Should graphic pornography be banned?

[Michael19682]

Comparing women with sewers and sacrificing them to men is the most evil thing I’ve ever heard of. It is a cynical objectification of women which wouldn’t be allowed with livestock. To gain its misogynistic ends, it callously ignores the inhumanity of the means.

In such a “morality” anything goes, there are no absolutes, nothing is forbidden, just cold calculation of loss vs. gain.

If Aquinas really said that then we should question whether he knew anything whatsoever of Christ, let alone of what it means to be a human being.

Be careful how you interpret the English. “Should” is not necessarily a flippant endorsement. It could mean that when it exists, however regrettably, it should be “for” a specific purpose; or at the very least be seen for that purpose for compassion’s sake. Depending on how prostitution is conceived, the resultant attitudes of those who visit them will dictate behavior. I don’t know the source, per se, of the quote, but it seems to me that it should endorse
benevolent treatment and not abuse, which is all too common. How ever base the sin and dirty the analogy, prostitutes are human nevertheless.

 

[Michael19682]

An “Encyclopedia of Prostitution and Sex Work”, if such a publication exists, sound like a cynical left-wing feminist sort of publication so it’s not the place where i would expect to read a fair representation of a Catholic philosopher.

You see the bridge from “there were at some point a small number of Catholic bishops who may have played a part in running a brothel or maybe even used its services (and we know this because of hearsay or because somebody discovered the text of a rude song or a rude caricature that says so, so it must be true)” to saying “bishops generally ran brothels and also frequented them”. If they make one such mis-statement, why trust the other stuff they are saying?

It probably exists to promote prostitution. More like a trade publication than a scholarly book.
Repulsive. Books like fall into the hands of kids who don’t know the difference or see the obvious ploy.

 

[friardchips]

I did a quick search of the word ‘light’ for this thread.
God is light. All porn aims at corrupting physical light.
I truly believe we are not talking only about the corruption
(of moral light) in these, forms of sin, but about using a useful,
natural stimulus to portray images that serve no purpose
in the natural order from which light is given.

This is interesting how you write about physical light. But all light, whether physical or moral comes down to moral if we approach from a God perspective. How we choose to use the light we have been given, any light, is key here.

Much of the higher light of the ministry of Jesus, all his words and
deeds, have their substratum in the power of the brain or mind
to receive and manipulate natural light.

I haven’t read up on this but I would say that trying to explain holy mysteries will lead you into difficulty when trying to find physical ways to explain them. There are various quotes in the Bible saying not to. For good reason.

The question for those who want these, forms of sin banned,
should be to ask if they like all of us who are corruptible
on some level, want such images to supplant the parables and
stories of Jesus.
At the very least, they cannot be seen to augment the
Church.

How do images made to reflect Truth and Beauty compare with images made to bring lust to the heart. This comparison for dialogue is erroneous in concept.

The first time I have seen pornography used as a (comparison), to the relationship between Bible and Church. Whatever next!

If they respond that nothing is corruptible,
then they should say what corruption is.

Sorry if I reiterated anyone’s previous remarks.

This has been discussed. In simple and straightforward terms.

 

[ThinkingSapien]

Rule number one: do not click on any links from any unknown recipient. Rule number two: a friend’s e-mail was hacked and I got a message from her and it was not her. Our IT guy fixed that, but some people are not as aware.

And they just keep trying different ways to make you think that next innocent sounding message is just for you.

What you are experiencing is a subset of the problem of SPAM e-mails. Unfortunately for this problem your vulnerability is in part going to be impacted by the behaviours of people that have your e-mail address and how secure they keep their accounts and their e-mailing habits (ex: forwarding e-mails to large amounts of people without using the BCC field raises the chances that the addresses in the e-mail will get harvested by a spammer).

Sending unsolicited pornographic e-mails is already illegal under the “CAN SPAM Act” of 2003 and the “Controlling the Assault of Non-Solicited Pornography And Marketing Act” of 2003. But such unsolicited e-mails are often sent from outside the USA, from compromised home computers, and other channels that are outside the reach of law enforcement (stricter enforcement of those laws could lead to the conviction of otherwise innocent people that didn’t know their computers or accounts were hijacked). Groups that are already operating outside the boundaries of the law might not react much to laws being made that would make the material that their distribute being outside the law.

I think this is outside of the set of “problems” that would be impacted by porn being banned.

