Should there be more regulation of pornography?

[joyfulgirl]

Or better yet, let me put it this way. All my boyfriends have looked at porn. It has never been a problem so therefore I'm not sure at what point it becomes a problem because it hasn't gotten there yet, not even close.

 

[Irvine511]

reading NBC's and JG's posts, what i take away is that what is and what is not acceptable in regards to porn lies in the eyes of those involved in the relationship.

regulation/banning of porn is something the government has no business doing. the regulation of porn depicting clearly illegal acts -- child porn -- is something different.

i've written about this before ... what the government should do is not say, "this is how your sex life should be" but it can say "these are things that cannot be a part of your sex life because it harms other people." case in point: child porn harms children. thus it is illegal. porn addiction may harm me, it may harm my relationship, but that is my issue to deal with, not the government's.

this is where i find the slippery slope. if we're going to say that porn is unacceptable, what's next? are certain sexual positions more acceptable than others? should oral sex be illegal because it's really one person servicing the other and isn't truly unitive? there's a huge difference between making illegal behavior that harms people, and proscribing behavior the some deem acceptable.

Sen. Santorum, however, if he had his way, would absolutely seek to regulate the precise activities to be made legal within a bedroom. this, to me, is terrifying.

 

[Moonlit_Angel]

This is not a blame game. The question is about regulation. We tend to regulate things in a way that tend to improve health, safety and welfare of the populous. Note that little in this thread has actually specified the type of regulation that should be implimented, if any.

It was originally about regulation, yes, but then the thing was brought up about how porn ruined some girl's relationship, and that just to me sounded like there was blame being put on it.

Porn is not an obvious evil. It is a seductive one. And for every couple that claims porn helps there relationship, there are multiple individuals viewing porn outside the knowledge of their partner in the relationship.

I don't doubt that there have been couples that have had issues regarding porn. I know that's happened. But there've also been many who don't have issues with it, and if they don't, then great, I don't really see a need to get concerned then. Especially considering that it is their relationship, therefore, I feel I should let them worry about how much of a role porn should play in their lives. It's not my place to tell them whether they need more or less of it in their lives.

And porn is only an evil if people make it one. It's not exactly evil to the couples who have porn as part of their lives and yet still have a very healthy relationship.

If porn isn't for somebody, that's fine. That's their choice. It's funny that I even got involved in this argument, because I'm not one who looks at that stuff, personally-it's just never been my thing. But if other people do enjoy it...*Shrugs*. That's their choice, too.

Originally posted by nbcrusader
Ask yourself this question, if you were to meet a guy and he told you that he viewed porn all the time, would it increase your comfort level about having a relationship with him?

I would have to ditto joyfulgirl and martha's replies to this one. If my boyfriend were to look at the stuff on occasion on his own time, I don't really care. Especially considering that while I personally wouldn't be one to look at porn, I'd still have my own fantasies and all that about certain people-celebrities and such, for instance, so to condemn him for being interested in something sexual when I'd have my own interests along that line would seem rather hypocritical of me, would it not?

Originally posted by nbcrusader
What would your reaction be if your daughter's boyfriend made the same comment?

As long as I know that the guy would love my daughter with all his heart, would treat her with the utmost respect and care, that's all I need to know. As long as that's very apparent, what he does on his own time is his choice. And if my daughter ever happened to become bothered by his interest in porn and stuff like that, I trust she would tell me, and then things could be dealt with from there.

Angela

 

[Moonlit_Angel]

reading NBC's and JG's posts, what i take away is that what is and what is not acceptable in regards to porn lies in the eyes of those involved in the relationship.

regulation/banning of porn is something the government has no business doing. the regulation of porn depicting clearly illegal acts -- child porn -- is something different.

i've written about this before ... what the government should do is not say, "this is how your sex life should be" but it can say "these are things that cannot be a part of your sex life because it harms other people." case in point: child porn harms children. thus it is illegal. porn addiction may harm me, it may harm my relationship, but that is my issue to deal with, not the government's.

this is where i find the slippery slope. if we're going to say that porn is unacceptable, what's next? are certain sexual positions more acceptable than others? should oral sex be illegal because it's really one person servicing the other and isn't truly unitive? there's a huge difference between making illegal behavior that harms people, and proscribing behavior the some deem acceptable.

Sen. Santorum, however, if he had his way, would absolutely seek to regulate the precise activities to be made legal within a bedroom. this, to me, is terrifying.

. Exactly. Well said.

