Should graphic pornography be banned?

[Charlemagne_III]

The pathway to the goal that you are seeking would probably start with demonstrating that pornography is strongly associated with the harm of a group.

Yes, that is the rationale for any kind of ban. The group harmed in this case is the whole country.

Only a rank hedonist would argue that the massive availability of pornography today indicates we have become a nation of voyeurs. Normally people are arrested for that. The fact that pornographic voyeurism is now a national pastime is sufficient reason to mark it as a national sickness to be stamped out as soon as possible.

Whether that can be done, or at least a serious attempt made to do it, is debatable.

 

[987mk]

Let’s start with the depiction of genital penetration. That’s specific enough and I don’t know anyone who would say that is not pornography.

That penetration, depending on the context, could very well have artistic merit.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

He’s just one doctor and a religious one at that.

Religious doctors don’t count?

But atheist doctors do?

 

[987mk]

Yes, that is the rationale for any kind of ban. The group harmed in this case is the whole country.

Only a rank hedonist would argue that the massive availability of pornography today indicates we have become a nation of voyeurs. Normally people are arrested for that. The fact that pornographic voyeurism is now a national pastime is sufficient reason to mark it as a national sickness to be stamped out as soon as possible.

Whether that can be done, or at least a serious attempt made to do it, is debatable.

Voyeurism is done without consent. You are literally watching someone without their consent, in a place where they would ordinarily have an expectation of privacy.

Watching pornography is done with consent and those who made the film, also consented to being filmed and so gave up their right to privacy, therefore it is not voyeurism.

 

[987mk]

Religious doctors don’t count?

But atheist doctors do?

He is but one Doctor who has drawn a conclusion.

The reality is that the preponderance of evidence has led the medical community to conclude that there isn’t enough empirical evidence to conclude that pornography is addictive.

 

[friardchips]

He’s just one doctor and a religious one at that.

The bottom line is that the preponderance of evidence has led the medical community to thus far conclude that there isn’t enough empirical evidence to prove that pornography is addictive.

Maybe one day they will find out it is addictive, but that day is not now.

Dopamine is a chemical in the brain: fact. There are many doctors who report this problem
with pornography.

There are multiple clinics out there who treat pornography as an addiction alongside drugs etc…

Religious doctors are the most trustworthy and least likely to lie, which stands to reason, and less likely to say just what is convenient in order for them to make money.

 

[987mk]

Dopamine is a chemical in the brain: fact. There are many doctors who report this problem
with pornography.

There are multiple clinics out there who treat pornography as an addiction alongside drugs etc…

Religious doctors are the most trustworthy and least likely to lie, which stands to reason, and less likely to say just what is convenient in order for them to make money.

We agree to disagree. You show me someone with has physical withdrawal from not looking at pornography and maybe I’ll be inclined to take your position more seriously.

I also don’t believe there is any evidence proving that religious doctors are the most trustworthy.

 

[friardchips]

We agree to disagree. You show me someone with has physical withdrawal from not looking at pornography and maybe I’ll be inclined to take your position more seriously.

This doesn’t make any sense to me (?) Can you rephrase please?

I also don’t believe there is any evidence proving that religious doctors are the most trustworthy.

Really?! Well try and get a Catholic doctor to carry out an abortion or legally murder someone via euthanasia and you might find them difficult to persuade.

 

[987mk]

This doesn’t make any sense to me (?) Can you rephrase please?

Really?! Well try and get a Catholic doctor to carry out an abortion or legally murder someone via euthanasia and you might find them difficult to persuade.

‘Withdrawal is the body’s reaction to abstaining from an addictive substance of which it has become dependant and tolerant. Without the substance, physiological functions that were dependent on the substance will react because of the body’s tolerance and dependence of the substance. Chemical and hormonal imbalances may arise if the substance is not introduced. Physiological and psychological stress is to be expected if the substance is not re-introduced.’

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Addiction#Withdrawal

If a Doctor placed his religion before my health and well being, he is a Doctor I’d not use and one I would not trust in the slightest.

 

[friardchips]

‘Withdrawal is the body’s reaction to abstaining from an addictive substance of which it has become dependant and tolerant. Without the substance, physiological functions that were dependent on the substance will react because of the body’s tolerance and dependence of the substance. Chemical and hormonal imbalances may arise if the substance is not introduced. Physiological and psychological stress is to be expected if the substance is not re-introduced.’