 

[friardchips]

I think this is outside of the set of “problems” that would be impacted by porn being banned.

Why? If someone posted a dirty magazine through one’s door one might feel, and have reason to feel, invaded, molested and even abused (on moral grounds, at least).

 

[Michael19682]

This is interesting how you write about physical light. But all light, whether physical or moral comes down to moral if we approach from a God perspective. How we choose to use the light we have been given, any light, is key here.

Jesus was visible and so were his miracles. True, nothing unusual or atypical in his appearance, but that in itself signifies something real here. To say all light comes down to moral might be true from the God perspective; but then all things which come to our brains in light form don’t signify morality. Normal bread before consecration; wine, etc. If you say to use the [any] light you have been given and still speak from a God perspective or moral standpoint, I can only reply we have been given all light, full revelation in the gospel. “You can’t love God whom you cannot see if you don’t love your brother whom you can see.”

I haven’t read up on this but I would say that trying to explain holy mysteries will lead you into difficulty when trying to find physical ways to explain them. There are various quotes in the Bible saying not to. For good reason.

The parables were part of his ministry. He as you well know, quite surely explains them to us himself through the grace of the evangelist. Yours appears to me to be an error in equating the whole with part. He explains them with real, visible substrates.

How do images made to reflect Truth and Beauty compare with images made to bring lust to the heart. This comparison for dialogue is erroneous in concept.

By their fruits you will know them. These images for them are fruits, therefore they are rotten. A tree that is healthy does not produce fruit that is rotten. The eye is the lamp of the body; if it is dark, how dark will the darkness be. Did you hear HIM?

The first time I have** seen pornography **used as a (comparison), to the relationship between Bible and Church. Whatever next!

We all make mistakes. But I posted no graphics, nor would I.

This has been discussed. In simple and straightforward terms.

 

[ThinkingSapien]

Why? If someone posted a dirty magazine through one’s door one might feel, and have reason to feel, invaded, molested and even abused (on moral grounds, at least).

I’ve not said anything that suggest oppositions to negative feelings about unsolicited messages. I’m not quite sure what you are asking me.

 

[Michael19682]

I think this is outside of the set of “problems” that would be impacted by porn being banned.

Be careful with approaching real life interconnections with a software life cycle approach. Love of money is the root of all evil. That implies a common basis for all evil. If you hack the root, in theory you get the whole plant. How do programmers say it, the main calling environment?

 

[friardchips]

I’ve not said anything that suggest oppositions to negative feelings about unsolicited messages. I’m not quite sure what you are asking me.

Fair comment. Thank you for your response. I was asking you why it is not a good enough reason for pornographic material to be banned (?) - being in receipt of filthy spam and adverts and always in danger of being exposed to material that is an abuse to the ‘human condition’ and psyche. I would suppose that if I were unfortunate enough to be living in an area with many heroin dealers and addicts that I might find having to walk around dirty needles in the street, and being in the knowledge that other people including women and children and all vulnerable people would have to do this also, to be good enough reason to think we had to clean up the filthy area.

 

[JapaneseKappa]

The Catholic Church does not approve of slavery, let alone selling oneself into slavery.

newadvent.org/cathen/14039a.htm

Slavery consists in this, that a man is obliged, for his whole life, to devote his labour and services to a master. Now as anybody may justly bind himself, for the sake of some anticipated reward, to give his entire services to a master for a year, and he would in justice be bound to fulfil this contract, why may not he bind himself in like manner for a longer period, even for his entire lifetime, an obligation which would constitute slavery? (De Justitia et Jure, disp. VI, sec. 2. no. 14.)

I think anyone can see in that article the awkwardness caused by the the authors trying to reconcile the church’s historical affirmations of slavery with the eventual condemnation of slavery in Vatican II. They are trying very hard to rectify the two because they do not want to admit that the church changed its position on this moral issue.

 

[friardchips]

Jesus was visible and so were his miracles. True, nothing unusual or atypical in his appearance, but that in itself signifies something real here. To say all light comes down to moral might be true from the God perspective; but then all things which come to our brains in light form don’t signify morality. Normal bread before consecration; wine, etc. If you say to use the [any] light you have been given and still speak from a God perspective or moral standpoint, I can only reply we have been given all light, full revelation in the gospel. “You can’t love God whom you cannot see if you don’t love your brother whom you can see.”

