police”, at least not yet.
Those who want to see porn protected by civil laws rather than discouraged by civil regulation need to mount a defense other than “I like porn because it tickles by sensibilities.”
That is not the reason. Reason #1: We don’t want a “nanny state”, which will decide what kind of entertainment is allowed. Reason #2: there is no definition of “porn”. One man’s (or woman’s) mildly interesting exposure of naked skin and accompanying activity is someone else’s “filth”. Before you start to badmouth others, you had better look around your “home”, where the vandalizing of beautiful ancient sculptures took place during the “Great Castration”. Now, THAT was pornography!
If that were the only grounds for the consumption of porn you would really need to explain why a person’s craving for sexual entertainment takes precedence over the thousands of lives ruined by the production and distribution and consumption of porn.
Another nonsense. A thousand to one ratio? Who invented this idiocy? And you had better realize: “No one forces you to watch what you don’t like”. Or to say it explicitly: “None of your business”.
Do you know the difference between the ethics of hedonism and the ethics of self control?
There is no need to self-control in the privacy of your home with a willing partner.
Give us some indication that you do by admitting that just possibly the flood of pornographic filth throughout our society is a recent development, and not one that is essential to the sexual thriving of any well conducted society at least up until the 1950s.
Is the Kama Sutra considered “filth” in your eyes? How about “Lady Chatterley’s Lover”? How about the Bible? Loaded with sexually explicit material. Be careful with your attempt to censor what you don’t like. The hang-up with sexually explicit material is incredible. Don’t you have anything better to do with your life? Must you poke your nose into other peoples’ bedroom?

Remember the definition of puritanism:

The haunting fear that someone, somewhere might have fun!
 
Would you explain to us why it would be necessary for people to want to see it if it were not available to see?
Why it would be necessary? I don’t think it would. But people will still want to watch it whether it is available or not. And whether we allow it or not is a matter of civil liberties.

I don’t want to burn the Australian flag or march against gay marriage or watch two guys having sex or demand that the separation between church and state be removed. But I will defend the right of anyone who wants to do any of those things.

Just because something offends our sensibilities does not mean we have the right to ban it.
 
Nonsense. No decent society attempted to install a “thought police” - or a “porn police”, at least not yet.
Last I checked, having a thought and looking at pornography are not isomorphic. If you were complaining about people who wanted to regulate fantasizing, you might have a point, but that doesn’t seem to be what you are going for.
That is not the reason. Reason #1: We don’t want a “nanny state”, which will decide what kind of entertainment is allowed.
I’m glad you find often desperate, addicted, and coerced women having sex to be entertainment. Of course, this is entertainment in the same way that watching hungry animals get set on a group of political prisoners is entertainment. So then again, maybe I’m not so glad.
Reason #2: there is no definition of “porn”. One man’s (or woman’s) mildly interesting exposure of naked skin and accompanying activity is someone else’s “filth”. Before you start to badmouth others, you had better look around your “home”, where the vandalizing of beautiful ancient sculptures took place during the “Great Castration”. Now, THAT was pornography!
Nope, pornography seems pretty straight-forward here, by and large, with some possible gray area.If it includes the exposure of genitals, breasts, includes sex acts, and the like, it can be pretty well classified as pornography. But seriously, this is quibbling over semantics. One could just say that the government should ban images with X, Y, and Z and it would have the same practical effect.
Another nonsense. A thousand to one ratio? Who invented this idiocy?
My, incredulously handwaving away a straw man, I see. Is it a secret to you that many who work in the business of pornography have rather awful lives? This even setting aside the question of the effect it might have on marriages and other relationships?
See: youtube.com/watch?v=Bk23mL15qpA

Also (not the least biased site ever, but this was an interview done with the article writer, so it can’t be found anywhere else):
lifesitenews.com/blogs/former-porn-star-porn-was-the-worst-darkest-thing-ive-ever-been-involved-in

