I suspect the negative impact of booze addiction and gambling addiction are FAR more likely to lead to harm of another person then pornography addiction or sex addiction. What about video game addiction and it leading to people loosing their jobs? At what point do we stop saying that inanimate objects are responsible for the horrible behavior of a minority of Americans?




If a person becomes addicted to driving at 100 mph there is a pretty good likelihood that someone will be harmed. So far, no one has produced a site that is both credible and provides actual scientific evidence that pornography is a cause, rather then just a tool of sexual crime.

But assuming that is true. Are not action movies, boxing matches, etc equally bad for society because some might start acting out their impulses and scenarios for the violence they view?



I don't have the time tonight to review it fully. However, the first thing I noticed was this:



I am not sure where the get this 500% number from, but assuming it is not an outright lie I am sure it does not take the growing population into account. I also know (based on the chart early in this topic) that since 1994 we have a near perfect record of reduced reports of rape. So at best this number is terribly misleading, which calls this sites credibility into question in my mind.




Sure it is. Two consenting adults or one consenting adult want to participate in pornographic discussions, or view porn material online. Your suggested solution would deny them that. It would also deny them privacy as they would have to goto a public location to get what they wish rather then view it in the privacy of their homes.

The idea that pornography causes sex crime is no different to me then the idea that guns cause shootings, beer causes DWIs kitchen knives cause stabbings, etc. At some point, we as a society are going to have to accept the fact that there are bad people that will act badly regardless of what they have access to These various things are not responsible for crimes, the criminals that commit the crimes are the responsible parties here. Banning this material, or even restricting it further will have NO effect on reported rapes. Pornography is far more pervasive then it was 10 years ago and yet rapes are down with near perfect consistency each year. How is this explained?



No. However can you honestly say that a hairdryer has not had a role in a crime? Pornography, like the hair dryer, does not create the criminal or the crime, they just get used improperly by criminals committing crimes.



That would be called rape, and likely assault and kidnapping as well. We already have a system in place to deal with such crimes. Why go after porn? Similarly, while violent crime across the board has be going down over the last 10-11 years, property crimes have increased. Should we ban CSI, or movies about burglars because someone with poor impulse control might decide to commit a property crime as a result of watching these things?



This, even though we have yet to see anything scientific to support the idea that pornography causes crime and we have seen a ton of studies saying it is harmless? What is the "reason" for this belief you hold?



Why not?

VDemosthenes, this evidence you provide is correlative at best. The fact that serial killers have pornography does not establish any causative influence in "creating" their ability to kill.

The fact that bad people have porn and good people have porn establishes little in the way of causality. Esp in the case of serial killers, wouldn't watching WWF wrestling or a hockey match have the same normative effect? Serial killers also have handguns, so I guess we should ban those too

Even if I were to accept the idea that porn could in fact influence behaviour, the ability of a small segment of the population to allow a medium to influence their thoughts should not serve as justification for removal of the medium. It is regulated at satisfactory levels today, and like most related vices, is used responsibly enough by enough of the population to avoid warranting any greater controls.

Doc

You are correct, I did not mean to imply it created the ability. However, when in context of serial killers, pornography is a means of which to gain either insight and motivation. Athletes need a coach to help them train; serial killers have porn to help them go to the next level.

You are derailing the point I tried to emphasize. A person does not become a wrestler by watching it, or a sharpshooter by watching a movie with guns. But when pornography fuels and already unhealthy mind it causes serve motivation to do wrong.


Here's some evidence you may find helpful to your acceptance:


1.) Link
2.) Link
3.) Link
4.) Link
5.) Link
6.) Link
7.) Link
8.) Link



To the Mods: Sorry about taking the topic semi-off track!

I think you derailed your own point.

If watching wrestling, does not make someone a wrestler, and watching an action movie does not make someone a sharpshooter, then how does watching pornography possibly make someone a serial killer, considering on top of all else that porn is not about serial killing?

You answered that:



Can't action movies, wrestling, gun adds, video games, etc also "fuel an ALREADY UNHEALTHY mind?

Should we then ban everything a a twisted mind might use as "fuel" to "do wrong"?

If we did, there would not be much to do in life, you certainly wouldn't be able to participate on a site like this.

overlandsailor you raise an excellent point. But brains do not respond to action movies or wrestling the way they do to pornography. Science has proven (see one of the previous links, I am too lazy to recall which) that the brain patterns of a man or woman changes when viewing porn. The shift occurs dramatically and can cause more destructive behavior than watching a movie with mild to moderate violence or wrestling.

You are right in your point that video games, action movies and gun ads can lead to fueling an unhealthy mind; but you are wrong in saying that it is as likely as porn to change the brain and lead to aggressive action.

