Should graphic pornography be banned?

[friardchips]

Hi ThinkingSapien,

Hope all is well with you…

Ed’s article is revealing. Also, been watching this:

catholic.com/video/porn-and-nude-art-whats-the-difference

… to answer one of your questions.

Matt Fradd explains very well the difference between art and pornography and also references St. Pope JPII. I’d like to point out though, he says that in Genesis, God meant “Go forth and multiply”, to mean: “go and make babies.” This is not actually correct on its own as an interpretation because it is to be understood also in the spiritual, Christological way, not just one dimensionally. St. Augustine said that this Genesis Creation story has a spiritual meaning: to go forth and multiply the faithful (it is prophetic - Christ found in the text). I’d guess it possibly means both but never just the one practical meaning. Although even the practical sense of procreating as Matt Fradd pointed out, gives testament to the fact that sex is a gift of love, not lust, in relationship to God.

And there are load of videos on reasons why pornography is bad in that video section on this forum and to be honest it is all good stuff! This guy I think battled with addiction so knows the struggle, and took steps to understand why pornography is such a powerful destroyer of people’s lives, and took even further steps to change other people’s lives for the better by informing them of the dangers!

God bless.

 

[Bradski]

No daughter of mine would ever be allowed to wear such sexually provocative bits of string and perhaps enough material to make a handkerchief.

A flick of the hair, lowered eyelids, a half smile and a raised eyebrow can be a hell of lot more sexually provocative than running trough the shallows half naked.

May I suggest a burqa for any of your future daughters?

 

[friardchips]

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.

Anyone who puts up nude pictures of themselves on the public domain is doing this with some kind of intent to exhibit pornography to the public -whether to make money or for the perversion aspect.

What I am arguing is that I think it is a good premise for the distribution/public exhibition of pornography to be banned, for the same reasons that one can get arrested for having sex in the street.

To pick up on something briefly, what I saw in an earlier post, was the notion that acceptable behaviour should be judged purely on individual tastes - what is not okay for one person might be okay for another: well, no, because humans have consciences, which I mentioned before, and such acts of love toward ‘neighbour’, born from a care-of-duty for other people and their welfare, are matters of conscience; so, individualist thinking is along the lines of relativism, which is not protective of the human soul and a selflessly loving world.

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.

It doesn’t make any difference. If a person has their own site with nude models and any quality camera equipment and accounts showing money made from distribution, the conclusion is obvious. And the same goes if they haven’t made money from it. If they are putting themselves or others up for free on the public domain this action will still in itself be a demonstration of the intention to distribute or exhibit pornography.

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.

Then in order to subscribe to these invite-only communities, the one who has set up such a private community should be asked to provide real proof of identification - credit card details etc… - if they wish to make their dealings private, in order to make sure that illegally kept women are not being used in pornographic circles, which is the priority. However, it would still be pornography for distribution or exhibiting if posted in such a community because the internet is a public domain. So the need for identification on all levels of participation, in any invite-only online community, would put a stop to a lot of illegal activity after a ban on pornography distribution and public exhibition was introduced.

This is a different scenario to people who want to get together and film themselves in a house, for example, because a person’s house is not the public domain, and so filming pornography would count as private usage. The process would end there too because it would be illegal to share the filming in any market or public domain. So the people involved could only share the footage or pictures amongst themselves.

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.

To be honest, the equipment used is not such a big deal. Nevertheless, I think it is okay to assume that those who make pornography to distribute, would use more expensive equipment, than the one’s making such stuff for private use. How are producers going to coerce even the most naïve woman into believing she will be rich and famous when the producer all the while is flaunting only his little phone-camera.

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).

Provided a link in a previous post.

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.

Already answered this in another post.

Thanks.

 

[edwest2]

Always the argument from relativism and an accusation. Right is right and wrong is wrong. Not “There are varying opinions on this.” There is the truth and only the truth. No exceptions regarding graphic porn distributed to the public.

And let’s not forget the documented increase in girls and women being forced into prostitution. And being photographed under duress or without their knowledge.

Peace,
Ed

 

[ThinkingSapien]

A few quick comments; I’m on the move right now. I may revisit some things later.

Ed’s article is revealing. Also, been watching this:

catholic.com/video/porn-and-nude-art-whats-the-difference

I watched it. He puts an emphasis on the intent of the artist. Since we don’t have access each other’s minds and the intent isn’t always spelled out I can think of some cases on which people will have disagreement.