For further consultation, see: amazon.com/dp/0981491138/ref=wl_it_dp_o_pC_nS_ttl?_encoding=UTF8&colid=32K2HRHN6WXX3&coliid=IMSWDVGELN297

and:
amazon.com/dp/098149112X/ref=wl_it_dp_o_pC_nS_ttl?_encoding=UTF8&colid=32K2HRHN6WXX3&coliid=I373FCVBMRGG3H
And you had better realize: “No one forces you to watch what you don’t like”. Or to say it explicitly: “None of your business”.
Well, this kind of reasoning can be used to justify just about anything. “Don’t like it? Don’t do it!” You know, where “it” can be just about anything one might wish to entertain.
There is no need to self-control in the privacy of your home with a willing partner.
  1. Self-control seems exactly like something that one ought to cultivate in the privacy of their own home so they can act temperately in public.
  2. Many of the women in pornography cannot be said to be consenting except in the most tenuous sense.
  3. A consent criterion only works when the person consenting is doing so in such a way where their consent is not in any way “broken.” Yet if a person is consenting to something disordered due to ignorance, habituated vice, or whatever, then it is a pretty well useless criterion. This is why we try to get the suicidal help instead of letting them follow through with their own death: their consent is compromised.
    Thus, proper consent presupposes it being a well-ordered and non-viceful desire for it to be meaningful.
Is the Kama Sutra considered “filth” in your eyes? How about “Lady Chatterley’s Lover”? How about the Bible? Loaded with sexually explicit material. Be careful with your attempt to censor what you don’t like.
We aren’t talking about “filth.” We aren’t talking about writing. We are talking about pornography. No red-herrings, please.
The hang-up with sexually explicit material is incredible. Don’t you have anything better to do with your life? Must you poke your nose into other peoples’ bedroom?
The temptation to parody is rather great. Sexuality, since it relates both to the procreation of offspring as well as happening to arouse such absurd passions in people, seems like exactly the thing that one ought to put under moral scrutiny. So yeah, there is a hang-up because it is rather relevant, at least in part for some of the reasons I outlined above. So must we poke our noses into other people’s bedroom? Yes, because the actions people undertake there, despite their greatest protests, are not utterly beyond moral question. So tell me Solmyr, is the utter sacredness of pornography, of all things, the hill you want to die on here?
 
By the way, since you showed yourself to be so thoroughly concerned that forums rules be followed in your discussion with tonyrey in a different thread, perhaps you wouldn’t mind a reminder:
**Messages posted to this board must be polite and free of personal attacks, threats, and crude or sexually-explicit language.
**
Statements/questions like
  • “Who invented this idiocy?,”
  • "And you had better realize: “No one forces you to watch what you don’t like”. Or to say it explicitly: “None of your business,”
  • The hang-up with sexually explicit material is incredible. Don’t you have anything better to do with your life? Must you poke your nose into other peoples’ bedroom?
    …probably aren’t exactly necessary, eh?
 
I think that if we discuss porn, then we should assume that the pornography that we are discussing is being produced by people who are willing participants. I’m pretty certain that there are women (and men) who are being subjected to conditions that are far from ideal.

Conditions within the porn industry is another matter to the one being discussed. If you insist it is part of the problem, then I’m sure that we are all in agreement.
 
CHAPTER 13 – On Resisting Temptations, The Imitation of Christ
Code:
So long as we live in this world, we cannot remain without trial and temptation: as Job says, “Man's life on earth is a warfare.” We must therefore be on guard against temptations, and watchful in prayer, that the Devil find no means of deceiving us; for he never rests, but prowls around seeking whom he may devour. No one is so perfect and holy that he is never tempted, and we can never be secure from temptation. 

Although temptations are so troublesome and grievous, yet they are often profitable to us, for by them we are humbled, cleansed, and instructed. All the Saints endured many trials and temptations, and profited by them; but those who could not resist temptations became reprobate, and fell away. There is no Order so holy, nor place so secluded, where there are no troubles and temptations. 

No man can be entirely free from temptation so long as he lives; for the source of temptation lies within our own nature, since we are born with an inclination towards evil. When one temptation or trial draws to a close, another takes its place; and we shall always have something to fight, for man has lost the blessing of original happiness. Many try to escape temptations, only to encounter them more fiercely, for no one can win victory by flight alone; it is only by patience and true humility that we can grow stronger than all our foes. 

