Is Pornography Sinful?
 

My friends and I have had an argument going for well over a year now, and I'm really looking for other points of views on the issue. My friend claims that those who view porn are getting a one way ticket to hell. I personally see no problem with it, and view it almost as if you are watching any other movie. Its nothing more than mental stimulation.

What are your views on the subject?

Thanks!

Depends on your definition of sin. Sin is a Judeo-Christian term, so it would depend on your beliefs and interpretation of the Bible. Given that wearing a hat inside according to the Old Testiment was considered a sin, I wouldn't be surprised if watching pornography would be considered sinful by some or many.

There are several base attitudes towards sex that have evolved throughout history: sex is spiritual, sex is for reproduction only, sex is harmful, and more common in this post-modern world - sex is simple animalistic function. If you ascribe to the sex is for reproduction only, sprititual, or harmful attitudes then I think you might have some difficulties in creating a moral or logical argument that supports watching pornography. I don't see how watching porn would help you get "closer to God", it certainly does treat sex as a means of reproduction, and if sex is harmful you certainly wouldn't want to watch it.

If porn is sin....so is reproduction, either way you will see someone nekkid......Judgement however, is in that book somewhere....and I think that "God" entity said it was bad.

No...I think sex for the sole purpose of reproduction is just about acceptable, and is to be considered a necessary evil. Just get it over and done with, and make sure you don't enjoy it.

That's why condoms are bad. You remove the only reason you have to be having sex in the first place.

Or at least that's what I learned in my Religious Education (read: Christian Propoganda) class.

If porn is wrong...I don't wanna be right. :D

Old Testament sins are wierd....expect a trip straight to hell if you wear clothing made from more than 2 kinds of materials.

It will be a different POV/opinion with everyone. That's because we all have been brought up differently or have had our own seperate realization/truth about it. Of course those who are religious, depending on how they've been told/taught, they will say that it is sinful, because they believe in sin. Nothing wrong with that and there's no need to prove others wrong about an issue either, because that's their own opinion/truth/POV, whatever you wish to call it. What matters is how you truly feel about it and let it be that, without having to explain or defend your feelings on it.

I will agree that what really matters is how one feels about moral and ethical issues. However, discourse is always good. If you really know why you believe something and you can explain it, then it is very likely that you have a good basis in your beliefs. The willingness to discuss matters of personal morality with an open ear to alternate points of view shows an openness that is required for meaningful discourse.

I think there is a sort of assumption in your statement that "because we all have been brought up differently or have had our own seperate realization/truth" we have a solid unchanging view. I do not think this is always the case, nor should it be. Changing one's mind can be a truly courageous, humble thing to do (though that does not mean it is always for the best).

I think this is more of an issue than some will think it is sinful "because they believe in sin". Some may define sin as an expressed desire or action to harm another. In that definition there is a lot of room for argument about whether pornography is sinful or not.

hmm.. it's like being brought up christian and never questioning it because no one has ever challenged you to discourse. you don't know why you believe pornography is a sin. you've just been told all your life that it is. this is your basic world view on things.. it's not necessarily "truth" for good reasons. i agree it's good to think about *why* you believe things, and start freeing yourself in the process.

during the age of reason, it was considered heresy that galileo claimed the earth revolved around the sun, and that we were not at the center of the universe. this was a huge shift in cultural world views at the time. similarly, claiming the earth is round also challenged cultural truths but without these discoveries and *discourse* we wouldn't be where we are today. truth isn't always right.

viewing pornography as sinful is a christian world view, also with the belief in hell. for someone who isn't christian and therefore doesn't believe in hell, would he/she go there simply for viewing porn? truth is only relative to the observer.

personally, i do not believe in sin but i do believe in sex as a spiritual act. therefore, viewing porn would be of no consequence to me, but i choose not to for spiritual reasons.

Just for the record, the Christian position is that sex is good, but that perversions of sex (exactly what that includes depends on the Christian) are bad. There is nothing in Christianity that requires its adherents to take as little pleasure in sex as possible or anything like that.

To the extent that Christians think viewing pornography is wrong, this prohibition is based on the words of Christ "He who lusts after another woman has committed adultery in his heart." So, contrary to what tecoyah says, there's nothing wrong about seeing your wife naked, even if pornography is wrong. Pornography would be a sin of adultery -- it's not some general prohibition against seeing people naked. Otherwise, you couldn't see Michaelangelo's David without sinning!

