How to combat porn?

[Charlemagne_III]

Nonsense. No decent society attempted to install a “thought police” - or a “porn police”, at least not yet.

So before the 1950s there was no decent society?

The equation of “porn” with “thought” is a thoughtless equation.

You don’t care how many lives are screwed up by porn so long as you get your tickle?

 

[Charlemagne_III]

Just because something offends our sensibilities does not mean we have the right to ban it.

Gee whiz, how clever of you to say that.

As if atheist regimes have not been trying for decades to ban religion in the public square because it offended their sensibilities, or as if evolutionists have not been trying for decades to ban intelligent design because it offends their sensibilities, or as if hedonists have not been trying for a century to b an all laws against porn because it offends their opportunity to get another tickle at the cost of the putrefaction of sexual morals throughout society.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

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.

Yes, these willing participants are prostitutes. They sell their bodies for money.

Do you think, if I was welling to sell myself into slavery, that the laws should protect my right to do so?

It’s clear you are a victim of the libertarian ethic, “Whatever I want to do I should be free to do as long as no one is offended.”

What you really mean is, “As long as I am not offended.” And of course, you are never offended.

 

[ccmnxc]

Charlemage, neither of your previous posts strike me as being terribly fair. The first one was a sarcastic quip + a tu quoque, and the second one seems to take the whole “offense” thing too far, one because I don’t think it has to do with offense to begin with, and two because I don’t think it has to boil down to subjective preference.

Now you’re around here a lot more often than I am, so perhaps you know something that I don’t, but like I said, I don’t think you hit the mark on this one.

 

[TimothyH]

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.

Watching two guys having sex is not a right.

-Tim-

 

[Bradski]

It’s clear you are a victim of the libertarian ethic, “Whatever I want to do I should be free to do as long as no one is offended.”

What you really mean is, “As long as I am not offended.” And of course, you are never offended.

I specifically gave examples of where I would be offended (burning the flag for example). Yet I would still argue for someone’s right to do so.

Why don’t we stick to the subject rather than drag state and church, ID and a raft of other irrelevant problems into the mix.

 

[Bradski]

Watching two guys having sex is not a right. -

The word ‘right’ can be defined in different ways. But I think I’m on safe ground here if I say that if someone wants to watch two guys making out, assuming that all are willing participants, then he (or she) has that right.

And I think I’m on equally safe ground to say that you don’t have the right to prevent him.

 

[Solmyr]

I’m glad you find often desperate, addicted, and coerced women having sex to be entertainment.

Are you kidding? The participants in making erotic-themed movies are not coerced males or females. They get paid for it. The model who stands still for a painter who paints an erotically explicit of picture (or carves a sculpture) is not forced to participate. Is Rodin’s beautiful statue: “The Kiss” an example of porn? Was the church acting morally when it vandalized those ancient sculptures during the “Great Castration”? Somehow this question goes unanswered… I wonder why? Will anyone ever answer this? I doubt it.

The question of forced sexual slavery is totally different. That is real porn and no one defends it. Straw-man?

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.

Not at all. You seem to consider any erotically charged content to be pornographic. If I am wrong, then please correct me. And in that case explain the difference.

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.

Now that is a REAL straw man argument. Which part of “mutual agreement” don’t you understand?

Many of the women in pornography cannot be said to be consenting except in the most tenuous sense.

Evidence?

Thus, proper consent presupposes it being a well-ordered and non-viceful desire for it to be meaningful.

Only in your eyes.

We aren’t talking about “filth.” We aren’t talking about writing. We are talking about pornography. No red-herrings, please.

Read Charlie’s diatribe about “filth”. So porn is limited to visual representation of sex?

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?

There is nothing “sacred” about it, per se. Not more than any other expression of free speech. Which, by the way, is NOT absolute. Shouting “fire” in a crowded theater is NOT protected. Giving a detailed description of how you make a nuke in your kitchen is NOT protected. Direct libeling or slandering someone is NOT protected… BUT satire IS, no matter how scathing it might be. Making fun of others is protected. The Kama Sutra is protected. Depicting children in a sexual “environment” is NOT protected.

