Does porn cause harm?

[juliod]

It's been a long time since I've debated pornography. But it used to be a staple during my early internet days.

Some posters here occasionally refer to porn as it it were understood to be a Bad Thing. So I think we should debate the point.

My claim is that porn has been studied extensively since the 70's, and the harm attributable to porn is still zero.

DanZ

[HughDP]

The porn industry has (or should have) an obligation to ensure that those taking part in the creation of porn do so totally voluntarily and within the law. If they do that, then they've done their 'moral' job. If they don't, they should have the book thrown at them.

Society has (or should have) an obligation to ensure that children are not exposed to pornography until they are legally allowed to do so. My particular beef with internet porn is not that it's there - I don't care about that - but that it's too easily accessible by children. I don't know what the solution is, but I don't think banning all porn is either appropriate or realistic.

Individual members of the public have a right to view pornography (or anything else) so long as they do so within the law. They should not be encumbered by the morals of one particular institution or group unless that institution or group is democratically elected to make such decisions (ie. the state/government). If an individual doesn't like it, don't look at it. If a group or institution doesn't like it, they can voice their concerns and petition governments as they feel necessary. If the democratic society agrees with them, things will change.

We do, however, have to look at the grounds for wanting to get rid of something like porn. Is it because objectors simply find it offensive or because it's a real threat? Objectors will always find some examples of "rapist addicted to porn" or "gunman watched violent films" because such examples do indeed exist. However the overwhelming majority is balanced enough to handle these things sensibly. That suggests to me that problem is disturbed individuals rather than any real threat from porn.

I would suggest that people who blame porn films (or violent films, or similar) for crime are looking at the wrong side of the TV screen for the real culprit.

[juliod]

Porn causes men to view women as objects rather than as people.


That is true.

So people are not "objects"? What are they? Energy? Disembodies voices? Incorporeal spirit?

Some women are "sex objects" in the same way that some men are "sports objects". Some people are "police officer objects" and others are "mail carrier objects".

You view all people as objects. Otherwise you'd be unable to tell a teacher from a bus driver. Appearance, activity and context. That's all there is to it.

And no one has ever shown that "objectification" causes harm.

Not many women seem to buy into being an object for an ejacualtion.

On the contrary, there are thousands upon thousands of women who participate in this on the internet. Why not get paid for being young and pretty? Why do you imagine that many women would find this offensive?

You must live on another planet. Nearly 50-million abortions in just the US alone since Roe v Wade pal.

And exactly none of them were concieved by masturbation. (If you were serious about stopping abortion you'd be promoting masturbation.)

What did Ted Bundy say shortly before he was executed for mass murder of women?

He was addicted to porn.

Unfortunately for you, this is a lie told by Bundy and propagated by christians who care nothing for the truth. Bundy's residence and property was searched in detail after his crimes were uncovered. No pornography was recovered. Bundy was playing the anti-porn crusaders like an instrument.

Child molesters are also addicted to porn.

Some may be, but there is no connection between porn and child abuse.

BTW, the concept of "addicted to porn" is extremely dubious.


1john, you are welcome to post information about even a single study that shows a connection between porn and harm of any sort.

DanZ

[juliod]

he porn industry has (or should have) an obligation to ensure that those taking part in the creation of porn do so totally voluntarily and within the law.

They do. The industry is well regulated. For example, they must retain permanent records proving the age of all performers.

My particular beef with internet porn is not that it's there - I don't care about that - but that it's too easily accessible by children.

It interestng to note that there is no actual evidence that porn can harm children even if they are exposed to it. On the contrary, I believe that the absolute horror our society regards the prospect that children might learn something about sex, or even (gasp) see a naked person, is causing large amounts of harm (and unwanted pregnancies).

It's not possible to stop the sex drive of young adults from causing them to have sex. But we can insure that they have sex without any information or ability to make reasonabel choices.

DanZ

[Cathar1950]

The bible calls women vessels. Now that is an object. It seems to treat them as property and sperm depositories. After all it is better to empty your seed in a whore then spill it.

[HughDP]

My particular beef with internet porn is not that it's there - I don't care about that - but that it's too easily accessible by children.

It interestng to note that there is no actual evidence that porn can harm children even if they are exposed to it.

That's a different point though. As it stands it's illegal and they shouldn't be exposed to it.

[Cephus]

My particular beef with internet porn is not that it's there - I don't care about that - but that it's too easily accessible by children.

It interestng to note that there is no actual evidence that porn can harm children even if they are exposed to it.

That's a different point though. As it stands it's illegal and they shouldn't be exposed to it.

Then it is the job of their PARENTS to see that they aren't. It isn't the job of legal pornography sites to play parent to kids who aren't being supervised. You want someone to blame, blame the parents.

[HughDP]

My particular beef with internet porn is not that it's there - I don't care about that - but that it's too easily accessible by children.

It interestng to note that there is no actual evidence that porn can harm children even if they are exposed to it.

That's a different point though. As it stands it's illegal and they shouldn't be exposed to it.

Then it is the job of their PARENTS to see that they aren't. It isn't the job of legal pornography sites to play parent to kids who aren't being supervised. You want someone to blame, blame the parents.

It is the job of the legal porn sites to ensure children don't get access to it, in the same way that shops shouldn't sell alcohol or cigarettes to kids.

Yes, the parents have a role to play too.

[Cephus]

It is the job of the legal porn sites to ensure children don't get access to it, in the same way that shops shouldn't sell alcohol or cigarettes to kids.

Yes, the parents have a role to play too.

I think the parents have the major role, the porn sites have no idea what age the person sitting on the other end of the connection might be, nor do they have any real way of finding out. All they can really do is say "If you're not old enough, stay out", they can't control if Junior borrows mom's credit card and goes hog wild.

However, the parents *CAN* control it and have a responsibility to stop it.

[juliod]

However, the parents *CAN* control it and have a responsibility to stop it.

There is a really simple solution to this problem. Parents who think their children have seen something on the internet that they shouldn't have can report directly to prison.

I think any parent who plumps a kid in front of a web browser and lets him go at it should be whipped naked through the streets.

In any case, this thread is about harm. There is no evidence that seeing pornography can harm children. OTOH, there is comprehensive evidence that sexual repression enforced on children is harmful in many ways.

You know, we are about 20 years into the internet age. And at least 12 years into the age of the web, where porn has been freely available. Any effect on children would be readily apparent by now.

In fact, this is just one of three porn "explosions". The first was in the early part of the 20th century where porn went from being nearly non-existant to available if one wanted it, and lived in a big city. The second explosion was when the VCR was popularized, and people need not frequent low theaters to see pornographic movies. This led to a huge increase in quality and quantity of porn. The last was the internet where porn became trivial to access, for free, 24/7. None of these revolutions are associated with increases in sexual crime or other social ill.

DanZ

[Cephus]

There is a really simple solution to this problem. Parents who think their children have seen something on the internet that they shouldn't have can report directly to prison.

I don't know that I'd go that far, but any parent that takes no personal responsibility for controlling their children's actions, then bitches and whines about what they saw should be whacked in the head with a pickaxe. Repeatedly.

I do agree that most porn is relatively harmless in moderation. That porn that is harmful, the snuff/mutilation/disgusting stuff is inappropriate to anyone, regardless of age.