It's probably worth mentioning as well that there are reasons to think viewing porn is morally bad, even if one is not a Christian. There is some evidence that viewers of porn are more likely to commit acts of violence against women. The theory would be that viewing porn teaches people to objectify women, so they have a much greater tendency to treat women as means (specifically means towards their own gratification) rather than as ends in themselves.

Oh someone just needs to post a pic of David wearing a pair of jeans, from the simpsons. :)

The point of naming something a sin is a warning not to use it overly, in other words, everything in moderation. If you are a Christian, then you have been taught that it is human nature to sin. As we accept this, we become aware, making ourselves conscious, and giving us choice. Only when we obsess, or overuse do we become sinful. That's why it's best to use moderately, and seek spirituality through Christ, and therefore filling emptiness inside you with Him, and not sin.

http://deadlysins.com/sins/index.htm

If you were to look at porn for hours and hours each day, as long as you aren't hurting anyone, or any of your relationships, there's absolutely nothin wrong with it.

Sex is sex. Some people try to give it more meaning than it actually has. It's just as natural as breathing.

This whole "anti-porn" and "wait till marriage" thing is for the birds. Live your life and do what ya want as long as you don't hurt anyone.

Wow lots of replies in 2 days – anyways.

Well the minute the words “sin” and “hell” I already realize that we will be talking about logically challenged people.

So that whole point of view aside I suppose I can ask myself a more practical question of whether pornography is “good” for myself and society.

The answer is a little hazy but over all I believe pornography does more harm then good to our society. I believe this because pornography is mainly utilized as a quick fix that males and some females use to balance out their sexually deranged lives. Sexuality in our time is very fucked up. Until humanity grows up and accepts itself for what it is things such as pornography will remain what they are. I find it very ironic that many of the people who voucher against pornography helped create the very world that needs pornography by using words such as “sin” and “hell”.

Clarifying my point of view on porn. From my experiences – both personal and worldly - the viewing of porn for the purposes of sexual gratification – whether physical of cerebral – causes detachment from the reality of human sexuality. Porn caters to the fulfillment of the “advertised” version of human sexuality. A twisted an obtuse gargoyle that came to be thanks to people who use words such as “sin” and “hell”.

Well the word “sin” is in the thread title, so unless you just came in here to insult Christians, I don’t see your point.

Sexually deranged? So now it’s the “porn-viewers” with whom you disapprove? You mean they are seeking fulfillment in outside sources that leave them empty?

Sounds like this subject strikes a chord of shame with you, but don’t blame the sinners, blame the sin. Once you accept sin, the word is no longer offensive.

So, in other words, a lack of fulfillment within one’s sexual nature? I think it depends on your frame of mind, and how healthy one’s practices might be regarding outside stimulation.

Is this your logical way to describe your shame based feelings surrounding Christianity?

_____ caters to the fulfillmet of the "advertised" version of human _____.

The prevalence of porn is endemic of a post-modern society. The enjoyment of porn (particularly more extreme porn) relies on a self-fragmentation.

To say that porn isn't harmful requires a very narrow definition of harm.

I think the biggest problem with this subject is the terms and metaphors through which we operate.

<u>Provided thus far</u>:
Sex is a natural act.
Sin is overindulgence.
Pornography is adultery.
Adultery is sin.
Judgement is sin.
Everyone sins.

There are lots of contradictions here, and possible logical conclusions from these statements are entirely nonsensical.

The only quantifiable thing that anyone has said a reason that porn is bad morally relies on the social ramifications - women objectified, and promotes violence against women. In my world view which does not include "sin" as a moral compass, pornography as a whole is morally corrupt for these reasons. Pornography supports the objectification of self by reducing an emotional, mental, and physical act to a merely physical act with very limited emotions. The emphasis moves away from intimacy towards power-over and subjugation. A mature society, in my view, does not rely on creating and maintaining a subjugated class of any sort... pornography, then, is not liberating in the least - rather, it is oppressing.


This statement is just about the most confusing thing I've run across in a long time. Don't blame the cogent, thinking, responsible human - blame the act that this human does. I know that we live in an age of fragmentation - but are you really suggesting that people should not be held responsible for their actions?

Again, this implies a natural fragmentation. The radical fragmentation of identity is a social construct.

[edit: this is Will again... *shakes head at self* Janet and I just need to make a joint account... I fail to get this right too often]

So murdering people is okay, as long as it is not in excess?

I presume that you do not mean this. Only some sins are become acceptable in moderation, but others are just sinful outright? Which ones are which?