Your remark about the “poking your nose into someone else’s bedroom” reminds me of the following:

An old spinster goes to the local police station and complains that the couple across the street engages in “filthy”, disgusting sexual practices, and she is exposed to them against her wishes. She wants the police do something about it. So, two cops come to her house to investigate, but they see nothing at all. The old spinster says: “Well you can’t see it from there!” and climbs up on the top of the wardrobe, grabs the curtain rod, and leans out sideways. Then exclaims: “Come up here and you will see all those disgusting acts!!”

I suggest to print it out and place it above your desk to read it every day.

 

[TimothyH]

The word ‘right’ can be defined in different ways. But I think I’m on safe ground here if I say that if someone wants to watch two guys making out, assuming that all are willing participants, then he (or she) has that right.

And I think I’m on equally safe ground to say that you don’t have the right to prevent him.

Your assumption is that such behavior has no impact to anyone other than those participating. That simply isn’t correct.

In some cases there is even a moral obligation to stop it.

-Tim-

 

[Charlemagne_III]

Brad,

Please answer this question:

If cinematic hardcore porn was banned by law, who would be harmed?

How would these people be harmed?

Please be specific. Thank you.

crosswalk.com/family/marriage/the-victims-of-pornography-11558259.html

covenanteyes.com/2011/03/03/i-wasnt-the-only-victim-of-his-porn-addiction/

youtube.com/watch?v=D8vigJVm-8A

 

[Bradski]

Brad,

Please answer this question:

If cinematic hardcore porn was banned by law, who would be harmed?

You have the wrong end of the stick Charles. Turn it around and read what it says on the other end. It will be two words referring to the very first amendment that was made to the constitution of the United States.

Personal possession of obscene material in the home may not be prohibited by law. In Stanley v. Georgia (1969), the Court ruled that “*f the First Amendment means anything, it means that a State has no business telling a man, sitting in his own house, what books he may read or what films he may watch.”

And that didn’t even bother to mention porn. It went straight to obscene material. So Charles, it will be a cold day in hell when you, or anyone else, can dictate to me, or anyone else, what we can and cannot do in our own homes (with blazingly obvious exceptions). And whether I want to do it or not is entirely beside the point.*

 

[Charlemagne_III]

You have the wrong end of the stick Charles. Turn it around and read what it says on the other end. It will be two words referring to the very first amendment that was made to the constitution of the United States.

Personal possession of obscene material in the home may not be prohibited by law. In Stanley v. Georgia (1969), the Court ruled that “*f the First Amendment means anything, it means that a State has no business telling a man, sitting in his own house, what books he may read or what films he may watch.”

And that didn’t even bother to mention porn. It went straight to obscene material. So Charles, it will be a cold day in hell when you, or anyone else, can dictate to me, or anyone else, what we can and cannot do in our own homes (with blazingly obvious exceptions). And whether I want to do it or not is entirely beside the point.*

I guess the question I asked you really stumped you, because you had no answer but to change the subject. It’s not the wrong end of the stick to ask what harm is done to anyone if, for example, the making of porn movies is banned?

If you checked out the 3 websites I gave, you could see that plenty of harm is done by the production of such movies.

So I’ll ask again, without much hope of getting a straight answer:

What harm is done to anyone by banning such movies?

Please be specific.

 

[Bradski]

What harm is done to anyone by banning such movies?

Please be specific.

Didn’t I just explain? I thought I did. And without changing the subject. Because the subject is freedom of expression, aka the First Amendment.

Banning what you describe as porn would mean that the First Amendment could be ignored. That harms everyone.

I can’t be more specific than that.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

Didn’t I just explain? I thought I did. And without changing the subject. Because the subject is freedom of expression, aka the First Amendment.

Banning what you describe as porn would mean that the First Amendment could be ignored. That harms everyone.

I can’t be more specific than that.

O.K.

 

[Solmyr]

It’s not natural or good for you to be addicted to pornography, drugs, alcohol,etc.

It is not healthy to be addicted to anything. But we are not talking about “addiction”. Only about a form of entertainment, performed by PAID actors and actresses, who obviously enjoy what they do.

