Should graphic pornography be banned?

[Cimachol]

salvomag.com/new/articles/salvo13/13hilton.php

Maybe this article might help to change your opinion.

Good article. Just to clarify, I was not saying that I don’t think it is addictive, just maybe not in the same way that drugs can be. At least some of the article I’ve read have said that studies don’t show the same kinds of chemical reactions occurring in the brains of those who compulsively use pornography as they see in the brains of those have drug addictions. Therefore, they argue that it is not an addiction.

The article you posted argues the other side of that – that chemical addictions do occur in the brain during the viewing of pornography and that the process is essentially the same as would result from using recreational drugs.

I’m no expert on brain chemistry, but it seems to me that the question of whether or not it is an addiction comes down to how one defines addiction.

However, as those of use who have been caught in the cycle of using pornography know (it took me more than 20 years to learn to break free of it), it can be tremendously difficult to stop using.

I do think there is a moral component as well – how one views sex plays a major role in how one feels about using pornography, and breaking free from pornography required me to reevaluate how I looked at sex and how I viewed women.

But back to the original question, I have nothing against legally banning pornography from a moral standpoint – no one has a God-given right to do evil, and pornography is evil. I just think that there really isn’t enough support in our country to pull off such legislation, and I don’t believe there would be an effective way to implement it, short of heavy government monitoring if not a complete takeover of ISPs, but that would come with problems of its own. I think free-market solutions such as better Web filters may offer a more realistic solution for at least protecting ourselves and our families from pornography’s influence.

 

[friardchips]

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?

Pornography is addictive as is narcotics. Pornography goes against the dignity of the human person. Caffeine and alcohol does not in of themselves except in cases of over-consumption.

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

If you condone pornography then one is as guilty as the producers and so as guilty for spreading diseases.

Many of the “problems” you’ve cited are a consequence of the stigma associated with pornography, not pornography itself.

Not true. ‘Stigma’:

People only hide it because they fear the social consequences, not because pornography itself demands to be hidden.

God demands it: “Thou shalt not commit adultery”.

You have invented a series of nebulous “harms” (such as degradation of integrity) which I think have no basis in reality.

I think the poster was talking about a reality based here on earth where we have codes for decent and civilised community living.

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.

Hippies are part of a culture or a cult not a religion.

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.

Integrity can be based on what is known in the Universe as Truth. We have reason to help us. We have laws of love that are counter-acted by rebellious chaos-causing, and therefore sinful, anti-community, anti-love, anti-family, anti-sanctity-of-life, anti-wellbeing jibes. For the Catholic who sins mortally they have a point they will not go beyond and a conscience to make them feel sorry. This cannot be said for those who are not indwelt by the Holy Spirit.

 

[friardchips]

Good article. Just to clarify, I was not saying that I don’t think it is addictive, just maybe not in the same way that drugs can be. At least some of the article I’ve read have said that studies don’t show the same kinds of chemical reactions occurring in the brains of those who compulsively use pornography as they see in the brains of those have drug addictions. Therefore, they argue that it is not an addiction.

The article you posted argues the other side of that – that chemical addictions do occur in the brain during the viewing of pornography and that the process is essentially the same as would result from using recreational drugs.

I’m no expert on brain chemistry, but it seems to me that the question of whether or not it is an addiction comes down to how one defines addiction.

However, as those of use who have been caught in the cycle of using pornography know (it took me more than 20 years to learn to break free of it), it can be tremendously difficult to stop using.

I do think there is a moral component as well – how one views sex plays a major role in how one feels about using pornography, and breaking free from pornography required me to reevaluate how I looked at sex and how I viewed women.

But back to the original question, I have nothing against legally banning pornography from a moral standpoint – no one has a God-given right to do evil, and pornography is evil. I just think that there really isn’t enough support in our country to pull off such legislation, and I don’t believe there would be an effective way to implement it, short of heavy government monitoring if not a complete takeover of ISPs, but that would come with problems of its own. I think free-market solutions such as better Web filters may offer a more realistic solution for at least protecting ourselves and our families from pornography’s influence.

Thank you for your considered response and for reading my link.

I would argue that pornography is as addictive as it changes a brain chemical.

However, I think narcotics have a more long-term damaging effect on the brain due to the risk of causing actual brain damage. Pornography does cause a chemical imbalance and does cause withdrawal symptoms of a sort but when one is over it one does not come away with brain damage, just a damaged life, which may have resulted in divorce!