Porn as harmful
 

I completely disagree as to the harmful effects of porn. Porn is good. Certainly in my situation I know that I would not be experiencing any sexual stimulation without porn. Porn and masturbation make me feel better. I have no desire for actual physical contact with other human beings (I have a serious germ phobia) and without porn I would be thinking of the same image of that stripper from 2001 every time I masturbate. That would get old fast.

I also see no harmful effects of porn on society. Women have always been objectified by men, but objectification is not a result of porn. The way porn is made is a result of the objectification. When society changes its views on the roles of men and women in society, porn will respond.

Murder is a result of excessive anger, lust, jealousy, etc. There are many things that lead to murder, all sins. So yes, I meant what I said completely. Not all sins are deadly, but in access, can become so.

With much respect, I don't see how that statement could have been an assumption to there being an unchanging view of people.
We change our views all of the time, that's how we live, grow, and evolve. I've known agnostics who became christians, I've known christians who have become spiritual and open, we all have known others, even ourselves, who have changed their beliefs and ideas of things. We have all been brought up differently which can have a strong infulence in what we believe, that doesn't mean we don't change those beliefs. I grew up Christian but I chose to expand my experience as a spiritual person. In my christian days, it was even hard for me to believe in sin, although I believed that pornography was a terrible thing. But my views have changed on this, in that it is okay- I can't find faults in it personally. But some who are deeply grounded to their influence of religion or belief system may find it "wrong". That's fine, too. Everyone's entitled to their opinions, yet taking offense to them only leads to discrimination, seperation, and even hatred.



Very true. Sin can mean something different for many people.

I was off the mark earlier. My problem lies with the current state of human sexuality. Porn being a sexual tool reflects human sexuality and thus propagates it. So getting rid of porn will not solve any issues that stem from it but merely redirect them.

You consider this situation a good thing? Using porn as a quick fix for a phobia. I don’t think you are going about this the right way.

The question is - how do we grow and evolve? You original post seemed to imply to me that beliefs and morals are something that you inherent from the people you were raised with, or something that you independently come to. I think the value of human interaction and questioning/challenging others and ourselves can help to move beliefs and theories from dogma into something more. My point, again, was that there is value in questioning things and explaining yourself. It isn't about proving to others that you're right, and esp. that they're wrong - it is about creating dialog and gaining perspectives that you couldn't indepentently which will give you a broader base of ideas to choose for yourself what to believe. I think that resistenting the challenge of explaining yourself risks relying on dogma and cheating yourself. Personally, that isn't a huge issue for me to make other people talk about things that they don't want to... I just tend to think that it isn't very helpful to them at all I think I think it is unfortunate.

That would be true if morality wasn't legislated. I take offense to people telling me that there should be exceptions to the bill of rights. I take offense to people telling me that some groups should have less rights than others. I take offense to people who try to make their opinion on the most personal of moral decisions policy.

This is the inherent problem with porn. The First Amendment is at odds with social movements in the United States to protect women's rights and to create equity. Many believe that porn help proliferate gender inequality. Of course, there are many women's rights advocates that also believe that porn actually is empowering to women. I personally find that hard to believe from what I've seen with the degrading comments and objectification in porn, but I think that there is little that can be done about it without some kind of federal or state regulations in the industry of porn - which I don't think will happen. The argument hinges on the all or nothing approach, like in prohibition; and we know how prohibition turned out.

Truthfully, asking whether porn is good or bad (or if it is a sin) is a good place to start as a grounds for making personal decisions.

[edit: might as well change my name to Janet after this one. I think I'm frustrating her because I never check until it is too late...]

To quote the Westminster Larger Catechism: "Question 24: What is sin?

Answer: Sin is any want of conformity unto, or transgression of, any law of God, given as a rule to the reasonable creature."
---
Sexual relations between a man and his wife in the covenantal bond of marriage is commanded and not 'bad' at all.
Much of the ceremonial laws - especially regarding sacrifices and things of that nature - of the old testament no longer directly apply under the New Covenant but there is great value to studying them.

There is no hell in the Old Testament. Therefore none of this stuff is a ticket straight to hell. It was just telling people how to be good.

anti fishstick:

