Should there be more regulation of pornography?

[Irvine511]

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.

what are the dangers of pornography? this appears to be your working assumption, yet i challenge you to find something as direct and clear as the dangers presented by drugs (addiction and death), alcohol (addiction, drinking and driving), guns (sole purpose is to kill someone), and cigarettes (cancer).

can pornography be a bad thing? of course. but it cannot be directly linked to clear, understood, dire consequences like we see in other regulated vices. in fact, i'd much rather have my 14 year old son looking at porn than freebasing crack cocaine, as the two aren't even comparable.

you view pornography as something seductive and bad for relationships; fine, good for you. but you are not free to push this viewpoint onto me and onto others if you cannot prove to me how my consumption of pornography somehow hurts you. you can do this with all of the above vices mentioned, and such vices are rightly regualated, but you cannot do the same with porn. my consumption of porn (hypothetically ... i'm really not all that into porn) does not harm you in any way, just like what i do in my bedroom does not harm you in any way, so you have no right to try to regulate behavior that has no measurable, quantifiable deleterous consequences.

 

[pax]

As to the regulation of pornography, based on financeguy's recent posts, I think it is important to regulate the "sex trade," as it were, of young, frightened women who are traded, kidnapped, and abused into sex work. That is obviously wrong.

But I do agree with Irvine's post above. There's a hell of a lot of difference between a Playboy and a hit of crack. And while I have my own personal feelings about the place of porn in a relationship, I wouldn't go so far as to suggest that porn is as harmful as drugs. There's no such thing, for example, as a casual, harmless heroin habit.

 

[nbcrusader]

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.

This becomes a matter of (i) nexus and (ii) clear measurability of the harm.

With drugs, you see the needle in the arm and you see the body dead from an overdose.

With porn, the images remain with a person and they may act on them in obvious or subtle ways. Perhaps it takes a personal experience to understand the effects. Until then, we can just hope it doesn't affect us.

 

[80sU2isBest]

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.

Taking it away wouldn't make people want it more. How could people want it any more than they already do? People who want it will continue to want it, while those who don't want it will be glad it's gone. Do you think that if it became illegal, people who normally wouldn't want it will suddenly want it? If so, please explain how that works. There's no "wanting it more" involved.

It is an obsession - this country is porn-obssessed.

 

[Irvine511]

Taking it away wouldn't make people want it more. How could people want it any more than they already do? People who want it will continue to want it, while those who don't want it will be glad it's gone. Do you think that if it became illegal, people who normally wouldn't want it will suddenly want it? If so, please explain how that works. There's no "wanting it more" involved.

It is an obsession - this country is porn-obssessed.

prohibition.

people drink less now than they did in the 1920s.

i also think your "porn obsessed country" characterization is inaccurate. no one's asking you to like porn, but you cannot take away someone else's right to porn.

 

[Irvine511]

This becomes a matter of (i) nexus and (ii) clear measurability of the harm.

With drugs, you see the needle in the arm and you see the body dead from an overdose.

With porn, the images remain with a person and they may act on them in obvious or subtle ways. Perhaps it takes a personal experience to understand the effects. Until then, we can just hope it doesn't affect us.

you're still not answering anyone's questions.

how does one individual's consumption of porn create a cleare, measured danger to both that individual and to other individuals to the extent that it requries government regulation?

 

[80sU2isBest]

prohibition.

people drink less now than they did in the 1920s.

i also think your "porn obsessed country" characterization is inaccurate. no one's asking you to like porn, but you cannot take away someone else's right to porn.

During prohibition, people who normally wouldn't have wanted to drink didn't suddenly desire to drink just because it was illegal.

My comment about this country being "porn-obssessed" has nothing to do with the fact that I don't like pornography. The country is indeed "porn-obssessed". What else do you call it when most movies have some sexual act depicted? Or when you can't drive down a major street without seeing an adult bookstore or billboard ad for a topless bar? Or when you can't turn on the TV without seeing a commercial in which bra & panty-clad women pose seductively to try to sell underwear (Victoria's Secret)?

 

[nbcrusader]

First, I've never stated that we require government regulation. Second, I think I stated that the harm may occur in subtle ways (not the clear and measured danger you require).

It certainly would be easier to give you a porn = but I don't think that is helpful.