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

What does cannibalism have to do with sex? And sometimes the “civilized” society had pretty bad habits.

Remember of the shipwrecked sailor, who was drifting on a piece of wood in the sea. When he gets close to shore he sees the gallows with a corpse hanging from it. He quickly utters a prayer: “Thank you God! You sent me to a civilized country!”.

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.

The point is that to be exposed to sexual acts is not harmful. Not even for children. And for what is “disordered” is only an opinion.

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.

It was a JOKE! If you wish to practice chastity, go ahead, and do it. It is your business and no one should FORCE you change your practice. Just like you have no business in forcing others to conform to your lifestyle. Leben und leben lassen!

 

[Charlemagne_III]

It is not healthy to be addicted to anything. But we are not talking about “addiction”. Only about a form of entertainment, performed by PAID actors and actresses, who obviously enjoy what they do.

Once again:

youtube.com/watch?v=D8vigJVm-8A

If you can bring yourself to watch it, you might learn the pay was hardly worth dying for.

The sex for the actors can be really enjoyable, until you die from aids or suicide or alcoholism or drug addiction.

 

[ccmnxc]

Are you kidding? The participants in making erotic-themed movies are not coerced males or females. They get paid for it.

So none of the following situations obtains, then:

1. They need money either to support themselves or get drugs, and this is (in their eyes), their only viable option.
2. They are made to do more than they bargained for (i.e. hardcore pornography) or do some other things such that if they don’t, they will not get paid.
3. People who are caught up in human trafficking, prostitution, and the like, don’t get dragged into this.
   You deny that any of these things happen at anything more than a trivial scale, correct? You therefore dispute the interview I gave you, among the other things?

The model who stands still for a painter who paints an erotically explicit of picture (or carves a sculpture) is not forced to participate. Is Rodin’s beautiful statue: “The Kiss” an example of porn? Was the church acting morally when it vandalized those ancient sculptures during the “Great Castration”? Somehow this question goes unanswered… I wonder why? Will anyone ever answer this? I doubt it.

Dunno, is the picture/sculpture simply being used as an object for sexual pleasure? If so, then yes, it’s pornography.
And I don’t really know all that much about the “Great Castration,” though if it is what it sounds like, I guess I’m not in principle against it (which isn’t to say that I wholeheartedly and without qualification endorse it). There’s my answer, now can we please stop with the “Woe is me, why won’t anyone answer my questions?” act?

The question of forced sexual slavery is totally different. That is real porn and no one defends it. Straw-man?

And I’m saying that whatever conceptual differences there are, the line is not so clear cut in reality.

Not at all. You seem to consider any erotically charged content to be pornographic. If I am wrong, then please correct me. And in that case explain the difference.

Perhaps I should add the qualification that said content must be used as a means of deriving sexual pleasure.

Now that is a REAL straw man argument. Which part of “mutual agreement” don’t you understand?

Your comment seemed to be pretty well in line with your first in this thread:

The solution is dead simple. You don’t like it? Don’t watch it.

And this seems to do exactly what my critique said, namely “Don’t like X, then don’t do X” as if that somehow justifies anything.
Perhaps the text I quoted in my last post (the post you said was a straw man) was intending something different from what I quoted above?

Evidence?

Let’s start with those four links I provided you.

Only in your eyes.

Interacting with the argument I gave instead of simply disagreeing with the conclusion would be appreciated.

Read Charlie’s diatribe about “filth”. So porn is limited to visual representation of sex?

Fair enough, though I think one line hardly qualifies as a diatribe.
I’m typically inclined to put pornography in terms of just visuals merely as a semantic and etymological rule. Which isn’t to say that any non-visual medium all of a sudden becomes a-okay.

There is nothing “sacred” about it, per se. Not more than any other expression of free speech. Which, by the way, is NOT absolute. Shouting “fire” in a crowded theater is NOT protected. Giving a detailed description of how you make a nuke in your kitchen is NOT protected. Direct libeling or slandering someone is NOT protected… BUT satire IS, no matter how scathing it might be. Making fun of others is protected. The Kama Sutra is protected. Depicting children in a sexual “environment” is NOT protected.

