Should graphic pornography be banned?

[ThinkingSapien]

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

I wouldn’t use the word “flooding.” In a world in which publication can through the transfer of electrical signals instead of through the transit of mass you’ll find that a number of different types of publications get around the world faster and are available in higher quantity. People with access to Internet connected devices can make their thoughts known to wider audiences and much faster with less effort. I’ve not even gotten out of bed yet and here I am making my thoughts known to you and others in different geographies.

Different types of expressions are shared much faster in present day times. Pornography is but one types of these expressions.

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

Pornography was also one of the leading areas of business that established ecommerce. Appealing to peoples baser drives sells.

Yes, I was working with a broad version of voyeurism…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.

This part seems more an expression of your feelings on the matter. If that is your intent, then I acknowledge that you find the pornography industry as negative.

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.”

People in general seem to like watching, hearing, or seeing what other people are doing or even stories made up about what people are doing. I wonder if this is tied to us being social metazoans. Throughout time the “publication” of such stories has occurred through word of mouth and song and plays, increasingly with writing and print as literacy rates and print publication capabilities increased, visually through moving pictures, television, and digital communication devices. Sexual stories are but one element of these.

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’d hazard a guess that you and said “hedonist” had not first come to an agreement and what was meant by “sick.” As long as you don’t have compatible interpretations or criteria for the word I wouldn’t not expect you to come to agreement on matters described by the word.

If you are using “sick” as a label for things that cause disgust you’ll discover that different people get feelings of disgust by different things. I went to a beach (outside the USA) and on the beach there were some people that were naked. To me these were people enjoying their day at the beach. To others that I know the same scene would be a display of impropriety.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

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?

I doubt government can stop anybody from seeing what they want to see. The issue is that the pornography must be produced before it can be seen. Society before the 1960s had no trouble defining pornography and the makers of it were in trouble if they were found out. Government bans should not be necessary, and it’s instructive that when a movement was afoot in Hollywood to produce racier movies in the 1930s, just the mere threat of government censorship was enough to make Hollywood begin to censor its own movies, and at that point the government backed on. The first official Hollywood censors were Catholic. That battle was ultimately lost. Hollywood is now on the verge of routinely producing hard core pornography, especially as it endorses depicting oral sex.

The ratings system is a joke.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

ThinkingSapien:

People in general seem to like watching, hearing, or seeing what other people are doing or even stories made up about what people are doing. I wonder if this is tied to us being social metazoans. Throughout time the “publication” of such stories has occurred through word of mouth and song and plays, increasingly with writing and print as literacy rates and print publication capabilities increased, visually through moving pictures, television, and digital communication devices. Sexual stories are but one element of these. .

People have a right to be entertained, and in the past they could be entertained without recourse to, or even wanting, the depiction of hard core pornography. It is a sign of our times that the national character has degenerated to the point of people making more money off hard core pornography than you can make in Hollywood.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

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.

I don’t believe it’s at all necessary to have everyone agree on what is pornographic. Every industry can simply introduce standards that it will hold to and does not have to consult the public to uphold those standards.

Just as outside the arts, for example in the sciences, you need peer review to get a theory published, or else junk science will prevail. No scientist consults **everyone **to get a theory published.

 

[JapaneseKappa]

phys.org/news187448961.html
sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/11/101130111326.htm

The availability of pornography either has no effect on or decreases, the rate of sex crimes. Therefore, pornography should not be banned.

 

[friardchips]

phys.org/news187448961.html
sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/11/101130111326.htm

The availability of pornography either has no effect on or decreases, the rate of sex crimes. Therefore, pornography should not be banned.

Articles don’t disprove obvious facts. How does a science article disprove what we suspect? Have scientists been travelling the world getting reports on all sex crimes from police inspectors?

There are widespread rape problems in places like Pakistan and I bet you that pornography has something to do with it and underground slave trades, which are in themselves illegal, as well as degrading views of women in men’s heads (not unlike in Saudi Arabia).