All light and goodness comes from God through Jesus Christ:

'Genesis 1: 1-5

In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. Now the earth was a formless void, there was darkness over the deep, and God’s spirit hovered over the water.

God said, “Let there be light”, and there was light. God saw that light was good, and God divided light from darkness. God called light ‘day’, and darkness he called ‘night’. Evening came and morning came: the first day.’

'Genesis 1: 14-19

God said: “Let there be lights in the vault of heaven to divide day from night, and let them indicate festivals, days and years. Let them be lights in the vault of heaven to shine on the earth”. And so it was. God made the two great lights: the great light to govern the day, the smaller light to govern the night, and the stars. God set them in the vault of heaven to shine on the earth, to govern the day and the night and to divide light from darkness. God saw that it was good.’

'Genesis 1: 26-27

God said: “Let us make man in our own image, in the likeness of ourselves, and let them be masters of the fish of the sea, the birds of heaven, the cattle, all the wild beasts and all the reptiles that crawl upon the earth”.

God created man in the image of himself, in the image of himself he created him, male and female he created them. God blessed them…’

'Genesis 2: 1-3

Thus heaven and earth were completed with all their array…God blessed the seventh day and made it holy, because on that day he had rested after all his work of creating.’

'Matthew 5: 27-29

You have learnt how it was said: you must not commit adultery. But I say to you: if a man looks at a woman lustfully, he has already committed adultery with her in his heart. If your right eye should cause you to sin, tear it out and throw it away; for it will do you less harm to lose one part of you than to have your whole body thrown into hell.’

---

To all the posters defending chastity on this thread, for you, particularly:

Sourced from ‘Love One Another’ Catholic magazine (issue no: 27).

"The culture of death wants to destroy the purity of heart…one of its strategies is deliberately to create doubt about the value of the human attitude which we call the virtue of chastity.

This is something particularly dangerous when the attack is aimed at the sensitive consciences of children and young people. A culture which in this way impairs or even destroys a correct relationship between individuals, is a culture of death, for man cannot live without true love.

Families need to take a firm stance in safeguarding the threshold of their homes, in defending the dignity of each person. Guard your families against pornography, which nowadays under various forms affects people’s minds, especially those of children and young people.

Defend the purity of morals in your homes and in society. Education in purity is one of the great challenges of the evangelization now before us.

The purer families are, the healthier the nation will be. And we want to remain a nation worthy of its name and its Christian vocation."

(St. John Paul II, Sandomierz, Poland, 12th June 1999).

 

[JapaneseKappa]

I did a quick search of the word ‘light’ for this thread. God is light. All porn aims at corrupting physical light. I truly believe we are not talking only about the corruption (of moral light) in these, forms of sin, but about using a useful, natural stimulus to portray images that serve no purpose in the natural order from which light is given.
Much of the higher light of the ministry of Jesus, all his words and deeds, have their substratum in the power of the brain or mind to receive and manipulate natural light. The question for those who want these, forms of sin banned, should be to ask if they like all of us who are corruptible on some level, want such images to supplant the parables and stories of Jesus. At the very least, they cannot be seen to augment theChurch. If they respond that nothing is corruptible,then they should say what corruption is.
Sorry if I reiterated anyone’s previous remarks.

This sort of reasoning would only be relevant to a question of legality in a theocracy.

 

[JapaneseKappa]

Fair comment. Thank you for your response. I was asking you why it is not a good enough reason for pornographic material to be banned (?) - being in receipt of filthy spam and adverts and always in danger of being exposed to material that is an abuse to the ‘human condition’ and psyche. I would suppose that if I were unfortunate enough to be living in an area with many heroin dealers and addicts that I might find having to walk around dirty needles in the street, and being in the knowledge that other people including women and children and all vulnerable people would have to do this also, to be good enough reason to think we had to clean up the filthy area.

You have invented a series of nebulous “harms” (such as -]degradation of integrity/-] abuse of the human psyche) which I think have no basis in reality. It would be like a hippie saying that we should ban GMOs because they degrade people’s aura. I have no doubt that the hippie believes that, but unless the GMOs have an actual observable effect on society beyond “aura degradation” (e.g. cancer) then I have no problem disregarding the hippie’s claims as entirely religious. Laws should not be based on purely religious claims, and so unless the hippie can supply an actual measurable harm caused by GMOs (i.e. other than aura problems) legislators should not listen to him. In the same way, unless you can supply an actual harm (i.e. other than “I don’t think porn viewers have any integrity”) I see no reason why legislators should listen to you.

