Is porn morally wrong? To answer this question, I propose another: Does porn harm the viewers?

Yes
No

It seems to me that some people are against porn because it supposedly does bad things to the user. "Bad things" happen to children who view lots of porn. Those who view porn need more and more, and may become addicts. But according to some, it's not a terrible thing for consenting adults to see consenting adults. In moderation, porn doesn't seem to have quite a negative effect as some would like to believe.

Porn seems to be like alcohol. If you drink a gallon of whiskey every day, it's not good for you. But having a glass of wine every week or two isn't going to harm your body.

People who wish to ban porn from society are like Prohibitionists. They are trying to correct a "moral ill" of society by imposing their will on the entire population. Of course, people who view porn can also be viewed as alcoholics.



Post has been edited 2 time(s), last time on Aug 12 2011, 1:58 am by rayNimagi.

Morals are relative.

Ergo, this whole discussion is pointless.

Based on http://www.staredit.net/topic/12781/ you need to give us a little more to go on. Right now this is leaning more toward Null than Lite Discussion.

As CAFG pointed out, you can't just say "Discuss" and leave it at that.

I'm with DevliN. Perhaps provide a possible viewpoint on the subject to be discussed; give a platform for discussion to take off on.

I disagree with the premise but wholeheartedly agree with the conclusion. This will go in circles.

Oh, morals aren't relative? Then tell me why in Eskimo society, infanticide is morally acceptable, while in current American society, it is morally impermissible. I wasn't even falling into the trap discussed by James Rachels in Morality Is Not Relative. Morals are relative to the person, this is a fact, and disputing it is silly. Whether or not morality as a whole is relative is a different debate entirely.

Post has been edited 1 time(s), last time on Aug 11 2011, 4:12 am by Sacrieur.

I didn't say different people had different morals, I said morals aren't relative. Infanticide is is immoral.

I hope you realize why this is going to go in circles.

You're confusing morality in a descriptive sense with morality in a normative sense. I was speaking descriptively.

Just to help rayNimagi with the whole "opening post" problem:

I believe the issue he's raising with porn is that, as adults with the proper life experiences required to make informed and independent decisions, there is no reason not to watch porn, and that the current stigma it carries is unfounded and baseless insofar as the stigma says porn is harmful to the watcher. As the action itself is harmless, and the expectation that it is an adult using this material is taken to be true, why is porn always cast in such a negative light, and considered to be morally unvirtuous?

I think the idea wasn't that it does harm to the viewer, but instead that it harms the women involved. That seems to be the most common argument I come across whenever I see this debate take place. Then again that has more to do with people feeling like porn objectifies women.

I think it would be more harmful to women's rights to tell them they aren't allowed to be objectified.

You know, as a child I was incredibly conservative. And without wasting your time with a long sagueway I was pretty slow to grasp on to basically anything sexual. And well, you know what? Speaking as an Anti - Social unemployed moron with no prospect of any future I think I can say I'm ten times smarter now than I was back then.

There's nothing wrong with porn and it's far more of an art than half the trash hollywood releases and it's far more educational than half of the lies and prejudiced drivel around 70% of the churches preach. Oh, but who am I kidding. I suppose simply because I have an opinion that supports a controversial issue (that shouldn't be controversial) that makes me a troll, right?

But first, let me give those that consider porn 'immoral' a lesson on morality. Morality isn't about doing what a book tells you is right, that's obedience. Morality is, in fact, doing what's right. And because I know some people will use that line to dick me over I guess I better clarify furthermore - Morality isn't what you believe is right, it's about doing what's right, end of discussion.


So, is porn morally right? Well, it gives people jobs, it makes girls with those jobs rich, and the rich girls with those jobs are basically celebrated again and again over their looks. If this is how objectification feels then I friggin' wish I could be signed up into this. Seriously, if I have to choose to be exploited as a sex symbol or a nameless worker I'll fucking go with the one that makes me rich.

