Should pornography be legal (faithful Catholics only)?

[hazcompat]

…the term “pornography” is a generic, not legal, term. It relates to a broad range of sexual materials, some of which are protected by the First Amendment and some of which are not. The Supreme Court in Miller v. California, in 1973: “Pornography derives from the Greek (‘harlot’ and ‘graphos,’ writing). The word now means 1) a description of prostitutes or prostitution 2) A depiction (as in a writing or painting) of licentiousness or lewdness: a portrayal of erotic behavior designed to cause sexual excitement.”

The 1986 Attorney General’s Commission on Pornography defined pornography as “material that is predominately sexually explicit and intended primarily for the purpose of sexual arousal.”

from

Alan Sears on Free Speech, Censorship — and Fighting Back

SCOTTSDALE, Arizona, 29 JULY 2004 (ZENIT)

Peace

 

[faithsmind]

The Catholic Church does not want to sell or regulate porn.


Every living person should be against porn. It’s poison to every society.

This is the straight talk we need more of.
And it’s a poison simply because it removes the intimate, personal components of a sexual experience, and these repeated types of experiences destroy the reality of healthy sexual intimacy between a man and a woman. So, when you hear that 56% of marriages end because of porn addiction, it makes sense. Most addicts begin as preteens, so it’s not the bad marriage that causes addiction.

A 2013 study at the University of Sydney said pornography addiction was on the rise. About 47 percent of the surveyed people said they watched pornography from 30 minutes to three hours every day, and that they “had severe social and relationship problems and had often lost their jobs or been in trouble with the law as a result of their addiction. Some users escalated their viewing to more extreme and often illegal material,” according to the study. -Deseret News.com

But should adults have the right to choose?
I think that’s the wrong question. We’re talking about mental and emotional damage that is on par with crystal meth and similar hard-core drugs. Id argue that they’re even more dangerous because it’s a drug that’s inhaled through the eyes–something difficult to regulate. We simply don’t allow crack to be on a diffuser at Walmart and at every check-out center candy aisle. But there it is on the Internet around every corner we turn. And how on earth do we regulate that? It needs to be regulated, or else children end up disadvantaged, without dads, and in poverty.

 

[faithsmind]

Even my five-year-old knows innapropriateness when they see it.

 

[PraiseChrist]

Hi,
I would say:

Why would any Faithful Catholic vote yes at all? One may say that pornography has been the result of billions of mortal sins. The government has a duty to prevent this. If the government is responsible for protecting the material life of its denizens, why shouldn’t it also strive to protect the morality of the people?

In a republic, the government is heavily influenced by the morality and cultural climate of the people. For the government to tolerate this would indirectly harm the moral decisions of the government itself. There is freedom of speech, there is freedom of the press, but, like in all things, there is a limit. The gov’t won’t tolerate someone to make a threat against a public official on the internet, even though some people might want to object. Same way, one cannot tolerate the morality of the people being destroyed by these people. In addition, if a government were to allow this it would be a bystander to the people within this demonic industry. The people under this are more degraded than prostitutes, they have no money and choose to sell the dignity of their humanity to get by. Any government cannot tolerate this.

 

[faithsmind]

Hi,
I would say:

Why would any Faithful Catholic vote yes at all? One may say that pornography has been the result of billions of mortal sins. The government has a duty to prevent this. If the government is responsible for protecting the material life of its denizens, why shouldn’t it also strive to protect the morality of the people?

In a republic, the government is heavily influenced by the morality and cultural climate of the people. For the government to tolerate this would indirectly harm the moral decisions of the government itself. There is freedom of speech, there is freedom of the press, but, like in all things, there is a limit. The gov’t won’t tolerate someone to make a threat against a public official on the internet, even though some people might want to object. Same way, one cannot tolerate the morality of the people being destroyed by these people. In addition, if a government were to allow this it would be a bystander to the people within this demonic industry. The people under this are more degraded than prostitutes, they have no money and choose to sell the dignity of their humanity to get by. Any government cannot tolerate this.

I agree.
The problem is that pornography is being fed to the masses through the global internet. My family’s internet is no longer under the reach of SCOTUS.

