Should graphic pornography be banned?

[friardchips]

Well said. Anything goes thinking feeds into man’s fallen nature and always leads to bad consequences. Calling graphic pornography good is one example.

People can start banning graphic internet pornography themselves, and bring the government’s attention to the fact that people deserve dignity and that human decency is a vital component for looking at the opposite sex, and human dignity as well. Perverse, deviant behavior are exactly the wrong things to want.

Peace,
Ed

Peace, Ed! I agree! People can, but then one’s guile is a strong force for evil, and I don’t know how much this works in reality for those that have serious problems. The ones I feel especially sorry for are the ones who could do without this filth being around. I don’t know why the Church doesn’t combat this by setting up Church initiatives to build prayer/practical-plans of action (as another poster suggested).

Someone earlier mentioned a kind of opt-in for people who want to view this stuff allowing it to remain legal but I think anyone who is combatting strong desires of lust would eventually just put in fake details or something or just give in. Also, this would give the impression still that there is nothing wrong.

Many people on here are arguing against the ban with the idea that it would be hard to determine filth made for money from filth made for private use, and therefore squash freedom of choice. But I think it would be very easy to tell if someone has made pornography to sell because they would not just have one or two private-looking videos/pictures, they would in fact have many, possibly their own website with a shopping-cart, with filth for sale, possibly have high-tech filming equipment, and business banking details with transactions that point to the selling of pornography. But anyone who has just been messing around in their own time for private use would not have any of this. Another false premise was that it couldn’t be distinguished from art. Well, then this would put the onus on real artists to be more careful and to advertise in a way that it was obvious their work was art-focussed. In the meantime, I fully agree that Christians have a duty to campaign for change, and to educate in the meantime, that one’s soul is more important than instant gratification.

As far as freedom of choice issues go, I have this quote from a Church Sunday Mass Leaflet I picked up:

As a response to Matthew 22:15-21:

'This is a difficult little story that has drawn conflicting interpretations throughout Christian history, especially when it has been invoked for guidance in Church/State relations. “Rendering to Caesar” has sometimes been taken to mean that Christians should keep religion and politics separate. But this is not the point of the story.

If we are to understand it properly, we need to bear in mind that the heart of the kingdom of God is at hand. The kingdom is not a place, but a call to submit every aspect of our lives to God’s kingly rule. Until God’s rule is fully realised, we live in provisional times. We live, for example, in a political world whose values often fall short of the values of the kingdom and can even be directly opposed to them.

“Rendering to God the things that are God’s” acknowledges that God has an interest in the human world, including the world of politics, especially when it concerns itself with moral issues.

To be a disciple of Jesus means that all other values, including our political allegiances, must always be with an eye to the values of Jesus.’

(Redemptorist Publications).

 

[friardchips]

Hot air. Of dubious origin.

oh yes, oops! :juggle:

Thanks!

 

[ThinkingSapien]

Perverse, deviant behavior are exactly the wrong things to want.

If by “deviant” you are referring to a variation away from what is considered normal-acceptable, I don’t think that people finding enjoyment in sexual imagery are as unusual or unacceptable in sections of western society as you might think. Many of the most popular shows on TV have had a lot of sex scenes. “Game of Thrones”, “Sex in the City”, “True Blood”, and others. There are also forms of media that don’t show the sex but rely descriptions including romance novels and other TV shows such as “Scandal” and “How to Get Away with Murder.” I can find sexual imagery in publications that might not be described as sexual; magazines on cars and fashion come to mind.

Someone earlier mentioned a kind of opt-in for people who want to view this stuff allowing it to remain legal but I think anyone who is combatting strong desires of lust would eventually just put in fake details or something or just give in. Also, this would give the impression still that there is nothing wrong.

I don’t think that would work here in the USA. Where you live it may be different. But smaller versions of that have lead to law suits and interactions from the ACLU.