When people look at porn it degenerates society. So you think it should carry on. On the basis that…what…it does no harm? Great reason from an obviously uninformed perspective. A poster earlier kept posting links that were not relative as well. Try and use counter-arguments not just posting random links.

 

[JapaneseKappa]

Articles don’t disprove obvious facts. How does a science article disprove what we suspect? Have scientists been travelling the world getting reports on all sex crimes from police inspectors?

Pretty much yes.

There are widespread rape problems in places like Pakistan and I bet you that pornography has something to do with it and underground slave trades as well as degrading views of women in men’s heads (not unlike in Saudi Arabia).

Pornography is currently illegal in Pakistan. Strict religious upbringings are correlated with sex crimes (i.e. people with very strict religious upbringings are over-represented among sex offenders.)

When people look at porn it degenerates society. So you think it should carry on. On the basis that…what…it does no harm? Great reason from an obviously uninformed perspective. A poster earlier kept posting links that were not relative as well. Try and use counter-arguments not just posting random links.

What specific harm do you mean? Saying that porn “degenerates society” is just using weasel-words to make something sound bad without actually making a specific claim. As far as I can tell, you are literally saying that it doesn’t matter what actual effects porn has on society, what matters is your perception of society as degenerate. Unfortunately, in the absence of any actual effects on society, legislating your (religiously informed) preference is not how the US government works.

An increase in sex crimes would be a good example of how you could try to argue for a ban: you could make the specific claim that “pornography would degenerate society by increasing the rate of sex crimes, and therefore should be illegal.” Unfortunately for you, the evidence says that pornography does not increase the rate of sex crimes, so you would be wrong if you made that claim. Do you have any actual evidence for your position or is it purely speculative?

 

[Charlemagne_III]

phys.org/news187448961.html
sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/11/101130111326.htm

The availability of pornography either has no effect on or decreases, the rate of sex crimes. Therefore, pornography should not be banned.

I agree with the good friar.

You cannot exactly quantify the harm done by pornography, but instinct and common sense in this matter are trusty guides. Many prisoners have attested to being addicted to pornography. What their crime was doesn’t matter. Pornography degrades our integrity, not to mention the integrity of the people who produce it. Many “actors” in pornography have died from drugs and venereal disease, including AIDS. Just the fact that people hide their pornographic materials from family and friends is evidence that people know intuitively it is a disgraceful past time and does harm to one’s image of ones self, not to mention the image other people have if the user is found out.

 

[friardchips]

Pretty much yes.

Pretty much, no.

Pornography is currently illegal in Pakistan. Strict religious upbringings are correlated with sex crimes (i.e. people with very strict religious upbringings are over-represented among sex offenders.)

So you don’t like religion?

What about the larger part of my post to do with sex trade and cultural attitudes towards women?

What specific harm do you mean?

Are you serious? You don’t know?

Saying that porn “degenerates society” is just using weasel-words to make something sound bad without actually making a specific claim. As far as I can tell, you are literally saying that it doesn’t matter what actual effects porn has on society, what matters is your perception of society as degenerate. Unfortunately, in the absence of any actual effects on society, legislating your (religiously informed) preference is not how the US government works.

So you are not a fan (2nd underline) of religion? The rest of your post makes no sense because of your initial perspective and I’m not even going to dignify with a response these last few paragraphs as your wording seems to have taken a turn for the worst (1st underline)

 

[friardchips]

I agree with the good friar.

Thanks, but not yet! (See my initial two threads in this forum)

You cannot exactly quantify the harm done by pornography, but instinct and common sense in this matter are trusty guides. Many prisoners have attested to being addicted to pornography. What their crime was doesn’t matter. Pornography degrades our integrity, not to mention the integrity of the people who produce it. Many “actors” in pornography have died from drugs and venereal disease, including AIDS. Just the fact that people hide their pornographic materials from family and friends is evidence that people know intuitively it is a disgraceful past time and does harm to one’s image of ones self, not to mention the image other people have if the user is found out.

This was a very well-worded and informative response.

 

[PolycarpMeans]

The various supreme court cases regarding obscenity only deal with determining whether pornography is already enforceable as illegal, and they have essentially determined that it is not.