Oh right, and technically wouldn't it be far less moral to kick pornstars out of their jobs and force them into an alternate, far worse lifestyle? You know, like a prostitute.

And those feminazi's that argue it's objectification, well, that's just gibberish. The girl chose that fucking job. And if you're going to believe that the girl's too stupid to make her own choices then clearly you're the one that see's them as an object. She's a grown woman and she's richer than you, so I think maybe, just fucking maybe she knows how to take care of her self thank you very much.

But I guess I can't lie, because the porn industry is indeed sexist. Not necessarily towards the girls though. While people like to complain how awful porn is for females they seem to turn a blind eye to the men. But I guess they don't fucking matter, right? I mean, they're just men.

Seriously, If your a man in the porn business you get paid less, you have increased chances of getting cholera, and you aren't even respected as sex symbols like the women are. You're just a slab of meat sticking it in a girl. And I don't fucking know about you, but from the looks of it the men seem far more dehumanized than the women.

Morally it's no more wrong than basically any other business. Back when our employers would kick a girl out simply because she had a vagina the porn business would instead be making girls rich. I don't know about you, but to me that seems to say a lot.

Yeah, it's true, some problems exist in porn, but we seem to be diverting to the ones that simply don't exist. Instead of bitching and moaning about how they treat their woman living in big mansions maybe we should instead turn our heads to the guys. Because I just so happen to live in the real world, the one where the guys pretty much have to take it up the ass to get paid even half of that of a girl.

I'd love to try and be more coherent, but really, I have too much mental conditions and too little pills to take. Sorry, but I simply can't make my thoughts anymore coherent. And just because they're not completely 100% perfect I'd hope that those that disagree with my views would be tasteful enough not to invalidate my opinion simply because of it.

Post has been edited 1 time(s), last time on Aug 11 2011, 10:43 am by lSHaDoW-FoXl.

Null?

People see porn as some see cigarettes or alcohol, or flash (God damn bastards in League ). Its just disgusting to others. People just dont want to hear about how you jerked off to your video of two people going at it, or how you drank a six pack and fucked some whore from down the street. Its disturbing on more levels than just one.

Its something people just dont need to bring up, unless you're one of those people who hang out on specific websites targeting that sort of behavior.

Gosh DM, youre one to talk, considering everyone thinks you visit /b/ on a daily basis

No, that's morality, it's known as divine command theory.



I hope you see the thin line between pornography and prostitution. Pornography is just prostitution with a video camera. You're putting yourself in a bad position here.



I kept looking for a legit argument in this one, but alas, I cannot find one.



Why are you throwing this in here. You're not helping your argument.



But that would mean it's no more "right" than any other business. You're putting all forms of business on a level playing field and going, "Aha! See it's not so bad after all." I hope you can see the trap you're setting up for yourself.

Yeah...

---

To truly analyze its problems we must grant that porn is immoral.

1) We're hardwired to want to have sex.
2) Masturbation is healthy.

Pornography helps solve two of these issues. In the first, pornography helps us have a sexual outlet. And in the second, it's helping us perform a perfectly normal and healthful act.

Sex isn't very easily repressed in men, our sex centers of the brain are on average 2.5x as large as female's. We have a lot more of a drive to have sex, and suppressing that like a priest not only causes strain on mental health, but a degradation of focus and other mental abilities. By providing an outlet for our sexual urges, we are controlling them-- instead of them controlling us. It's the same lesson for emotions. We're hardwired to have them, and we're going to feel them. The best we can do with them is control them. Providing safe and healthful outlets for emotions such as anger is considered by many to be morally permissible.

Masturbation is perfectly normal and observed throughout most stages of human development. Toddlers will do it, children will do it, and teenagers will especially do it. It's a healthful activity, lowering stress and even lowers the risk of prostate cancer in men.

Since pornography is created for assisting in both of these two functions and causes no harm to either the consumers or producers, then why is it immoral?

