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.

Why did man make the rules?

Probably someone trying to feel important and someone that wanted to impose control on others. Maybe they saw it as a problem that people were enjoying sex. I wouldn't be surprised if these biblical people were just intelligent manipulators that convinced gullible people that there was a god.

IMO, I think it's that simple. I think people were a lot less intelligent back then... more ignorant and easily persuaded into blindly following and accepting things without desire to learn why or question authority. You didn't have the open-mindedness and freedoms back then like we have today, so it was much easier to convince someone of something that wasn't real. Hell, they thought the stars were the eyes of gods. They probably had no idea what dreams were, so when they slept and had some kind of crazy dream about someone telling them something, they interpreted it as a "vision from god". I can't prove it, of course, but I guarantee you that's where all this nonsense stems from.

You have people now who strongly dislike certain things in society and want to change them. Fortunately for us, they can't just belt out some line about "seeing god" and have everyone follow them.

Let's just pretend for a minute that we're at year 0 and that people were as gullible as they were back then. You'd take someone who disliked something about society, let's say being a wage slave from 9 to 5, and they would go on and on about how it's going against god. Or maybe someone likes animals and doesn't want others to eat them, so they'll make up something about how eating animals is against god.

Maybe someone back then didn't like sex or saw sex as a problem and felt a random need to control it. People seem to have had an obvious habit of not minding their own business and trying to impose their will on others.

Either way, religion is a mindfuck. It's a big old guessing game that people live their lives around.

[edit]
To elaborate further, people back then obviously didn't know about reproduction. They didn't know about sperm, eggs, chromosomes, dna, etc... they just had sex and next thing they knew a baby came about 9 months later. This event was no doubt something that really stimulated their minds, and understandably so because humans are self aware.

Because of this, they probably viewed sex as "gods tool" to continue life on the planet, or some kind of divine act. It was probably appalling to them to see people have sex with many others, or do things like oral/anal sex, so someone fabricated a story about how "god doesn't like that".

Fast forward to today.. we know what reproduction is. We know that every animal has it and that it's just a part of life. It is no longer as "divine" or "special" as people originally thought it was... so all the moral (and biblical) rules about it being sin to indulge in sex are pretty much worthless now.

Stompy, the idea that people 2000 years ago, or 3000 years ago is not only amazingly arrogant, but obviously false. Or do you think you're smarter than Aristotle?

Uh, how is that "obviously" false? So everyone was as smart as Aristotle, huh? :lol:

Right. We'd be much farther ahead now if that was the case. C'mon now, you can't honestly sit there and tell me that people 2000 years ago were as smart as we are now or had even the FRACTION of knowledge we now have. We simply have a much bigger picture of life than they did, just like people 2000 years from now will possess vasts amount more information and technology than we currently have. We will be dumb compared to them.

There were a few bright bulbs on the tree, but they were few and far between. Just like now... we have people like Stephen Hawking. Most people aren't even REMOTELY as smart as that man. He understands things in his mind that we couldn't even fathom.

The statement wasn't arrogant, it's the truth. If you went back 2000 years ago and asked people exactly HOW a baby is conceived, they'd look at you with a blank stare. Or ask them what the stars are... so much for being obviously false!

People used to understand that metaphors were metaphors. Nietzsche's first book, The Birth of Tragedy is a plea to people to back to the way that the Greeks lived several thousand years ago, because people in our times have deceived themselves and are more unbalanced than ever. He discusses the idea of the Apollonian veil and the Dionysian return to the primordial. Basically, people now have forgotten how to live with a proper balance between the knowledge that life is suffering and the veil that we put over this knowledge that life is great and beautiful. Now, we are strongly Apollonian and so afraid of facing the idea of our mortality and allowing ourselves to realize that life is suffering that I think we are more gullible than ever because of it. We have lost the sense of the "beautiful horror", and the "horrible beauty" that life is.

There have been spikes in the way people have viewed the Bible from more literal standpoints, and have backed off a bit. We think of the Crusades and the Inquisition as terrible examples of how people have used to Christianity in a negative way, but there are other events that have helped move people towards these literal interpretations. Perhaps the biggest upturn in literally interpreting the Bible came during the Black Plague. People knew that their chances of living a long and fruitful life were low, so they searched for something to give their lives more meaning after death. I think this is when fear and the push towards Apollonianism really was at its strongest.

Now, in the post-modern era, life is more abstract than ever. If you want to talk about people being ignorant, stupid, and gullible then turn on the television. The rise of media to this massive all-encompassing thing has made life so alienating that many people have gotten lost in the mix. Look at how many people buy things that they don't need, vote for things that aren't in their interest, watch hours and hours of mind-numbing programing, are left without a critical thinking moment in their lives because they're so busy avoiding those moments when they are faced with their solitude, mortality, and the absurdity of the conditions of their existence.

What does scientific knowledge have to do with the problem of trying to figure out how to live a good life? It is helpful in deciding very simple things such as, "does this actually hurt people explicitly?" But, the problems dealt with by people 2000 years ago are the same problems we see now. I think it can probably be safe to say that it is even harder to get to deal with those problems now because of how convoluted and complicated our society has made things precisely because of science and other socially-constructed knowledge. Do people really live better lives now than people did before the industrial revolution? That's a question that really isn't easy to answer.

I don't understand the relevance. That kind of scientific question doesn't address a deeper question of meaning within the human experience. Given that we have more scientific knowledge now does not mean that people didn't have critical minds that considered morality and ethics effectively. This question of pornography is a question of morality and ethics, not about the mechanics of sex.



On a final note - The Bible and other religions have not always had such fundamentalist interpretations, and some sects never have. To give a blanket statement of religion being about fear and ignorance also ignores the variation in how religions operate across time and cultures.