Anyone who puts up nude pictures of themselves on the public domain is doing this with some kind of intent to exhibit pornography to the public -whether to make money or for the perversion aspect.

Just to make sure we are on the same page I am assuming that you are using “perverse” to refer to “sexual” outside of a marriage context.

Nude shots don’t automatically imply porn. There was a discussion on this about one set of photographs in a forum of all non religious people. The person in question was a professional model and had a number of shots of herself posted some of which were nude. Of the nude shots some of those looking at them thought they were artistic. Some made comments about how sexually appealing the lady was. Different people seemed to have different reactions. But there was nothing on the site that clearly indicated that her main emphasis behind the photographs was sexual. Not that I am against the sharing of sexually stimulating photographs (nude or clothed).

What I am arguing is that I think it is a good premise for the distribution/public exhibition of pornography to be banned, for the same reasons that one can get arrested for having sex in the street.

This can actually be done legally within certain restrictions. An arbitrarily location can’t be used. It’s also legal for a woman to walk around topless within certain states. Though cities within those states may have laws against it.

To pick up on something briefly, what I saw in an earlier post, was the notion that acceptable behaviour should be judged purely on individual tastes - what is not okay for one person might be okay for another: well, no, because humans have consciences, which I mentioned before, and such acts of love toward ‘neighbour’, born from a care-of-duty for other people and their welfare, are matters of conscience; so, individualist thinking is along the lines of relativism, which is not protective of the human soul and a selflessly loving world.

A couple of notes. Both individual thought and collaborative thought among groups can lead to variance in conclusions. The presence of a conscience doesn’t mean that people will necessarily come to the same conclusion or have the same feelings on something.

Then in order to subscribe to these invite-only communities, the one who has set up such a private community should be asked to provide real proof of identification - credit card details etc… - if they wish to make their dealings private,

Hmmmm…I don’t see people agreeing to that; people like being at least some what anonymous on the Internet. Many of the people here in Catholic forums are not using anything that links back to their real world ID.

in order to make sure that illegally kept women are not being used in pornographic circles, which is the priority.

This makes me think of “conflict free diamonds” where some one can receive some certification that no people were harmed or dismembered during the mining of the diamond. But I get the impression that if such a program existed for porn that would not have a significant impact of the views of people already against it.

This is a different scenario to people who want to get together and film themselves in a house, for example, because a person’s house is not the public domain, and so filming pornography would count as private usage. The process would end there too because it would be illegal to share the filming in any market or public domain. So the people involved could only share the footage or pictures amongst themselves.

What’s your view on married couples getting instructional videos and books? In those cases there has been a distribution of photos and videos of some one else having sex. Is that also considered perverse? If not a video or a book what about a group class?

To be honest, the equipment used is not such a big deal. Nevertheless, I think it is okay to assume that those who make pornography to distribute, would use more expensive equipment, than the one’s making such stuff for private use. How are producers going to coerce even the most naïve woman into believing she will be rich and famous when the producer all the while is flaunting only his little phone-camera.

Okay, but it’s not hard to get one’s hands on a nice piece of equipment. I could easily get my hands on something like an Epic Red Dragon. It’s already been used to get an extreme high def of a kids soccer game.

 

[Aloysium]

There is a big difference between pornography and nudity on the beach.
What I have observed is the degree to which everything has become sexualized.
Going back thirty years, the swimwear I would use then, is only seen at swim-meets now.
Generally, the guys wear these large trouser-like bathing suits that make me think of what women wore at the turn of the last century.
There seems to be an unnatural shame associated with the body; it isn’t a reflection of chastity imho.
What is natural, porn has defiled.

 

[edwest2]

There is a big difference between pornography and nudity on the beach.
What I have observed is the degree to which everything has become sexualized.
Going back thirty years, the swimwear I would use then, is only seen at swim-meets now.
Generally, the guys wear these large trouser-like bathing suits that make me think of what women wore at the turn of the last century.
There seems to be an unnatural shame associated with the body; it isn’t a reflection of chastity imho.
What is natural, porn has defiled.