I think what you said about limiting usage is probably the way to go. Limiting by degrees. But that I don’t feel is an excuse for Christians to not push for a ban on the making of such things. As far as I can see, there is no positive aspect from pornography apart from causing complete and utter failure and misery.

Btw…if you managed to fight off porn addiction then your story is worth being made loud and clear. A 20 years battle is a War that was won not just a battle. As the saying goes: ‘To win a war we sometimes have to fight many battles’. The world needs to hear from as many people such as you who fought and won over addictions and evil industries. Good on you!

 

[JapaneseKappa]

Pornography is addictive as is narcotics. Pornography goes against the dignity of the human person. Caffeine and alcohol does not in of themselves except in cases of over-consumption.

So which is the actual problem, that it is addictive or that it “goes against the dignity of the human person?”

If you condone pornography then one is as guilty as the producers and so as guilty for spreading diseases.
Not true. ‘Stigma’:
God demands it: “Thou shalt not commit adultery”.
I think the poster was talking about a reality based here on earth where we have codes for decent and civilised community living.

All of these responses are irrelevant to the question at hand (unless, perhaps, you are arguing that we should have a theocracy.)

Hippies are part of a culture or a cult not a religion.

They are qualitatively the same sort of belief: not evidence-based.

Integrity can be based on what is known in the Universe as Truth. We have reason to help us. We have laws of love that are counter-acted by rebellious chaos-causing, and therefore sinful, anti-community, anti-love, anti-family, anti-sanctity-of-life, anti-wellbeing jibes. For the Catholic who sins mortally they have a point they will not go beyond and a conscience to make them feel sorry. This cannot be said for those who are not indwelt by the Holy Spirit.

Which is all well and good, but you can’t make something illegal because the Catholic Church says that it will harm your -]aura/-] -]soul/-] integrity. The point is that unless your “loss of integrity” has some sort of real world consequence (e.g. you will commit more sex crimes) then it is not within the government’s jurisdiction to regulate.

 

[friardchips]

[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:

I already said that a science article on the subject of sex crimes is going to be void of meaning.

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

Because you made an irrelevant and irreverent suggestion.

What about them? The illegal sex trade would constitute sex crimes, which the evidence shows do not increase with the legalization of pornography.

What are you talking about: 'does not increase the legalization of pornography? This makes no comprehensible sense.

Your argument about attitudes towards women is practically incoherent. You are saying that banning pornography would improve cultural attitudes towards women.

Yes, it would.

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.

Constant reports of rape for one thing is not good not to mention obvious bad attitudes towards women in many areas of the Far East as is the case in the West surfacing in different ways. Putting savage and degrading acts up on social media is one fuel for evil as is pornography as are cultural attitudes. Another thing here is that you say pornography is illegal in Pakistan…and? if something is underground then it is not going to be legal is it!

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.

No it is not. It doesn’t take much figuring out to guess that underground porn makes its way into the mainstream online viewing market. And the underground market is not made by legal means it already exists as has been reported in news feeds for a long time now.

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.”

If you seriously don’t know through research what the harm is of pornography then nothing anyone can say on this forum that they haven’t already said is going to change your mind.

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.

Yes, they do seem to be. You mentioned religion twice in your previous post so begin by taking your own advice here.

 

[friardchips]

So which is the actual problem, that it is addictive or that it "goes against the dignity of the human person?"All of these responses are irrelevant to the question at hand (unless, perhaps, you are arguing that we should have a theocracy.)They are qualitatively the same sort of belief: not evidence-based.Which is all well and good, but you can’t make something illegal because the Catholic Church says that it will harm your -]aura/-] -]soul/-] integrity. The point is that unless your “loss of integrity” has some sort of real world consequence (e.g. you will commit more sex crimes) then it is not within the government’s jurisdiction to regulate.

Both. Abortion and Euthanasia can also be argued on the grounds of ‘sanctity of life’. And also that it is addictive. Although I would say that the sanctity of life angle is paramount.

This would not produce a theocracy but rather a culture of people who treated one another with dignity and respect, especially women. People could still go and sleep with one another in some sort of comeback for the sixties and even film themselves if they wish to be perverted, but putting it into the public domain could be then classed as indecent exposure for all involved (if it is evident that it has been intentionally made for public consumption).

