Thoughts on pornography...?

i guess i've been misunderstood.

1. if a young boy sees the pornography that his father, the adult, watches.....it will change him.

2. he will be a man someday. will he perhaps still be "changed" and have a skewed perception of what sexuality is about?

3. that is what i'm trying to say.

4. it is likely that children see porn every day that is inappropriate due to the fact that their parents are negligent. not just a dozen or so. thousands.

pat

Wittgenstein once said: 'There are no false facts'.
There are notorious problems with how much we can generalise from studies and there are also problems with the methodology etc and subsequent conclusions. I still think that there is a fact of the matter as to how many people are harmed (and to what degree), however. While we might not know how many are harmed (and to what degree) at present I think that science will find that relevant fact one day.

Then the issue becomes: How many need to be harmed (and to what degree) before we decide that the practice is morally / legally unacceptable to us?

We might disagree on that latter bit even if we agreed on the facts, you see. Or... We might converge on our views at that point.

With respect to the gun thing we seem to come back to:
'More harms are caused than prevented by private gun ownership'
'No - its not'
'Yes - it is'
'No - its not'
etc
There is a relevant fact as to whether more people are harmed or not (not saying that we know what it is at present) but there is surely a relevant fact.

How many people need to be harmed before we decide to morally and / or legally clamp down on private lisenced gun ownership?

Might be that we converge once the facts come in (once we agree on the facts) or might be that we don't.

I'm not talking about the pornography laws in the United States. I'm talking about the pornography laws in general.

How do you feel about animated child porn / animal porn? Cartoons. No children and / or animals were harmed in the making of this porn. Just a way for people who get off on bestality / pedophilia to get off?

One thing that seems to be coming up is something along the lines of a 'critical period'. If children don't learn a language by age 7 (for example) then it is much much harder for them to learn it later in life and they never acquire full gramaticality etc etc. The notion seems to be that there is a critical period for sexual responses where up until the age of consent (18, I guess) peoples sexual responses are mallable such that porn etc CAN harm and result in pedophilias and fetishes and implicit and explicit beliefs about treating women as objects... But then (at the age of consent) all that is fixed and subsequent experiences have no affect on ones sexuality whatsoever.

That seems to be the claim that porn DOESN'T serve to strengthen neural connections (e.g., to make pedophilias and fetishes and implicit and explicit beliefs worse and / or more entrenched) and that porn DOESN'T serve to set up new pedophilias and fetishes and implicit and explicit beliefs AFTER the age of consent.

That of course is an empirical matter.

I'd be extremely surprised if this was found to be true, however, as phobias can be acquired later in life...

But...

Lets suppose it was found that porn DID have an impact on adults similarly to how it had an impact on children.

Would we then converge in our views or would the disagreement remain???

Let me suppose it was found that porn DIDN'T have an impact on adults similarly to how it had an impact on children.

Would I think converge with you guys view?????

I'd still be worried about other harms - but I would agree (if that turned out to be the way things were) that that harm wasn't relevant to the issue...

</font><blockquote><div id="quote"><font class="small">Quote:</font>
fayerody said:
i guess i've been misunderstood.

1. if a young boy sees the pornography that his father, the adult, watches.....it will change him.

2. he will be a man someday. will he perhaps still be "changed" and have a skewed perception of what sexuality is about?

3. that is what i'm trying to say.

4. it is likely that children see porn every day that is inappropriate due to the fact that their parents are negligent. not just a dozen or so. thousands.

pat

</div></font></blockquote><font class="post">

Okay I see what you're saying. But that's true of many many many things besides pornography. If parents are negligent, children will be exposed to all kinds of things they shouldn't be -- alcohol/drugs, restricted movies, sexual predators in chat rooms (or real life), even lots of television programs I've seen would be inappropriate for children and would probably change their outlook on life, etc. etc. So the parents definitely have to be diligent about what they want their children to see. And I know that some parents aren't diligent, but I wouldn't argue for censorship on that basis. The sheer volume of stuff to be censored out would be phenomenal. We have to construct the world for adults and then do our best to protect the children from the parts they aren't equipped to handle yet.

Sidony

I'm keeping this short, because I should be asleep...should have been long ago. But I'm catching up on stuff since I didn't get on during the weekend.

Suffice to say, we're not going to agree, those of you on the anti-porn side.

But, to answer how I feel about animated child porn and bestiality, I'm ok with it. Do I think it's sick? Yes. But as long as the viewer doesn't do anything to anyone in real life, there's no harm.