I think you guys completely missed my point.

The only reason I brought up science is because back then they didn't know exactly how a baby was made (no, I can't prove it, but I'm sure we can agree on that). I'm sure they believed it to be the work of god, so naturally if you have people going around and being whores, some will be offended because you're "misusing god's reproductive tool".

Fast forward to today when our society is more free and open-minded and getting closer to promoting personal responsibility. People can now be homosexual, have abortions, yadda yadda. Because of this, IMO, in the grand scheme of things porn isn't sinful simply because there's no actual reason for it to be aside from the religious origins damning sex for fun (when really there's nothing wrong w/ it).

What about the objectified views of women, the rising violence to women, a desensitization to sex, alienation to the emotional side of sex, the rise of teen and pre-teen sexual activity, and social responsibility? Aren't those reasons that porn can be considered sinful, or, if not sinful, having negative effects on individuals and society? Only viewing at personal responsibility ignores the social fabric. I have just listed several reasons that porn can be considered "bad" other than "damning sex for fun". You may disagree with all of those reasons, but those are all actual reasons and there is at least a starting point beyond saying that there is only one reason that porn would be considered sinful.

Objectified views of women? I guess some people might see it like that, but I don't. The women in these films weren't exactly forced to do them ya know. If porn causes a person to treat a woman like a piece of meat, that person has problems. It's just like a teenager who plays a violent video game and then imitates what they see. The thing itself isn't bad, it's just that the person has mental issues.

Emotional side of sex: Who says there has to be one? Why does there have to be one? In any case, porn doesn't really have any effect on that. In fact, in most cases, it makes the sex life that much more better :)

Desensitization to sex... not a bad idea, and also goes along with the above item. People have a tendency to think sex is more special than it really is. It's a part of life, people should accept it and live with it instead of making it out to be this big bad thing or something that only "two people in love" do. What's wrong with two complete strangers having a one night stand? As long as you're protected, nothing really wrong with it, especially if you can think outside of the box and learn not to attach your emotions to that event.

Rise of teen sex? How does porn cause that? In fact, I don't think porn even remotely plays a hand in that one. It's called hormones. It's been happening long before porn was made. In fact, it wasn't uncommon for a younger woman to be married (under 18) back in the old days.

Just because something can be misused to misinterpreted (porn "objectifying" women), doesn't mean it's wrong. If ya don't like it, don't watch it! If your religion says it's sinful and you believe your religion, then I guess it's kinda moot.

In any case, one can watch porn and completely have a normal healthy sex life, good emotional relationship with their partner, as well as lead a good life. In fact, most people already do that.

So to answer this subjective question with my opinion: from an outside perspective, one where I'm not sure if there is a god or not simply because it's impossible to answer, I see no reason whatsoever to find porn "sinful". I don't feel it has any more negative side effects on society than violent video games or alcohol have. Like with anything, it can be misused - it's ultimately up to the person to decide how they will act.

I do feel it's unfortunate that people have some mental issues to the point where porn causes them to treat women without respect, and it's also unfortunate that others blame porn for the bad qualities of society, but I guess they gotta blame something, right? ;)

Stompy, Stompy, Stompy. Your biggest mistake seems to be a confusion between knowledge and intelligence. Yes, in many ways we have more knowledge than the ancients -- for example, they didn't know about the human female egg. But even here, I suspect you underestimate them. The ancient Greeks knew the world was round, they knew that semen was necessary for reproduction, and they knew roughly the circumference of the earth. The Greeks didn't think reproduction was the act of a god. As far as their intelligence, I don't see any reason to think that Aristotle or Euclid was less intelligent than Hawking. You say that we're more advanced because people can have abortions and be homosexual. Forgive me if I say that, even if this were true, it's at the very least arguable that this would be progress. And in any case, people have been homosexual (or, at least, engaged in homosexual activity) and had abortions for thousands upon thousands of years. You say "Ask most people back then what a star is..." but how many people, if you asked them today, would know what a star is? And that's the other side of your problem. You grossly overestimate the intelligence and knowledge of people today. Most of the people on this board are quite bright and knowledgeable compared to the average person, and presumably, most of the people most of us see on a daily basis are similarly above average. Just remember that there are people out there who need help operating elevators.

Like I said a few posts up, you missed my point :) I really don't feel like explaining it again.

Stompy, you write:
I've argued that in fact the ancients had a pretty good idea where baby's came from. How is that missing your point?

How is it missing my point?

Because you're going off in another direction talking about greeks. I am not. Nor am I arguing whether or not some smart individuals existed. I'm talking about the general train of thought regarding common people.

Whether greeks as a society were smart or not is irrelevant because our society and what people perceive as morally right/wrong were not based off of what they did or believed in. Besides, even if they, as a society, were smarter, it had little effect on the world around them. If they knew the world was round and whatnot ahead of time, then why did it take so long for everyone else to finally accept it? Because, ding ding, most weren't open minded enough to question it and believed whatever others told them. If the King says the earth is flat, then the earth is flat. If the man down the street says god talked to him, then he MUST be right! So on, so forth..

I'm talking about common religions, catholics/christians/etc.. basically the religions that dictate how our society perceives certain issues.

Apples & Oranges.

Anyway, that is, in my opinion, why we have such ridiculous moral beliefs today. If you think about it, it makes absolutely no sense why sex itself is believed to be more sacred and special than it REALLY is.

Whether they admit it or not, a lot of people watch porn and live normal lives. Based on that, why should it be sinful? How are they bothering the fabric of the universe by doing what they are doing? How are they abusing their life that "god" has given them? I makes no sense and there's no reason for it.