This produces a community of people who care about each other’s wellbeing and casts adrift the one’s with slack attitudes until they sort themselves out.

Murder is illegal. This is one of the benefits of the R.C Church and the saints who came to the West (the U.K. initially) and converted people and one of the reasons that paganism and barbarity lessened, for the most part). It was not Romans who brought civilisation - they were anything but civilised - it was Christianity. This is why the Roman Empire took on board Christianity. Adultery is murder in a way, and harmful, and murder and injury inflicted upon another unjustly are not legal.

I do however agree that for governments to introduce banning laws would be practically impossible. But it does not mean we should not fight for this. Drugs are illegal, abortion should be illegal, so we have a case.

 

[Amandil]

It is addictive.

And yes it should be banned, not only for the fact that it is addictive but for a plethora of other reasons as well, such as the human and child sex trafficking that not only feeds the addiction but continually causes the demand.

 

[friardchips]

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.

I see what you are saying with this post. Because we know from the Christian viewpoint that something is inherently wrong is not enough to convince non-Christian perspectives.

But to what degree are Christians responsible for the culpable ignorance of a majority? This is scape-goating from wanting to speak one’s mind frankly in society or at least this is what ‘skirting around the issue/truth’ (sexist pun intended) achieves - laws without meaning or foundation.

There was a post earlier on that mentioned how society wants to hack away at our fervour and weaken our position. To pass laws for different reasons is a start but is disingenuous. What Christians need to do is convince non-Christians of the sanctity of life perspective as this is the real Christian perspective and trust in God’s providence. We have to go out to the fringes and with God’s help make a better world. It is okay for religion to be in politics but not politics in religion!

 

[987mk]

It is addictive.

And yes it should be banned, not only for the fact that it is addictive but for a plethora of other reasons as well, such as the human and child sex trafficking that not only feeds the addiction but continually causes the demand.

1. Child pornography is illegal and banned.
2. Sexual abuse of children is illegal.
3. Human trafficking is illegal.
4. Adults engaging in consensual sexual relations while being filmed has nothing to do with child pornography or human trafficking.

 

[Amandil]

Both. Abortion and Euthanasia can also be argued on the grounds of ‘sanctity of life’. And also that it is addictive. Although I would say that the sanctity of life angle is paramount.

This would not produce a theocracy but rather a culture of people who treated one another with dignity and respect, especially women. People could still go and sleep with one another in some sort of comeback for the sixties and even film themselves if they wish to be perverted, but putting it into the public domain could be then classed as indecent exposure for all involved (if it is evident that it has been intentionally made for public consumption).

This produces a community of people who care about each other’s wellbeing and casts adrift the one’s with slack attitudes until they sort themselves out.

Murder is illegal. This is one of the benefits of the R.C Church and the saints who came to the West (the U.K. initially) and converted people and one of the reasons that paganism and barbarity lessened, for the most part). It was not Romans who brought civilisation - they were anything but civilised - it was Christianity. This is why the Roman Empire took on board Christianity. Adultery is murder in a way, and harmful, and murder and injury inflicted upon another unjustly are not legal.

I do however agree that for governments to introduce banning laws would be practically impossible. But it does not mean we should not fight for this. Drugs are illegal, abortion should be illegal, so we have a case.

You can pull articles from Huffpost, GQ, and a bunch of other sources outlining the addictive nature of porn and the negative effects it causes especially in males, both physical, emotional, and psychological.

 

[Cimachol]

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.

Of course if one considers pornography a sex crime in and of itself, this argument doesn’t mean much.

I noticed that some studies suggest that where child porn is more readily available, rates of sex crimes against children go down. I doubt many would argue that it would therefore make sense to legalize child pornography.

Pornography in and of itself is exploitative, just as prostitution is. It reduces human beings – both the participants and the consumers – to commodities who exist for the sexual pleasure of some and financial enrichment of others. It doesn’t need to cause rape to be wrong.

 

[Amandil]

1. Child pornography is illegal and banned.
2. Sexual abuse of children is illegal.
3. Human trafficking is illegal.
4. Adults engaging in consensual sexual relations while being filmed has nothing to do with child pornography or human trafficking.

If you think that because something is illegal that it magically stops people from doing it I definitely have a bridge that I just know that you need have.

Ditto on the idea that every instance of porn between adults is “consensual”.

