Philosophical-Social Discussion over Pornographic Materials

[The Name of Love]

Which is, bluntly, completely unrealistic, unproductive, and rather dumb on pretty much every level.

Even primitive societies have had things like 'fertility talismans/figurines', and pretty much every non-Judeo-Christian society has nowhere near the hang-ups regarding nudity/pornography. Trying to ban it is like the idiocy the US had going on during Prohibition; won't work and will cause more problems than it solves.

"Trying to ban things won't work. Just look at murder. Murder is illegal, yet it still happens! Therefore, let's legalize it."

Your argument is so broad, it can be used to justify complete anarchy. Instead, why don't you dial it back?

We've had porn bans in past civilizations. And Israel has porn banned as well.

You can just say I don't want to.

And I was just asking about your recent news thing.


Unlikely to work.

Yes, I know a lot of people who would be alienated by a political movement that defended the rights of pornographic material to exist.

 

[Terthna]

Yes, I know a lot of people who would be alienated by a political movement that defended the rights of pornographic material to exist.

Everyone has their core issues they care more about than others. Mine's freedom of speech, so you'll forgive me if my response to those people is a hearty "don't let the door hit you on the way out".

 

[Deleted member]

Everyone has their core issues they care more about than others. Mine's freedom of speech, so you'll forgive me if my response to those people is a hearty "don't let the door hit you on the way out".

I believe that because the early-19th century Tories opposed a ban on pornography that I can do the same on good reference to authority. That is certainly the example I turn to in running this website. I also hope you appreciate, even though it must seem absurd from your worldview, that that's actually a serious commitment on my part which requires a lot of thought--for those people who believe pornography is immoral, who see it as destructive, are often doing so from deeply sincere grounds. Compromise is hard.

 

[Terthna]

I believe that because the early-19th century Tories opposed a ban on pornography that I can do the same on good reference to authority. That is certainly the example I turn to in running this website. I also hope you appreciate, even though it must seem absurd from your worldview, that that's actually a serious commitment on my part which requires a lot of thought--for those people who believe pornography is immoral, who see it as destructive, are often doing so from deeply sincere grounds. Compromise is hard.

It does seem absurd from my perspective, but this is why freedom of speech is so important; so that we don't kill each other, trying to safeguard the diametrically opposed worldviews we each hold dear. Because while you see pornography as immoral and destructive, not only do I disagree with that notion, and in fact see it as a mostly positive force, I also feel the same way about any attempt to ban it.

 

[S'task]

"Trying to ban things won't work. Just look at murder. Murder is illegal, yet it still happens! Therefore, let's legalize it."

This logic might sound good, but you're really comparing apples and sheep here.

The simple fact of the matter is, it's actually quite hard for one person to kill another. Those that can are usually in compromised mental states or psychologically unsound and for those that aren't, killings are fairly obvious affairs that are not easily covered up. Plus, murder has a directly harmed victim.

Pornography, on the other hand, does not require such mental compromise or exceptional circumstances or unusual individuals to participate in. Especially now, with the internet, requires very little in the way of visible effort to participate in and, finally, there is no directly harmed victim, at least, not in a way that is obviously and consistently clear.

This is why the comparison is so flawed in that there are two highly different things needed to accomplish a "ban" on each thing. Banning murder is easy, and taps into already existing policing and cultural norms regarding usurping vengeance, kinship vengeance, and cycles of revenge. Banning porn, especially in the US, has not such preexisting systems or cultural norms to tap into. From a enforcement side of things, the infrastructure required to implement an effective ban on porn would involve massive amounts of monitoring of and interference in the Internet to a degree I don't think ANYONE should be comfortable with, as any system like that once in place would be easily expanded to involve the policing of OTHER things those in power find undesirable, like, say, political opinions or news stories they want spiked.

