“The COPA [Child Online Protection Act] would make it a criminal offence for commercial Web sites to display any material that would be perceived as harmful by ‘an average person, applying contemporary community standards’ unless access controls were employed to keep curious sprouts away from it.”
So where is the evidence that says any pornography is harmful in any way whatsoever? Shouldn’t we use some sort of evidence citing specific pornography versus what the vocal minority finds “harmful”? Isn’t this just another example of people with nothing better to do attempting to suck everyone else down with them?
How exactly would one go about conducting a study of the effects of pornography? There aren’t many people who haven’t seen some pornography and there really aren’t that many sexual criminals. For these criminals, did their exposure to pornography create/contribute to deviancy or was it something else that trained them into a deviant way of thinking and they were subsequently drawn to pornography from an improper/incorrect direction?
The Europeans are much freer with pornography with it being available on public broadcast television. If pornography IS harmful it should be evident there. Perhaps there are roving gangs of rapists and pedophiles and the EU is just good at keeping it out of the news, but I don’t think so.
<talkingoutofass>When I have kids, I won’t care what they see.</talkingoutofass> Of course, I don’t plan on having kids.
Personally, I chalk it up to the usual impulse of people linking an unarguable problem (sex crimes) to something related that they don’t like (pornography) and then using the unarguable problem as an excuse to crack down on what they don’t like.
The same pattern can be seen in stuff like teenage pregnancy blamed on sex education, violence blamed on music/videogames, violence blamed on guns, etc., etc.
Typically, the alleged cause-effect relationship cannot be demonstrated, it is presumed as fact. That’s not to say there may not be a relationship, but I more often than not get the impression that the people crusading for these Great Causes don’t care one way or the other.
And yeah, I wouldn’t care if my kids looked at porn either; though I would hope they’d have enough good taste to find decent porn, not the junk that’s so common.
Most of my porn comes from sites in other countries… what are they going to do about that? And BTW, it hasn’t harmed me none, much the contrary, it has provided me with hours of enjoyment _
I think youngkids might have nightmares if they were exposed to pornography, but that’s not exactly harm, I suppose.
Since pornography doesn’t portray ‘normal’ relationships, I wouldn’t think it would be a good thing to expose young people to if they have no undestanding of steady, loving relationships; I certainly wouldn’t want it to be their first source of information on the matter, but that’s just my opinion.
Pornography is to sex what burger and chips is to gourmet food.
Well, you could sprain your wrist if you go at things too enthusiastically…
But yeah, generally anti-pornography laws are less about logic and reasoning and more about random posturing, with a good dose of religious morality thrown in.
Pornography can also be used as an outlet when sex (with another) is not available. It can be used to help learning about things you might not be exposed to.
Erotica and pornography are not always the same thing. I can’t define the difference, but I know it when I see it.
I disagree. The whole concept of psychological “release” of pent-up inhibitions is false.
Rather, the use of pornography encourages the user even more to take action. The same parallels for violence. Hitting a bag when you get mad may feel like a “release”, but it just encourages violence more the next time. We can also talk about violent video games encouraging real violence. The same is true of just about any bad habit.
But then, whether it is a bad habit in the first place is really the question. Assume that pornography leads to more casual & meaningless sex…
Certainly, if you had no problem with casual & meaningless sex, there would be nothing wrong with pornography. Some people do have a problem with it, though. And there lies the real debate.
My children are quite precious to me, so I naturally want to protect them from certain things which I feel aren’t helpful or constructive at each particular stage of their development. I shan’t be taking the “I don’t care” stance, for porn or for anything else; they deserve better than that.
However, I’m not going to forbid anything that I feel they are ready for and if I do my job properly, then when they are older/adults, they will be able to make sensible informed choices for themselves.
I find it difficult to believe that you are really unaware of the arguments made in regards to the potential ill effects of pornography on children. Surely you have heard it claimed that pornography will warp children’s perceptions of what constitutes a normal, healthy sexual relationship and will cause them to treat others (especially if those “others” are women, homosexuals, or members of ethnic minorities) as sex objects.
The merit of these claims is certainly debateable, but it setting up a straw man to act as though the “no porn for kids” camp is merely suffering from the belief that one glimpse of a Playboy will turn Junior into a rapist. They have legitimate concerns as to the psychological effects of pornography on people whose mental capcities are not yet fully developed and who are still learning about social norms and how the world works.
They shoul addd the legend “don’t try to do this at home only professionals can do it” with that I am sure, as 21 year old person who still remembers when he was five, no kid will have sex. It works in other kind of programs… does it?
I am a former porn viewer. I stopped when my wife found out and explained to me how much it hurt her feelings. She felt it was a form of cheating and I think she’s probably right. So I quit out of respect for her and, of course, a certain amount of embarassment.
But let’s talk turkey.
If we’re talking about your garden variety internet porn, you’re very wrong here. The relationships they depict may be shallow, voyeuristic, unhealthy, etc. but it’s just sex. Get over yourself. We all do it and it IS normal.
I have to call BS on this one as well. Anyone with an ounce of self-control doesn’t take it any further than they would without porn. What you’re implying is that the more sex you see or have, the more dangerous you are.
Please note I’m not talking about child porn or snuff films or anything criminal. And of course it’s only for grown adults. Nothing to argue there.