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Addiction#Withdrawal

Thank you for the post. As a rule, it is not advisable to use Wikipedia for examples as they are just people’s opinions, as opposed to guaranteed qualified researchers, doctors and scientists. Although you may have got lucky…

Interesting that it says there is no withdrawal from lack of looking at pornography. It might be that the withdrawal plays out in another way. For example, alcohol addiction IS an addiction, but one doesn’t get withdrawal in the same way one does if one smoked and then stopped; instead, the addicts just want another drink! The same goes for pornography in that the ‘need for’ increases. And if not looked at the lust remains. Without religion and the Sacraments I could imagine it to be practically impossible to overcome and for those images from the brain to be wiped and the desire to be healed. Anyway, your Wiki answer is not a counter-argument because it does not attempt to disprove what the professionals say about Dopamine.

If a Doctor placed his religion before my health and well being, he is a Doctor I’d not use and one I would not trust in the slightest.

Catholic doctors have your spiritual wellbeing in their hearts as well as your physical wellbeing. If a doctor stopped me from making a decision that without Confession would send me to Hell I would be grateful. Spiritual health comes before physical health because one’s soul is eternal compared to one’s body which is only mortal.

 

[freeRadical]

No, it should not be banned and for that matter, prostitution should be legal too.

 

[ThinkingSapien]

Are they allowed to pray in unison and out loud?

If so, what Court ruling are you citing?

I haven’t cited any court rulings. But if you are interested, the ability of students to pray in school wasn’t restricted. If you take a look at the Supreme Court cases that impact this today

• Engel v. Vitale (1962)
• Abington School District v. Schempp (1963)
• Lemon v. Kurtzman (1971)

You’ll find that state sponsored prayers are what have been restricted. Teachers and faculty in public school would be seen as representing the state if they lead or compel students to pray. There have already been multiple occasions in which students have organized to say a prayer themselves without the sponsorship of the school. It’s been challenged before and the student’s free speech has been upheld; this includes the Texas cheerleaders that use the bible themed banners at the football games or the valedictorian that spontaneously decided to lead a prayer at graduation.

Just to be clear, if students decide to say a prayer aloud in the middle of class they could get in trouble for that; not because it’s a prayer, but simply because they would be disturbing class.

I’d be happy to discuss this in more detail with you in another thread, but it’s off topic here so I won’t be saying more about it within this thread.

 

[ThinkingSapien]

Yes, that is the rationale for any kind of ban. The group harmed in this case is the whole country.

That seems overly-broad and non-specific.

Only a rank hedonist would argue that the massive availability of pornography today indicates we have become a nation of voyeurs.

I think you might have made a typographical error in the above and said something other than what you intended to communicate.

Normally people are arrested for that.

Watching without permission would be a violation of one’s fourth amendment and possibly other things such as criminal trespassing, breaking and entering, so on. Watching in response to an invite or getting permission to watch isn’t illegal. If pornography were composed of non-conscenting adults or people photographed without their knowledge you would have a valid point. But this is unrelated to pornography produced with people that willingly consent to their photographs being taken in sexual situations.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

That seems overly-broad and non-specific.

I think you might have made a typographical error in the above and said something other than what you intended to communicate.

Watching without permission would be a violation of one’s fourth amendment and possibly other things such as criminal trespassing, breaking and entering, so on. Watching in response to an invite or getting permission to watch isn’t illegal. If pornography were composed of non-conscenting adults or people photographed without their knowledge you would have a valid point. But this is unrelated to pornography produced with people that willingly consent to their photographs being taken in sexual situations.

Yes, I was working with a broad version of voyeurism, the desire to watch others in intimate scenes. That is not a crime in the context of consenting adults (as with actors in a porno movie), but the fact that the peekers will pay to see such things does not remove the stain of rank and sick hedonism from the act.

Yes, I misspoke in the quotation you cited. I meant to say this:

“Only a rank hedonist would deny that the massive availability of pornography today indicates we have become a nation of voyeurs.”

My experience with hedonists is that they never think of themselves as sick, or if they do, they would never give anyone the satisfaction of admitting it … except perhaps a priest in the confessional or a psychologist if they decide after all they want counseling after they have seen the priest.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

I haven’t cited any court rulings. But if you are interested, the ability of students to pray in school wasn’t restricted. If you take a look at the Supreme Court cases that impact this today

Since the ban is on praying in the classroom (I know this because I was a teacher in public schools), it has the effect of saying that the ban on praying in the classroom is good, while the ACLU would argue the ban on pornography is bad.

Praying has not been proven to be bad, while pornography has manifold bad effects.

Upside down morality.

My last word on this also.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

That seems overly-broad and non-specific.

Why? Pornography is flooding the country and everyone knows that.

Do you wish me to cite every hardcore book store and movie ever produced?

More money is made in the porno industry than Hollywood movies.

mademan.com/porn-is-bigger-than-hollywood/

 

[friardchips]

No, it should not be banned and for that matter, prostitution should be legal too.