Many people on here are arguing against the ban with the idea that it would be hard to determine filth made for money from filth made for private use, and therefore squash freedom of choice.

There’s gradients. Some people put up high quality nude shots of themselves for self promotion. The nudes may or may not be sexual. There may be no money made off of the pictures on the site. But the self promotion can lead to the discovery of money making opportunities.

But I think it would be very easy to tell if someone has made pornography to sell because they would not just have one or two private-looking videos/pictures, they would in fact have many, possibly their own website with a shopping-cart, with filth for sale, possibly have high-tech filming equipment, and business banking details with transactions that point to the selling of pornography.

While a shopping cart is indicative of trying to make money those other things are not. You can get your own domain and hosting for just a few dollars a month. The yearly cost can be as low as some one pays for food in one day. And as mentioned earlier, the shopping cart isn’t necessary for making money off of the shots. The porn industry has been a leader in ecommerce and making money through the Internet since before the general public had access to it. There’s a lot of knowledge on how to monetize that don’t necessarily involve credit cards.

Side note, there are plenty of private Facebook (among other online social communities) in which people distribute their home made collections to other people that they don’t know. Being private, these groups are not something that can be easily found. Instead one must get an invite.

possibly have high-tech filming equipment …] But anyone who has just been messing around in their own time for private use would not have any of this.

Don’t be so sure of that. There are many of us that have expensive camera equipment for personal photography. I’ve got a $7,000-$8,000 setup just for taking pictures of the night sky to say nothing of the other camera equipment I have. But expensive equipment isn’t needed, and the presence of such equipment doesn’t imply commercial uses. For under $100 some one can get enough equipment to shoot in high def assuming s/he doesn’t already have a phone that does it (many of the most popular phones including the iPhone and Galaxy lines shoot at or above high def). I think many people would find they already have the equipment they need to start making porn. The skill of effectively using it may not be there, but not all porn needs grade-A camera work.

Another false premise was that it couldn’t be distinguished from art.

I think that was one form of the more general statement that porn is yet to be well defined. Art is one of the other scenarios in which one might find sexual depictions. It can also be found in other forms of entertainment or interest (ex: cultural explorations, humor, a manual for sexually active couples, so on).

In the meantime, I fully agree that Christians have a duty to campaign for change, and to educate in the meantime, that one’s soul is more important than instant gratification.

And that’s fine. It’s worth pointing out that Christians don’t all have the same view on this and don’t necessarily see porn as soul damaging. There’s variations in what people consider acceptable or soul-damaging.

 

[friardchips]

If by “deviant” you are referring to a variation away from what is considered normal-acceptable, I don’t think that people finding enjoyment in sexual imagery are as unusual or unacceptable in sections of western society as you might think. Many of the most popular shows on TV have had a lot of sex scenes. “Game of Thrones”, “Sex in the City”, “True Blood”, and others. There are also forms of media that don’t show the sex but rely descriptions including romance novels and other TV shows such as “Scandal” and “How to Get Away with Murder.” I can find sexual imagery in publications that might not be described as sexual; magazines on cars and fashion come to mind.

I don’t think that would work here in the USA. Where you live it may be different. But smaller versions of that have lead to law suits and interactions from the ACLU.

There’s gradients. Some people put up high quality nude shots of themselves for self promotion. The nudes may or may not be sexual. There may be no money made off of the pictures on the site. But the self promotion can lead to the discovery of money making opportunities.

While a shopping cart is indicative of trying to make money those other things are not. You can get your own domain and hosting for just a few dollars a month. The yearly cost can be as low as some one pays for food in one day. And as mentioned earlier, the shopping cart isn’t necessary for making money off of the shots. The porn industry has been a leader in ecommerce and making money through the Internet since before the general public had access to it. There’s a lot of knowledge on how to monetize that don’t necessarily involve credit cards.