I understand what you are saying and where you are coming from.
Okay, here it is, my truth:
there is no right and wrong. we are all here as equals with differences. That's what makes us "human". Yet, the equality of who we truly are is much grander than our differences. Many tend to focus on the differences so much that we lose sight of how we are the same.
No, "morals" are not inherited, it is a choice to accept the morals we encounter and observe of others as our own. But no two people will agree 100% on "morals". "morals" in parenthases meaning human-created ideas of how things "should be" or "right"/"wrong". All of these judgements that we defend as morals are weakening society- the world.
We all make the choice of our beliefs, yet where do most people get their influence from (I said most)? family, friends, religious congregation, observation of others. That doesn't mean it's wrong, that means that they are choosing what works for them. But people change their beliefs. I have- we all do. There's no such thing as force or inheritance in what you believe, it's all a choice- although some people in the world don't know otherwise, they think it's the only way, although they know deep down that it's not.
How do we grow and evolve, you ask? Simple, live. observe. choose. and live.......there's no set rules, commandments, or path you HAVE to follow.
My question for you is: why do we have to decide whether something is good or bad? If we, as individuals, choose to observe something from an outside standpoint without judgement, we can simply ask "does this work for me?"- if not, we will acknowledge it and move on. If it does, we make it a part of our life, a part of who we are. Both ways, we've discovered and defined more of who we are- growing and evolving.
If people saw that judging something or someone and denouncing it/defending against it/etc. is not working, never has- do they really think it will ever work?
Judgement gets us nowhere and slows down the evolution process of our species. If we can't see that what we are doing now (judging/hating/seperating/etc) isn't working, the species will never get along and live a life in peace and harmony.
What do you want?

I fully agree.

First off, that was actually me who posted that, I didn't know I was on her name until after I posted. Anyway:

Ok... here's my problem with that. Equality doesn't exist. You're speaking from a place of privilege, but what about those who are slaughtered in Darfur now? Those born into villages ravaged by AIDS? Systematic racism and economic desparity? Are they equal to us? Taking morality from a purely "does this work for me?" standpoint is individualistic. How can you have a universal statement about equality and then talk about morality as an individual endeavor? Either we have equality and, as such, there is necessarily a declared morality about taking care of others, raising those at the bottom, and social justice in general. If we have individualistic morality, then it is up to the individual and believing in equality is up to the individual. The difference between these is enormous.

I don't think that infinite optimism will create peace and harmony. I think that, realistically, the best we can hope for is acting to stop the problems we already have (or to make them less of a problem) and to do what we can to prevent problems from starting. The obsession with power and individualism makes global justice and equality impossible as long as those who want power are willing to put themselves above others. You cannot will that away with hope and positive suggestions, you must fight for it.

What do I want? I want a mature human race that cares for everyone, thinks critically, and loves the arts. Do I think that is possible now? No.

Amen brother......

I don't use it as a quick fix; it is the only fix I can get for sexual satisfaction. Without porn, I would have no sexual satisfaction. I appreciate your right not to be subjected to viewing porn, but why do you want to take porn away from me? You're not going to make me a better person by taking it away, only a more frustrated unhappy person, who is more likely to visit a prostitute. I don't have a moral problem with either situation, but certainly from a public health concern it's better to have people get off to porn than with prostitutes, yes?

I suppose maybe I could go to a psychologist or something for my social and germ phobias, but I have very little money, and no health insurance. Handing money over to people to tell me there's something wrong with me, and then prescribing medication does not sound like my idea of fun. As it is, I am able to masturbate to porn and get on with my day. I am mostly not-unhappy. Please don't take my porn, or my access to new porn, away from me.

Since you used the word "sinful"; it occurs to me that this question has firm roots in religion - that is, moreso than philosophy. So I'd have to say that it depends on your religious beliefs. I think that if you're a devout Christian (and probably most other religions) then viewing naked people or people having sex for the sake of your own carnal pleasures would be considered "sinful". If you were to ask me if it is morally wrong or just "wrong" then I'd probably say no.

wilbjammin-
Oh, I see. :)
We are getting off topic, however, and I do value what you say and really, we do see eye to eye- it's the words and our different definitions we have of them that get things misconscrued.
Sin is a word- simply, a word. It tends to have many different meaning behind it. Be who you are, that's what matters.

I think porn wouldn't be sinful if people didn't use birth control and didn't spill their seed all over the place and conceived after each encounter.

If God didn't want us looking at the other sex, He wouldn't of made them nice to look at.

If you go to hell for looking at porn I assume you would go to hell for making it. Man it may be hot down there but I am gonna be hanging with some serious hot chicks who enjoy farking. If you like porn enjoy. If you think porn is a sin don't partake.