 

[80sU2isBest]

you're still not answering anyone's questions.

how does one individual's consumption of porn create a cleare, measured danger to both that individual and to other individuals to the extent that it requries government regulation?

Many times have I read that sexual offenders are found to have had plenty of porn. That porn may not have "caused" them to commit the crimes, but it certainly fanned the flames.

 

[Irvine511]

During prohibition, people who normally wouldn't have wanted to drink didn't suddenly desire to drink just because it was illegal.

My comment about this country being "porn-obssessed" has nothing to do with the fact that I don't like pornography. The country is indeed "porn-obssessed". What else do you call it when most movies have some sexual act depicted? Or when you can't drive down a major street without seeing an adult bookstore or billboard ad for a topless bar? Or when you can't turn on the TV without seeing a commercial in which bra & panty-clad women pose seductively to try to sell underwear (Victoria's Secret)?

i think you're dead-wrong on the first comment, but i can do a bit of research and find out.

none of those things you mentioned are pornography. it's maketing. stop buying those products if it ends you -- it's not the fault of the porn industry, it's the fault of the advertising industry.

as for movies, i see absolutely nothing wrong with the mature depiction of sexuality that you often see in European films. a bare breast, buttock, vagina or penis isn't necessarily sexual, let alone pornographic, but it becomes a testiment to this country's sexual immaturity that we can't see things without people shreiking about how it's porn. there was a french film called "Romance" a few years ago that i saw that had an erect penis, and then a condom on that erect penis. and the scene was a mature, adult conversation about sex. hardly pornographic -- rather, it was adult.

as for less mature movies, these then become sellings points and cheap ways to manufacture drama. the easiest way to create drama in any film, tv show, or even book is to have either a sex scene or a muder. instant drama.

you're conflating porn with many, many different things.

 

[joyfulgirl]

prohibition.

people drink less now than they did in the 1920s.

I just saw something on TV in the last few days about legalization of marijuana in The Netherlands and how the majority of its users there are tourists, not the locals.

 

[80sU2isBest]

none of those things you mentioned are pornography. it's maketing. stop buying those products if it ends you -- it's not the fault of the porn industry, it's the fault of the advertising industry.

Just because they're not created by the "porn industry" doesn't mean they're not porn. They are - they are soft porn.

The definition of "pornography is "obscene pictures and literature"

The definition of obscene is "offensive to modesty, indecent, filthy".

 

[joyfulgirl]

Just because they're not created by the "porn industry" doesn't mean they're not porn. They are - they are soft porn.

The definition of "pornography is "obscene pictures and literature"

The definition of obscene is "offensive to modesty, indecent, filthy".

So you basically equate all depictions of adult sexuality with filth? Frankly, that is too limiting and repressed for me to even comment on further.

 

[80sU2isBest]

So you basically equate all depictions of adult sexuality with filth? Frankly, that is too limiting and repressed for me to even comment on further.

Did you read the definition of "obscene"? Offensive to modesty. And yes, I think anything offensive to modesty is wrong. If you met me, I am sure you would consider me a "prude". But that wouldn't bother me in the least. In fact, I would be glad that you had that image of me. I wasn't always that way.

 

[joyfulgirl]

Did you read the definition of "obscene"? Offensive to modesty. And yes, I think anything offensive to modesty is wrong. If you met me, I am sure you would consider me a "prude". But that wouldn't bother me in the least. In fact, I would be glad that you had that image of me. I wasn't always that way.

Yeah, I read it, and I can't relate to it. So if it you're too modest to see women in bras and panties then by all means avoid it as much as possible but understand that our society is unlikely to revert to the levels of modesty that you personally are comfortable with.

 

[melon]

The definition of obscene is "offensive to modesty, indecent, filthy".

Actually, that's far too simplistic.