The original question was not “could pornography be banned under present law,” but rather “should pornography be banned.”

Only the devil or someone deluded by him thinks that “liberty” means license for sin, especially sin of such a nature, not only morally grave, but socially destructive on a grand scale.

OF COURSE it should be banned!

It destroys more lives than any other vice. It is corrupting the entire earth right now.

“And the nations were angry, and Thy wrath is come, and the time of the dead, that they should be judged, and that thou shouldest render reward to Thy servants the prophets and the saints, and to them that fear Thy name, little and great, and shouldest destroy them who have corrupted the earth” Revelation 11:18

This is no joke or small matter, that we may hide behind constitutional so-called “rights.” This menace MUST be stopped.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

Thanks, but not yet! (See my initial two threads in this forum)

Sorry I missed them.

 

[friardchips]

Sorry I missed them.

You’ve nothing to be sorry about. I’m the one that should be sorry for having a name that suggests this is the case, but too late to change it now (my thinking was that if I become a friar I might be turned into fried chips on some mission or other seeing as the world is so venomous in places, so I combined the name friar with fried. Can’t decide between monk and friar and as time goes on I am losing confidence)…completely off-topic with thread so I’ll stop here…

I like your posts by the way. God bless.

 

[friardchips]

The various supreme court cases regarding obscenity only deal with determining whether pornography is already enforceable as illegal, and they have essentially determined that it is not.

The original question was not “could pornography be banned under present law,” but rather “should pornography be banned.”

Only the devil or someone deluded by him thinks that “liberty” means license for sin, especially sin of such a nature, not only morally grave, but socially destructive on a grand scale.

OF COURSE it should be banned!

It destroys more lives than any other vice. It is corrupting the entire earth right now.

“And the nations were angry, and Thy wrath is come, and the time of the dead, that they should be judged, and that thou shouldest render reward to Thy servants the prophets and the saints, and to them that fear Thy name, little and great, and shouldest destroy them who have corrupted the earth” Revelation 11:18

This is no joke or small matter, that we may hide behind constitutional so-called “rights.” This menace MUST be stopped.

Exactly. If sin is the norm then the Christian has a duty to inspire and inform this is the case.

 

[ThinkingSapien]

It is a sign of our times that the national character has degenerated to the point of people making more money off hard core pornography than you can make in Hollywood.

It’s a sign of in what humans have interest. Sex is among those things humans find interesting and stimulating. It’s a speculation on my part, but I think prohibiting sexually stimulating material could be less successful than the prohibition of alcohol and may lead to a black market for it.

 

[friardchips]

It’s a sign of in what humans have interest. Sex is among those things humans find interesting and stimulating. It’s a speculation on my part, but I think prohibiting sexually stimulating material could be less successful than the prohibition of alcohol and may lead to a black market for it.

I would speculate that there probably already is an underground market for it.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

It’s a sign of in what humans have interest. Sex is among those things humans find interesting and stimulating. It’s a speculation on my part, but I think prohibiting sexually stimulating material could be less successful than the prohibition of alcohol and may lead to a black market for it.

At least a public policy of condemning pornography would help discourage the consumption of porn. As it is, the legitimizing of porn has risen (or sunk) to the level of “Academy Award” presentations to best movies, actress, and actor, etc. College students now see it as a lucrative way to pay for their tuition. All shame is lost. Our civilization should be thoroughly ashamed of itself. I think we have to be at the point of rivaling or exceeding the famous debaucheries of ancient Rome before the fall of the empire. We have lost our way and in some respects at least, it is understandable why the Muslims call us the great Satan.

I have never felt before as I do now that the center does not hold and we are falling apart.

I don’t know whether this feeling is shared by most Americans. I hope so, because only by recognizing that we are in hot water can we start scrubbing off the dirt and filth.

 

[JapaneseKappa]

I agree with the good friar.

You cannot quantify the harm done by pornography. Many prisoners have attested to being addicted to pornography. What their crime was doesn’t matter. Pornography degrades our integrity, not to mention the integrity of the people who produce it. Many “actors” in pornography have died from drugs and venereal disease, including AIDS. Just the fact that people hide their pornographic materials from family and friends is evidence that people know intuitively it is a disgraceful past time and does harm to one’s image of ones self, not to mention the image other people have if the user is found out.