Why is it bad for little kids to see porn?

This is just another cultural thing when kids are lied about things that are very basic and primal for every human being, ie. sex. Usually to try and preserve the child's 'innocence'. Personally, I think lying to your child is a bad idea, and I won't be doing it.


If you are asking Jack this question specifically, do not expect a very enlightened response. He is simply saying it is wrong because that is what his book tells him is wrong.

The particular topic at hand is whether or not its bad for adults to look at porn. Porn is a bad idea for children because of the propensity for "monkey see monkey do." Younger, and prepubescent children, have bodies which simply aren't developed enough for sex, and its generally taken to be a bad thing for young girls to accidentally become pregnant. The culture in the united states currently is incapable of supporting an education-based safe-sex program at the moment, and as such I personally am therefore completely for the current anti-porn laws. Once you turn 18, your body is clearly developed enough for sex, you're considered an adult and capable of keeping yourself un-pregnant if you want. Go wild, in my book. But for children? In countries such as your own Australia, the culture may be significantly different in terms of supporting an awareness of the consequences of unprotected sex in young people, and as such you should consider that the majority of us here on SEN are not part of such a culture, and any socialogically based argument we might make could be invalid where you live, and vice versa.

And stop being assholes to Jack, he hasn't even posted in the topic yet.

All throughout history up until about the 1800's or so, it was common for children to sleep in the same room, or sometimes same bed, as their parents. While their parents had sex. In front of them.

Seems to have worked for most of human history without too many problems. Obviously porn (with it's glamorization etc) isn't the same as watching your parents have sex, but society these days has got very different values to what we used to have.

I believe it's wrong because it'staking advantage of a misguided person. When people watch porn, they don't think of them as people, the think of them as human tools.

This distinction is not present in the OP.

WIKI SOURCE
Monkey see, monkey do is a saying that originated in Jamaica in the early 18th century and popped up in American culture in the early 1920s. The saying refers to the learning of a process without an understanding of why it works. Another definition implies the act of mimicry, usually with limited knowledge of the consequences.

Naturally, educating children properly about safe-sex would give them full knowledge as opposed to limited knowledge. And I don't know about young children not being capable of sex, I am sure they are, it is more that they are not capable of reproduction.

We have what is called SEXED aka Sex Education. Learning about puberty and how to have safe sex and male/female anatomies and such. I'm surprised the US doesn't actually have this, that's weird.

But I'm not really trying to make an argument with any societal or cultural premise I'm just asking the question, should we lie to children about sex, or should we not? I guess my argument is as follows:
Premise 1: Sex is a natural and fundamental part of human nature, without sex, humanity would be extinct.
Premise 2: Children will tend to make smarter decisions when having a thorough, complete knowledge about sex, as opposed to limited knowledge.
Conclusion: Therefore we should not shield children from this knowledge.

I agree with your conclusion based on those two premises, but I think some premises are being omitted which invalidate the conclusion. At least, here in the U.S. For example, I've heard of places in the south where the education is simple abstinence. While 100% effective when used properly, the sort of culture that endorses an abstinence-based sexual education program really, most likely, isn't capable of supporting a thorough educational program on the same topic.

When I say children I was referring to anyone under 18 years of age. This is how the law regards children, when you are 18 you can purchase pornographic materials in the U.S., and I think this is a fine disctinction because puberty is largely over for men, and complete for women. You can buy cigarettes, porn, go to R-rated movies alone, ect. Can't buy alcohol till you're 21, but you used to be able to buy alcohol at 18 or 19 in every state until DUI's death rates became so staggering in young adults that they raised the limit to 21.

I really didn't think there was any question of whether children from roughly 15 and below should be bothered with sex. It's possible, of that I'm absolutely sure, but bodies which haven't finished puberty literally are not built for sex yet, so while I have no problem with educating children on the matter, I don't think they should be presented with material that falsely glamorizes sex until they're adults.