Even if it was in their power, (name removed by moderator) is right, defining porn through language is out of reach of SCOTUS. It’s a visual concept.
I say all nudity should be banned on the Internet, but realize now that that’s utterly impossible.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

No definition for legal purposes will be perfect, and what arouses is in the eye of the beholder and there are some seriously disturbed beholders out there. No doubt many men from repressed societies get off on a bit of exposed ankle or wrist.

I thought the old criteria of censoring pubic hair or female nipples on TV or movies was a reasonably clear cut and workable line in the sand.

In reality of course Christians have always been at odds with the mores of wider society and still managed to remain loyal to Christ’s teachings despite the pollution they lived in.

It is unrealistic that we expect society at large to always reflect our higher standards.
What we can do is limit the pollution entering our own homes and social groups and give our children the best possible start in life. They need to be trained to practise the usual safeguards to modesty when in the street, at school and on the internet.

Relying solely on secular big brother to be there is foolishness these days.

If that was the role of government…then they would be bound to implement Sharia as well.
We live in a pluralistic society, on these matters we must look to ourselves re what we all know is meant by the word pornography.

 

[edwest2]

This is the straight talk we need more of.
And it’s a poison simply because it removes the intimate, personal components of a sexual experience, and these repeated types of experiences destroy the reality of healthy sexual intimacy between a man and a woman. So, when you hear that 56% of marriages end because of porn addiction, it makes sense. Most addicts begin as preteens, so it’s not the bad marriage that causes addiction.

A 2013 study at the University of Sydney said pornography addiction was on the rise. About 47 percent of the surveyed people said they watched pornography from 30 minutes to three hours every day, and that they “had severe social and relationship problems and had often lost their jobs or been in trouble with the law as a result of their addiction. Some users escalated their viewing to more extreme and often illegal material,” according to the study. -Deseret News.com

But should adults have the right to choose?
I think that’s the wrong question. We’re talking about mental and emotional damage that is on par with crystal meth and similar hard-core drugs. Id argue that they’re even more dangerous because it’s a drug that’s inhaled through the eyes–something difficult to regulate. We simply don’t allow crack to be on a diffuser at Walmart and at every check-out center candy aisle. But there it is on the Internet around every corner we turn. And how on earth do we regulate that? It needs to be regulated, or else children end up disadvantaged, without dads, and in poverty.

Trust me, nothing is impossible. If the government decided to shut down every internet porn site tomorrow, it could. The Intelligence Community, like the physical earth, has a virtual map of the internet. They have hackers cooperating with them. And banks of supercomputers.

Adults do have a choice:

Parallel Verses
New International Version
“See, I set before you today life and prosperity, death and destruction.”

New Living Translation
“Now listen! Today I am giving you a choice between life and death, between prosperity and disaster.”

English Standard Version
“See, I have set before you today life and good, death and evil."

Poison is poison. yourbrainonporn.com/brain-scan-studies-porn-users

Ed

 

[faithsmind]

No definition for legal purposes will be perfect, and what arouses is in the eye of the beholder and there are some seriously disturbed beholders out there. No doubt many men from repressed societies get off on a bit of exposed ankle or wrist.

I thought the old criteria of censoring pubic hair or female nipples on TV or movies was a reasonably clear cut and workable line in the sand.

In reality of course Christians have always been at odds with the mores of wider society and still managed to remain loyal to Christ’s teachings despite the pollution they lived in.

It is unrealistic that we expect society at large to always reflect our higher standards.
What we can do is limit the pollution entering our own homes and social groups and give our children the best possible start in life. They need to be trained to practise the usual safeguards to modesty when in the street, at school and on the internet.

Relying solely on secular big brother to be there is foolishness these days.

If that was the role of government…then they would be bound to implement Sharia as well.
We live in a pluralistic society, on these matters we must look to ourselves re what we all know is meant by the word pornography.

But we ultimately live in community and will still be affected by the private sexual decisions of others on an intimate level.

The problem of porn is one of the reasons why I find impersonal globalism difficult and impractical. But I guess that’s for another thread.

