# What would be the negative effects of banning pornography? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [June 23, 2012, 2:18am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-would-be-the-negative-effects-of-banning-pornography/626013 "2012-06-23T02:18:08Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![BunnyTVS](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@BunnyTVS](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BunnyTVS)\ **Post date:** [June 23, 2012, 10:04am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-would-be-the-negative-effects-of-banning-pornography/626013/41 "2012-06-23T10:04:51Z")
> [@supery00n](#): > > It’s pornography (imho) if it involves people engaging in sexual activity that is meant to sexually arouse the viewer that the person(s) so shown in the medium wouldn’t do, willingly, directly with the viewer or in public. Going by that definiton I doubt there’s much “porn” out there. ---
**Author:** ![Bryan\_Ekers](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bryan_ekers/32/183_2.png) [@Bryan\_Ekers](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bryan_Ekers)\ **Post date:** [June 23, 2012, 11:24am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-would-be-the-negative-effects-of-banning-pornography/626013/42 "2012-06-23T11:24:32Z")
The OP’s ideas are repulsive to me and I wish to draw boobs all over his newsletter. ---
**Author:** ![kayaker](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/kayaker/32/441_2.png) [@kayaker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/kayaker)\ **Post date:** [June 23, 2012, 11:44am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-would-be-the-negative-effects-of-banning-pornography/626013/43 "2012-06-23T11:44:11Z")
Should we force Christian photographers to film gay porn? ---
**Author:** ![Cumberdale](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/8c91f0/32.png) [@Cumberdale](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cumberdale)\ **Post date:** [June 23, 2012, 1:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-would-be-the-negative-effects-of-banning-pornography/626013/44 "2012-06-23T13:10:21Z")
> [@supery00n](#): > > It’s pornography (imho) if it involves people engaging in sexual activity that is meant to sexually arouse the viewer that the person(s) so shown in the medium wouldn’t do, willingly, directly with the viewer or in public. So you’re only wanting to ban the moving image? How about sex stories? Should the current book _50 Shades of Grey_ be banned and who decides? I happen to think _The Passion of the Christ_ was pornographic, should I be able to have that movie banned? Sorry, but I really don’t want to live according to your morals. You’re free to do as you see fit but don’t force it on others. ---
**Author:** ![Strinka](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/strinka/32/512_2.png) [@Strinka](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Strinka)\ **Post date:** [June 23, 2012, 1:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-would-be-the-negative-effects-of-banning-pornography/626013/45 "2012-06-23T13:44:10Z")
We should just ban sex outright. After all, sex is icky, and therefore evil. Besides, it’s already illegal to have sex with children, and if sex with children is evil, sex with adults must be too. ---
**Author:** ![iiandyiiii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/iiandyiiii/32/7924_2.png) [@iiandyiiii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iiandyiiii)\ **Post date:** [June 23, 2012, 1:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-would-be-the-negative-effects-of-banning-pornography/626013/46 "2012-06-23T13:44:30Z")
> [@](#): > > What would be the negative effects of banning pornography? [Rape and sexual violence rates](http://www.slate.com/articles/arts/everyday_economics/2006/10/how_the_web_prevents_rape.html) would go up. ---
**Author:** ![UltraVires](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/ecccb3/32.png) [@UltraVires](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/UltraVires)\ **Post date:** [June 23, 2012, 2:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-would-be-the-negative-effects-of-banning-pornography/626013/47 "2012-06-23T14:52:46Z")
I (as usual) take a different view. I don’t agree that banning pornography would violate anyone’s first amendment rights. There’s no message that is trying to be conveyed that is being stifled. But I also agree with the posters here that it is so widely disseminated to make outlawing it useless, and there’s not a conceivable reason to do so. If you don’t like porn, don’t watch it. Your neighbor isn’t hurting you by watching it. But I take issue with the very question in your OP. In a free society, when discussing restricting a freedom, any freedom, the question should not be “What negative affects would we have by outlawing it?” The question should what POSITIVE affects would happen which would counterbalance that loss of a freedom. On this issue, I see none. What would be the legitimate government purpose of telling an adult he can’t stroke it to a Playboy magazine (in private, of course)? ---
**Author:** ![clairobscur](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/839c29/32.png) [@clairobscur](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/clairobscur)\ **Post date:** [June 23, 2012, 3:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-would-be-the-negative-effects-of-banning-pornography/626013/48 "2012-06-23T15:08:57Z")
> [@Whack-a-Mole](#): > > Granted correlation is not causation but it is suggestive and if porn increased sexual crimes then one needs to find another reason why such crimes have decreased. Been awhile since I looked at those stats but IIRC no other mechanism for the decrease suggested itself. Maybe would-be rapists are too busy playing MMORPG? 😉 ---