As disinterested as I personally am in pornography, and as distasteful as I find it to be, I could not in good conscience agree with banning it. As others have pointed out, this would lead to wrangling over some of the most celebrated works of art in history. Also, since pornography involves consenting adults, it could be argued that people have a right to make a living however they choose. (NOTE: I *do* support the banning of any pornography involving minor children and animals, who are incapable of consent.)

Although I believe that pornography, like prostitution, contributes to spiritual and emotional damage to those who participate in it, either as consumers or providers, I also feel that what the market demands will always be provided. Better it should be provided in a safe and regulated fashion.

I have yet to see such proof here or otherwise. I have seem many sites reference a study on memory and then imply a connection to pornography. I know that is false because I have heard it directly from the researcher that his work never looked at pornography.

But, I will ask again. Pornography is more available and easy to get them it ever has been. Yet numbers of rapes, sexual assaults, violent crimes, etc have been consistently down for a decade with just one hickup (BTW property crimes are up slightly, across the board and rising last I read, even though violent crime is falling).

So: How if pornography has such a damaging effect on the brain, and more Americans are viewing pornography then ever, How is it that violent sex crime happens less and less each year?

I'm sorry Demos, but your links are absolutely appalling. Half of them are nothing more than unsubstantiated opinion, the first one (which looks legit) lists only one peer-reviewed source, and the study you link to in number four concludes that:



I'll say it again. If porn does all the horrible things you say it does, over a scintilla of proof. It shouldn't be that hard.

I do not understand how you are able to come to that conclusion. It's almost
as if you are using the ideology that anything in excess is harmful, and so, even
with the very controversial subject of pornography, it should be up to the
individual to be responsible enough to know where to draw the line.
But, people don't often take much responsibilty for their own actions and
consequences of actions. That is why we create laws in the first place. To
protect individuals. Why is it that access to pornography (on the internet)
should somehow be exempt? Because of the great demand? Because
a man's need for sexual gratification should outweight the protection
of women, children and society as a whole?

We are all a part of society, and as such, we are directly and indirectly affected
by the actions and attitudes of everyone around us.

In regards to minors viewing pornography:

Maybe you and I will make sure that our kids do not access pornography on
the internet, but what about the parents who won't? Young minds
are very impressionable and greatly influenced by everything they encounter,
and they are affected by what they see, to a greater or lesser degree.

(Just because you haven't experienced the harmful effects of pornography
don't think they don't exist.)

For the sake of argument:
What if the only negative thing about pornography was the way it portrays
women as sexual objects? Wouldn't that, in and of itself, be enough to merit the
need of control over when and where it's accessed, and by who?

Also, in regards to statistics; we cannot begin to measure or estimate the
number of sexual crimes against (mostly) women and children that go
unreported.

It is high time that the sexuality of women and children be protected,
rather than exploited. If that means you don't get your porn on-the-spot,
with the click of a mouse, then boo-hoo!

For those of us who hold a Christian worldview it does fall in the lines of having to do with religion, faith and scriptures. If we are going to hold to a Christian world and life view, we have to stand on the firm foundation of the inerrancy of Scriptures. A biblical worldview is thinking like Jesus. It’s a way of making our faith practical to every situation we face every day. A biblical worldview is a way of dealing with the world such that we act like Jesus twenty-four hours a day because we think like Jesus. Our moment to moment decisions are shaped by the worldview we have adopted and adapted over the course of time, often without realizing that we are dependent upon such a framework for decision making. So to debate or share views on this topic and others like it, our hands are tied if we are not allowed to use scriptures.

You can demonize the viewpoint if you choose, but it is not a very good debate tactic. I have yet to see any credible evidence to support the claims you and others have made here. And I have pointed out fraud and deception in the sites you and others have attempted to use as evidence. I can only say that you are now attempting to impose you beliefs on the rest of us. In some parts of the world they call that tyranny.

Excess of anything can be harmful. As some people do not know where to draw the line with pornography, so to do some people have this issue with drinking. It can lead to public drunkenness, assault, drunk driving, etc. As with pornography our laws address this issue by limiting access to minors, and punishing those who commit actual crimes while allowing those who have done nothing illegal to do what they choose to do for fun and enjoyment.

Why should access to pornography on the internet be exempt? Well, actually it isn't. It is just as illegal to sell pornography to a minor over the internet as it is to do so in a store. From what I understand, there is alot of money to be made through porn on the net (if it wasn't for the pornography business the net would be no where near as advanced as it is now). As a result of wanting to earn that money, as well as a desire to keep the material out of the hands of children the vast majority of porn sites on the internet are pay sites that require a credit card. Now, of course a child could steal a credit card to gain access, just as they could make a fraudulent ID on their computer for the liquor store. Both of these acts are crimes, that have punishments. We do not advocate the prohibition of liquor in this century just because a VERY few who consume it, abuse it. I see no reason to treat pornography any differently.