Fair enough. In fact, most of the scholastics (read: monks) also knew that the world was round; Columbus was actually wrong -- he thought it was shaped like a pear. But that's beside the point. I don't know off-hand exactly what they thought about how directly God was involved in the reproductive act, but since Aquinas was heavily influenced by Aristotle, it's reasonable to suspect that he had similar views on reproduction. And before you object about my citing the learned people, remember that these people are where the church got its views from; it didn't just make them up haphazardly.

So, the argument of the church goes roughly as follows. The sex act has two functions, a procreative and a unitive function. Disordered sex acts are those which do not serve these functions. Porn serves neither of these functions, therefore jerking off to pornography is a disordered sex act. (Note: there's a similar argument against just looking at porn, but it's a bit more complicated, so I'll leave it as an exercise for the reader.) So to buy that argument, all you really need is a teleological account of human nature along with certain beliefs about the nature of the sex act, not some mysterious belief about the 'sacredness' of sex.

And in fact, the idea of the sacredness of sex is not something I would reject quite so out of hand. It does seem to be more closely tied to our being than something like eating or shitting, so not merely another natural function. And Christians aren't the only ones ruing it's demystification. Foucault, in "A Preface to Transgression", bitterly rues the "denaturation" of sex. So one does not need to share Christian views of sex to think of sex as something special.

Finally, you argue that the idea that viewing porn leads to negative behavior is comparable to the idea that playing violent video games leads to negative behavior. But in fact, the studies done on playing violent video games have been inconclusive, while the studies done on the effects of porn have tended to show that it does in fact have a negative effect on ones relationships.

Have a link to this study? What groups did they test? When was this test/study taken? Age groups? If the people in question were strongly religious, yeah, I see how it could disrupt the relationship.

I have a hard time believing that any old study was done on a broad group of people that showed porn to have a negative impact in a relationship.

Even if it did, there are other factors that weren't considered like self-esteem. If a woman gets jealous because a guy is watching porn and feels he likes it more than her, it's because of self-esteem (or the guy might really be more into porn).

I posted in another thread regarding "god" about how the human mind finds comfort in numbers. This is applied to anything, and even those who are emotionally attached to sex. If, by tradition, the world around you believes sex to be a sacred and private thing, does that make it true? Not necessarily. It all boils down to what the individual believes in, not society (or should be, anyway). For example, women think they're fat when they aren't because our society pictures ideal women as anorexic models. Why do most people find heavy-set women unattractive? Because everyone else thinks that's the way is is because of the media and spotlight celebs trying to become the most "beautiful" woman in the world. It doesn't make any sense. In some cultures (at least ages ago), heavy people were considered attractive.

The human mind is an impressionable thing.

Aside from that, I don't believe for one second that it negatively effects society. In fact, I'm convinced that society purposely gives it a negative spin just to keep sex "hush hush" and private when there's no reason for it to begin with.

It all boils down to questioning the norm, and sorry, but this is one thing that I just don't agree with society on. What it boils down to is this: I think organized religion is full of it. I believe it was a tool used to keep primitive gullible minds in order, and the who philosophical aspect of it (can you prove/disprove god) is a good one. Personally, I'm agnostic. I simply don't know if there's a god or not. I don't think there's enough to prove or disprove it. There could be a god, but maybe not in the sense that everyone else's human minds think. That being said, our country, and most of what our society believes in, was FOUNDED on these religious ideas. That's great and all, but PLEASE don't expect me to follow them, especially if I'm living in a country that, before anything, is supposed to believe in individual freedom.

If you're religious and you happen to believe sex holds a special place in humanity, good for you! I have nothing against that at all, but do NOT make rules and do NOT judge me based on something that you believe in that I DON'T believe in.

So in the broad sense of living and well being in life, does porn affect that, I don't believe so. Can it? Yes. Just like alcohol can affect one's ability to act civil. Anything can be misused.

Sorry, I don't. I remember the study being referenced by a reputable source, but that was a while ago.

I might mention here that I personally don't have a final opinion on whether or not porn is wrong. But someone should play devil's advocate. But it certainly seems to me that in the situation where one's gf is upset because you're watching porn, one ought to give up the porn. People over pictures.

Well, no, but neither does it make it false. Ideally, you would want to show why the tradition thinks that way (which, to be fair, you've tried to do) and why it's false. Even if you were correct that taboos regarding pornography arose from certain medieval views of reproduction that most of us now believe to be false, that's not enough to show that porn is okay. You'd have to show that they were wrong about the nature of sexuality, which is something you've haven't done. And we should never throw out a tradition without a good reason. If you think a tradition is bad/wrong, the burden of proof is on you.

To give you something to chew on, let me throw out a few reasons to think that sexuality is special. I want to stay away from the religious reasons, since it's obvious that we don't share the same assumptions there.

1. Argument from Tradition: In all times and in all places, sex has always been viewed as something special. I can't think of a single counter-example. To be sure, cultures have differed on exactly what constitutes acceptable sexual practice, but there have always been some limits. (To quote C.S. Lewis, "Societies have disagreed about how many wives a man may have, but no society has said a man can have just any woman he wants.")

2. Argument from Observation: From what I've seen, and from the observations of a friend who did alot of counseling in college, sex is powerful, and the abuse of sex can seriously mess things up. Now, there are two possible explanations for this. Either these people are still sufficiently influenced by some latent puritanism in society, or sexuality really does cut close to the being. Since there's not much latent puritanism in society anymore outside of certain subcultures, and enough of these people seem hardly to be influenced by these subcultures, I'd lean towards the second.