Hahah

my philosophy teacher made us do the excercise of defining porn in differnt moral standard. it turned out to have mixed answers. as people stated before me, it's your own decision now as we live in a highly individualistic world. there is not right or wrong answer of it being sinful or not but instead a better or worse answer.

personally i think p0rn is awsome :D go titty board!~!!

orphen -- just because we don't know the answer to a question doesn't mean that question doesn't have right and wrong answers. Towards epistemic humility, but lets not forget that most questions do in fact have a right answer.

i would have to disagree. it depends on your system of moral. there are different reason that it's wrong and right. two exampls:: prominent faminists have taken two different approach to this exact question. the kantian would say it's wrong in it's lack of equality and thus to solve it, one needs to have porn in which the girl has as much fun/control as the guy. On the other hand, there are people who argue it's wrong for both GUY and Girls as porn potrays sexuality in an extreme which in effect alienates both the man and the woman as the man now has to "perform" while the girl has to "receive". that's just the fundemental.. i'll find the two articles later. the point is, wrongness/sins are defined by different moral standards that have changed over time and i believe in this highly individualistic society, one has the right to choose ones own standard as long as a general utilitarian balance exists. even if marx would disagree with porn, aristotle's writing indicates porn just might be all right :D

in conclusion, i want boobie.

First -- the Kantian would not say porn is wrong for...well, whatever that reason is you listed. She would argue that porn treats the woman (or man) as an object, and so merely as a means and not as an end.

Second -- but my point is just that the existence of different moral systems does not entail that there is not a correct one. In fact, I could draw evidence from the fact that under most moral systems, more or less the same things come out right or wrong.

Third -- Why do you assume a general utilitarian balance needs to exist? Aren't you just tossing objective morality away up front just to reintroduce it through utilitarianism in the back?

And, in fact, a cultural studies approach proves this in a basic sense if you go back in time a few millennia. The combination of political power and religion has made this more problematic in the recent eras.

That is a good point. You can't say that as long as what is basically best for society plays out, then any morality structure accepted by an individual is ok.

Furthmore, I think it is problematic to say that "in this highly individualistic society, one has the right to choose ones own standard." There are moral structures in place that we are indoctrinated from our births. They appeal to our basic metaphorical sensibilities, and the possibility for an "average citizen" to choose something wildly different from another citizen is very low.

The example of porn merely shows that there is more than one metaphor that has been used to create moral structures that we use to base our moral decisions upon - but not really a high degree of personal potential to choose for one's self anything.

Sure, using moral structures and personal reasoning you can decide whether porn is a good or bad thing. But does that really mean that everyone is right regardless of their choice of moral structure?

At best, it means that the social consequences of some poor moral choices are limited.

First off, there may or may not be a god, and if there isn't, end of discussion.

If there IS, who's to dictate what's rule and what's not? Surely not some HUMAN that wrote a book... and does it even say in the bible that pornography is bad? If so, exact quote/verse, please. None of that interpretive stuff, either.

Second, we are human. Our hypocritical sociey, for whatever reason, makes sex out to be this "bad naughty" thing, yet people turn around and fuckin do it behind closed doors. Viewing pornography is no different than watching an action movie or a comedy.

What if the tables were turned and it was illegal to laugh because laughing is self gratification? What if comedies were illegal? Would it be "sinful" to laugh? No.

If a man and a woman want to have sex and take pictures or film it, what biblical rule or law states that? They didn't even have cameras back then.

The more you QUESTION things of this very nature, the more you realize how much BS religion is, or at least, the rules that MAN created for MAN, not the rules that GOD created for man. I view the bible as an early tool to control people... and what better way to control a primitive mind than with FEAR of some omniscient being that will send you to eternal suffering for being "bad".

Think of it this way, do you HONESTLY think if there was a god that he'd send you to hell for looking at pictures of someone else having sex? Hell no! And if he did, then that's a pretty shitty god - certainly one I would like no part of. If this god that everyone speaks of is TRULY loving and compassionate, he would see past the human psychosis and understand if you gave in to pornography every once in a while. You're telling me that in this grand scheme of a universe that god has created that he'll choose to punish you over PORN? How silly is that? C'mon now... think for yourself.

If not, then everything that religions state about god being "forgiving" are just nothing but contradictions.

All information is interpreted. There's no way around it, even if the information is explicit rather than implicit.

There is a difference between sin and law. Watching violent action movies may very well be considered a sin in some circles. This is why it is important note that interpretation is everything. Additionally, the whole idea of sin is being accountable for your actions regardless of social consequences. Sin has ultimate consequences, it deals with transcendent morality.

That's one view, but is it really that simple? Are there reasons that people would agree to follow a set standard of ethics and morality other than sheepishly falling in line? If the rules are manmade for man, then the questions are why did man make those rules? What is good or bad about them? What would bring someone, or a group of people to agree not to do something?

I think to break down everything into whether it warrants eternal damnation or not misses the point, regardless of whether you follow the bible literally or not.