Now, you advocate removing porn form the internet. I have asked this several times, but never seem to get an answer. HOW?? How will you do this? How will you impose your new laws on other countries? How will you control businesses, servers and pornography internationally? The answer is that it is, for all practical purposes, you can't, it's impossible. As a result, regardless of what you want to see happen, the internet will never be without pornography.

However, it is dramatically easy for a parent to take responsiblity for themselves and parent by either using a program / service that restricts access, or by not allowing any unsupervised access to the internet by their children. Why is this not enough? Why do you feel that your personal belief system is all important and the rest of the people of America, who are supposed to be free be damned?



And as a result, when someone commits a crime we seek to punish them. Once again, pornography is by far, much more accessible then it has ever been, yet rape and sexual assault reports have been consistently lower each year for years with only a few minor exceptions. How do you reconcile this with your claims?



Then deal with the irresponsible parents. Do not institute another prohibition just because you don't like something, or you don't like the way others parent. There are rights in this country. Individual rights, Parental Rights, the Pursuit of happiness and all that.

I find it incredible that we are even considering such sweeping legislation when we have yet to produce one bit of scientific evidence that shows that pornography causes anything other then arousal.



Sorry, but this sounds remarkably like: "Just because I am paranoid doesn't mean they are not out to get me."

No one as yet in this topic has come even remotely close to proving these alleged "harmful effects". I would never support any legislation, let alone something as sweeping and costly as this, when there is no scientific evidence to support it.

Just because you personally find something repulsive, it doesn't give you the right to take it from everyone else.



Oh, like advertising? Television shows, Movies, Magazines, Womens Clothing Lines, etc? Come on now. Women as sex objects is a theme of our society in general. Can you not see that in the clothing ads on TV? Thankfully, we have grown and matured as a society and learned that women are much more then that. But sex still sells, so marketers still use it. Know anyone who has gone out and harmed another because of an article in Teen magazine, a GAP ad, etc?



Well lets look at this logically for a second. 50 years ago, there was a huge social stigma attached to such things. These days, discussion of it has become common place and there is far less of a stigma then there ever was. I think it is likely that far fewer cases have gone unreported today, then 10-11 years ago before we ever heard of date rape and the like.

I doubt the numbers are that far off. However, even if the are, logically, because of what society was like then vs. now, there would have been a higher percentage of unreported claims years ago then there would be now. Irregardless that does not change the fact that statistically we have less and less reported rapes each year.

Are you attempting to suggest that while that number of reported rapes is going down, the unreported number is going up? If that is the cause then what is your logic behind it? If it is not, then what is your point?



I did my best to keep this civil, but now that you've turned to making light of my position and that of others, I guess the gloves should come off.

Hows the view on that morale high horse anyway? You have completely failed to make you case and prove that there are any negative effects to pornography. So now you turn to moral platitudes and belittling of others opinions. Nice.

I am sorry, but just because some uptight people out there do not like sexual images being available to adults who like to look at them is not enough to warrant a sweeping new program that would be enormously expensive and impossible to enforce.

Heres a thought. Since 99% of the anti-porn sites that have been linked here are religiously based, and it seems that the churches are pushing for this sort of thing maybe we should consider taxing churches, religious book stores, etc, to pay for such programs.

Maybe it's not credible in your eyes, but there is much validity to the information
that has been put forth through the various websites. The internet has not
been around long enough, and access to porn thru the internet is still relatively
new, so I would surmise that in the future the negative effects will be much
more pronounced.



Who is the rest of us? Believe it or not, there are people in this world
(quite a few, I might add) who feel as strongly as I do about this subect.



That's really the bottome line. It is all about money.



I don't know how, OS.



My new laws?



Do you think I'm the only person in America who feels this way about internet
porn? With freedom comes responsibilty. Perhaps we should abolish the drinking
age too, because that isn't fair. I'm sure there are responsible teens who could
handle alcohol very well.

Supposing it were possible: What is the big deal about restriciting access to
pornography? Why is that such a bad idea? I'm not saying we should abolish it.
Is it that much of hassle to drive to store and buy porn? How did men do it
before we had the internet?



How do we do that?



There is still so much stigma surrounding sexual abuse. For women and
even moreso for men.



Ironically, OS, I am probably the least uptight person when it comes to sex.
I just happen to understand that it a very private matter, that has many ramifications and consequences.

Forgive me for calling it quits here. I'm pretty burnt out on this.

Not credible to me? Many of the sites referenced here use the life work of a researcher as proof the thier claims of the negative effects of pornography. The very researcher who's work is referenced states the use of his work in this manner is not credible.