3. Argument from Gay Marriage: Why is this such a hot button issue, for both sides, if sex isn't that important?

Well, I've cited Foucault as taking sexuality very seriously; if you can find a thinker who questioned the norm more, I'd like to hear it. And if you want, I can probably find the exact quote. Besides, as far as I can tell, your view is much more prevalent in society than the view I've been defending.

Defensive much? Who's judging? I'm just arguing that viewing porn is bad -- not even maintaining that as a view I hold. I'm not in the business of judging people, anyway. I don't even judge myself.

Regarding that last part, wasn't referring to YOU, was referring to society and how people tend to act when it comes to sex/porn (and things of that nature).

Sorry about the confusion :)

The human mind is no simple thing. I do believe there are MANY outside factors when it comes to someone being "messed up" from sex. For example, getting raped or sexually abused. Those are two very bad things that could happen to a person that involves sex and will most definitely screw someone up. The act of sex itself doesn't cause that, it's the act of forcing your will upon someone who either doesn't want it or doesn't know any better. You could just as easily traumatize someone by carjacking them or pointing a gun to their head while threatening you're gonna kill them.

Certain things that happen to people as they grow up will affect their personality as they get older. Having the feeling of security as a child, acceptance from others during the teenage years as well as acceptance from the opposite sex as your hormones develop, so on so forth. Most people get screwed up during their teenage years when they're 16 and have relationships with other 16 year olds. When they have consecutive failed relationships, they might develop the feeling like they can't trust the other gender, but fail to realize that THEY'RE ONLY 16. They're still maturing. A relationship when you're 16 is greatly different than when you're 25 or 30. But the mind doesn't know that. It's up to the person to disassociate and learn.

While sex seems powerful when you read or hear about certain counseling/therapy cases, there ARE other factors involved.

If I were single, I COULD have sex with a different female each night and completely disconnect any emotional aspect from it without any consequence on how I live my life in society. Now, whether or not the person I'm with could do that is another question.

Another topic is monogamy. To me monogamy is kinda silly especially the whole "you can't have sex with other people" thing. I'm not talking about having 2 or 3 girlfriends (although there's nothing wrong w/ that either if all involved are open minded enough), but the whole "one woman for the rest of your life". I believe that if you really LOVE a person, then that's all that matters. Sex isn't what makes love. It's the emotional bond between two (or more) personalities. If a man and woman bond emotionally, why is it a problem for either of them to go out and have casual sex if they can completely remove any and all emotional attachments to it? For example, you LOVE your partner and sex with them is great, however, if you have a casual fling, you don't LOVE them, and the sex is simply for fun. That doesn't change your strong feelings for the other person. Society feels this is wrong. Because of the way society is, certain feelings are introduced, like rejection, etc.. that really don't NEED to be there.

Very simple: religion. That and the fact people fear what they do not understand. Of course the norm is for a man and a woman to be a couple and procreate, but again, no one questions the norm. Homosexuality has been around for AGES, but was never accepted in society. Maybe the ancient Romans/Greeks did.. from what I recall, didn't they have a lot of gay orgies and whatnot?

Anyway, a lot of the anti-homosexual sentiment is due in part to society's views which all stem back to religion.

With what I said above, love is a bond between to personalities whether they're man/man or man/woman, woman/woman, whatever. There's flat out nothing wrong with homsexuality. It's unusual in the eyes of society, yes, but once upon a time, a black man owning land, voting, or flat out being free was unusual in the eyes of society. Doesn't make it proper.

But back to PORN, that's just watching people having sex. Since the topic is about PORNOGRAPHY being sinful (the whole sex thing is a whole topic altogether), I still fail to recognize how seeing pictures, motion or not, of two people having sex is wrong or makes one a bad member of society. The act of watching the sex itself isn't wrong, but maybe the whole "I'll cum on your face, you whore" type of dialogue used is wrong since it could promote disrespect to women. If anything, talk down about that, not the porn itself. But again, comes down to personal opinion. I don't use that dialogue to any women, and by hearing it, I don't get the feeling I WANT to do it either. Maybe for "dirty talk" in the bedroom, but I'm certainly not gonna start eyeing women thinking of that porn.

Well, I think I've exhausted the points I want to make -- I was mostly concerned about the "pre-moderns were stupid line". Just two things briefly, the Greeks often had homosexual relationships with the boys they were mentoring. But it typically ended when the boy became a man, and there was disagreement in that society about just how healthy these sorts of relationships were.

And it seems like the misuse of sex messes people up more often and more significantly than the misuse of, say, guns. But I don't think I'll be able to convince you, so I'll let it drop.

It's not sinful because I don't believe in sin.

I think the largest fundamental problem with society today is the alienation from ourselves and others, particularly with our emotions. To me, it is obvious that pornography fosters this disconnect. The kind of situation you are describing here in the quote is even more disconnected.

Why would this be important? Because the division between mind and body is a sort of falsehood. Lakoff and Johnson wrote a great book Philosophy of the Flesh: The Emobodied Mind and Its Challenge to Western Thought. In this book, they provide a very compelling argument that the concept of division between mind and body is full of problems. Going right along with Nietzsche's The Birth of Tragedy, it seems that our society is living in very Apollonian times. Our alienation from our own emotions and our own bodies is harmful to humanity.

To provide a case study in how this disconnect has fostered an alienating culture is in Conyers, GA. Frontline (the PBS show) was doing a story on a teenage sex ring that they had heard about, and as they were doing the story a school shooting took place (not a coincidence). The sex ring consisted of many teens and even kids as young as 12-years-old having sex with many others. The story broke when a local sexual health clinic did some data collection and tried to track down where a small outbreak of an STD came from. By the end of her search, she had found hundreds of students that had come into contact with the STD through an "underground" that consisted of sex parties.