Side note, there are plenty of private Facebook (among other online social communities) in which people distribute their home made collections to other people that they don’t know. Being private, these groups are not something that can be easily found. Instead one must get an invite.

Don’t be so sure of that. There are many of us that have expensive camera equipment for personal photography. I’ve got a $7,000-$8,000 setup just for taking pictures of the night sky to say nothing of the other camera equipment I have. But expensive equipment isn’t needed, and the presence of such equipment doesn’t imply commercial uses. For under $100 some one can get enough equipment to shoot in high def assuming s/he doesn’t already have a phone that does it (many of the most popular phones including the iPhone and Galaxy lines shoot at or above high def). I think many people would find they already have the equipment they need to start making porn. The skill of effectively using it may not be there, but not all porn needs grade-A camera work.

I think that was one form of the more general statement that porn is yet to be well defined. Art is one of the other scenarios in which one might find sexual depictions. It can also be found in other forms of entertainment or interest (ex: cultural explorations, humor, a manual for sexually active couples, so on).

And that’s fine. It’s worth pointing out that Christians don’t all have the same view on this and don’t necessarily see porn as soul damaging. There’s variations in what people consider acceptable or soul-damaging.

Hi again. To all but the last paragraph, I’ll have to get back to you, because you list responses which are interesting and so require more thought and research.

Last paragraph - I can answer now: it depends what being a ‘Christian’ means. I don’t think I do enough to term myself a Christian in any way, shape or form, and many Christians might feel they don’t struggle enough against vices, some don’t care, some have given up. But to be a Christian means to work, with the help of God’s grace, towards inner conversion (growing in love in the unselfish sense); so, I would argue that the ones who really are Christians are the one’s who understand that pornography goes against the words of Jesus, and live by His teaching. The Church does teach that lust is a selfish desire and so does Scripture. In Christianity, prolonging a lustful thought is a sin not the initial feeling or temptation. Anyone who says that they are a Christian but doesn’t mind pornography is not a Christian in the practical sense of the word and really doesn’t have a right to call themselves this boldly and should certainly make sure they add they are a struggling Christian, because pornography is made in order to excite and prolong feelings of lust. I am included in these rules as is every Christian. To be honest, I think otherwise, the efforts of those who don’t care, as apparent Christians, make a mockery of all those who do care and really struggle with it.

For now, thanks for responses!

 

[ThinkingSapien]

Last paragraph - I can answer now: it depends what being a ‘Christian’ means.

I only use it to group people that self-identify as Christians. There’s a wide variance in behaviours and beliefs of those that call themselves Christians and I don’t think I could take any specific on to and say “this is a model of a true Christian.” Nor could I tell some one that she is not one for having some variance from the model. Were I to do so I could see some one potentially seeing it as a the “True Scotsman Fallacy.”

 

[friardchips]

I only use it to group people that self-identify as Christians. There’s a wide variance in behaviours and beliefs of those that call themselves Christians and I don’t think I could take any specific on to and say “this is a model of a true Christian.” Nor could I tell some one that she is not one for having some variance from the model. Were I to do so I could see some one potentially seeing it as a the “True Scotsman Fallacy.”

It depends. If one were to lead a chaste life according to their position in life, and one believed it was wrong to do otherwise, either morally or as a Christian, again depending on your position in life, would be entitled and in some cases obligated by conscience to say something (albeit sensitively). This doesn’t however excuse those who believe it isn’t wrong from not researching why things they understand to be wrong are considered to be by a large portion of society, because we all have a duty-of-care towards our own consciences, to educate them. No one is free from freedom-of-choice-with-responsibility, because an inbuilt level of conscience for the truth (knowledge of right from wrong) is something all people are born with to some degree, and so those who deliberately won’t ‘see or hear’ these truths are still guilty of culpable ignorance (a strong word and not meant as a personal attack on this thread). And those that do know or have a sense that something might be wrong, have a duty-towards-neighbour (love) to educate (without judging the person).