**Author:** ![Mangetout](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mangetout/32/19_2.png) [@Mangetout](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mangetout)\ **Post date:** [June 23, 2012, 3:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-would-be-the-negative-effects-of-banning-pornography/626013/49 "2012-06-23T15:11:36Z")
> [@supery00n](#): > > The 18 year old age threshold is most definitely an arbitrary one. (But this is exactly my point, that sometimes, a law that is arbitrary or seems to go against our ‘liberties’ to do as we wish are sometimes justifiable). Where we draw the line is arbitrary. _The notion that there needs to be a line, somewhere_, not so much. Laws regarding age limits for this or that are not an assertion that at age x+1day, every individual undergoes a fundamental change that enables them to be properly equipped and ready for something that, just one day earlier, would have destroyed them. They’re a best effort. We collectively determined that kids shouldn’t be able to engage in a certain activity (usually because of some notion that this activity could be harmful to them or difficult for them to properly control), then we have to try to find an adequate definition of who is a kid, and who isn’t - and age happens to be a fairly good measure, in most cases. ---
**Author:** ![UltraVires](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/ecccb3/32.png) [@UltraVires](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/UltraVires)\ **Post date:** [June 23, 2012, 3:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-would-be-the-negative-effects-of-banning-pornography/626013/50 "2012-06-23T15:33:24Z")
> [@Mangetout](#): > > Where we draw the line is arbitrary. _The notion that there needs to be a line, somewhere_, not so much. > Laws regarding age limits for this or that are not an assertion that at age x+1day, every individual undergoes a fundamental change that enables them to be properly equipped and ready for something that, just one day earlier, would have destroyed them. > They’re a best effort. We collectively determined that kids shouldn’t be able to engage in a certain activity (usually because of some notion that this activity could be harmful to them or difficult for them to properly control), then we have to try to find an adequate definition of who is a kid, and who isn’t - and age happens to be a fairly good measure, in most cases. To play devil’s advocate, what about the argument from the other side? Say I am aged 20 years 364 days and I get a citation for underage drinking. The government admits that there is zero effect on society from my drinking on that day versus the next day. What is their rational basis for putting a criminal charge on my record and extracting money from me in the way of a fine? ---
**Author:** ![Simple\_Linctus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9f8e36/32.png) [@Simple\_Linctus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Simple_Linctus)\ **Post date:** [June 23, 2012, 3:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-would-be-the-negative-effects-of-banning-pornography/626013/51 "2012-06-23T15:52:42Z")
This is fairly obviously a sneak attempt to advocate for legalisation of child pornography. Perhaps the OP is right that images of 16 year olds fucking are not inherently exploitative or immoral or whatever. But seriously - who cares? It is not as if it is hard to find images of 18 year olds and having a line somewhere is going to be necessary, may as well err on the side of caution when the consequences are so unimportant. ---
**Author:** ![Der\_Trihs](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/der_trihs/32/233_2.png) [@Der\_Trihs](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Der_Trihs)\ **Post date:** [June 23, 2012, 3:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-would-be-the-negative-effects-of-banning-pornography/626013/52 "2012-06-23T15:57:04Z")
> [@jtgain](#): > > To play devil’s advocate, what about the argument from the other side? Say I am aged 20 years 364 days and I get a citation for underage drinking. The government admits that there is zero effect on society from my drinking on that day versus the next day. What is their rational basis for putting a criminal charge on my record and extracting money from me in the way of a fine? The fact that they have to pick _some_ date. “When you’re mature” won’t work as a legal definition because there’s no such thing as a maturo-meter that can tell when you qualify; so they have to pick a date, and by nature the date will be somewhat arbitrary. And if they don’t enforce the law, the law will have no effect. ---
**Author:** ![Freudian\_Slit](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/5daacb/32.png) [@Freudian\_Slit](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Freudian_Slit)\ **Post date:** [June 23, 2012, 3:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-would-be-the-negative-effects-of-banning-pornography/626013/53 "2012-06-23T15:59:05Z")
> [@mister\_nyx](#): > > What in the world are you talking about? Lots of people watch lots of other people have sex with no screen or camera in between. Have you seriously never watched people engage in a sex act before? (I mean, of course, in a context that didn’t involve violating anyone’s privacy.) How common is that for most people, to be honest? Do you just call up a couple and ask if you can watch them bang if they’re not doing anything else? ---