A couple of things I thought of, and would like to know what your opinions are:

What if I dated a man who'd been sexually abused as a child, who wanted to have sex with me? Am I to assume he's not making his own choice and I shouldn't have sex with him, since his choice may have been colored by his past?

Guns--What about hunters? What about collectors?

Something I was remembering which is related to the discussion in general (though I won't try to pick out exactly where it's related):

When I was a small child, I once stumbled on a pornographic magazine at a friend's house. It was a lesbian magazine, and I remember finding it somewhat disturbing. But I didn't give it much thought, and I can confidently say it had no effect on my sexuality.

Another time when I was a child I found a Reader's Digest that had an autobiographical story of a woman who was raped. It didn't go into any explicit details at all, but the story was very upsetting to me. Since it wasn't specific and since I had no knowledge of sex at the time, I couldn't figure out what had happened. I imagined that it was his hand he had put into her. That affected me all the way into adult life (I have never wanted a man to finger me though intercourse is pleasurable).

I guess my point here is that there's no way to protect kids from everything that could be damaging and that outlawing porn wouldn't help. TV and other literature can be just as damaging. I think the best protection for kids is to educate them. I wish somebody had talked to me about sex when I was a little kid. I know I experienced sexual arousal at a very early age, and it would have helped me to understand what was going on with my body.

Other thoughts: The vast majority of porn is just about sex and intercourse, not uncommon fetishisms.

I do have a problem with cartoon depictions of child porn or bestiality because those depict true non-consensuality. Whereas I distinguish that from rape fantasies. My understanding is that people with rape fantasies are usually fantasizing about being raped themselves. That really isn't a non-consensual fantasy. BDSM is also a consensual practice though sometimes it can look like it isn't to people who aren't familiar with it. Sexuality is complicated.

I actually think that things like fetishism are established well before the age of consent, but I base that on personal experience and the fact that it's illogical that someone would repeatedly watch a fetishism depiction that didn't interest them.

Okay those are just some more thoughts on pornography (and the discussion at hand) to go along with the thread subject....

Sidony

what i was trying to figure was whether it was a disagreement over matters of fact (where science will eventually determine the harms) and whether we would converge if we agreed on the facts...

or whehter the disagreement runs deeper...

im going to go on reading the rest of this thread but ive only gotten half way through it so far and i am spitting!!! i swear if i could get my hands on john howard i would like to do him great personal damage. and i really object to violence.
i cant even speak. there are no words strong enough. the STUPIDITY of it!!! discrimination is wrong on every level and to make it worse by outright persecution is... grrrrrrr. but what really gets me is it doesnt even make sense! are they TRYING to make things worse???? and hes not the only person to do things like this nor is this the only area i know hes made ridiculous policy decisions in. (edited to explain that im talking about the Australian actions regarding the Aboriginal communities there)
ok im trying to breathe here.
and as far as porn is concerned... im very very confused on this issue no matter how much i think about it. the only things im clear on are that i see no problem with written porn that does not depict violence or domination/submission. i also think most if not all of the problem with the visual porn industry is that the way it is made and the people who are involved makes it fundamentally rotten and exploitative. (edited to add that i know there is some porn that is made without exploiting anyone e.g. lesbian porn made by lesbians for lesbians) i agree with what others have said about asking more closely whether the 'choice' made by women to become involved in it is actually a free choice.
however i, like alex_k, do not believe in the concept of 'evil' so i dont think porn or people who watch it are evil. and i dont think the risk of it possibly leading to the actualisation of impulses already contained within certain individuals warrants banning it or anything extreme like that. that strikes me as similar to banning cars because of the number of deaths through drunken driving and joy riding. there are other ways of working to prevent abuses committed by certain sick individuals.
ok i think im done. obsessive monologue ended. and i feel calmer for having written this out. i hope it doesnt offend anyone. if it does please dont hesitate to delete raynaadi or one of the mods.

</font><blockquote><div id="quote"><font class="small">Quote:</font>
Maven said:
But, to answer how I feel about animated child porn and bestiality, I'm ok with it.
Do I think it's sick? Yes. But as long as the viewer doesn't do anything to anyone in real life, there's no harm.

</div></font></blockquote><font class="post">

But you are talking about physical harm...... what about the emotional and mental harm that often comes from porn when the user has a wife, child, lover or g/f that is negatively effect by it?