The required guidelines for determining obscenity are set out in the United States Supreme Court's decisions in Miller v. California, 4l3 U.S. l5, 24-25 (1973), Smith v. United States, 431 U.S. 291, 301-02, 309 (1977), and Pope v. Illinois, 481 U.S. 497, 500-01 (1987), comprising the following three-prong test:



Whether the average person, applying contemporary adult community standards, would find that the work, taken as a whole, appeals to the prurient interest (i.e., an erotic, lascivious, abnormal, unhealthy, degrading, shameful, or morbid interest in nudity, sex, or excretion);

AND


Whether the average person, applying contemporary adult community standards, would find that the work depicts or describes, in a patently offensive way, sexual conduct (i.e.: ultimate sexual acts, normal or perverted, actual or simulated; masturbation; excretory functions; lewd exhibition of the genitals; or sado-masochistic sexual abuse);

AND


Whether a reasonable person would find that the work, taken as a whole, lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value.



NOTE: ("hard-core sexual conduct" vs. "hard-core pornography")

In Miller, the Supreme Court stated that any material which depicts or describes "hard-core sexual conduct" can be found obscene. The Court's examples of such "hard-core" conduct were set out in Miller (413 U.S. at 25) as "ultimate sexual acts, normal or perverted, actual or simulated", and "masturbation, excretory functions, and lewd exhibitions of the genitals".

In a legal sense, therefore, "hard-core pornography" can be either simulated sex or it can be actual, explicit sex and either type can be found obscene in any given community.

However, the term "hard-core pornography" is used in the pornography industry for films and magazines which show penetration clearly visible. This explicit type of "hard-core pornography" has been held by the courts as material which clearly fits within the definition of obscenity and lacks First Amendment protection.

"Indecency" is not "obscene." It's a whole separate category.

Melon

 

[melon]

I think if conservatives don't like television--and they clearly never will--then they can do us all a favor and throw away their television sets.

Melon

 

[80sU2isBest]

Actually, that's far too simplistic.

"Indecency" is not "obscene." It's a whole separate category.

Melon

Tell that to Webster's. That's where I got the definitions.

 

[80sU2isBest]

I think if conservatives don't like television--and they clearly never will--then they can do us all a favor and throw away their television sets.

Melon

Well, now that they cancelled Joan Of Arcadia, I would do that if I didn't have satellite and could enjoy the Hallmark Channel, Disney, Nick, TV Land and the Game Show Network.

 

[80sU2isBest]

Yeah, I read it, and I can't relate to it. So if it you're too modest to see women in bras and panties then by all means avoid it as much as possible but understand that our society is unlikely to revert to the levels of modesty that you personally are comfortable with.

I understand that scoiety is unlikely to return to that, but that doesn't mean I like it. Ityalso doesn't mean I should just give in.

As a side note, I thought you said you weren't going to comment any further?

I understand, though, how FYM pulls a person in. 2 years ago, I made a vow to myself to never return here. As you can see, I broke my vow.

 

[Irvine511]

Yeah, I read it, and I can't relate to it. So if it you're too modest to see women in bras and panties then by all means avoid it as much as possible but understand that our society is unlikely to revert to the levels of modesty that you personally are comfortable with.

nor should society have to bend to one individual's needs and tastes.

your tastes, 80s, might infringe on my personal rights in my personal spaces -- if i wish to look at porn on my computer in my bedroom, and the porn is of the legal standard that we have decided as a society is acceptable (no children), then you have no right to remove that from me.

this is the slippery slope i find. if you find porn obscene, what are your feelings on oral sex? on mutual masturbation? on sex before marraige? you might find all these things obscene, and it's your right to feel that way, but you do not have the right to take these activities away from me because they do not meet your specific standards of what is obscene and what is not.

 

[melon]

Tell that to Webster's. That's where I got the definitions.

Well, I should. Throwing "indecency" into "obscenity" is blatantly incorrect.

Melon

 

[Irvine511]

First, I've never stated that we require government regulation. Second, I think I stated that the harm may occur in subtle ways (not the clear and measured danger you require).

It certainly would be easier to give you a porn = but I don't think that is helpful.

you're always so vague. you suggest, you plant hugely loaded sentences (as has been noted in other threads), and then walk away from what you just suggested.

and your second statement is meaningless -- helpful to whom, to what, to which argument?

i am asking you point blank: you've stated that you see porn as having the potential to do harm in subtle ways. you've said that we regulate other vices. you've said that you don't believe individuals are necessarily the best judges of the harm that some vices might do to them.

connecting the dots, this is clearly an argument you're constructing for the regulation of porn, if not it's outright banning. and then you step away from this and say that you didn't say it.

please, say something. i'd love to hear it and then have a discussion with you on the merits of the argument.