Some interesting excerpts from the show (Frontline: The Lost Children of Rockdale County):

Now, I'm sure you can look at this and rationalize it as a non-sequitur for being an isolated case, or something along those lines. However, I think we can look at this as an indicator of our society. Looking at porn as a cause or a symptom is irrelevant, because it is a mutually enforcing variable. We are missing self-respect, respect for others as individuals, and respect for the process of entering another person's body or allowing someone to enter your body. The metaphorical implications of how one views sex are huge because of the metaphorical nature of how humans interpret their environment.

You seem to be claiming that through reflection and a rejection of society we can turn off the connection between mind and body, that it is healthy, and that there are no negative side effects. Regardless of the sin issue (which is an issue, because those that believe in sin have a much more difficult time in developing a healthy sexuality), people aren't meant to shut off parts of themselves like you describe. To do so would be considered, psychologically, a coping mechanism.

I mean, what you posted is unfortunate and those kids are misguided, but like I said... at 12-13, people are not matured. They will think and do things differently. Porn caused that in the same sense that a violent video game or wrestling on TV caused one child to kill another. People need to start teaching children to be responsible early on before stuff like this happens.

There is an age limit to porn, and that's 18. The more important question is how are 12/13 year olds obtaining it and why haven't they been educated by their parents that this type of thing isn't wise?

You can provide detailed cases like this all day long, just like I COULD provided detailed cases about how violent video games influences teens, or how abortion is unhealthy for a woman, etc... but there's always a bigger picture.

Not every teen is doing this. Even so, teens will always do stupid things like this regarding their sexual development. Not EVERY teen, but it will happen. Even if porn was ILLEGAL, this type of thing would still happen. It's not the porn that's causing these types of "problems" as much as it is bad parenting or schools not giving younger kids the proper education.

The thing is, people don't TALK to these kids about sex or anything, so when they come of age and they hear or do things they see in school, they're clueless as to what consequences (in this case, STDs and pregnancy) it causes.

Still no reason for porn to be sinful! The MAJORITY of people do not use porn in this manner. These incidents really are few and far between.

Also, it is still possible to completely respect someone and have sex with them WITHOUT getting involved emotionally. It DOES happen. Society as a whole just doesn't do it.

IN the end, it comes down to personal preference. Society is NOT ready for this type of thinking, so naturally there will be problems. Not everyone is open for change and not everyone is open for thinking outside of the box. I'm not saying this way is the RIGHT way, but if it works for you, then so be it. If it doesn't, then so be it. Regardless of THESE cases that you point out, porn itself is NOT a problem.

Like I've said many many times before: anything can be misused. Doesn't mean it should be "sinful" or considered illegal/wrong.

I'm pretty much rehashing my opinions over and over and over, so I'll leave it at this: people use porn (amongst other things like "violent" music and violent video games) as a blame for the problems in our society regarding children (and pretty much anything else). It's wrong. It needs to stop.

Sorry for dissecting your arguement but the above phrases were of particular interest to me.

To say in one breath that our society is disconnected from any emotional regard for ourselves or others is a brutally misperceived generalization that quite frankly I think is absurd. And how is it obvious that porn fuels that arguement? Explain that to a couple who have viewed porn to open up their sexual identities, worked out their marriage problems or just learned how to deepen their emotional bond with each other.

And again, how can you identify what respect is or means to those who view porn for any reason. Because some psychologist said so? "Looking at porn as a cause or a symptom is irrelevant, because it is a mutually enforcing variable." If it is irrelevent, what then is the enforcing variable? Does this mean that couples who view porn (as a cause) to better themselves for their personal purposes are going to turn into disrespecting individuals or sex monsters (sympton)? That's another absurdity of monumental proportion.

Ted Bundy is an excellent example for your conclusions since he admitted that porn fuelled his desire to murder women. It wasn't the only factor though, his mother was to blame, due to her haughty ways. That's not my opinion, that's what he also said. Are there levels of little or no respect for those in the porn industry and those who subscribe to it? Absolutely. But to paint all with the same brush is reckless and gives the already questionable field of pshycology an even worse name.

You seem to have completely ignored a statement of mine. Again, I said:

I did not call porn a cause of those problems. Additionally, this isn't an issue of legality. My quotes showed you exactly how alienated we can be, and how porn can be a variable in this. The reason that I provided that example was precisely to show that the negative effects of porn can be immediately seen in some circumstances.

Remember that I started my response to by addressing what you said about being able to have sex without emotions. From your response to mine, I think you really have no answer to what I've framed as the problem of alienation caused by the attempt to seperate mind from body which is encouraged by porn. Perhaps you don't see it, and that's fine. My hope was for you to try to think about these things from another angle. As I see it, you continue to reiterate the dominant view and I understand what you're saying, but I think you're actually missing the bigger picture.

I understand that viewing porn is a personal choice. I understand that from your view of morality that there is no reason to base moral decisions on the mores of society. I understand that there is a scope of how severe things can be, and that things affect people differently.

As for a cultural identity - porn and sex in the media are factors that have helped change the direction of cultural consciousness. One cannot ignore the cultural atmosphere in which they live. One can either embrace them, rebel against them, or mindlessly follow them. We are left with the questions of "why?", "what do we lose or gain with each choice?", and "what can I realistically do?"

I consider sex without emotions as either an impossibility, or an incredibly alienating experience. I think our definitions of respect are different.

I see alienation as the dominant reality of our times, and my battle is in fighting that - rather than for the myth of ultimate personal interpretation.

I apologize for initially overlooking that statement.

I would have to say you are looking too deeply into the matter to a point where it's at such an irrelevant level where the issues or stances at hand no longer really apply to everyone, but a very small percentage of those who have problems with it.