 

[goout]

No one is seriously proposing what you say as the basis for law, they are simply giving their educated impression of what porn is. They do have a point that it is not too difficult to determine what porn is.
JP2 doesn’t have trouble laying out the standards in TOB.

This is not rocket science. We do this literally all the time in all areas of governance.
Who is eligible, who is not, how fast is too fast, which drug is legal, how much can you make, how much do you pay. People take the information available, lawmakers vote to make informed decisions.

Capitulation in the face of evil should never be an option.
Letting society rot should never be an option. It’s not just about us and our Church. Christ came as a revolutionary who proposed a change in the way people behave as a community.
Are we going to get this changed in practice? Probably not a chance. But still we have a
Christian responsibility.

 

[edwest2]

No one is seriously proposing what you say as the basis for law, they are simply giving their educated impression of what porn is. They do have a point that it is not too difficult to determine what porn is.
JP2 doesn’t have trouble laying out the standards in TOB.

This is not rocket science. We do this literally all the time in all areas of governance.
Who is eligible, who is not, how fast is too fast, which drug is legal, how much can you make, how much do you pay. People take the information available, lawmakers vote to make informed decisions.

Capitulation in the face of evil should never be an option.
Letting society rot should never be an option. It’s not just about us and our Church. Christ came as a revolutionary who proposed a change in the way people behave as a community.
Are we going to get this changed in practice? Probably not a chance. But still we have a
Christian responsibility.

This is not rocket science. The porn industry makes porn - fact. It knows what it’s selling/providing.

WE HAVE A CHOICE. What we cannot choose is porn.“I can’t define it” is like saying the porn industry can’t define what it does or news sources providing dollar amounts regarding the money made off of porn. Which makes it “defined.”

Have hope in God, not the secular world.

Parallel Verses
New International Version
“Or do you not know that wrongdoers will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor men who have sex with men”

New Living Translation
“Don’t you realize that those who do wrong will not inherit the Kingdom of God? Don’t fool yourselves. Those who indulge in sexual sin, or who worship idols, or commit adultery, or are male prostitutes, or practice homosexuality,”

English Standard Version
“Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men who practice homosexuality,”

All of our souls are at risk, including mine. Stop believing the “Hey. What’s the big deal?” lie. We have a body and a soul.

Ed

 

[goout]

Pornography is: sexually explicit material. Depictions of sex acts. Nudity which is not medicinal. (I know I know)
If I can’t see the ceiling of the Sistine Chapel on the internet I will just have to suffer, or travel to Italy if it is that important to me.

It is not difficult to define, it is difficult to get agreement on which definition will make it through the political sausage machine.

But again, we do this all the time. All social issues are difficult to win agreement on.
Why is freedom of expression more sacrosanct and immune from political argument than feeding the hungry??

 

[edwest2]

Pornography is: sexually explicit material. Depictions of sex acts. Nudity which is not medicinal. (I know I know)
If I can’t see the ceiling of the Sistine Chapel on the internet I will just have to suffer, or travel to Italy if it is that important to me.

It is not difficult to define, it is difficult to get agreement on which definition will make it through the political sausage machine.

But again, we do this all the time. All social issues are difficult to win agreement on.
Why is freedom of expression more sacrosanct and immune from political argument than feeding the hungry??

“freedom of expression” ? Getting paid to perform sex acts for the public to view is impossible to get? The “undefined” porn industry is making billions of dollars? Obviously false because we can’t define what the porn industry does - as if it doesn’t exist or own web sites.

Ed

 

[faithsmind]

Let’s say the US supercomputer still had jurisdiction of US Internet.,.

Historically, many works of art were often made purposefully for sexual stimulation. And should lingerie on Victoria’s Secret ads be prohibited? Even these can definitely be a gateway for an 11 year old. Also, everyone’s sexual response differs.
But, as far as the Internet, videos of nude people, animated and live, moving and or performing, should at least be banned. These hardcore videos are the serious problem.

 

[goout]

Legality / morality
Someone’s morality is going to make it into the law books. Legality and morality are intimately interconnected so as to be almost indistinguishable. Laws make evaluations about human behavior.
I would like that law leavened by the Gospel.