**Author:** ![Thudlow\_Boink](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/thudlow_boink/32/320_2.png) [@Thudlow\_Boink](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Thudlow_Boink)\ **Post date:** [June 23, 2012, 4:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-would-be-the-negative-effects-of-banning-pornography/626013/54 "2012-06-23T16:09:44Z")
> [@jtgain](#): > > I (as usual) take a different view. I don’t agree that banning pornography would violate anyone’s first amendment rights. There’s no message that is trying to be conveyed that is being stifled. I agree, in the case of “pure porn” (but what about sexually explicit works that have genuine educational or artistic value?). For much of U.S. history, porn was illegal or underground, without anyone suggesting that free speech was being denied. > [@](#): > > If you don’t like porn, don’t watch it. Your neighbor isn’t hurting you by watching it. My neighbor isn’t hurting me by watching child porn either. But I wouldn’t argue that it should therefore be legal. > [@](#): > > But I take issue with the very question in your OP. In a free society, when discussing restricting a freedom, any freedom, the question should not be “What negative affects would we have by outlawing it?” The question should what POSITIVE affects would happen which would counterbalance that loss of a freedom. On this issue, I see none. As a hypothetical for discussion and debate (as opposed to a proposal for public policy), the OP’s is a perfectly good question. ---
**Author:** ![Patty\_O\_Furniture](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/96bed5/32.png) [@Patty\_O\_Furniture](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Patty_O_Furniture)\ **Post date:** [June 23, 2012, 4:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-would-be-the-negative-effects-of-banning-pornography/626013/55 "2012-06-23T16:43:56Z")
> [@supery00n](#): > > But I cite Aristotle in saying that moderation is the ultimate virtue, and that the porn that’s on the Internet these days has far passed moderation, and it’s getting to the point where society is unable to critique and moderate itself… Well well, Aristotle has risen from the grave and is doing research on Internet pornography. Research. Yeah, that’s the ticket. ---
**Author:** ![AndrewL](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/3d9bf3/32.png) [@AndrewL](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/AndrewL)\ **Post date:** [June 23, 2012, 6:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-would-be-the-negative-effects-of-banning-pornography/626013/56 "2012-06-23T18:32:38Z")
> [@supery00n](#): > > It’s pornography (imho) if it involves people engaging in sexual activity that is meant to sexually arouse the viewer that the person(s) so shown in the medium wouldn’t do, willingly, directly with the viewer or in public. By this definition, depictions of fictional people having sex, such as erotic cartoons or CGI, would not be pornography. Is that how you want to define it? ---
**Author:** ![UltraVires](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/ecccb3/32.png) [@UltraVires](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/UltraVires)\ **Post date:** [June 23, 2012, 6:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-would-be-the-negative-effects-of-banning-pornography/626013/57 "2012-06-23T18:58:55Z")
> [@Thudlow\_Boink](#): > > I agree, in the case of “pure porn” (but what about sexually explicit works that have genuine educational or artistic value?). For much of U.S. history, porn was illegal or underground, without anyone suggesting that free speech was being denied. Sure, it’s hard to define, but porn as we all understand it is not protected by the first amendment, IMHO. Once we get into gray areas, there will be arguments. > [@Thudlow\_Boink](#): > > My neighbor isn’t hurting me by watching child porn either. But I wouldn’t argue that it should therefore be legal. But your neighbor is contributing to the abuse of the child depicted. > [@Thudlow\_Boink](#): > > As a hypothetical for discussion and debate (as opposed to a proposal for public policy), the OP’s is a perfectly good question. Very true, but the OP constructed it as an argument for why laws should prevent pornography. I take issue with his starting point for a law’s enactment. ---
**Author:** ![Trinopus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/2bfe46/32.png) [@Trinopus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Trinopus)\ **Post date:** [June 23, 2012, 7:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-would-be-the-negative-effects-of-banning-pornography/626013/58 "2012-06-23T19:04:45Z")
> [@AndrewL](#): > > By this definition, depictions of fictional people having sex, such as erotic cartoons or CGI, would not be pornography. Is that how you want to define it? This is a little bit fallacious; a real, legally-meaningful, complete definition of “porn” would run for so many pages, it wouldn’t be acceptable as a post here! A “sketch” definition is good enough for argument. If you _must_ demand a full, proper, legally workable definition…you ought to pay the equivalent of a lawyer’s hourly rates for it. ---