 

[freeRadical]

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.

I never said that everything should be legal. I merely said that I think that porn and prostitution should be legal. There is simply no justification for making those two things illegal.

 

[987mk]

If you think that because something is illegal that it magically stops people from doing it I definitely have a bridge that I just know that you need have.

Ditto on the idea that every instance of porn between adults is “consensual”.

If the sex isn’t consensual it’s a crime.

Child pornography has nothing to do with consensual sex between adults.

You ask me if making something illegal magically makes people stop doing it? I never said it did. We live in a society where we protect the rights of a child and have laws on the books that prohibits them being exploited or raped.

Aren’t you the one that wants to ban adults from freely choosing to have sexual relations with other adults while on film?

Will that magically make people stop making and consuming pornography?

 

[ThinkingSapien]

IBut to what degree are Christians responsible for the culpable ignorance of a majority?

Well, given that I don’t agree with the premise that it is inherently wrong I have nothing to say about the culpability; I don’t think that there is any.

This is scape-goating

I am not sure what you are calling scape-goating. If two people do not agree on an arguments premise then they is already a significant obstacle to them coming to agreement on the argument.

What Christians need to do is convince non-Christians of the sanctity of life perspective as this is the real Christian perspective and trust in God’s providence.

Okay.

 

[Cimachol]

I never said that everything should be legal. I merely said that I think that porn and prostitution should be legal. There is simply no justification for making those two things illegal.

What, in your opinion, would justify making something illegal?

 

[friardchips]

I never said that everything should be legal. I merely said that I think that porn and prostitution should be legal. There is simply no justification for making those two things illegal.

To understand your position better, why do you think that it *should be * legal, in one sentence, without saying why it shouldn’t be legal?

 

[friardchips]

Well, given that I don’t agree with the premise that it is inherently wrong I have nothing to say about the culpability; I don’t think that there is any.

Not ‘inherently wrong’? Do you mean law-wise or from what angle?

I am not sure what you are calling scape-goating. If two people do not agree on an arguments premise then they is already a significant obstacle to them coming to agreement on the argument.

Because you were responding to another’s posts with talk of justifying one’s position on the matter with facts rather than observation alone. So I am saying that to a degree although putting oneself on the level of the ‘opponent’ might bring about a change in law for reasons that are less-than best truths, and in themselves would be changes for the better, this still side-steps (better phrasing) the real issues here about a person’s dignity they were born with that makes them more than just an animal and so not to be treated as mere animals.

I suppose I am saying in a round-about way that moral-higher-reasoning is a good enough way to put one’s point across and should be considered the elevated way to come to all conclusion in a just, loving, intelligent and moral society but unfortunately in the spirit of despair most people cling to science and misguided lower level moralizing to solve all their problems, one-dimensionally (literally) - governments included.

This is a trust I have been made aware of before: medaille.co.uk

 

[friardchips]

medaille.co.uk/trafficking.php?pageid=2

For JapaneseKappa.

 

[JapaneseKappa]

Of course if one considers pornography a sex crime in and of itself, this argument doesn’t mean much.

I noticed that some studies suggest that where child porn is more readily available, rates of sex crimes against children go down. I doubt many would argue that it would therefore make sense to legalize child pornography.

Pornography in and of itself is exploitative, just as prostitution is. It reduces human beings – both the participants and the consumers – to commodities who exist for the sexual pleasure of some and financial enrichment of others. It doesn’t need to cause rape to be wrong.

But it needs to cause some harm to be banned. The government doesn’t take away all our privileges and give them back once they are deemed “morally right,” it takes away privileges that are deemed harmful.

Very serious people do think that legalizing “synthetic” child pornography (e.g. drawings/computer renderings) is a feasible method to reduce child sex abuse:

While the authors do not approve of the use of real children in the production or distribution of child pornography, they say that artificially produced materials might serve a purpose.

springer.com/about+springer/media/springer+select?SGWID=0-11001-6-1042321-0

I think your last point describes capitalism, not pornography, if you consider services other than sex. We are sold as commodities to advertisers. Athletes are traded, bought, and sold like commodities. Pornography is not unique in treating people like products, the important factor is that people should be free to participate in the pornography market. I don’t think you can make an argument that pornography is somehow fundamentally exploitative (i.e. that people are not fairly compensated) only that a particular pornography market is currently exploitative.