I disagree with you about this. The reason pornography is not banned is because no one has thought what to do about it. I think in the U.K. they are going to introduce filters but more could be done. The difficult thing is prostitution as some women are basically just desperate to get some money and forced into it in some cases.

But to be honest with you, to not do anything, is just to say: we don’t care. The reason porn stars do what they do apart from wanting money and the reason the producers make this stuff that sends all including themselves to Hell and ruin people’s lives in the process, and the reasons prostitutes (the ones I feel sorry for and I think from Jesus’ example have a duty to feel sorry for) is because society does not hold true or TEACH Catholic values. Education teaches nothing moral apart from: it is what it is - a line from a De Niro film and a second-hand car salesman I once spoke with. Society just teaches: it is what it is. Producers aren’t set a good example because money talks too much in our free-for-all Western culture, and the rest of those people, especially prostitutes, are on the fringes of society; yet, Christ is with them too. As for porn stars, well parents have a duty to raise their children to become God-loving and fearing people, and are not excused, but I think a lack of living up to Christian values is the problem and these values are set by those who have power. The problem is hypocrisy and probably always will be. Countries call themselves Christian to simply appeal to one set of voters while they are allowing abortion and other evil with the other hand! And these dire situations are ignored by politicians who say things like (popular phrase in this country to keep votes): “we will fight this together etc…”…really? Politicians are the ones with the power to make changes. They are the ones who have the statistics.

So we should just let everything be legal? There is only one way I could agree with this. And that is if we live in a Utopia where everyone knows they are loved and worth more than money could buy. Then people would not do these things and the rest of society would not be exposed to it. However, we are not in Heaven yet, and our duty is to work towards a compassionate and healthy, spiritually healthy, society.

 

[Bradski]

Let’s start with the depiction of genital penetration. That’s specific enough and I don’t know anyone who would say that is not pornography.

I didn’t say that you personally couldn’t come up with something that we’d both agree was pornography. My point is that it is impossible to have everyone agree on what point it does become pornography.

To use your example, there are countless depictions of genital penetration in very many cultures in many varied forms covering many centuries. The vast majority would be classed as artistic and weren’t produced as what you might personally describe as pornography. Would you say that people shouldn’t be allowed to see them?

If some of it could be classed as erotic, then would you suggest that erotic art should also be banned? Paintings and drawings by Rembrandt? Degas? Rodin? Would you say that people must not be allowed to see the depiction of a naked couple kissing?

Who should make these decisions?

 

[friardchips]

Yes, I was working with a broad version of voyeurism, the desire to watch others in intimate scenes. That is not a crime in the context of consenting adults (as with actors in a porno movie), but the fact that the peekers will pay to see such things does not remove the stain of rank and sick hedonism from the act.

Yes, I misspoke in the quotation you cited. I meant to say this:

“Only a rank hedonist would deny that the massive availability of pornography today indicates we have become a nation of voyeurs.”

My experience with hedonists is that they never think of themselves as sick, or if they do, they would never give anyone the satisfaction of admitting it … except perhaps a priest in the confessional or a psychologist if they decide after all they want counseling after they have seen the priest.

I just thought of it like this when reading your post:

Society can stay as/ become lambs or ravenous wolves. We are a mixture of both - most people are within their own selves, and also from one person to the next. The problem is that to do nothing means that the lambs stay in danger or turn into wolves, while the prowling wolves are eating poisoned meat, until we have one very sick zoo. To use the Noah story, sometimes we have to fill in the holes that appear or the water sets in, the Ark goes down, and drowns those in the Ark as well. If we think of the Catholic Church as the Ark; who does a parent or guardian have to protect first: their own! There are Christians struggling with sin, and with Satan also, and so as a Church we need to address these problems internally and then when the plank is out we can remove the splinter from society. Because I just don’t think governments ever will. People who are not Christians are not even necessarily going to be fighting sin. They don’t know what sin is! Instead of a sick zoo, the Catholic Church needs to start making the world our Africa, with beautiful horizons, that inspire hope; as one person I know said: maybe where we live is our Africa. This way the Ark has a safe place to anchor. Love begins at home. In our case: the Catholic Church.

 

[friardchips]

I didn’t say that you personally couldn’t come up with something that we’d both agree was pornography. My point is that it is impossible to have everyone agree on what point it does become pornography.

To use your example, there are countless depictions of genital penetration in very many cultures in many varied forms covering many centuries. The vast majority would be classed as artistic and weren’t produced as what you might personally describe as pornography. Would you say that people shouldn’t be allowed to see them?

If some of it could be classed as erotic, then would you suggest that erotic art should also be banned? Paintings and drawings by Rembrandt? Degas? Rodin? Would you say that people must not be allowed to see the depiction of a naked couple kissing?

Who should make these decisions?

Art as a rule does not show lusty or loving ‘intercourse’. There is your line.