 

[ThinkingSapien]

Fair comment. Thank you for your response. I was asking you why it is not a good enough reason for pornographic material to be banned (?)

I saw the above as largely a problem of unsolicited e-mail communications that involve parties that ignore or circumvent laws and regulations. Such communications cover a broad domain; credit repair, finances, cheaper medical services, porn, phishing, so on. Messages like these account for 70% of all e-mails [reference http://www.zdnet.com/worldwide-spam-rate-falls-2-5-percent-but-new-tactics-emerge-7000025517/”]1, 2]. It’s an area in which bans have been ineffective already.

I’m all for the prevention of the distribution of unwanted and unsolicited e-mails whether they be about porn or the cheapest place to get substitution medications. But I don’t expect a ban on the thus far ill defined porn to have an impact on those that are operating outside the law and outside of regulations. Also as mentioned earlier, I’m for now without strong feelings against porn, so there’s nothing motivating me to support a ban. It’s not something that interest me, but I’m not bothered by consenting adults having consenting sex and consenting to share reproductions of their actions with other adults that have interest in or have consented to seeing them. The emphasis here is on consent and interest. There can exist a world where such images and videos are shared but not by way of Ed’s inbox.

 

[ThinkingSapien]

Cirdan XII;12432502:

An “Encyclopedia of Prostitution and Sex Work”, if such a publication exists, sound like a cynical left-wing feminist sort of publication so it’s not the place where i would expect to read a fair representation of a Catholic philosopher.

It probably exists to promote prostitution. More like a trade publication than a scholarly book.
Repulsive. Books like fall into the hands of kids who don’t know the difference or see the obvious ploy.

I don’t think so. I looked up materials on the book and it seems to be a study of the implementations and attitudes of sex work primarily in western culture. Knowing that a book is about sex workers doesn’t by itself indication a position of promotion of sex work any more than a book about slavery indicates a position of promotion of owning slaves. The set is priced at $200 new or $120 used. I say judgement on it’s content be reserved until it’s content has been viewed.
"Amazon Description:

A-to-Z encyclopedia offers wide-ranging entries related to prostitution and the sex industry, past and present, both worldwide (mostly in the West) and in the United States. The topic of prostitution has high-interest appeal across disciplines, and the narrative entries illuminate literature, art, law, medicine, economics, politics, women’s studies, religion, sociology, sexuality, film, popular culture, public health, nonfiction, American and world history, business, gender, media, education, crime, race, technology, performing arts, family, social work, social mores, pornography, the military, tourism, child labor, and more. It is targeted to the general reader, who will gain useful insight into the human race through time via its sex industry and prostitution.

An introduction overviews the scope of prostitution from the earliest historical records, including the Bible. User-friendly lists that are alphabetically and topically arranged help the reader find entries of interest, as does the comprehensive index. A chronology proffers significant dates related to the topic. Each entry is signed and has suggestions for further reading. Sample entries: Abolition; Actresses; Augustine, Saint; Barr, Candy; Bible; Camp Followers; Chamberlain-Kahn Bill of 1918; Child Prostitution; Clothing, Contagious Diseases Acts of 1864, 1866, and 1869; Crime; Debby Doesn’t Do It for Free; Dickens, Charles; Devadasi; Entrapment; Fallen Woman Trope; Feminism; Films, Cult; Five Points; Free Love; Geisha; Globalization; Guidebooks; Hip-Hop; HIV/AIDS and the Prostitution Rights Movement; Human Rights; Incest; Internet; Jack the Ripper; Kama Sutra; League of Nations; Lulu; Male Stripping; Mann Act; Mayhew, Henry; Memoirs; Migration and Mobility; Nazi Germany; Poetry; Purity Movements; R&R; Religion; Salvation Army; Scapegoating; Slang; Storyville; Temporary Marriage; Unions; Venice; Window Prostitution.

 

[friardchips]

I saw the above as largely a problem of unsolicited e-mail communications that involve parties that ignore or circumvent laws and regulations. Such communications cover a broad domain; credit repair, finances, cheaper medical services, porn, phishing, so on. Messages like these account for 70% of all e-mails [reference http://www.zdnet.com/worldwide-spam-rate-falls-2-5-percent-but-new-tactics-emerge-7000025517/”]1

, 2]. It’s an area in which bans have been ineffective already.