The man who only avoids the outward occasions of evil, but fails to uproot it in himself, will gain little advantage. Indeed, temptations will return upon him the sooner, and he will find himself in a worse state than before. Little by little and by patient endurance you will overcome them by God's help, better than by your own violence and importunity. Seek regular advice in temptation, and never deal harshly with those who are tempted, but give them such encouragement as you would value yourself. 

The beginning of all evil temptation is an unstable mind and lack of trust in God. Just as a ship without a helm is driven to and fro by the waves, so a careless man, who abandons his proper course, is tempted in countless ways. Fire tempers steel, and temptation the just man. We often do not know what we can bear, but temptation reveals our true nature. We need especially to be on our guard at the very onset of temptation, for then the Enemy may be more easily overcome, if he is not allowed to enter the gates of the mind: he must be repulsed at the threshold, as soon as he knocks. Thus the poet Ovid writes, “Resist at the beginning; the remedy may come too late.” For first there comes into the mind an evil thought: next, a vivid picture: then delight, and urge to evil, and finally consent. In this way the Enemy gradually gains complete mastery, when he is not resisted at first. And the longer a slothful man delays resistance, the weaker he becomes, and the stronger his enemy grows against him. 

Some people undergo their heaviest temptations at the beginning of their conversion; some towards the end of their course; others are greatly troubled all their lives; while there are some whose temptations are but light. This is in accordance with the wisdom and justice of God's ordinance, who weighs the condition and merits of every man, and disposes all things for the salvation of those whom He chooses. 

We must not despair, therefore, when we are tempted, but earnestly pray God to grant us his help in every need. For, as Saint Paul says, “With the temptation, God will provide a way to overcome it, that we may be able to bear it.” So, let us humble ourselves under the hand of God, in every trial and trouble, for He will save and raise up the humble in Spirit. In all these trials, our progress is tested; in them great merit may be secured, and our virtue become evident. It is no great matter if we are devout and fervent when we have no troubles; but if we show patience in adversity, we can make great progress in virtue. Some are spared severe temptations, but are overcome in the lesser ones of every day, in order that they may be humble, and learn not to trust in themselves, but to recognize their frailty.
 
By the way, since you showed yourself to be so thoroughly concerned that forums rules be followed in your discussion with tonyrey in a different thread, perhaps you wouldn’t mind a reminder:
**Messages posted to this board must be polite and free of personal attacks, threats, and crude or sexually-explicit language.
**
Statements/questions like
  • “Who invented this idiocy?,”
  • "And you had better realize: “No one forces you to watch what you don’t like”. Or to say it explicitly: “None of your business,”
  • The hang-up with sexually explicit material is incredible. Don’t you have anything better to do with your life? Must you poke your nose into other peoples’ bedroom?
    …probably aren’t exactly necessary, eh?
Which one of those contain
  1. personal attack?
  2. threatening?
  3. crude?
  4. sexually explicit?
Please report to the moderators any “violation” you see.
 
Which one of those contain
  1. personal attack?
  2. threatening?
  3. crude?
  4. sexually explicit?
Please report to the moderators any “violation” you see.
Arguably, none of them. But none of them are polite, either, which is the positive criterion mentioned in the rule. In particular, I have in mind the last comment, which not-so-subtly implies that Charlegmagne has some weird intrusive compulsion toward controlling people’s “private” lives (private being in scare quotes because what is done in private often becomes manifest in public).
Terseness and frustration I can live with, myself being guilty of them more than occasionally. This sort of incredulous hostility, however, I can’t say I’m all that big a fan of.
 
I think that if we discuss porn, then we should assume that the pornography that we are discussing is being produced by people who are willing participants. I’m pretty certain that there are women (and men) who are being subjected to conditions that are far from ideal.