You and I cannot help but agree that Gospel values are the best values. And they need not be explicitly Christian in the law book.

 

[edwest2]

Let’s say the US supercomputer still had jurisdiction of US Internet.,.

Historically, many works of art were often made purposefully for sexual stimulation. And should lingerie on Victoria’s Secret ads be prohibited? Even these can definitely be a gateway for an 11 year old. Also, everyone’s sexual response differs.
But, as far as the Internet, videos of nude people, animated and live, moving and or performing, should at least be banned. These hardcore videos are the serious problem.

I don’t know if you’ve taken College-level Art History. The vast majority of recent (past 300 years) worth of art were not made for sexual stimulation. I’ve got publications that would bore the average ‘thrill seeker’ to death - cows in a field, sailors unloading cargo…

Anyway, banning explicit sexual acts recorded as motion pictures and still photos should be banned entirely. Videos of nudes should also be banned since their association with porn sites is assured.

Ed

 

[faithsmind]

I don’t know if you’ve taken College-level Art History. The vast majority of recent (past 300 years) worth of art were not made for sexual stimulation. I’ve got publications that would bore the average ‘thrill seeker’ to death - cows in a field, sailors unloading cargo…

Anyway, banning explicit sexual acts recorded as motion pictures and still photos should be banned entirely. Videos of nudes should also be banned since their association with porn sites is assured.

Ed

Actually, my degree is in art history. I will say that it’s difficult to determine what a dead artist’s intent is lol. I think that’s part of the problem, here. But yes, much of historical nude art was used for sexual purposes. Not all of it. And of course, context is everything.

 

[edwest2]

Actually, my degree is in art history. I will say that it’s difficult to determine what a dead artist’s intent is lol. I think that’s part of the problem, here. But yes, much of historical nude art was used for sexual purposes. Not all of it. And of course, context is everything.

Intent? Cows in a field? They’re cows in a field. Context? They’re cows in a field. After the Cubists and other ists appeared, I have no clue as to what I’m looking at. Untitled #53? Uh, OK. Jackson Pollock? Number 31 has that painter’s drop cloth look. As well as a number of others by him.

I remember one day in Art History where the instructor put up a slide of Whistler’s Mother. He asked a simple question and the guy in the back - that’s me - gave a simple answer. My instructor restrained his smile while the rest of the class turned to look at me in a “Who let this guy in here?” kind of way. The “actual” answer was far more complex, or so I was led to believe. Or that 10 foot wide spiral of duct tape at the city art museum on the floor. And the card next to it: “Please do not remove. This is art.” To the unwashed and uninitiated masses, this was necessary.

Then, I got a call from a friend to hang canvases at an exclusive art club. I was waved past the staff when I arrived by my socially connected friend and laid out the canvases as I saw fit. The exhibition went well. Strangely, all the art was of things I could recognize. Not a bare ankle, or bare anything else, among them. Or lewd pose.

Ed

 

[faithsmind]

Ed.

I think we’ve made progress in this thread overall. I want to shake everyone’s hand! It was great to think everything through, but now I can only recall that final line in Finding Nemo…
“Ok, now what?”

 

[edwest2]

Now what? Self-censorship, for one. And pointing out the scientific data that shows porn is damaging to individuals and society as a whole. And yes, there is a porn industry that produces porn.

Ed

 

[Mike1955]

I, and each of you, is/are free to NOT CLICK on the links to pornographic sites.

I do not need the government making it illegal. Porn does not force its way into my mailbox. Porn sites do not invade my computer.

I knew of an Orthodox rabbi in Los Angeles whose wife would go through the newspaper every morning before he read it, cutting out ads that she felt he should not see. Lingerie ads, stocking ads, etc. Because in her mind (or in his mind, maybe), these ads were pornographic and might have an unwanted impact on him. This man was so pure (or so unpure!!) that images that we accept every day were disturbing to him.

But aside from such sensitive rarities, pornography does not come seek us out. And you can have filters installed on your computers to protect you from supposedly inadvertent clicks!