 

[Estel]

Yes, pornography should be banned. It is a perversion of one of God’s great gifts, and a terrible assault to the family, and an industry that is responsible not only for the ruining of many lives here on earth, but likely responsible for many ruining of lives in the world to come, and a degradation to the dignity of women (and men), and just a horrible thing. I admit with great shame to have engaged in pornography, and I can say there is nothing loving about it, it is totally against Christianity and the family. I wish it was banned, and then I would be free of it. Yet, there is another way we can be free of it, and that is by God’s grace. If not abstain as ideally, then we can be free through the Sacrament of Reconciliation, that heals our self inflicted wounds of sin. I think that if we as a Church turn back to the Lord with all our heart, and turn back to Immaculate Mother Mary, we will see a great reduction in pornography throughout the world. That is a hope of mine. May the hearts of Jesus and Mary lead us to be free from this evil.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

I only use it to group people that self-identify as Christians. There’s a wide variance in behaviours and beliefs of those that call themselves Christians and I don’t think I could take any specific on to and say “this is a model of a true Christian.” Nor could I tell some one that she is not one for having some variance from the model. Were I to do so I could see some one potentially seeing it as a the “True Scotsman Fallacy.”

I’m not so sure the “No True Scotsman” fallacy cannot be invoked with respect to some who call themselves Christians. Jacques Maritain echoed Christ’s definition of a true Christian in his book The Range of Reason. “There are practical atheists who believe that they believe in God (and who perhaps believe in Him in their brains) but who in reality deny His existence by each one of their deeds. Out of the living God they have made an idol.” In other words, some people who call themselves Christians are lying to themselves, because no true Christian would behave in such a manner.

 

[ThinkingSapien]

I’m not so sure the “No True Scotsman” fallacy cannot be invoked with respect to some who call themselves Christians. Jacques Maritain echoed Christ’s definition of a true Christian in his book The Range of Reason.

This seems to reiterate what I said about there being a variance in behaviour and beliefs. From the outside looking in there are many groups of people that all declare to be more correct than the other groups of people.How to go about determining which if any is correct may be a discussion that is worthy of it’s own thread.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

This seems to reiterate what I said about there being a variance in behaviour and beliefs. From the outside looking in there are many groups of people that all declare to be more correct than the other groups of people.How to go about determining which if any is correct may be a discussion that is worthy of it’s own thread.

O.K. I’ve started a new thread on the No True Scotsman Fallacy here:

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?p=12448970#post12448970

 

[edwest2]

If by “deviant” you are referring to a variation away from what is considered normal-acceptable, I don’t think that people finding enjoyment in sexual imagery are as unusual or unacceptable in sections of western society as you might think. Many of the most popular shows on TV have had a lot of sex scenes. “Game of Thrones”, “Sex in the City”, “True Blood”, and others. There are also forms of media that don’t show the sex but rely descriptions including romance novels and other TV shows such as “Scandal” and “How to Get Away with Murder.” I can find sexual imagery in publications that might not be described as sexual; magazines on cars and fashion come to mind.

I don’t think that would work here in the USA. Where you live it may be different. But smaller versions of that have lead to law suits and interactions from the ACLU.

There’s gradients. Some people put up high quality nude shots of themselves for self promotion. The nudes may or may not be sexual. There may be no money made off of the pictures on the site. But the self promotion can lead to the discovery of money making opportunities.

While a shopping cart is indicative of trying to make money those other things are not. You can get your own domain and hosting for just a few dollars a month. The yearly cost can be as low as some one pays for food in one day. And as mentioned earlier, the shopping cart isn’t necessary for making money off of the shots. The porn industry has been a leader in ecommerce and making money through the Internet since before the general public had access to it. There’s a lot of knowledge on how to monetize that don’t necessarily involve credit cards.

Side note, there are plenty of private Facebook (among other online social communities) in which people distribute their home made collections to other people that they don’t know. Being private, these groups are not something that can be easily found. Instead one must get an invite.