The entire goal is to turn the human body into an object of lust. From the day of The Fall, Adam and Eve realized they were naked. The shame involves lust, that is, turning the depiction of the human body into an object. Nude human bodies as portrayed in medical texts are not provocative or lust-inducing at all. They are presented for instructional purposes only and in a plain standing pose. Sometimes, the face/head is not included, or if it is, the person has a nonemotional expression, and the hair is pulled back so as to better examine the facial structure. Again, the expression is blank.

Ed

 

[edwest2]

A few quick comments; I’m on the move right now. I may revisit some things later.

I watched it. He puts an emphasis on the intent of the artist. Since we don’t have access each other’s minds and the intent isn’t always spelled out I can think of some cases on which people will have disagreement.

Just to make sure we are on the same page I am assuming that you are using “perverse” to refer to “sexual” outside of a marriage context.

Nude shots don’t automatically imply porn. There was a discussion on this about one set of photographs in a forum of all non religious people. The person in question was a professional model and had a number of shots of herself posted some of which were nude. Of the nude shots some of those looking at them thought they were artistic. Some made comments about how sexually appealing the lady was. Different people seemed to have different reactions. But there was nothing on the site that clearly indicated that her main emphasis behind the photographs was sexual. Not that I am against the sharing of sexually stimulating photographs (nude or clothed).

This can actually be done legally within certain restrictions. An arbitrarily location can’t be used. It’s also legal for a woman to walk around topless within certain states. Though cities within those states may have laws against it.

A couple of notes. Both individual thought and collaborative thought among groups can lead to variance in conclusions. The presence of a conscience doesn’t mean that people will necessarily come to the same conclusion or have the same feelings on something.

Hmmmm…I don’t see people agreeing to that; people like being at least some what anonymous on the Internet. Many of the people here in Catholic forums are not using anything that links back to their real world ID.

This makes me think of “conflict free diamonds” where some one can receive some certification that no people were harmed or dismembered during the mining of the diamond. But I get the impression that if such a program existed for porn that would not have a significant impact of the views of people already against it.

What’s your view on married couples getting instructional videos and books? In those cases there has been a distribution of photos and videos of some one else having sex. Is that also considered perverse? If not a video or a book what about a group class?

Okay, but it’s not hard to get one’s hands on a nice piece of equipment. I could easily get my hands on something like an Epic Red Dragon. It’s already been used to get an extreme high def of a kids soccer game.

Sexual intercourse is not rocket science and occurred successfully before books and videos existed. A group class would also be perverse. Anyone with a well-formed conscience should know this.

As an artist myself, it is a very simple thing to tell when a depiction of a nude or partly nude human being is designed to induce lust in a painting or drawing. It’s quite black and white.

Peace,
Ed

 

[ThinkingSapien]

Sexual intercourse is not rocket science and occurred successfully before books and videos existed.

The manuals are not for figuring out how to have sex, but exploring other fun ways to do it.

As an artist myself, it is a very simple thing to tell when a depiction of a nude or partly nude human being is designed to induce lust in a painting or drawing. It’s quite black and white.

Okay. I think that’s a variation of the “I know it when I see it” method of classifying porn.

 

[JapaneseKappa]

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

That’s exactly the sort of list I was looking for. Aside from the first 3, these are all allegations of “real world” practical harms. Unfortunately, several of them are not supported by the evidence, or are even contradicted by the evidence. Specifically, the evidence we currently have tells us that pornography legalization actually decreases the rate of sex crimes (or at the very least does not increase them) despite the assertions of a widely criticized political document. As it turns out, the data says that sex offenders in prison are not more likely to have viewed porn, but rather are more likely to have been raised in a strict religious household and/or been punished for viewing porn:

the-scientist.com/?articles.view/articleNo/28803/title/Porn–Good-for-us-/

No correlation has been found between exposure to porn and negative attitudes towards women…
In terms of the use of pornography by sex offenders, the police sometimes suggest that a high percentage of sex offenders are found to have used pornography. This is meaningless, since most men have at some time used pornography. Looking closer, Michael Goldstein and Harold Kant found that rapists were more likely than nonrapists in the prison population to have been punished for looking at pornography while a youngster, while other research has shown that incarcerated nonrapists had seen more pornography, and seen it at an earlier age, than rapists. What does correlate highly with sex offense is a strict, repressive religious upbringing. Richard Green too has reported that both rapists and child molesters use less pornography than a control group of “normal” males.