Angela

 

[pax]

reading NBC's and JG's posts, what i take away is that what is and what is not acceptable in regards to porn lies in the eyes of those involved in the relationship.

regulation/banning of porn is something the government has no business doing. the regulation of porn depicting clearly illegal acts -- child porn -- is something different.

i've written about this before ... what the government should do is not say, "this is how your sex life should be" but it can say "these are things that cannot be a part of your sex life because it harms other people." case in point: child porn harms children. thus it is illegal. porn addiction may harm me, it may harm my relationship, but that is my issue to deal with, not the government's.

this is where i find the slippery slope. if we're going to say that porn is unacceptable, what's next? are certain sexual positions more acceptable than others? should oral sex be illegal because it's really one person servicing the other and isn't truly unitive? there's a huge difference between making illegal behavior that harms people, and proscribing behavior the some deem acceptable.

Sen. Santorum, however, if he had his way, would absolutely seek to regulate the precise activities to be made legal within a bedroom. this, to me, is terrifying.

Regardless of anyone's personal feelings on porn, porn that depicts consenting adults performing legal acts shouldn't be illegal.

The emphasis added to Irvine's post above is mine, because that's exactly what I feel about it. I realize that the way I see porn is not how everyone sees it, and it's none of my business if singles or couples use it in the privacy of their own homes for their own enjoyment--again, as long as it only involves legally consenting grownups.

 

[Irvine511]

Regardless of anyone's personal feelings on porn, porn that depicts consenting adults performing legal acts shouldn't be illegal.

The emphasis added to Irvine's post above is mine, because that's exactly what I feel about it. I realize that the way I see porn is not how everyone sees it, and it's none of my business if singles or couples use it in the privacy of their own homes for their own enjoyment--again, as long as it only involves legally consenting grownups.

absolutely.

if you are uncomfortable with porn, you have every right to tell your boyfriend that, and if you catch him with porn, then he has violated a "rule" -- the important part of that being a "rule" that you two have created for yourselfs, not a rule that comes from the government or the Bible. if you want to base the "rules" of your relationship on the Bible, fine, but you cannot expect others to do the same, nor can you condemn those who don't.

let me flip this on it's head for a moment -- if i had a boyfriend and i found him with a Playboy, it would give me pause, more pause than if i found him with S&M/B&D porn or something a bit more on the edge. why? because it would then occur to me that he wasn't being totally honest -- is he really gay? would he leave me for a woman? is he looking for a three-way with a woman? (and that's something i probably would not be willing to do). this would necessitate a big discussion and a re-evaluation of the relationship because it should be built, at it's core, upon a foundation of same-sex attraction (not necessarily exclusive, but i'd give more pause to becoming seriously invovled with a bisexual than a gay man).

 

[nbcrusader]

The emphasis added to Irvine's post above is mine, because that's exactly what I feel about it. I realize that the way I see porn is not how everyone sees it, and it's none of my business if singles or couples use it in the privacy of their own homes for their own enjoyment--again, as long as it only involves legally consenting grownups.

Look at the body of activities or materials that are currently regulated. Are there not plenty of things that individuals may judge as appropriate where society still says "no"?

And on what principle do we include/exclude the regulation?

 

[the soul waits]

i don't understand -- i've gone through the thread and i don't see where i said any of the above.

i never equte sex with love, but i do think that sex is best with love. i also wonder what a gay person is to do, since certain lines of thought say that you can't have sex until you're married but that gay people can't get married.

but, hey, so long as we're a threat to Rick Santorum's marriage, as he told the NY Times, then i'm happy to be gay.

Hi Irvine,
I'm guessing that I misunderstood what you said in this post:
"isn't love a necessity? isn't sex, at it's best, the physical expression of romantic love? "

 

[Irvine511]

Look at the body of activities or materials that are currently regulated. Are there not plenty of things that individuals may judge as appropriate where society still says "no"?

And on what principle do we include/exclude the regulation?

when you can prove a direct correlatory to physical harm to another person.

you can drink, but you can't drink and drive.

you can smoke, but you can't smoke in enclosed areas as much anymore (2nd hand smoke).

guns are tougher ... and i think we can agree that, since the purpose of a gun is to kill, it must be treated differently than drinking and cigarettes.

please show me where the use of pornography can result in the death of another person, or the eventual physical destruction of the body as seen in other vices (alcohol, cigarettes) and then you might have a case.

also, somethings are illegal purely due to custom -- i.e., marijuana -- when it is, in fact, far less harmful to the body than cigarettes or alcohol.