Conditions within the porn industry is another matter to the one being discussed. If you insist it is part of the problem, then I’m sure that we are all in agreement.
While conditions in the pornography industry are far from my only complaint, I would in-principle agree. However, I think delineating between the “good” pornography and the “bad” is significantly more problematic in practice. How does one tell whether or not they are supporting the “good” kind or the “bad” kind (at least without significantly narrowing the scope of the pornography that is viewed)?
 
The solution is dead simple. You don’t like it? Don’t watch it. You are not your “brother’s keeper”. It is not your job to prevent others from seeing what you don’t want them to see.

And remember: “one man’s trash is another man’s treasure”. There is no definition of “porn”. Do you know the phrase “the Great Castration”?
I guess it depends on how you look at it. There is reason to believe that porn is ruining the way that men view women in this culture. There is also reason to believe that it harms marriages and families. Don’t forget the kids either. Apparently it was surveyed that roughly 10 percent of all twelve year olds are addicted to porn. How sad is that. Becoming addicted to porn when your brain is still forming at a rapid rate. Most of these kids will likely be addicted for the rest of their lives. And many of them think that it is totally OK.

The phrase “I am not my brother’s keeper” doesn’t necessarily apply from a Catholic worldview. What the world does matters, to some extent, and therefore our reaction to the sin in the world matters.

We should be calling all people to repentance.
 
I think that if we discuss porn, then we should assume that the pornography that we are discussing is being produced by people who are willing participants. I’m pretty certain that there are women (and men) who are being subjected to conditions that are far from ideal.

Conditions within the porn industry is another matter to the one being discussed. If you insist it is part of the problem, then I’m sure that we are all in agreement.
Whether a person consents to being exploited does not determine whether or not the action is OK. A woman can consent to being in a physically abusive relationship. This does not make it OK for the husband to abuse her. In the same way, a woman can agree to be a prostitute or a porn actress, this does not make it OK for the people running the show to exploit them. Same goes for the customer base. Exploitation is exploitation.
 
Whether a person consents to being exploited does not determine whether or not the action is OK. A woman can consent to being in a physically abusive relationship. This does not make it OK for the husband to abuse her. In the same way, a woman can agree to be a prostitute or a porn actress, this does not make it OK for the people running the show to exploit them. Same goes for the customer base. Exploitation is exploitation.
IDK, exploitation is taking advantage of someone for personal gain, in porn, the producers are not really taking advantage of the women, as they are being paid, some very well paid, and they are not forcing them to be involved, however it may be more accurate to say everyone involved is exploiting themselves, for personal/ monetary gain I guess.

One example would be the women who pose for Playboy, these pics do not include actual sex, its just images of their body and they are paid extremely well for doing this one time, so one could argue that is OK, as viewing this would be admiring the female body, as long as the person did not cross the line into lusting (thats the catch I guess)!
 
It just so happens that simple “primitive” tribes have no problem with sexual activities in public, even in front of children. Even in modern societies in agricultural settings children are exposed to sex among animals. And there is no “trauma” involved. Sex is normal and natural. Only in some of the Western societies is it treated differently. This might come from the truth: “Inter faeces et urinam nascimur” (use Google to translate if necessary :)). Nature happened to combine the reproductive and the eliminating organs, and that was the source of this ambivalent attitude.

There is a cute joke about it: “Of all the sexual perversions the most unnatural one is chastity”.
It’s not natural or good for you to be addicted to pornography, drugs, alcohol,etc. Would you want your own mother, or your daughter, or sister to be treated as nothing more than a ‘sex toy’ for strange men to fondle themselves over?

Are you suggesting that civilized society should gets its morals from jungle tribes? Some of them practiced cannibalism as well.

Btw you can not use farm animals and exposure to the human body as a justification for pornography. Porn is not the same as reality. It a disordered fantasy.

Chastity is a beautiful gift from God. Please see the definition of sexual perversion and you will find chastity is not listed. I would not expect a worldly person to understand the value of chastity. It is so special in God’s eyes that we consider it to be even more sacred than marriage in Catholicism. Denying oneself is unnatural to a world that tells us to satisfy ourselves.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top