This then gets into the serious question: would the benefits of banning porn, including an effective enforcement system (which would be required as otherwise banning porn becomes a meaningless platitude), be worth the cost? Given how censor happy many people are in regards to political ideologies and other matters, I would say no, no it would not be. Any system effectively put in place to ban porn would be easily subverted to ban other things online.

And don't trot out that society HAD effective porn bans in the past. Firstly, no, there's not been an effective porn ban since humanity discovered how to DRAW, you will find examples of pornographic images even in things like Middle Age illuminated manuscripts, and the printing press only expanded the market for such things (Penny Dreadfuls, etc.). Secondly, while there were legal porn bans they were not very effective AND they also depended greatly on social stigmatization: the shame of purchasing or being seen in public with such paraphernalia. This is no longer a dependable effect. Between the massive growth of home delivery and easy ordering and, of course, the internet, one cannot reliably know if a person decides to look at porn... unless one is willing to exercise considerable violations of personal privacy by monitoring their browsing history and making it public.

So... it's nice that you want to ban porn, but have you really thought about how much power you're giving the government if you do so? Do you really TRUST it with that power, to never go beyond porn, to never try and weaponize it against other things that the bureaucratic elites find distasteful or problematic?

 

[The Name of Love]

So... it's nice that you want to ban porn, but have you really thought about how much power you're giving the government if you do so? Do you really TRUST it with that power, to never go beyond porn, to never try and weaponize it against other things that the bureaucratic elites find distasteful or problematic?

The reason you would want the government to ban pornography is because watching porn actually alters the physical structure of the brain, sometimes even worse than heroin does. It also makes men docile, irreligious, more open to sexual deviancy, and twice as likely to divorce your partner. Given these innumerable social ills, there is a good case to be made for its prohibition.

On the question of practicality, you say that I was "comparing apples and oranges." On the contrary, that's my case against you. You implied that, because prohibition against alcohol failed, so will porn prohibition fail in a similar manner. But pornography and alcohol aren't the same thing, so you can't appeal to the failure of alcohol prohibition.

Whether or not the government is trustworthy is irrelevant. Our lawmakers are responsible for innumerable ills, no doubt. But that's no excuse to ban murder, so that's no excuse for the government to do other necessary things, like ban pornography.

 

[LifeisTiresome]

@The Name of Love

Isn't the majority of divorce driven by women?

 

[The Name of Love]

@The Name of Love

Isn't the majority of divorce driven by women?

Yes. And?

 

[LifeisTiresome]

Yes. And?

So porn has little effect there cause women initiate majority of divorces anyway.

 

[The Name of Love]

So porn has little effect there cause women initiate majority of divorces anyway.

It does have an effect on men though.

 

[Captain X]

To which I say - so what?

 

[Terthna]

The reason you would want the government to ban pornography is because watching porn actually alters the physical structure of the brain, sometimes even worse than heroin does. It also makes men docile, irreligious, more open to sexual deviancy, and twice as likely to divorce your partner. Given these innumerable social ills, there is a good case to be made for its prohibition.

I'm sorry, but the only thing you've managed to provide to support that hypothesis of yours is an opinion piece from a blatantly biased site, dated from 2011. Here; have an article from Psychology Today, dated 2013. It's an interview with Dr. Nicole Prause, about her study in which she tested the brain’s response to sexual stimuli among a group of individuals who identified as having problems controlling their use of online pornography. To put it bluntly, her data debunks your hypothesis, specifically that porn use works like a drug addiction.

Porn addiction isn't a thing because, and I'm quoting from elsewhere on Psychology Today:

Studies show that so-called porn addiction is closely tied to guilt and shame. These negative feelings often stem from moral or religious beliefs about porn use in general or one’s sexual interests, rather than the amount of time spent viewing porn or one’s perceived lack of self-control. Although porn users are more likely to be male, women also view pornography to a degree. Some partners may find porn use extreme and unacceptable, causing them to label that behavior as “porn addiction.” However, experts find that couples’ arguments about porn are frequently driven by other underlying sexual issues that need to be addressed.