 

[80sU2isBest]

also, somethings are illegal purely due to custom -- i.e., marijuana -- when it is, in fact, far less harmful to the body than cigarettes or alcohol.

Marijuana is not illegal due to "custom". While marijuana may nto have the same effects on your own body as cigarettes do, no one's gonna get high after smoking a few regular cigarettes then try to drive a car and wind up kilingl someone.

 

[melon]

Porn is already strictly regulated.

No, America is just obsessed. They pass a law? It's never "enough." No, now we've got to pass "new laws"? Sorry...pornography is already strictly regulated. Guaranteed, though, if a new "stricter" law was passed, it would never be "enough." How could Christians cry "moral decay" otherwise?

Melon

 

[joyfulgirl]

Marijuana is not illegal due to "custom". While marijuana may nto have the same effects on your own body as cigarettes do, no one's gonna get high after smoking a few regular cigarettes then try to drive a car and wind up kilingl someone.

Not true. Many studies have shown marijuana has little effect on driving except when alcohol was also involved. Fatigue is the number one cause of fatal accidents, followed by alcohol, with drugs third. In some studies marijuana drivers were shown to actually be safer drivers than than non-drug users.

Not to hijack this thread but I couldn't let that one go.

 

[80sU2isBest]

Not true. Many studies have shown marijuana has little effect on driving except when alcohol was also involved. Fatigue is the number one cause of fatal accidents, followed by alcohol, with drugs third. In some studies marijuana drivers were shown to actually be safer drivers than than non-drug users.

Not to hijack this thread but I couldn't let that one go.

As you know, a variety of studies produce a variety of results. However, I have never seen a study that resulted in the idea that marijuana- high drivers perform better than non-high drivers.

Here's a couple of my sources:

http://www.drugabuse.gov/NIDA_Notes/NNVol11N1/Marijuana.html

http://www.drugfreeaz.com/drug/steerclear_facts.html

 

[melon]

The fact that marijuana is illegal and tobacco is illegal has mostly to do with cultural history.

Prior to the invention of coffee, beer was the drink of choice. Coffee, as a stimulant, was the new "drug of choice," because it kept people awake and, at the same time, kept the Industrial Revolution going. As such, stimulants such as coffee and tobacco became socially acceptable, because they became synonymous with being "industrious."

At the same time, beer and other alcohol became synonymous with being lazy. It would, thus, logically extend to marijuana as being a drug linked to being "lazy."

Health, honestly, has only been a peripheral part of the argument, as evidenced by the fact that tobacco, a highly carcinogenic substance, is still legal.

Melon

 

[pax]

Not to mention the fact that tobacco growing is largely the province of wealthy white men, whereas marijuana is so easy to grow that it's a very democratic plant--i.e. not as much profit potential for Big Tobacco.

 

[joyfulgirl]

As you know, a variety of studies produce a variety of results. However, I have never seen a study that resulted in the idea that marijuana- high drivers perform better than non-high drivers.

You're right--everyone can always find a study that supports their views and it's difficult to find non-biased ones. There was one large study from South Australia that said that marijuana drivers caused fewer accidents than non-drug users because they are aware that they are impaired and overcompensate by driving slowly and not taking risks. Marijuana mellows people and they don't want any trouble so they stay in the slow lane, put it on cruise control, and increase their concentation. There are tons of articles quoting from that study but unfortunately I cannot find a link to the actual study. However, these findings are relatively insignificant compared with the huge amount of evidence that alcohol is the most dangerous substance related to fatal accidents yet marijuana remains illegal while alcohol isn't.

 

[Irvine511]

Marijuana is not illegal due to "custom". While marijuana may nto have the same effects on your own body as cigarettes do, no one's gonna get high after smoking a few regular cigarettes then try to drive a car and wind up kilingl someone.

Melon and JoyfulGirl have said pretty much what i would have, only things i'll add is that there's a racist element in the criminilization of marijuana -- it was seen as a substance for Mexicans in the early part of the 20th century. secondly, part of the fear of the hippies was the conspiracy theory that they were going to get us all stoned and turn us into communists.

if you look at the actual physical effects of marijuana -- though i will say that marijuana is now stronger, and can be linked to depression and memory loss -- they are significantly less than the damage alcohol does to the body, and no one gets physically addicted to pot the way they do to cigarettes (and i've lived with chain smokers ... those poor, poor people).

now that we've covered all the fun stuff -- pot and booze -- back to porn!!!

 

[martha]

Are there not plenty of things that individuals may judge as appropriate where society still says "no"?