Sex without emotion is not an impossibility, it's just that you've been conditioned to believe or think otherwise. It has nothing to do with definitions of respect because I can still respect everyone in the manner they deserve. Or maybe I misunderstood that.

I'm not exactly sure how my views on the matter automatically mean I'm not respectful. I can still respect a person I have sex with even though I don't have an emotional attachment. Sex is sex. I have a girlfriend who I love and respect. Now let's just say (for argument's sake) in the event she agreed with me or shared the same viewpoint of mine and I had sex with someone else... I'd still love her, I'd still respect her, it would just be sex for fun with someone else. The sex with my g/f would, of course, be much different and more meaningful (on an emotional level) than the casual sex with whoever. Are you suggesting I wouldn't respect her, or I wouldn't respect the person I had sex with (or neither)? Who exactly am I alienating? I'm certainly not alienating my emotions.. quite the opposite, in fact.

Maybe I worded it wrong... not without emotion, because there is always emotion. In the example above, sex with my girlfriend would be meaningful and more important than sex with another person. The sex with the other person would definitely involve SOME type of emotion, even if it only temporarily exists for that brief period of time, however, it doesn't mean that it will be as STRONG, lasting, or even important as the emotional bond I have with my partner. My partner is who I choose to be with and share my life with. It is completely possible, and not very weird, for someone to casually accept sex with another person and think nothing of it, even if only to enjoy the feelings for that time being.

I don't ACTUALLY participate or follow any of that, but if someone did, I don't see a single thing wrong with it. I respect the fact that my girlfriend doesn't believe that for a second and wants me to remain 100% faithful and only with her. I don't have a problem with that. I guess I've just opened my mind to the fact that there's more possibilities out there.

There's even people on this board who follow (in some ways or another) what I'm talking about. Are you saying they aren't good citizens? Are you saying they're being sinful or alienating themselves/others? I'm just trying to understand what you're getting at.

The first step is thinking outside of the box... away from what society has conditioned you to believe or feel. Or maybe you choose to feel that way, and if so, that's perfectly fine, too. Maybe the whole "casual sex" or "porn" thing isn't for you then. By no means is it sinful. Do you smoke? If not, do you consider that sinful? I mean, it applies to anything you have no interest or desire in, really.

There have been plenty of people who have had sex just for the fun of it... and there's absolutely nothing wrong with that.

Your analysis of the world that we live in is much different than mine. My response to you would be much the same as yours to mine - That you've been so conditioned to see the "casual sex" and "porn" as ok from "within the box" (or, as I'd likely say, the social construct), that you cannot fathom the alienation that I see latent in your words because of how the issue of sex has been framed for you and by you. As I said, I was trying to help you see the issue from a different angle. Your response is that I'm irrelevant because of it. Certainly, this is a conversation that is going nowhere fast.

I'll end this with a favorite quote of Albert Camus: All philosophy is a justification of one's self.

Apparently you changed your response as I responded to you.

Well, first of all, I'm not a Christian and I don't believe in sin. I think it takes a lot of active rationalization to do what you've described, and that it is impossible to live in that manner without some alienation from the self and others.

This thread has nothing to do with citizenship and what is required to be a good citizen.

I missed this post, I should have responded to it earlier.

First off, I didn't say "any emotional regard". If you take what I'm saying out of context by elevating it to the highest degree possible, you won't make sense of that or anything else anyone says. Quite simply, people are disconnected from each other. I see it everywhere I go, particularly in the larger urban areas. We cross paths with all kinds of people, and in those crossings we rarely make meaningful connections. Each year we reach all-time highs in the gross numbers of people depressed, as well as the percentage of the population that is depressed. A primary reason that so many people become depressed is a strong feeling of loneliness. I think this is a huge problem in our society, which is caused by several things that I can write about another time.

To specifically address how it is obvious to me that porn fosters alienation:

1) Porn is the commodification of sex. Rather than sex being a act between two people, it has become something that we consume. To commodify sex, then creates a variance of value towards it. Some sex certainly must be better than others, and we all want the "bestest" sex around. Sex is reduced to a performance, an end-goal, and the more spectacular it is in post-modern fashion the better.

2) In the vast majority of porn women are objectified in a negative manner. Derogatory words are used for women, and often times you will see one woman being used by several guys at once which denotes a position of utility. Just as often is the scenario of one man being serviced by several women. Rather than this emphasizing the utility of the man, it actually emphasizes the power difference between men and women. The male orgasm has become the ultimate goal of sex. Seeing these images again and again on a individual level forces someone to either actively reject these roles that we are bombarded with, or passively accept them to some degree. On a cultural level, the collective experience of porn seems to be seeping more and more in the mainstream consciousness. Sexual images on TV are increasing. Children are wearing more provocative clothes, having sex on average at younger ages, and are having difficulty with the nuance of sexuality because it is being reduced to these power-roles and the model of capitalistic consumption.

3) Porn encourages the division of mind and body. As a viewer of sex, you cannot help but be disconnected. We are disconnected from everything we view on television. It is the nature of mediation. Porn specifically addresses our sexuality, and by seeing the repeated images of people having sex to an audience, we are prone to seeing sex as a something of little meaning. Watching porn is a disconnected experience because it is only dealing with our visual and auditory sensory systems. We see people having sex. We hear people having sex. And we sit there staring at a screen thinking about it, possibly getting aroused. Where in this scenario is action? Where is the emotional connection? Sex is reduced to something of the mind. Purely Apollonian.