**Author:** ![NiceGuyJack](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/niceguyjack/32/3069_2.png) [@NiceGuyJack](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/NiceGuyJack)\ **Post date:** [June 23, 2012, 7:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-would-be-the-negative-effects-of-banning-pornography/626013/59 "2012-06-23T19:06:55Z")
> [@supery00n](#): > > We have laws against child pornography because we think it is harmful to children, partly because we don’t feel like children are able to make their own decisions on such matters and may be forced against their will to partake in such activities, and also because we want to protect our children’s innocence. > > But isn’t this position arbitrary? For if there was an underage person who was involved in what we call child pornography, and that child willingly consented to being filmed in the porn studio, and furthermore insisted that the experience wasn’t harmful to him/herself, this argument wouldn’t be a mitigating factor in the criminal offense that the pornographer committed, according to law. The 18 year old age threshold is most definitely an arbitrary one. (But this is exactly my point, that sometimes, a law that is arbitrary or seems to go against our ‘liberties’ to do as we wish are sometimes justifiable). You know 18 is indeed an arbitrary age, but this didn’t come out of pornography. 100 plus years ago, children were abused in the form of cheap labor. Children worked in factories and made peanuts. Laws were put into place to ensure that they were not being taken advantage of. At the time, they made 18 the age of hard transition between child and adult by law. Under 18, anything you do, your parents are responsible, and if you wanted to work, you needed your parent’s official permission. 18 and above you are responsible. You can argue that 18 may be the wrong age, but they had to draw the line somewhere. Interestingly, the age of consent varies from state to state. In many states, it is legal to have consensual sex at age 15, 16 or 17. Getting paid for it, is illegal and per federal law, you need to be 18. A sexual active 16 year old may want to make money for the sex he or she is having anyway by filming it, but that is illegal. And don’t get me wrong. I am not defending child pornography. I am very much against it. A child would be forced to have sex and that is rape. Rape is wrong, regardless of age. It is violence acted upon another. > [@supery00n](#): > > Now let us assume that the child says it’s not harmful at all to him/her. But what if the reason he or she thinks it’s not harmful is because the collective moral standing of the society has been lowered so much from what it could be otherwise that people are unable or unwilling to recognize the harm. Our society reserves the right to and exercises the right of saying to these children, “even if you think it’s not harmful for you, we as adults know from experience that it’s better if there’s a law prohibiting child pornography, and will enforce it.” And we should place that same standard upon ourselves as we do to children; otherwise, it would be hypocritical, no? Child pornography is wrong because it is rape. It’s even worse than rape because it’s raping a child. But what does that have to do with mainstream pornography between willing adults. If you are into rape videos, you have some problems. > [@supery00n](#): > > I claim that the government, which represents the people, similarly reserves the right to legislate morality to even adults. For if adults cannot enforce upon themselves standards of decency and morality, and live by them, why should we reserve the right to teach children these same standards, and to protect them from the base and profane? > > This is not to say that sensual pleasure is by any means bad or sinful. But I cite Aristotle in saying that moderation is the ultimate virtue, and that the porn that’s on the Internet these days has far passed moderation, and it’s getting to the point where society is unable to critique and moderate itself… I never quite understood this part. On average, an American child sees a million murders a year depicted graphically on US mainstream television. I mean heads splitting, blood splattering, bodies exploding…etc. THIS IS ACCEPTABLE! But the natural act of reproduction which just about all human beings engage in is UNACCEPTABLE! Why is unnatural violence against other human beings acceptable and the natural act of sex unacceptable? I seriously don’t understand. Why do children need to be protected from how Mommy and Daddy made you, but killing someone in revenge and anger…that’s fine. Show the kids that! And the strangest thing, reproduction is fact! TV murder is fiction! Why keep fact from children. I seriously do not understand your “morality”. ---
**Author:** ![Guinastasia](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/guinastasia/32/5751_2.png) [@Guinastasia](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Guinastasia)\ **Post date:** [June 23, 2012, 7:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-would-be-the-negative-effects-of-banning-pornography/626013/60 "2012-06-23T19:07:46Z")
> [@supery00n](#): > > When I said banning porn from the Internet, I didn’t actually mean banning people from watching it. The sex offender registration, if I were ‘in charge,’ would only apply to the people who make the stuff in the first place (the ‘producers’ and not the ‘actresses’), or if it is of the ‘amateur’ or ‘homemade’ variant, would only apply to the people who maintain and host the material. (And it certainly wouldn’t be for life). I want our nation to be exceptional, and _not_ for being the porn capital of the world. _shrugs_ So I’ll just download Canadian porn – it’s win-win! [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-would-be-the-negative-effects-of-banning-pornography/626013.md?page=2) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-would-be-the-negative-effects-of-banning-pornography/626013.md?page=4)