Don’t be so sure of that. There are many of us that have expensive camera equipment for personal photography. I’ve got a $7,000-$8,000 setup just for taking pictures of the night sky to say nothing of the other camera equipment I have. But expensive equipment isn’t needed, and the presence of such equipment doesn’t imply commercial uses. For under $100 some one can get enough equipment to shoot in high def assuming s/he doesn’t already have a phone that does it (many of the most popular phones including the iPhone and Galaxy lines shoot at or above high def). I think many people would find they already have the equipment they need to start making porn. The skill of effectively using it may not be there, but not all porn needs grade-A camera work.

I think that was one form of the more general statement that porn is yet to be well defined. Art is one of the other scenarios in which one might find sexual depictions. It can also be found in other forms of entertainment or interest (ex: cultural explorations, humor, a manual for sexually active couples, so on).

And that’s fine. It’s worth pointing out that Christians don’t all have the same view on this and don’t necessarily see porn as soul damaging. There’s variations in what people consider acceptable or soul-damaging.

I was not calling it unusual. It took 40 years of a little sexual imagery, and innuendo, to the next sexual level and to the next level, like turning up the volume on a speaker. The goal was clear: to gradually desensitize people to it. That is wrong. That’s why I don’t watch 99% of what’s on TV except for the occasional bad/wrong show so I can warn everyone about what’s wrong with it first-hand. The same with fiction books and the same with movies. I see maybe one or two movies a year.

Magazines? I just dropped one and would never read the bulk of the rest - not just because I don’t like crochet magazines but for the content.

The fact that some find sexual deviancy acceptable was the desired end result. Pornography is harmful.

catholicnewsagency.com/resources/life-and-family/pornography/the-harmful-effects-of-pornography/

Peace,
Ed

 

[Prodigal_Son]

That’s why I don’t watch 99% of what’s on TV except for the occasional bad/wrong show so I can warn everyone about what’s wrong with it first-hand.

I always make sure to check out the SI Swimsuit issue every year, for exactly this reason. I want to be able to warn people about exactly what sorts of inappropriate things are contained within it. :sad_yes:

 

[Charlemagne_III]

Ed,

That is an interesting article! I hope others will read it.

I like the 12 discussions as follows about the harm pornography does:

1. Harm to the Soul
2. Harm to Personal Morality and Chastity
3. Harm to Public Morality
4. Harm to Marriage
5. Harm of Violence Toward Women
6. Harm of Degradation of Women
7. Harm to Children
8. Harm of stimulations resulting in Rape
9. Harm of Contracting AIDS and other Venereal Diseases in Peep Show Booths and Spreading the Same to the Public
10. Harm to Performers in the production of porno films and videos
11. Harm to Performers in Nude Dancing Establishments
12. Harm to innocent persons criminally assaulted and murdered by those stimulated by porn, including Serial Murderers

 

[ThinkingSapien]

I was not calling it unusual.

Okay, wanted to make sure.

I always make sure to check out the SI Swimsuit issue every year, for exactly this reason.

Hmmm…have you ever been on a beach in which nudity was allowed? I have. And it largely seemed that people were not paying that much attention to those that were not in their interaction group. Some were tanning, some were swimming, some were eating. There was more skin showing on the beach than in a Sports Illustrated Swimsuit Edition but I got the impression that the SI magazine is more sexual than the scene on the beach.

 

[LoganBice]

If you look at recent science behind pornography it shows that porn changes the wiring in the the brain. It makes it so visual stimulation of unrealistic fantasies with the most beautiful women/men becomes the trigger for sexual arousal. Its has been shown to decline libido, sexual attraction to your real partner and the porn becomes addicting and habitual because of the way it effects the brain this can cause you to engage in pornographic material in situations that may take away from other social situations.
To me porn should be viewed and treated like an addiction and problem that people need to be helped with, but instead out society supports it under the name of “liberty” and “freedom” instead of being viewed as a addictive abuse of something. The problem with the republic that we live under is that we have valued radical equality over truth, beauty, and justice. We are so obsessed with this equality that people are willing to sacrifice the truth of universal morality for something that “won’t offend” those who do not agree.