... there are many harms of porn that go unseen, but never the less felt by many.

ok again i havent finished reading this thread but i had some thoughts on the idea being discussed that people can be trained to respond sexually to certain images/concepts/objects. i have no idea if thats true. i do think if you have an inate sexual response to a certain, lets say object, then repeatedly viewing that and getting excited probably strengthens that reaction. however... and this is huge for me cos i do not speak about personal sexual things... i do read erotic stories and i have read many heterosexual ones despite being gay. ive done so both to see if i can have any positive sexual response to a male character and because sometimes i start something and cant tell what genders are involved and it gets interesting so i go on. ive found time and again though that when i get to the bit where its obviously talking about a male most of the time it just turns me right off unless i can ignore that part. so... if im excited before that part and i keep trying to get excited during it but cant then where does that leave the idea that porn can train your body to respond to things you re not innately already somewhat excited by?? i dont know...
hope im making sense. im getting tired here with all this reading! :P

What emotional and mental harm are you talking about, Rhapsody? How does the user take out this harm you speak of on his wife, lover, child, etc. (if he has them)? Again, I'm not saying he isn't sick, but I don't believe in condemning someone for thoughts and fantasies.

As for science showing harm, science is not one entity. There are those in science who do studies on all kinds of things and get one result, whereas others in the same field get different results. People get harmed by knives. Shall we make knives illegal? It wouldn't do any good. Those who want to get knives (or porn), will. You act as though making a law is going to stop people from buying or getting porn, guns, etc., and that just isn't so. They can't even get gangbangers off the street, unless they catch or are called for them doing something illegal, or they have warrants for such people.

<font color="#000088">I think Pornography is sick and an exploitation of the human body. And that it's long term effects are the leading cause of most of our rapists that are out there today,or caught and behind bars already! That's my 2 cents on Pornography, after actually being told by a rapist that it was pornography that got him on the path of raping in the first place! </font>

Wow, one rapist said porn got him started. That proves it, all right.

That's BS. He made his choices. Porn is not sick...it's a natural inclination to enjoy looking at sexual images. There are studies that show that, in areas where sexual material is more readily available, sexual crimes are fewer.

Here's some articles of interest:

http://blog.washingtonpost.com/offbe...pornograp.html
http://www.cybercollege.com/sexrsh.htm - "It has been widely assumed that there is a direct link between pornography and sexual crime. Although those who commit sex crimes may collect pornography, 99 percent of people who collect pornography do not commit sex crimes -- just as 99 percent of the people who collect guns don't kill people."
http://jurist.law.pitt.edu/forumy/20...-political.php
http://www.libchrist.com/New2004-5/p...asescrime.html

Now, certainly, you can find sites that claim the opposite, but I believe that access to sexual material decreases sex crimes, based on my own experiences in life. The vast majority of people who view porn don't commit sex crimes, and people who have been victims of sex crimes as adults and especially as children often don't want to accept that. People who are going to harm others can choose not to do so, and I'm getting sick of people wanting to act like these people aren't responsible for their own actions.

sounds to me that people have strong opinions based on their own personal experiences and that as such...

people go around trying to find the evidence to support their view rather than trying to find the evidence to disconform their view.

(that is called CONFIRMATION BIAS - it is a well known fallacy that occurs in the context of scientific reasoning).

sigh.

i wish i knew whether the disagreement came down to disagreement over matters of fact (which is what people seem to think it is) where science will eventually determine what should be done...

or whether the disagreement came down to disagreement over matters of ethics (disagreement over whether freedom to or freedom from takes priority) where ethics will eventually determine what should be done...

maybe a combination... maybe...

people have a natural inclination to rape, too. there are many examples of this throughout history and there are analogous behaviours that occur in animals.

just because people have a natural inclination to do something does not imply / entail that it is ethically acceptable for them to do what it is that comes naturally to them.

so...

if we could reduce rape by 10% by outlawing porn then should we outlaw porn?

(you might think we can't but i'm asking you to grant it for the sake of argument - IF WE COULD - then should we?)

if we agreed on the facts (whether outlawing porn would increase or decrease sexual offences) then would we converge on what we think we should do...

or not.

?

I read opinions on all sides of the issues I care about. I posted links to support what I believe, that is all.

Science has repeatedly shown that porn reduces sex crimes, not increase them.

I don't think people have a natural inclination to rape. Where is your information on this? People have a different intelligence and awareness than animals. Animals aren't privy to morals and beliefs as we are.