In other words, it's not the porn that's the problem; it's people like you.

 

[Scottty]

@The Name of Love you keep on telling us why you want something, without really listening to the people who are trying tell you that the method you are proposing for getting there will not work.
Government is not a magic djinn that can snap it's fingers and make whatever you don't want vanish - and we do not want it to be.

If you're serious about wanting to eliminate pornography usage, rather than just virtue-signalling, a more realistic means of making progress towards that goal would be an indirect one: why do people get into porn-viewing anyway? What do they get out of it?
Then look at ways that said desire can be met that are more consistent with your values.

 

[S'task]

You implied that, because prohibition against alcohol failed, so will porn prohibition fail in a similar manner. But pornography and alcohol aren't the same thing, so you can't appeal to the failure of alcohol prohibition.

No, no I didn't. Read my entire post again. I never once mentioned alcohol prohibition, rather, I explicitly deconstructed YOUR comparative argument comparing the idea of banning porn to laws making murder illegal, while expanding on exactly WHAT would be necessary to ban porn. Here, to save you scrolling:

This logic might sound good, but you're really comparing apples and sheep here.

The simple fact of the matter is, it's actually quite hard for one person to kill another. Those that can are usually in compromised mental states or psychologically unsound and for those that aren't, killings are fairly obvious affairs that are not easily covered up. Plus, murder has a directly harmed victim.

Pornography, on the other hand, does not require such mental compromise or exceptional circumstances or unusual individuals to participate in. Especially now, with the internet, requires very little in the way of visible effort to participate in and, finally, there is no directly harmed victim, at least, not in a way that is obviously and consistently clear.

This is why the comparison is so flawed in that there are two highly different things needed to accomplish a "ban" on each thing. Banning murder is easy, and taps into already existing policing and cultural norms regarding usurping vengeance, kinship vengeance, and cycles of revenge. Banning porn, especially in the US, has not such preexisting systems or cultural norms to tap into. From a enforcement side of things, the infrastructure required to implement an effective ban on porn would involve massive amounts of monitoring of and interference in the Internet to a degree I don't think ANYONE should be comfortable with, as any system like that once in place would be easily expanded to involve the policing of OTHER things those in power find undesirable, like, say, political opinions or news stories they want spiked.

This then gets into the serious question: would the benefits of banning porn, including an effective enforcement system (which would be required as otherwise banning porn becomes a meaningless platitude), be worth the cost? Given how censor happy many people are in regards to political ideologies and other matters, I would say no, no it would not be. Any system effectively put in place to ban porn would be easily subverted to ban other things online.

And don't trot out that society HAD effective porn bans in the past. Firstly, no, there's not been an effective porn ban since humanity discovered how to DRAW, you will find examples of pornographic images even in things like Middle Age illuminated manuscripts, and the printing press only expanded the market for such things (Penny Dreadfuls, etc.). Secondly, while there were legal porn bans they were not very effective AND they also depended greatly on social stigmatization: the shame of purchasing or being seen in public with such paraphernalia. This is no longer a dependable effect. Between the massive growth of home delivery and easy ordering and, of course, the internet, one cannot reliably know if a person decides to look at porn... unless one is willing to exercise considerable violations of personal privacy by monitoring their browsing history and making it public.

So... it's nice that you want to ban porn, but have you really thought about how much power you're giving the government if you do so? Do you really TRUST it with that power, to never go beyond porn, to never try and weaponize it against other things that the bureaucratic elites find distasteful or problematic?

 

[LordsFire]

On the question of practicality, you say that I was "comparing apples and oranges." On the contrary, that's my case against you. You implied that, because prohibition against alcohol failed, so will porn prohibition fail in a similar manner. But pornography and alcohol aren't the same thing, so you can't appeal to the failure of alcohol prohibition.

You're not doing your position any favors whatsoever here.