Democratic systems can only work when the people (who have the power) are moral. We developed into these systems because of government abuse, but what happens when the peoples morals control the government? the whole system implodes eventually when those morals decline into realavism.

 

[ThinkingSapien]

The problem with the republic that we live under is that we have valued radical equality over truth, beauty, and justice. We are so obsessed with this equality that people are willing to sacrifice the truth of universal morality for something that “won’t offend” those who do not agree.

As used in these forums I’ve seen the word “truth” used to mean something different than “a factual statement.” I’ve not been able to get a solid definition for it’s usage here beyond it seems to be something to which some one has strong personal feelings. There’s a little ambiguity in your usage of the word “beauty” too. You may have something specific in mind, but beauty can also refer to something that is in part a matter of taste. There’s bound to be variance in disagreement, especially in a non homogeneous pluralistic society.

 

[LoganBice]

As used in these forums I’ve seen the word “truth” used to mean something different than “a factual statement.” I’ve not been able to get a solid definition for it’s usage here beyond it seems to be something to which some one has strong personal feelings. There’s a little ambiguity in your usage of the word “beauty” too. You may have something specific in mind, but beauty can also refer to something that is in part a matter of taste. There’s bound to be variance in disagreement, especially in a non homogeneous pluralistic society.

I read this but don’t have time at the moment to respond. Ill respond as soon as I can.

 

[Prodigal_Son]

Hmmm…have you ever been on a beach in which nudity was allowed? I have. And it largely seemed that people were not paying that much attention to those that were not in their interaction group. Some were tanning, some were swimming, some were eating. There was more skin showing on the beach than in a Sports Illustrated Swimsuit Edition but I got the impression that the SI magazine is more sexual than the scene on the beach.

Um.

I was making a joke. Did you seriously believe that I peruse the swimsuit issue in order to warn people about its dangers? Seriously?

As for your point, I agree that women posing provocatively in bikinis are sexier than people on a nude beach.

 

[ThinkingSapien]

Um.

I was making a joke. Did you seriously believe that I peruse the swimsuit issue in order to warn people about its dangers? Seriously?

As for your point, I agree that women posing provocatively in bikinis are sexier than people on a nude beach.

Nope, I didn’t take you too seriously. But I thought it was something to consider that is somewat relevant to the discussion especially since the boundaries of what is or is not considered porn has yet to be defined.

 

[edwest2]

Okay, wanted to make sure.

Hmmm…have you ever been on a beach in which nudity was allowed? I have. And it largely seemed that people were not paying that much attention to those that were not in their interaction group. Some were tanning, some were swimming, some were eating. There was more skin showing on the beach than in a Sports Illustrated Swimsuit Edition but I got the impression that the SI magazine is more sexual than the scene on the beach.

Beaches are 100% off limits. I’ve seen teenage girls running around in their underwear - and less - falsely called swimsuits. No daughter of mine would ever be allowed to wear such sexually provocative bits of string and perhaps enough material to make a handkerchief.

The Sports Illustrated swimsuit issue is strictly off limits. Having a background in photography, I know models are not just chosen for their beauty but are carefully posed in carefully selected settings and with the photographer’s instructions as to how to bend or twist their bodies, along with the right facial expression, to get maximum sexual impact. Hair and makeup do the rest.

Another lame attempt to put men in the wrong frame of mind. If you love sports, it’s OK. But the swimsuit issue? For what? To make men think that scantily clad women need to be on their minds? It’s a no-brainer. Throw it in the trash. And don’t buy it in stores.

Peace,
Ed