Porn should be banned, here’s why

[Guyzilla]

The problem with porn is, thaT IT IS FROM THE PERSPECTIVE OF THE MAN/BOY. Women are for screwing, and manhandling. They are simulated raped. Porn causes young boys to grow up with a distorted view of the purpose of women, and what pleases a woman.

Mock violence accompanies most scenes. Women have disgusting things marked on them across their chests, such as with lipstick. That is my main concern.

 

[CaughtInThe]

i bet a ton of men are threatened by male porn actors.


maybe, since a ton of average Joes are posting porn now, the men that are threatened won't be as much.

 

[dixon01767]

I can remember in the 70s when feminism included similar calls to ban pornography as exploitative of women. Now the same feminism views pornography as liberating to women.

 

[99percenter]

I can remember in the 70s when feminism included similar calls to ban pornography as exploitative of women. Now the same feminism views pornography as liberating to women.

Pornography is a necessary evil.

 

[EMNofSeattle]

You can't compare apples and oranges. Prohibiting things like murder is easy. Prohibiting pornography is impossible because it is motivated entirely by natural impulses that we can no more escape than our need to make use of a toilet. Look at Japan: It is technically against on the books law to possess pornography in Japan. The law is not enforced because the government knows that enforcement is impossible, and they settle for arbitrary censorship rules on distributed material. And Japan is known as a hub for some of the most extreme forms of pornography one could imagine, often with laughably ineffective pixelation of parts of genitalia.

Repression of natural impulses retards emotional development and leads to lashing out later in life. Catholic priests who attempt lifelong abstinence only to find themselves sexually attracted to children and other abusers and murderers who were emotionally abused themselves as children all over the world can attest to this.

I do not purport to know the state of regulation of porn in Japan. Nor did I say all material that’s pornographic should be banned as that’s impossible. However I think it’s easier then people think to restrict hardcore Internet pornography by putting the onus on ISPs and the tech industry.

because at the end of the day this is a problem and it hooks children often before they even begin puberty. I saw my first issue of playboy when I was 11 and it only got worse from there. It’s only recently I realized that I was traumatized from pornography exposure and I think I had every right to expect the adults in positions of leadership when I was a child to protect me from this.

as a young adult I would go to strip clubs and strippers wouldn’t arouse me because I viewed online pornography. It was only after a long time of abstinence I was able to connect with a woman in a meaningful relationship. and I’ve seen many stories like mine This has real effects on real people. So it’s true you cannot fully Prevent everything but society has an obligation to make it difficult. At least so difficult young kids can’t see it, viewing porn is not a natural impulse, it is a perversion of what’s supposed to be beautiful.

as far as priests, celibacy is not to blame, we’ve seen many examples of school teachers, scout leaders, police officers, Protestant ministers, etc engaging in perversion. Abuse of children is more widespread then anyone cares to admit

 

[SCrider]

Simple argument, all forms of internet pornography should be totally banned by the government. I should say all porn but I’ll stick to internet for now. Here’s why

1) it is intrinsically evil:
The sexual act is ordered towards procreation and unity towards the partners, any deviation is disordered, disordered acts are evil because they are not good. It damages the soul to view pornography

2) There is rampant abuse of the actors in the industry: many pornographic actresses take drugs in order to shoot the scenes. Many actresses and actors have been sexually abused as children and their participation in porn is furthering their trauma

3) it is impossible to regulate:
it is impossible to determine whether or not the performers in every single internet video uploaded to video browsing sites have given full legal consent and are legal adults. In many cases there are videos of revenge porn posted which destroy the lives of the victims and forever associate their names with depictions or intimate moments they believed were private. More disturbingly many searches for videos contain words like “rape” or “gangbang” meaning the searcher is looking for videos of content that it at least identical to a fantasy of sexual assault. Many other search terms commonly used on browsers express an interest in seeing teenaged girls.

4) These websites often market to children and are easily accessible to minors. If RJ Reynolds started a website where teens could just mail order cigarettes with no ID and no age verification there would be hell to pay, why is it different? Cigarettes are way less harmful then porn. Children cannot legally consent to view such images. If some guy in a trench coat was at the park handing out Penthouse there would be an uproar. Yet internet porn is worse.

Common defenses made by wankers and misguided libertarians include:

“Well it’s not harming anyone”

well I just showed multiple ways it does

“but muh first amendment”

your first amendment was never written to protect pornography. It was written to protect political speech conveying ideas. Pornography does not contain political ideas. The founders were not considering protecting your right to watch children getting raped on porn sites.