What we are left with is:
Porn should be illegal because it:
a) Harms Marriages
b) Harms Sex Workers

I have argued previously that harm to employees is a question of workplace safety regulations, not bans. I haven’t heard a real response to this point yet.

I have looked but not found any good data on the relationship between pornography and divorce rates. There certainly is a lot of hearsay and anecdotal support for the “porn causes divorce” position but I can’t find any hard numbers.

Regardless of how strong the evidence for or against those two points, I don’t think they constitute sufficient conditions for a ban. In other words, even if pornography was found to harm marriages, I don’t think that would be a good reason to ban it.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

The manuals are not for figuring out how to have sex, but exploring other fun ways to do it.

Okay. I think that’s a variation of the “I know it when I see it” method of classifying porn.

Not really, It’s a method of distinguishing the beauty of the human body from craven lust for any human body at any price … even to the extent of hooking prostitutes on drugs to get them into making porn movies. Not that drug payments are a necessary motive. Some just do it because they are obsessed with exhibiting their private parts in motion.

 

[friardchips]

A few quick comments; I’m on the move right now. I may revisit some things later.

I’m on this forum less now so may take quite a while to respond myself.

I watched it. He puts an emphasis on the intent of the artist. Since we don’t have access each other’s minds and the intent isn’t always spelled out I can think of some cases on which people will have disagreement.

Thanks for even watching it!

Just to make sure we are on the same page I am assuming that you are using “perverse” to refer to “sexual” outside of a marriage context.

Kind of. I would not use the word “sexual”. As human beings we are sexual. We have to be otherwise how would people pro-create? We are all sexual beings. I think we have to use two words to explain what I mean by ‘perverse’ in this line of subject: ‘sexually provocative’. And yet, to be sexually provocative cannot be a legal issue either, this would be silly, because a part of life, of being human, is to learn and grow, and Christians understand this to mean learning and growing with a heart for God. God could have made people to do everything He wanted but He didn’t, He gave us freewill, in order to choose him. So there has to be room to live and breathe and make mistakes and not be punished for them (or published! ). Life can be punishing enough without the law making an atmosphere of claustrophobic tension. So to mean perversion in the way I mean it in this topic, I would say: perverse = ‘public demonstrations of sex’ (not just suggestion). I don’t care what artists say about that as I don’t think they do a great job of drawing a line anyway. But of course there have to be grades of seriousness. An artist needs to express him/herself, but, public sex is a perversion; what is sincere can still be sexual though and this is something that ,if an artist is clever can suggest, as the power of suggestion is more of a sincere expression of searching than people pressed to flop it all out and getting hippy dippy with it, which is just indulgence, and causes people to think not with their brains but with their lower regions, which again, kind of misses the point with art! Lust stops the brain from reasoning, surely art should cause the brain to reason, and think more.

Nude shots don’t automatically imply porn. There was a discussion on this about one set of photographs in a forum of all non religious people. The person in question was a professional model and had a number of shots of herself posted some of which were nude. Of the nude shots some of those looking at them thought they were artistic. Some made comments about how sexually appealing the lady was. Different people seemed to have different reactions. But there was nothing on the site that clearly indicated that her main emphasis behind the photographs was sexual. Not that I am against the sharing of sexually stimulating photographs (nude or clothed).

This can actually be done legally within certain restrictions. An arbitrarily location can’t be used. It’s also legal for a woman to walk around topless within certain states. Though cities within those states may have laws against it. ).

There has to be room for people to learn. Not everyone who produces art has the connections to put their photographs in an exhibition. This is true. St. JPII commented on naked statues and had nothing against them.

So a relevant question at this juncture is: what is art? To answer that we have to understand the real elevated perspective of ‘beauty’. For a ‘real’ artist, they want to understand ‘beauty’. Even ugliness is a measure against beauty. And to understand that we have to know what you have questioned to be ‘truth’. Christians have to ask themselves the same question everyday. The moment a Christian stops thinking they are Pontius Pilate is the day they think they are better than what they are. An amazingly profound question this that you asked in another discussion: what is truth? (in fact it is a really great question ).

A couple of notes. Both individual thought and collaborative thought among groups can lead to variance in conclusions. The presence of a conscience doesn’t mean that people will necessarily come to the same conclusion or have the same feelings on something.