Okay; I disagree with none of this.

Your remark about the “poking your nose into someone else’s bedroom” reminds me of the following:

An old spinster goes to the local police station and complains that the couple across the street engages in “filthy”, disgusting sexual practices, and she is exposed to them against her wishes. She wants the police do something about it. So, two cops come to her house to investigate, but they see nothing at all. The old spinster says: “Well you can’t see it from there!” and climbs up on the top of the wardrobe, grabs the curtain rod, and leans out sideways. Then exclaims: “Come up here and you will see all those disgusting acts!!”

I suggest to print it out and place it above your desk to read it every day.

Did you miss the part where I talked about the effects being manifest in public and the society at large? With that point in mind, this entire story becomes irrelevant.

 

[ThinkingSapien]

Dunno, is the picture/sculpture simply being used as an object for sexual pleasure? If so, then yes, it’s pornography.
…]
And I’m saying that whatever conceptual differences there are, the line is not so clear cut in reality.
…]
Perhaps I should add the qualification that said content must be used as a means of deriving sexual pleasure.

That seems to go back to a subjective aspect of the issue; that same sculpture will probably be viewed differently by the people that look upon it. Some might admire the work of the artist, some might look at it and admire human form in general, some might look at it and enter into sexual fantasize. Not that a full clothed statue would stop one from fantasizing.

I’m typically inclined to put pornography in terms of just visuals merely as a semantic and etymological rule. Which isn’t to say that any non-visual medium all of a sudden becomes a-okay.

I was having a discussion about this topic with a friend. During the discussion I cam across a description that I interpreted to be sexual but was written completely in metaphor. The description we read inspired a laugh and a giggle; there is something about double entendre’s that is more likely to amuse my friend and I than arouse either of us. But I can easily see how it might arouse someone else.

Did you miss the part where I talked about the effects being manifest in public and the society at large? With that point in mind, this entire story becomes irrelevant.

While I think you may be talking about some indirect consequence thought to be caused by a person watching porn as I read this I can’t help but think of a fictional company that produces “Conflict Free Porn.” Using CGI and mocap suits someone could produce porn in which the actors don’t actually engage in sex, but instead engage in some set of motions that a computer is capturing and using in the rendering of computer generated people. The motion actors themselves could pretty much be people of any gender combination. The voice actors could even be someone else. At the end the computer could render several versions of the video according to preferences of the audience or even render the video on demand. I don’t really expect something like this to happen as I get the feeling not much money goes into the production of such videos. But I wonder whether videos produced this way would raise less concerns than videos produced by filming real people.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

In post #4 I clarified what I hoped would be the focus of this thread … cable porn, which is always of the hardcore variety.

I see that none of the libertarian hardcore porn advocates are addressing the evidence I brought forward in the earlier post. Not sure why. Refusal to examine it? Inability to rebut it? In any case, here it is again. Anyone who takes a good look and finds this to be something he had not previously considered might want to re-assess whether the freedom to view porn is really and important freedom worth defending in the light of all the devastating consequences for live actors and their audiences giving their lives over to degenerate sex.

Here are the 3 sources again, in case you missed them the first time around:

crosswalk.com/family/marr…-11558259.html

covenanteyes.com/2011/03/…orn-addiction/

youtube.com/watch?v=D8vigJVm-8A

 

[ThinkingSapien]

Here are the 3 sources again, in case you missed them the first time around:

crosswalk.com/family/marr…-11558259.html

covenanteyes.com/2011/03/…orn-addiction/

youtube.com/watch?v=D8vigJVm-8A

Let me help you out. I think you went and copied and pasted those URLs from the earlier post. Unfortunately this only copied the shortened representation of those links but not the address to which they refer. In shorter terms, clicking on those first two links won’t work (the YouTube link is fine).

Saving you the trouble of posting it again and everyone else interested the trouble of finding the original message, here are the links in a form that will work.

crosswalk.com/family/marriage/the-victims-of-pornography-11558259.html

covenanteyes.com/2011/03/03/i-wasnt-the-only-victim-of-his-porn-addiction/

youtube.com/watch?v=D8vigJVm-8A