“people will do it anyway”
So the F what?

“well let’s see your browser history you bible thumping hypocrite”

PM me with some way you can look at my history and we’ll discuss it, but even if I did look at porn, which I regrettably used to do but fortunately no longer do, it does not mean any argument I make is wrong. the Amor lives in LA and in her neighborhood when people get on the freeway they drive fast, I get on the 405 and pull 80 mph and people are still passing me, does this mean I’m wrong to support speed limits? No it does not.
Conclusion, internet pornography should be totally outlawed no exceptions

Your Spank bank account get blocked again?

 

[EMNofSeattle]

Your Spank bank account get blocked again?

Two years free from hard porn, will never go back. ✌

 

[SCrider]

Two years free from hard porn, will never go back. ✌

Do you go to group meetings for your addiction?

 

[EMNofSeattle]

Do you go to group meetings for your addiction?

I wish such a thing existed. I think the trigger point for me was I learned of actual videos of rape being uploaded to a popular video hosting site for porn and I felt so dirty and I managed to stop, it was shortly before I went to Chile and that was a trip that caused my reversion back to church and learning about the faith caused me to begin to exercise more self control, but in a secular society I think creating secular groups to have a conversation (to borrow the secular lingo ) about pornography and it’s effects on young people is absolutely something that needs to happen and people need to be willing to openly talk about porn like we talk about drug abuse

 

[Lursa]

Ah, so this IS personal. Well, see, not all people have trouble from certain addictions. Are you for banning alcohol? Gambling? Video games? Food? Substances with nicotine? There are people who face mental and physical health issues from their addictions to these, so there is no doubt you should want all of these banned as well.

And we end up back to...should everyone be punished by banning/burdensome restrictions because of the few? People can abuse anything, and anything taken to an extreme can be bad for you. He's avoided this by trying to prove that drug abuse is rampant in the industry (unproven) and he wont touch my questions on parental responsibility.

 

[Lursa]

This is all conjecture not backed up by evidence, it is clear from historical evidence that total prohibitions strictly enforced lead to massive reductions in the prohibited behavior

Name some.

 

[lwf]

I do not purport to know the state of regulation of porn in Japan. Nor did I say all material that’s pornographic should be banned as that’s impossible. However I think it’s easier then people think to restrict hardcore Internet pornography by putting the onus on ISPs and the tech industry.

because at the end of the day this is a problem and it hooks children often before they even begin puberty. I saw my first issue of playboy when I was 11 and it only got worse from there. It’s only recently I realized that I was traumatized from pornography exposure and I think I had every right to expect the adults in positions of leadership when I was a child to protect me from this.

as a young adult I would go to strip clubs and strippers wouldn’t arouse me because I viewed online pornography. It was only after a long time of abstinence I was able to connect with a woman in a meaningful relationship. and I’ve seen many stories like mine This has real effects on real people. So it’s true you cannot fully Prevent everything but society has an obligation to make it difficult. At least so difficult young kids can’t see it, viewing porn is not a natural impulse, it is a perversion of what’s supposed to be beautiful.

as far as priests, celibacy is not to blame, we’ve seen many examples of school teachers, scout leaders, police officers, Protestant ministers, etc engaging in perversion. Abuse of children is more widespread then anyone cares to admit

The problem is that the demand for pornography is not going anywhere. The supply exists to meet the demand, not vice versa. Criminalizing something in high demand doesn't significantly reduce its presence, it just creates a black market opportunity and thus creates more criminals. The U.S. prohibition of alcohol made this mistake, as do those states that still criminalize marijuana production and use. I am sorry that you became addicted, but that is your unique case. Pornography is no more habit forming than any other form of personal entertainment. Addiction in the chemical sense doesn't happen with pornography. Porn addiction is more akin to obsession, which is a mental issue, not a chemical dependency. Preventing others who are not at risk of becoming addicted from consuming something that is not inherently harmful in and of itself by force of law is government overreach, especially when it violates the first amendment.

 

[newpublius]

The problem immediately becomes one of definition.

Know it when I see it was the famous SCOTUS quip from, I think, Frankfurter

 

[AJG]

there’s a fairly easy way to regulate, just make the executives of ISPs criminally liable for allowing it to be accessed On their networks.
Sure there’s ways around this, but unlike leftists I’m not a utopian, I don’t claim the problem
Will go away, merely that heavy regulation will decrease viewership.