So do we make all addictive things illegal? Caffeine and alcohol can be addictive, but we don’t ban them because we don’t think the negative societal implications are serious enough. Does pornography addiction have any negative societal implications beyond making some people uncomfortable?

The spread of disease among sex workers is an issue for workplace safety regulators, it’s hardly a reason to ban pornography.

Many of the “problems” you’ve cited are a consequence of the stigma associated with pornography, not pornography itself. People only hide it because they fear the social consequences, not because pornography itself demands to be hidden.

You have invented a series of nebulous “harms” (such as degradation of integrity) 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]

At least a public policy of condemning pornography would help discourage the consumption of porn.

I think one would first need to convince the majority of the voting public and policy makers that the consumption of porn is damaging. The use of the adjectives that describe how you feel about porn may resonate with those that feel the same way. But I don’t think they make contributions to convincing others to feel the same way.

Not that the conviction alone is enough. People want what they want. Even that which is worst for them!

As it is, the legitimizing of porn has risen (or sunk) to the level of “Academy Award” presentations to best movies, actress, and actor, etc. College students now see it as a lucrative way to pay for their tuition.

Do they only see it that way? Or is it actually lucrative?

All shame is lost. Our civilization should be thoroughly ashamed of itself.

Why?

it is understandable why the Muslims call us the great Satan.

Charles, you need a finer brush. Your strokes are still overly broad. Are you saying that all Muslims call “us” the “great Satan”? If not please add qualifiers and limiters.

I don’t know whether this feeling is shared by most Americans. I hope so, because only by recognizing that we are in hot water can we start scrubbing off the dirt and filth.

Hmmm…I would almost suggest that you watch the movie presentation of “The People v Larry Flint.” but you might not be able to endure the sexual imagery. There’s an argument in the court case at the end that is relevant here. I might see if I can get my hands on a clip to share via youtube later on.

 

[JapaneseKappa]

Pretty much, no.

[Citation Needed]
The links I provided contained links to papers published by scientists who studied the rates of sex crimes in various countries, especially countries which had big changes in their pornography laws:

Results from the Czech Republic showed, as seen everywhere else studied (Canada, Croatia, Denmark, Germany, Finland, Hong Kong, Shanghai, Sweden, USA), that rape and other sex crimes have not increased following the legalization and wide availability of pornography.

So you don’t like religion?

I provided an alternative explanation for sex crimes in Pakistan. Why did you immediately jump to this irrelevant conclusion?

What about the larger part of my post to do with sex trade and cultural attitudes towards women?

What about them? The illegal sex trade would constitute sex crimes, which the evidence shows do not increase with the legalization of pornography. Your argument about attitudes towards women is practically incoherent. You are saying that banning pornography would improve cultural attitudes towards women. However you pointed to Pakistan and argued that cultural attitudes towards women there are terrible; despite the unavoidable fact that pornography is already banned in Pakistan. Arguments about underground pornography are at best irrelevant, because we are discussing the legality of porn, not porn itself. If banning porn just creates an underground market which makes cultural attitudes towards women even worse, then that is actually an argument *against *banning porn.

Are you serious? You don’t know?

Yes, I want you to spell it out. I suspect that you yourself only think that you know, but will be unable to provide an adequate response. I will take any further dodging of the question as proof of your own inability to define exactly what measurable harms you mean when you say “porn degenerates society.”

So you are not a fan (2nd underline) of religion? The rest of your post makes no sense because of your initial perspective and I’m not even going to dignify with a response these last few paragraphs as your wording seems to have taken a turn for the worst (1st underline)

You can ignore the facts if you like, but that makes you position equivalent to “regardless of the facts of the matter, pornography should be illegal” which is hardly a convincing argument or basis for discussion.

My feelings about religion are irrelevant, the issue is the Establishment Clause. You can’t make something illegal solely on the basis of religious belief.