There is something said for a collective conscience (not a collective lack of one). Also, a person with a moral conscience has authority through knowledge over the one without and a duty of care towards them. To use an extreme example for purposes of reasoning: if a person does not realize that doing such and such a thing can kill, the one who does know has a certain authority and responsibility to let the other know that whatever it is, is dangerous - one aspect of a duty-of-care.

Hmmmm…I don’t see people agreeing to that; people like being at least some what anonymous on the Internet. Many of the people here in Catholic forums are not using anything that links back to their real world ID.

Something I have wondered about on here myself.

This makes me think of “conflict free diamonds” where some one can receive some certification that no people were harmed or dismembered during the mining of the diamond. But I get the impression that if such a program existed for porn that would not have a significant impact of the views of people already against it.

Blood diamonds. It may not solve the problem but it would focus attention on the problem and that is a start. The worst a person can do is to walk by as if nothing is the matter (please look up the story of the Good Samaritan ).

 

[friardchips]

What’s your view on married couples getting instructional videos and books? In those cases there has been a distribution of photos and videos of some one else having sex. Is that also considered perverse? If not a video or a book what about a group class?

Eros is love in God. A part of God. One of the forms of love. Sex between married couples is a beautiful, holy and sacred thing. It is fairly obvious if a book has been designed to help couples to love more as opposed to a book designed to stimulate lust. Words can express the same as pictures as can drawings. The title should give the purpose of the books away and most people use publishers who would have to take a certain responsibility not to put out pornographic material and to associate between a guide book for eros and a book for porn. However, as Ed said, having sex does not take a Masters in Rocket Science. Even if the act is not a hollywoodised version of ‘the perfect session’, a mirage for most, what will be exciting for the married couple is getting to know each other, in a physical way, all in love. This doesn’t require examples and guides, it requires love. In fact, the awkwardness could in itself produce extra feelings of love. Sexual and sweet all at the same time.

Okay, but it’s not hard to get one’s hands on a nice piece of equipment. I could easily get my hands on something like an Epic Red Dragon. It’s already been used to get an extreme high def of a kids soccer game.

If a person has pictures of pornography and videos, has their own site, or a site they’ve been uploading to, and any camera equipment, the evidence will be there to find.

 

[Aloysium]

. . . Lust stops the brain from reasoning, surely art should cause the brain to reason, and think more… . . .

This stood out for me. People will argue that beauty is in the eye of the beholder and that porn is art to some. Really though, unless one is a gynecologist, what is there to think about seeing genitalia in action?

 

[edwest2]

Art that is indecipherable causes confusion, not better thinking. Pornography degrades.

Peace,
Ed

 

[LoganBice]

Pornography is art… Dosnt make it morally okay. What defines all art at morally permissible?

 

[Michael19682]

Art that is indecipherable causes confusion, not better thinking. Pornography degrades.
Peace,
Ed

Ed, I respectfully disagree though I encourage your resistance. Art that cannot be deciphered often radically polarizes people (and puts the artist is a bona fide “jam”). But that truism is with reference to art. Porn is neither art nor indecipherable. It meets none of the criteria of art. It is plainly done for money and is more akin to a documentary on the corruption of souls. Watching porn is no different in that regard than stealing a loaf of bread.

 

[Michael19682]

The Supreme Court held in Miller v California (1973) that for the state to prohibit material as pornographic it has to lack any artistic value. In other words it has to appeal purely to prurient interest. It’s a tough standard, and although so much of pornography today meets that standard, legislatures have thrown their hands up and said it’s not worth the trouble. Especially now in the Internet age, such laws would be practically impossible to enforce.

This post by Cone says much. Art is judged as a whole, one scene of porn destroys the entire effort and renders the clip artless. The people mentioned who have thrown up their hands do so likely because they don’t want to get into and mire the courts in battles over what scenes should be cut. Also, the legitimate movie makers would probably worry that such a stance would indicate a move towards greater censorship of their more serious and thought provoking work.

But, can you imagine any porn clip being taken seriously as art in itself with the scenes of graphic porn taken out? People watch and then shame themselves because of what should not be shown.

 

[friardchips]

Pornography is art… Dosnt make it morally okay. What defines all art at morally permissible?

I don’t know how you managed to sum up pornography as art?

 

[friardchips]

This stood out for me. People will argue that beauty is in the eye of the beholder and that porn is art to some. Really though, unless one is a gynecologist, what is there to think about seeing genitalia in action?

Nothing, apart from ever increasing lust!