If rape could be reduced by 10% by outlawing porn, why should those who don't rape not be able to view it? And what good is outlawing it? You seem to be under the impression that outlawing things keeps people from them. That's naive. It just isn't so. In fact, making things taboo causes people to desire them more.

very true maven there would just be an underground black market controlled by organized crime.....much like prohibition didnt work and the war on drugs. Crime rates actually have increased in areas where stricter gun control was instituted. YOu are right , the individual makes the decision on what he is going to do and he alone is responsible for his actions .

i have a small inkling i suppose of some reasons why ppl would rape another, and they arent due to porn. thinking about it, person wants sexual release, go watch porn. if u had the choice to sit onyour *** and watch porn or have to get up, go out the door, find a target, and so on. im sorry to write it like this. but yeah. like u make drugs illegal, they just get sold for more. u get rid of porn, people have to use other ways for sexual release. and for some reason, some cant b bothered to get a partner. i figure, it cant be all bad. there are also some bad points i know, but idk i dont have time to writr too much here at the mo
take care
self

I think that, like with everything in life, there are reasons for both sides, and somewhere theres a happy medium. But I'd like to pose a question, If I may: What about drawn porn [commonly reffered to as hentai, on the internet]? If there are no real people being harmed or exploited in it's development? Also.... how do we make the distinction between pornography and art, in certain cases, such as with Lolita?

Just a warning, I have not read this entire thread, If either of these issues has come up before, please discount this.

As for my personal opinion.....

I agree with Maven. A high level of pornography has shown to reduce the rates of sex crimes in certain countries. I'd like to beleive that nothing is wrong in your own mind, as long as you don't end up acting on your thoughts if they're harmful to others.

But then again, thats what I think.

Have a nice day.

I don't have a problem with drawn porn, hentai, cartoons, etc. It's when someone acts out something harmful that it becomes a problem.

> Science has repeatedly shown that porn reduces sex crimes, not increase them.

I'd need to see examples of studies because I'm pretty darned sure that there is still a lot of controversy. The Australian government was trying to outlaw pornography in Aboriginal populations, for example, because they thought the science showed that that would DECREASE rates of childhood sexual abuse.

> I don't think people have a natural inclination to rape. Where is your information on this?

War. What is the perk of successfully invading a new country? Leaving a new generation is what. There is a lot that has been done on rape of women by the military in India. Scholars who had military fathers and native mothers. Seems to be on something of a continuum with what some of the greater apes have been observed to do. When new males overthrow old males they are observed to punch the stomachs of the pregnant females (to induce abortion) and to kill the children of the old males before raping the females (in the sense that they seem frightened and unwilling). Rates of incest (rape surely) aren't increasing... What is increasing is public perception that this IS prevalent and should be stopped.

> If rape could be reduced by 10% by outlawing porn, why should those who don't rape not be able to view it?

Because... (In this example) rape would be reduced by 10%.
Then there are all the other arguments I've offered against porn where there would be a reduction in harm to working girls, a reduction in anti-social attitudes towards women etc etc etc. You seem focused in on rape as the only harm. I think there are a great deal of other harms too...

> You seem to be under the impression that outlawing things keeps people from them. That's naive. It just isn't so. In fact, making things taboo causes people to desire them more.

If people have a problem with authority and they perceive authorities to be telling them what to do for no reason other than 'because they can' then yeah, those people tend to rebel.

On the other hand, when the authorities tell you 'please don't go around murdering other people' then does that make you want to murder people just because you have been told not to???

A great deal seems to rest on the REASONS WHY certain things are outlawed.

If rape is such a terrible, terrible crime that leaves horrible lasting impact on its victims... Then why on earth wouldn't people forgo a little 'getting ones rocks off' IF it were found that outlawing pornography could reduce rape by 10%

Of course one might deny that outlawing porn would have such an impact on the prevalence of rape. I think that given what we know about classical conditioning of sexual response it would be more surprising if viewing pornography had nothing to do with rape, however.

It is hard to compare cross country statistics but...
There is lower gun crime in countries that are harsher on gun ownership (england, australia, new zealand compared to the USA).
Some of the criticisms of reading off 'tightening up on gun laws would result in a decrease in gun crime' include the rather different situation that the US finds itself in...

Seems that people simply cite the findings that support their view and deny / pass over the findings that support the opposite view, however.

Kinda pointless to discuss it given that that is the case...