 

[joyfulgirl]

As a side note, I thought you said you weren't going to comment any further?

I understand, though, how FYM pulls a person in. 2 years ago, I made a vow to myself to never return here. As you can see, I broke my vow.

You asked a question, I answered it. I didn't mean I was never going to speak to you again!

 

[80sU2isBest]

Well, I should. Throwing "indecency" into "obscenity" is blatantly incorrect.

Melon

Again, tell it to Webster's.

I must ask, melon, and I mean this without malice...why do you think you are more qualified to know the definition of "obscene" than those who put together the dictionary?

 

[nbcrusader]

connecting the dots, this is clearly an argument you're constructing for the regulation of porn, if not it's outright banning. and then you step away from this and say that you didn't say it.

please, say something. i'd love to hear it and then have a discussion with you on the merits of the argument.

I'll step a side from the patronizing statements and go to the heart of your comments.

My arguments are as follows:

many here believe there should be no regulation of porn (child porn aside)

I believe that porn does cause some harm to indviduals vis a vis relationships with people who view porn (and to the viewer). I recognize that it is more of a psychological and emotional harm, not a direct physical harm.

As a society, we have innumerable regulations on nearly every aspect of life. Many of these regulations are designed to protect the general health and welfare of the public.

I am simply challenging the status quo of many here. Obviously, there are different standards of what constitutes harm and different standards of what we are willing to see as harm. I see it as a little more dynamic than painting the argument as liberty loving porn watchers vs. take control of society conservative Christians.

 

[Irvine511]

firstly, i'd see the argument as more socially conservative folk (joe liberman would agree, and he's not christian) vs. everyone else. if you saw the argument developing in here as Christians vs. Porn lover libertarians, then i think you should read the posts a little bit more closely. hardly anyone in here was advocating a love of porn, but that porn in and of itself does not require regulating unless we are to take conservative views espoused by you and others as fact. you're clearly anti-porn -- which is distinct from advocating regulation, at this stage -- and that's fine, but you've taken this belief several steps further than you claim above.

secondly, i did not mean to be patronizing, but i felt i had to call you out on this because, again, you've offered little in the way of actual suggestions or arguments on what porn is, how it hurts people, how it harms society, which then begs the question, since you do believe taht harm is caused, what then should be done to protect people from said harmful effects (again, what are they?) of porn. and you've also used a personal belief -- "i believe that porn does harm" -- that really cannot be the basis of proving harm either physical or psychological.

 

[martha]

Did you read the definition of "obscene"? Offensive to modesty. And yes, I think anything offensive to modesty is wrong.

What definition of modesty do you like to use? Yours? Mine? I doubt that they're the same.


Self-righteous assertions about what others do in their bedrooms is the height of immodest behavior in my opinion, yet you're completely comfortable making them.

 

[80sU2isBest]

What definition of modesty do you like to use? Yours? Mine? I doubt that they're the same.

the definiton of Webster's:

Modest: unassuming, RESTRAINED, decent, RETIRING IN MANNER, NOT EXCESSIVE

Self-righteous assertions about what others do in their bedrooms is the height of immodest behavior in my opinion, yet you're completely comfortable making them.

Martha, you're being hypocritcal; I've called you on it before and I'll call you on it again:

You whine about me making judgments upon what people do in their bedrooms, and yet you made the judgment that people who believe the way I do about porn "end up miserable".

That shows me that you don't really think that making a judgment is wrong, just so long as the judgment is in agreement with your beliefs.

 

[Irvine511]

Martha, you're being hypocritcal; I've called you on it before and I'll call you on it again:

You whine about me making judgments upon what people do in their bedrooms, and yet you made the judgment that people who believe the way I do about porn "end up miserable".

That shows me that you don't really think that making a judgment is wrong, just so long as the judgment is in agreement with your beliefs.

but you're still not answering her question.

and she's not proposing that you do anything different; you are, however, proposing that some behavior behind closed doors is better or worse than others. other than strictly illegal behavior (pedophilia), are you willing to say that heterosexual intercourse is better than homosexual intercourse? are you willing to say that sexual intercourse is better than oral sex? are you willing to say that people shouldn't kiss with any tongue?