Porn was on the BBSs (bulletin Board Systems) before the internet even existed. Porn online has been around as long as there has been an online. The idea that we have not yet seen enough to know the effects of pornography online is simply inaccurate.



I seriously doubt that "quite a few" equals a majority in America. Of course if you would reference some survey to back this up I may find I am wrong. I do know that there have been several legislative attempts that have been made in the US Congress to go after pornography and other "inappropriate" material on the internet. Most of these attempts failed miserably. Looks like the "quite a few" must have remained quite quiet.



You know, another interesting debate tactic is using what others say in a fashion that is completely out of context (like taking one sentence out of the middle of a paragraph and ignoring the rest of the content for example). It may make good sound bites for preaching to the choir, but it is unlikely to convert many others.

For the record, what I said was:


Are you disputing the fact that most pornogrphic websites online are pay site, requiring a credit card that allows them to make the money as well as ensure that only adults gain access to the site?



Way off the mark here. Where did anyone in this topic suggest that we remove age restrictions from pornography? We simply addressed the issue that regulating the INTERNATIONAL distribution of digital porn on the internet would be practically impossible, though it is rather easy for parents to keep it away from their kids on their own.



You repeatedly talk as if men are the only people who view pornography. That's a rather sexist attitude. And an incorrect assumption. Sorry, but women do as well. Since your feel that there is no need for scientific data to back up your assertions, then I am sure you won't mind me not bothering to look for the data to back up the fact that women buy 40% of the pornographic videos out there (something I have read multiple times).

Why is it a bad idea? Any law limiting freedom without solid evidence that exercising that freedom is harmful goes against what this country is all about. So it makes us look like hypocrites to the world.

Worse still, this would cost a fortune to enforce, and either it would be done by holding internet access companies responsible to block all porn, resulting in the likely tripling of internet access costs to everyday Americans (but hey, the working poor don't really need the internet, right?), or an enforcement arm of the government would be required. That enforcement arm would have to be massive to be able scan all internet activity and then prosecute people for illegal use of pornography online. How do we pay for this enforcement arm? How do we pay for the court costs? How do we tell rape victims that they have to wait 5 years for their day in court because the court docket is filled with these cases? There would be quite alot of harm created by something like this.



The same way we can do it with everything else. A child commits a crime. Police investigating the crime find that negligent parents were at least one of the causes, the government charges the parents with child endangerment, negligence or contributing to the delinquency of a minor. Just as is done with cases involving minors and liquor now.



Again:


Are you actually disputing the idea that there is less of a social stigma issue today for rape and sexual abuse victims then there was a decade ago, or even 50 years ago?



Nothing to forgive, actually, I would thank you.

I wasn't derailing the point at all, and you proved my point in one of the links you provided. In this link you provided, the PhD candidate's review of the literature revealed the likely key influence in pornography was the elements that contained violence. And, when measured against non-pornographic violent films, the non-pornographic films showed a stronger result. Hence my point about watching wrestling. By some of the evidence you provided, a stronger response would be gained by watching a program that had no pornographic content at all.

Please don't misread my intent though. I'm not under the naive impression that pornography is completely benign in its ability to influence thoughts and in some cases, behaviour. But, that influence is neither pervasive nor is its causation direct enough to warrant a ban. And, more importantly, other media has the ability(sometimes stronger) to elicit similar effects. Banning those mediums as well would truly move us to a nanny state.

Doc

Assuming for the sake of discussion that we could technologically ban all access to pornography in America, should we do so? Why or Why not?

Why should it be banned? It hurts no one, and it trivializes nakedness to such a degree as to make arousal propagated by it much less extreme. Thus, it weakens lust, without really doing any damage, except for perhaps grossing some people out, and getting some priests angry. Kind of like gay marriage....

Outside of the technological issues discussed earlier, what other barriers would keep us from doing this (for example, could it be done constitutionally)?

We already ban pornography from minors, and we don't allow direct porn on most television. Thus, if laws asserting the above can go unchallenged, then I don't see why a broad porn banning law wouldn't.

Lastly, who's standards would we use for this? Would we have to remove, or at least cover, some of the worlds greatest works of art because of nudity? What about anatomy text books and educational websites? Where would you recommend the line be drawn, and how would we legally enforce that line?

I've already said i'm not for baning, so I don't have to worry about the burden of answering the above.

What do you feel would be the benefit or loss to society if we did successfully ban all pornography in America?

It would create a minor to moderate increase in lust, and it would make our society much more restrictive. Though, actually I don't know if it would do much of anything, as it cant be enforced. How are we going to block every internet connected computer in America, from a vast network of foreign porn? It would end up being almost like jaywalking..