All it takes is a law to be passed because such measures taken to restrict hoax spammers did do some good. I can give one example that is very good: you remember that advertisers used to be able to send advertising but they were not required to put an ‘unsubscribe’ link on the email? That was a brilliant stroke of genius when introduced. I have ‘unsubscribed’ to so many and this thankfully made an amazing difference to my email account and to some degree I felt as if I was back in control of what I was going to receive! And do you remember all these so-called business propositions from apparent African companies asking people to invest in their products and ideas - no more have I seen of this!

I’m all for the prevention of the distribution of unwanted and unsolicited e-mails whether they be about porn or the cheapest place to get substitution medications. But I don’t expect a ban on the thus far ill defined porn to have an impact on those that are operating outside the law and outside of regulations. Also as mentioned earlier, I’m for now without strong feelings against porn, so there’s nothing motivating me to support a ban. It’s not something that interest me, but I’m not bothered by consenting adults having consenting sex and consenting to share reproductions of their actions with other adults that have interest in or have consented to seeing them. The emphasis here is on consent and interest. There can exist a world where such images and videos are shared but not by way of Ed’s inbox.

To follow on from the last paragraph, the concern lies in worrying about others not just oneself. Hoax business investment invites I am sure hurt many old people for example. There is a duty-of-care issue here.

The bit I underlined bothers me a bit, I have to say. You don’t come across as a stupid person so, with all due respect, are you not a Catholic? (if you don’t wish to answer then I’ll continue to mind my own business if the question is ignored).

 

[edwest2]

newadvent.org/cathen/14039a.htm

I think anyone can see in that article the awkwardness caused by the the authors trying to reconcile the church’s historical affirmations of slavery with the eventual condemnation of slavery in Vatican II. They are trying very hard to rectify the two because they do not want to admit that the church changed its position on this moral issue.

Here is an article that addresses how and when the Church dealt with slavery.

ewtn.com/library/ANSWERS/POPSLAVE.HTM

Peace,
Ed

 

[JapaneseKappa]

This has been discussed. In simple and straightforward terms.

Let us not forget that the crime for which Socrates was executed.

 

[JapaneseKappa]

Here is an article that addresses how and when the Church dealt with slavery.
ewtn.com/library/ANSWERS/POPSLAVE.HTM

Which provides some cute examples, but ignores some important details. Many of the 15th century bulls against slavery could be roughly summarized as “If we even enslave converts, no one will want to convert.” For example, the first bull is concerned with the enslavement of blacks only after they have converted. The second is concerned with the enslavement of indians who had sought shelter in Catholic institutions. In fact the author of the second bull, Paul III, later wrote a bull authorizing the ownership of enslaved Muslims.

 

[ThinkingSapien]

That was a brilliant stroke of genius when introduced. I have ‘unsubscribed’ to so many and this thankfully made an amazing difference to my email account and to some degree I felt as if I was back in control of what I was going to receive! And do you remember all these so-called business propositions from apparent African companies asking people to invest in their products and ideas - no more have I seen of this!

I remember it. But also some spam messages use a hoax unsubscribe link as a method of verifying that some one is actually receiving the e-mails. Remotely displayed images in e-mail also have been used to do the same. Other data suggest that that regulation has had little impact on the overall volume of spam (Which still floats around accounting for 70% for all e-mail). But there have been improvements in techniques for spam detection. There’s also now domain authentication on e-mails to help in spam detection and avoiding false positives along with a number of other changes that have all contributed to the reduction in the visibility of spam.

Consider the following chart from several years back. Google was graphing a change they saw in the volume of spam sent through their mail servers vs. how much of it was able to get through.



I don’t think regulations themselves have been successful on the fight for spam.

To follow on from the last paragraph, the concern lies in worrying about others not just oneself. Hoax business investment invites I am sure hurt many old people for example. There is a duty-of-care issue here.

No disagreement there. But I don’t equate the existence of a visual depiction of sex to be harm. There’s a Kama Sutra position’s video on Netflix. It doesn’t interest me, but I’m not bothered by it being there.

The bit I underlined bothers me a bit, I have to say. You don’t come across as a stupid person so, with all due respect, are you not a Catholic? (if you don’t wish to answer then I’ll continue to mind my own business if the question is ignored).

Nope, I’m just another dissenting opinion here.

Nope