Couples who view porn to better their personal purposes may well be able to avoid most of the negative aspects that can be associated with pornography. To do this successfully, the personal filters of the couples must be strong and the selection of porn materials should be carefully chosen. Moderation would be key and remembering that the primary focus of sex should be connection rather than performance would be most necessary. The concept of using porn as a tool worries me because it has the strong potential of adopting the consumption viewpoint and reducing the couple to actors performing rather than creating more intimacy.

As for the problem you have with my phrase "mutually enforcing variable" you must think of Foucault's understanding of society. Rather than society merely being hierarchical, everything in society enforces something. For instance, there are hundreds of beer commercials. Your friends drink beer. Your parents drink beer. You end up drinking beer - why? Is it because of the commercials? your friends? your parents? Foucault and I would say that it is the structure of society with all of those things present that lead to you drinking beer.

To be clear, I'm not saying that porn is 100% bad, but I think that there are a lot of problems that can be associated with it.

I'm not sure what you're getting at here and how that applies to what I've said. You mention respect and psychology so I imagine it has to do with the concept of separation between mind and body which I've referred to. Ted Bundy is a classic example of alienation to an extreme. He couldn't foster the emotional connections within himself and others to realize that what he was doing was wrong. If you're suggesting that I'm saying that all people who view porn are as messed up as Ted Bundy, then you are mistaken.

Additionally, I was talking about shutting off emotions to have sex with people "just for fun". I don't think that having sex "just for fun" pays much respect to the person you're having sex with, yourself, and the act of metaphorically entering another or being entered by another because of the way humans are. Porn is a different issue, I see the process of viewing porn more as a mind-numbing and divisive event rather than one in which respect is an issue. Certainly, those in the porn seem to have very little respect for each other, and that can be problematic. But from the surveyor's perspective, that can be a little different.

Nor is this thread about anything you've described so far on this page (teenage orgies, alienation, etc..). It's about porn and sin. If the thread isn't about being a good person/citizen/member of society, then why bother asking if it's sinful? Sinful to what? Religion? Self, others? You're kinda going off in a direction that it doesn't need to be going in while I'm simply stating that society has always made sex more special or "sacred" than it is and as a result, pornography, or watching pepole have sex, is frowned upon for no reason.

You haven't remotely described how it's about alienation even though I've asked about it multipel times. Alienation from what? Each other, emotions? How so? Where in the world does porn even fit in to that? Pretty much everything discussed on this page has been way off topic and, IMO, has nothing to do with porn. Maybe there should be a thread if teenage orgies are sinful, or if casual sex is sinful.

You're somewhat proving my point because you're going on and on about alienation, but what works FOR YOU doesn't exactly work for everyone else. To YOU it takes a lot of rationalization, but not everyone else. Society has conditioned you to think and feel one way, and that's exactly what I've been saying from the beginning.

There is no "alienation". It's all in your head. Not to mention you completely overlooked my statement that many many people DO look at porn whether or not they admit it... and are living perfectly fine lives.

I still have yet to see a thoughtful response as to why watching movies or seeing pictures of people have sex should be considered sinful. The cases you posted are VERY extreme and are few and far between and have no bearing whatsoever on the majority of people. Honestly now... I could poll the highschools around here for MILES and I doubt any one of them has students who actively participate in massive orgies. Teens are doing what teens have always done.

[edit]
It all starts with the ability to think outside of the box. You don't have to personally agree or participate in what I'm saying, but you do have to understand and accept that there ARE many many many people who do it and can get along just perfectly fine. I've even said that I don't actively do anything of what I'm describing, but I'm aware it exists, and I'm fully aware it poses no threats whatsoever to those who do it with an open-mind.

If you change the terms of what we're talking about from "good citizen" to include "good person/citizen/member of society", then it is really impossible to have a conversation when you keep changing the terms that you use. Being a good person is different than being a good citizen or a good member of society. Luckily, in this situation, it is irrelevant. The concept of sin, as I understand it, is that people can be sinners and that doesn't mean they're bad people or citizens.

Yes, I have. Where I systematically list the reasons that porn fosters alienation. I really dislike how you take everything I say and attempt to discredit it by talking about teenage orgies. That was just an example that is illustrative of how our society's view of sex is warped, which leads to extreme cases. I have put more emphasis on many other things that I've written about.

I think it is impossible to talk about whether porn is good or bad without looking at the society and culture it is used in. If you want to talk about porn in a vacuum, you'll find that the conversation ends really quickly.

So, I'm the only one who's conditioned by society and you've managed to bust out of the mold in some sort of Herculean thrust?

Nowhere do I say that people can't function in a state of alienation. In fact, many people enjoy their alienation and are afraid of living in a non-alienated state. You can function normally, be "productive", and so on whilst being alienated. I just see alienation as a negative thing that we should want to avoid. You haven't argued against that as far as I can see.

I've made no absolute statements that say "If you look at porn then your life is ruined" or anything like that.

Teens are doing what they've always done in higher numbers, higher percentages, and on average at younger ages.

Why don't you do what you're describing then?

You make it sound as though someone can shed off everything that would normally affect them if they have an "open-mind". There are certain aspects of humanity and society that we can't avoid, even though I'd wish we could sometimes. Sex is a powerful metaphorical act, regardless of religious views. We can attempt to devalue the metaphors, and that too is an alienating process. People do it though, and they function, and they even try to convince everyone that their way is best.

Well I respect your position and I understand where you are coming from and certainly there are points that are worthy. The problem I have with your dictum is that it is so broadly sweeping and categorizes or assimilates everyone as the same. Atleast that's my interpretation.We are not all the same as individuals although we share similarities.

I think you give far to little credit to individuals as such. Your beer analogy I believe doesn't hold water, at least not objectively. Sure it is possible that what you relate to can happen and be viewed as normal,instinctual,traditional all or none of the above,.. but where do you put the people who don't follow that influence? If my family has a history of problem drinkers, will I follow suit? What if I don't?