Alocohol is harder to produce, harder to distribute, and harder to conceal than pornography. There is every reason in the world to believe that attempting to ban pornography would fail even harder than Prohibition did, and I can't see a single reason to think it would be easier to ban.

Now, some arguments could be made about producing pornography being somewhat easier to ban, but given that it could extremely be produced out of country and sold into it through the internet, how easy it is to stop in-country is rather moot.

I agree that pornography is destructive and unhealthy. I agree that people here are often treating it too lightly. The solution to this social problem is not through the government.

If you want any credibility on this thread, I suggest you propose a mechanism by which a pornography ban can effectively be enforced. If you cannot do that, your position favoring such a ban is fundamentally unsound.

 

[Captain X]

I agree that pornography is destructive and unhealthy. I agree that people here are often treating it too lightly.

How?

 

[ShieldWife]

I have been arguing against him, but I think we need to be careful not to dogpile Name of Love too much. He’s arguing against a bunch of people at once and that can be pretty stressful.

Pornography probably does have a bad effect on society even if all (of what some might call) pornography isn’t bad. There are a lot of different things that can fall under that banner, from the most sublime artwork that portrays the beauty of the human form to the most degenerate perversions imaginable.

I think, like mass media and entertainment in general, that the people who run the pornography industry probably make it way worse than it could be.

I’m fine with any movement that discourages people not to purchase or view pornography or with discussing the possible dangers it might present.

When it comes to outlawing it though, pornography is too close to a form of expression, which should be protected by the First Amendment, to risk. The right to freedom of speech and free expression is so vitally important to a free society, so fundamental to the pursuit of knowledge, that any law which endangers it should only be considered under the most extreme circumstances and even then should be avoided.

So I completely support the right of truly vile people to express horrible ideas, because free speech is that important.

 

[Terthna]

I have been arguing against him, but I think we need to be careful not to dogpile Name of Love too much. He’s arguing against a bunch of people at once and that can be pretty stressful.

Pornography probably does have a bad effect on society even if all (of what some might call) pornography isn’t bad. There are a lot of different things that can fall under that banner, from the most sublime artwork that portrays the beauty of the human form to the most degenerate perversions imaginable.

I think, like mass media and entertainment in general, that the people who run the pornography industry probably make it way worse than it could be.

I’m fine with any movement that discourages people not to purchase or view pornography or with discussing the possible dangers it might present.

When it comes to outlawing it though, pornography is too close to a form of expression, which should be protected by the First Amendment, to risk. The right to freedom of speech and free expression is so vitally important to a free society, so fundamental to the pursuit of knowledge, that any law which endangers it should only be considered under the most extreme circumstances and even then should be avoided.

So I completely support the right of truly vile people to express horrible ideas, because free speech is that important.

Personally, I'm not fine with movements like that; because in my opinion, those "dangers" are nonexistent. Either they're entirely in the heads of those who think they do exist, are a direct result of the stigma against pornography itself, or it involves people just being people; i.e. utterly horrible to each other, regardless of the circumstances.

In other words, porn isn't the problem; people are.

 

[Scottty]

I would be happy for pornography to be chased out of the public view into the shadows so that people who didn't want to see it never had to.
Trying to eradicate it altogether would simply be more trouble than it was worth.

 

[LordsFire]

How?

One of the major elements, would be how much pornography addiction can move people down the road towards being the customers of sex traffickers. Note I'm specifically emphasizing can, not claiming it automatically will. Almost all customers of such have porn addiction, but not remotely all users of porn end up paying into the sex trade.

That's an example that pretty much everyone can agree is bad. To use a more difficult to understand one...

Pornography encourages self-absorption. It's wholly about self-gratification, it's not at all about mutualism or doing something to serve another. That's not a healthy attitude to bring into a sexual relationship, or any relationship really. It also can build unrealistic expectations.

There's a lot of things that build off of the above.