I might be ok with that, at least for porn involving rape, children, or animals. I'm not sure if it would work though. Any porn involving consenting adults however is absolutely fine with me.

 

[beefheart]

Just as long as they don't ban the Karl Hungus classic "Log Jammin'"

 

[Neoliberal Fanfiction]

Liberals regularly argue in favor for their social policy as being moral imperatives while conservatives take a much more individualistic hands-off approach to morality and wonder why society is consistently degenerating away from the conservative foundation they propose to be in favor of.

 

[calamity]

I've never been a fan of the porn industry: it's skeezy to say the least. But, banning it? Well, that's just dumb.

 

[AliHajiSheik]

It is perfectly possible to regulate morality. That’s the central reason for existence of government

I'm glad that isn't the central reason for government. I'd prefer that it wasn't any reason for government.

 

[EMNofSeattle]

I'm glad that isn't the central reason for government. I'd prefer that it wasn't any reason for government.

Again, go to the law library and look at how much morality is regulated. Encoding a system of morality is the only reason to have laws.

 

[JMaximus]

4) These websites often market to children and are easily accessible to minors. If RJ Reynolds started a website where teens could just mail order cigarettes with no ID and no age verification there would be hell to pay, why is it different? Cigarettes are way less harmful then porn. Children cannot legally consent to view such images. If some guy in a trench coat was at the park handing out Penthouse there would be an uproar. Yet internet porn is worse.

I imagine people care less about on-demand porn than about on-demand cigarettes because looking at boobs never gave anyone cancer.

 

[EMNofSeattle]

I imagine people care less about on-demand porn than about on-demand cigarettes because looking at boobs never have anyone cancer.

We ain’t talking about looking at boobs. The 1950s called and asked for their pornography back. We’re not talking about depiction of violent sexual assault freely available on the Internet. And it’s amazing That the left so gladly ignores any mention of spiritual damage and focuses only on physical ailments like cancer.

 

[zyzygy]

That is an assumption for which you have no evidence. You probably subscribe to the “prohibition mentality” which is the false claim prohibition doesn’t work because it never has worked, but that’s not true. Far fewer adults viewed porn when it required going to a video store and showing your ID to a rental clerk and giving your phone number. Magazines like playboy depict stills of adults.

so making it hard to view porn will decrease abuse, not increase it. And it will make it harder to hide child abuse amongst a sea of “legal” content.

when we prohibited alcohol in the 20s actual alcoholism cratered and so did rates of cihrrosis of the liver. Showing massive compliance with prohibition

Why do you want to control other people's lives?

 

[JMaximus]

We ain’t talking about looking at boobs. The 1950s called and asked for their pornography back. We’re not talking about depiction of violent sexual assault freely available on the Internet. And it’s amazing That the left so gladly ignores any mention of spiritual damage and focuses only on physical ailments like cancer.

The "left", or liberals in my case, ignore such "spiritual matters" because we know making decisions about "spiritual matters" is a right of the individual. And a couple hundred years ago, some old stuffy liberals thought this notion so important they codified it in the founding documents of the very country you now argue should do more to interfere in people's "spiritual matters".

If your argument against porn is made on this basis, it has no basis at all.

 

[AliHajiSheik]

Again, go to the law library and look at how much morality is regulated. Encoding a system of morality is the only reason to have laws.

The central basis of government is to protect private property, enforce contracts and adjudicate any disagreements therein. There are other things that government has gotten into due to the will of the majority. While there may be moral reasons for doing so, it most definitely is not there to regulate morality.

For a long time, topics such as marriage between a man and a woman were considered moral and anything outside that was considered immoral. As long as there is agreement by the parties, they can marry whomever they want as far as I'm concerned and I see no reason for government to be involved other than for contractual reasons. Same for porn, as long as it is consensual, so be it.

 

[EMNofSeattle]

The "left", or liberals in my case, ignore such "spiritual matters" because we know making decisions about "spiritual matters" is a right of the individual. And a couple hundred years ago, some old stuffy liberals thought this notion so important they codified it in the founding documents of the very country you now argue should do more to interfere in people's "spiritual matters".

If your argument against porn is made on this basis, it has no basis at all.

it’s not a matter of individual morality when we know this causes problems in young people and children as young as 11 are exposed to it.

If a man were in a park handing over porn VHS tapes to 11 year olds do you oppose the police getting involved?