Having sex just for fun. Have you ever had sex just for fun? I have. As a matter of fact I have also had many several one night stands over the last 25 years also. Again the question of respect and individuality. Yes some people have little or no respect for others or themselves. So what. That is a characteristic of their being. But again, what about the people like me? I respect myself, others and believe it or not share an emotional bond with someone I very well may never see again. Maybe they do too, maybe they don't. I'm o.k. with that because as a person, or a being, I know, I am honest and understand myself.

I have been in non-commital relationships for a decade, where sex is just that, sex. Believe it or not there are people who don't want "normal" relationships perse. Is the sex emotionally disconnected? No. Is sex just for sex sakes disrespectful to me or others? No,..but it can be if people don't understand who and what they are. No this isn't a figment of my imagination. It is who I am. Tell me I don't respect myself or others and I will tell you that you haven't got a clue what you are talking about.

As for the porn issue, everyone has a right to their own opinion and I accept those opinions as neither right nor wrong. People make decisions. Some good, some bad,(in the industry) but the point is that it is their individual decision whether it is well thought out or flagrantly not. What people take from it is also individual whether as a participant or viewer.

This isn't meant to be disrespectful but have you ever had sex just for fun? Would you know if you did? Ever had a one night stand? If not, go and try it and then try and apply your theories to your experiences. This may sound completely ridiculous to you but as a person who has had sex in loving, caring, monogamous relationships and sex where no love is involved, believe or not, the differences aren't that much. The reason; Sex is Sex. Does it mean more one way or the other? To some it does, to some it doesn't. It all depends who you are and how one interprets sex as an individual. There are no right or wrong answers.

You seem very knowledgeble. Again, not to be disrespectful but go and figure it out from an experienced based level. I am not saying you got your opinions from a book, but if you did, books are for reading, life is for living and experiencing. Go push your sexual boundaries and analyse your findings. I'm willing to bet if you do it honestly, some of your opinions about sex in general will change.

Yeah, you're looking at everything too deeply, and that's part of the problem :)

You are the one insinuating that porn fosters all this negativity when it really doesn't. You're throwing out case studies and statistics to try and back it up, and I can perfectly understand how one would think such a thing, but it's not that black and white. Different things affect different people in various ways.

If you're going to post studies or articles that explain such things, please at least provide a link or a source so we can check how credible it is.

Hm, no, I just understand and accept the fact that not everyone has or will have problems like this. Those that do can choose not to participate. *shrug*

I haven't argued against alienation because I simply don't see any alienation. If everyone in the country right now started having wild casual sex, yes, it would cause problems because of how they were normally conditioned. But I believe that had people or society evolved in a different manner as to not make sex so important, there really wouldn't be any complicated social issues. Of course there will be problems if you take a mass of people accustomed to idea X and make them adapt to idea Y.

Nothing to do with the topic, but thanks for the statistic. Porn causes this how?

Why don't I do what I'm describing? I already answered this. I have before (and without consequence I might add), but I don't know because my girlfriend doesn't exactly share the same point of view, nor do I really care to do it anymore just because it's not something my life revolves around. Why? Because it's not a big deal. I just personally see nothing wrong with the fact that someone can have casual sex with another person, tis all :)

And that's your opinion. Not everyone thinks of it that way.

[edit]
That's like saying "praying to god is a powerful metaphorical act" because of the way it makes people behave or influences the world... but your mind will make it anything it wants to be or anything it's told to be. Maybe to you it is, but to me it's not. If you take a person emotionally attached to sex and then have casual sex with them, it would impact them, yes, and I'm not arguing against that. I'm saying there's absolutely no reason to be emotionally attached to sex other than the fact that society says so, and BECAUSE society says so it will, of course, affect any current "studies" you will find. My argument is: there is no reason to be emotionally attached to sex any more than one should be emotionally attached to, say, shaking hands or kissing someone. It's only personal, private, and special because, for the most part, you were told it was and those around you also believe the same.

(Sorry for the big edit, just wanted to clear that part up)

Something like sex, yeah, someone could probably view differently if they spent some time thinking about it. Something more traumatic... probably not. But you make it sound like it's nearly impossible for someone to think this way :)

Maybe you can't, but it's not like what I'm saying is that far fetched...

At this point in the thread I have a hard time taking anything you say seriously because it is so extreme and convoluted that it really no longer has any bearing on the actual topic. Not everything is as complex or problematic as you're making it out to be.

This seems like a pretty simple problem to me. Sin is a man-made concept, and therefore includes whatever related concepts mankind associates with it. Sin is a personally defined concept. My childhood religious education/brainwashing taught me that the only loopholes in the concept of sin are that it isn't a sin if you don't have a choice whether or not to do it, or don't know that it's "wrong." To me, this means that if you don't agree that something is sinful, you aren't sinning. I personally don't believe in the concept of sin, so it doesn't stop me from doing anything

Is the argument based on Christian theology or general (Christian-influenced) culture? Seems like if you want the theological view you should go to your pastor/priest/whatever...

Forgive me if this is too off-topic: I can't really address "sin" -- I'm utterly confused as to the basis for what is or isn't a sin -- but fwiw, I think pornography is neither good nor bad, but could be used for good or bad ends. If a lonely 18-year-old is using it to get off and learn at least a little bit about sexuality, that's good -- it helps him/her and hurts no one. If a couple are using it to enhance their own sex lives, that is also good. But if you are using to get off while ignoring your lover, that's bad... etc. The good or bad isn't really inherent in the pornography itself, but in how it is used.