And before anyone brings up the “demeaning to women” aspect, realize that anyone who would be swayed into treating anyone differently just by looking at pictures has bigger problems to deal with.
Apart from the concept of “emotionally cheating” on your significant other, I won’t believe that it really is harmful.
Okay, the issue of pornography not portraying a healthy relationship is valid; I’ll grant that. But then, the same could be said for a lot of non-pornographic entertainment. Without the care of a parent just about anything can warp a child’s perception of the world.
I just don’t think pornography is inherently any worse than other stuff. I’d even argue that tasteful porn (“erotica” if you prefer) is LESS harmful than exposure to the dysfunctional families and screwed-up relationships you see in some TV shows.
Oh, and porn itself ain’t gonna provide any “release” or what have you. That’s what masturbation is for, and that is entirely a different subject–fodder for a different thread, perhaps.
ThunderBunny:
Therein lies a debate, yes, but not this one (if I interpreted the opening post correctly). It’s not a question of right or wrong, despite what some people like to think. The topic here is the LAW, which means it is a question of what is harmful, innocuous, or beneficial to the well-being of a pluralistic society. Any given individual has the right not to look at pornography, and to prevent their kids from seeing it. Fine. The issue is that people are claiming that somehow pornography is harmful to society as a whole (i.e., by increasing sex crimes) and using this to justify restricting pornography on a larger scale. I’m not saying that ISN’T the case, but I have yet to see a clear demonstration that it is, either.
Jpeg Jones:
I applaud you for being so understanding of her feelings, but I will note that everybody is different. My girlfriend occasionally sends me porn that she especially liked, so to each their own, hmmm?
I think either porn should be harder to obtain, or much more freely available.
I don’t actually think it does any harm to the little kiddies. It looks freaking bizarre and messy to a kid, but if he’s really little he has no context to put it in, and if he’s older, he should already be able to understand the difference between pictures and reality.
For porn’s OWN sake, its availability should fall to one extreme or the other- when it’s forbidden, even an edge of breast or a faint hint of trouser bulge is exciting and arousing. When you can go to any random webpage and get XXX Cumsluts Go Nuts, it just loses the flavor and fun. On the other end of the spectrum, if it’s freely available, more competition will occur and the quality will go up. Another nice result.
I grew up going to one of those “hit the punching bag” therapists, and I don’t know that it’s encouraged me to be more violent. (Except against punching bags.)
My original post should not read “pent-up inhibitions”, but “pent-up impulses”. Kinda reads the opposite way I intended it to, if you look at it carefully. Sorry for the confusion.
Lets see… got my Intro to Behavioral Psychology textbook right here (David G. Myers, 4th edition)… aha:
and also:
[sub]and permit me just a little self-indulging Ha-Ha![/sub]
You have corrected me. The original post was more focused on the law rather than morality, and I was focusing on the morality. Sorry about that misunderstanding.
It should be pointed out that: legislators make the law, and citizens vote for the legislators… citizens tend to vote for legislators that will make laws that agree with their perspective of morality. Questions of right and wrong and questions of the law go hand in hand. Like it or not.
At least I intend to continue encouraging laws that are morally correct, and discouraging laws that are morally reprehensible. And, gee, this government represents me as well…
Also, I’d say then that to portray a nomal relationship they might include a little more “heavy petting” as it was called. You’d think all people do is kiss until they are married. THAT IS NOT NORMAL!
First source being a key word… my parents taught me the Facts of Life when I was five. No punches pulled, just this is what happens, and this is the context in which it happens, and this is the context in which we feel it SHOULD happen. Amazingly enough, my first glimpses of nekkid people and real porn didn’t traumatize me at all, nor did I turn into a rampaging slut.
Europe does strike me as a good model for what happens when people take the stick out of their ass regarding sex and the explicit representation of such.
Not a problem. It’s understandable, since the primary debate about pornography IS, I think, moral in nature.
That may be true in many cases, but is that ideal? Hardly.
Allow me to clarify: It seems to me that laws exist to promote the well-being of a society. For example, a society where citizens could kill each other freely would probably be quite unstable, thus the law restricts killing. Morality has nothing to do with that, it’s a sheerly practical decision. On the other hand, pornography has (to the best of my knowledge) no demonstratable effect on the stability and productivity of society as a whole. Therefore, what is the purpose of government restricting it? It serves about as much practical use as the government passing a law saying that you can be fined for wearing red plaid. People who never liked red plaid will be happy because they won’t have to worry about seeing it anymore, but the people who happen to LIKE red plaid will be justifiably upset, as their choice in clothing has been restricted without demonstration of any clear benefits to society afforded by that restriction.
Unless given a logical argument to the contrary, I see no reason whatsoever that the government should legislate morality. Care to prove me wrong?
And I intend to keep disagreeing with you, and the government likewise represents me. Ahh, the beauty of democracy!
Pornography reduces the beauty and sanctity of a human individual to an object. It takes the wonderful experience of a relationship and seeks to extract only the physical sexuality onto a medium, depriving user of the full potential of the sexual experience.
I would like to see some women’s rights proponents on here to take a stand against the objectification of the female form (as is usually the case, though there are some exceptions.)
It is also detrimental to existing relationships where a husband/boyfriend/live-in, etc takes attention away from his partner and dedicates it to the medium. If one gets his gratification from the porn, that takes away from his dedication/enjoyment of/with his wife.