It's always easy to advocate regulation when you think it doesn't apply to you.

 

[Irvine511]

It's always easy to advocate regulation when you think it doesn't apply to you.

well said.

the above is essentially the beating heart of the current Right Wing social control movement.

 

[martha]

And it always comes back to bite them in the ass.

 

[joyfulgirl]

If porn were more regulated it would become a national obsession.

 

[80sU2isBest]

If porn were more regulated it would become a national obsession.

As if it's not already?

 

[joyfulgirl]

As if it's not already?

No, I don't consider it a national obsession except for the uptight extreme right wingers who are obsessed with wanting to control it more. Make it harder for people to get it and they'll want it more. It's psychology 101.

 

[financeguy]

Wow, I didn't expect this thread to turn out so long. Thank you to all contributors.

Personally I think that more stringent regulations should be brought in. This would have to be done with broad international agreement. I would have reservations about girls/women from poor countries or countries with high unemployment being tempted/co-erced into the sex trade.

In this regard I recently saw a documentary about the Parisian brothels. It appears that in recent years a lot of the prostitutes there are from Eastern European countries. Some cannot get jobs in their own countries and end up working as prostitutes. It is not difficult to imagine scenarios regarding these women being co-erced/persuaded into porn.

 

[financeguy]

This is not a blame game. The question is about regulation. We tend to regulate things in a way that tend to improve health, safety and welfare of the populous. Note that little in this thread has actually specified the type of regulation that should be implimented, if any.

That is a very good point. We regulate many things - such as drugs, alcohol, maximum speeds on the highway, etc - to a greater or lesser extent, in the interests of the common good, or the welfare and safety of the populous.

I would not be in favour of a libertarian free-for-all, yet in the area of pornography that is what we have, in many countries. The question of what type of regulations (if any) are required, and their implementation, is the crux of the issue, as you have stated.

 

[Moonlit_Angel]

Make it harder for people to get it and they'll want it more. It's psychology 101.

. Exactly. I am dying to know when this concept's going to catch on with more people, 'cause it always amazes me when I find there's still those out there who don't seem to realize that simple fact.

Angela

 

[nbcrusader]

It's always easy to advocate regulation when you think it doesn't apply to you.

Cannot regulation be done for the general welfare? Or is it always about repressing some?

 

[nbcrusader]

. Exactly. I am dying to know when this concept's going to catch on with more people, 'cause it always amazes me when I find there's still those out there who don't seem to realize that simple fact.

Angela

So, we should probably make guns, drugs and all those other things we don't want people to use abundantly available?

I think we would be smart enough to regulate something and educate the public as to its dangers.

 

[Moonlit_Angel]

So, we should probably make guns, drugs and all those other things we don't want people to use abundantly available?

I think we would be smart enough to regulate something and educate the public as to its dangers.

The drugs thing was brought up earlier-go back and read through that bit again, and I would say that some of the same things there would apply to guns, too. I'm no fan of drugs, but so long as a person using them isn't hurting anybody else and isn't forcing other people to take the stuff and things along that line, personally, I say that it's their body, and they can put in it whatever they wish, as I feel that the government is supposed to protect us from other people, not ourselves. And I'm no fan of guns, either, but I know that guns can be used responsibly by people, too.

As I have said numerous times before, so long as the people use what is available to them responsibly, or so long as the product available is one that will not:

-Cause any physical harm to other people
-Endanger other people's lives
-Or force others into doing something they don't wish to do

then it should remain legal.

Again, if there's valid dangers involved in porn between legal age consenting persons being readily available, then please show us them, and then everyone can discuss whether or not those reasons prove that that kind of porn should be regulated more closely or should be restricted. Until then, if no dangers are being presented and someone's still trying to get it restricted, it's just looking like a case of a person wanting something less available to people simply because they personally don't like it. And personal likes and dislikes aren't exactly valid enough reasons to allow or restrict something in this country.

Angela

 

[A_Wanderer]

You will not fix the plight of poor immigrant girls by cracking down on the porn industry. You can only do that by improving employment opportunities and possibly education opportunities, ideally in their home countries so they don't have to get out to try and make it.

Sex is a commodity, it has been since the dawn of time, no matter how hard you try to regulate there will always be the demand. Allow it, encourage sex workers to organise and look out for their rights ~ sex workers unions etc. are an example. I think that it is a gross oversimplification to declare that women in the sex industry are all being exploited (many are to be sure). Raising awareness of their rights as individuals and having avenues to take when those rights are abused could be the best way to deal with the problems.