If you need urgent support, call 999 or go to your nearest A&E. To contact our Crisis Messenger (open 24/7) text THEMIX to 85258.
Read the community guidelines before posting ✨
Options
Essential support for under 25s
Essential support for under 25s
Take a look around and enjoy reading the discussions. If you'd like to join in, it's really easy to register and then you'll be able to post. If you'd like to learn what this place is all about, head here.
Comments
Now it's not illogical to think that porn, not the page 3 sort but hardcore porn, warps the minds of its watchers, who may then act on their warped thoughts. There is evidence to show that some of the people who commit sex crimes have been avid watchers of porn before committing their crimes. There is also evidence to suggest that it negatively warps attitudes towards women, that it makes rape more acceptable in some people's minds, that it reduces sexual happiness, that it is addictive, that people who watch it seek out more and more deviant porn. You say it's not conclusive, and that's a fair point because I don't know; but it's wrong of you to say that opposition to porn is 'entirely religiously-based'. It can stem from religion but there is evidence to back-up opposition to it.
If the majority of representatives vote it into law then it's legal, I admit that it's not necessarily right.
In your opinion. To others, porn of any kind is obscene. To me, nothing is obscene as I've been using the internet waaay too long to actually be phased by anything.
I hope you're not saying that some peoples harmless pleasures should be banned because you have a problem with it. If you don't like it, don't watch it. Simple.
Yep. Albeit a highly flawed argument that in itself is sexist. I don't think any serious feminists (ie, not the stereotypical "Bra's are the shackles of men!", "I don't need to adhere to mens social standard of shaven armpits!" kind) give it a second thought.
Yeah. And violent video games and heavy metal music turn kids into serial killers and Satan worshippers too, right?
But like other cases in US politics, eventually it will be brought to court as unconstitutional, and it will win. It may be a while yet, but it'll happen. There will be no need for any vote.
I'm not surprised, like I said there is some evidence to suggest that people who watch a lot of porn become desensitised to the obscenity they watch. That is one of the arguments against it.
I have a problem with it because I don't believe it is harmless. As a politician or as a voter, i'd support restrictions on the obscene. I'd be free to do that, just as you would be free to jump to the defence of the makers of "Milk Nymphos" and "Storm Squirters 2".
They might, I dunno, at any rate nobody is talking about those things.
On the evidence, I can't give you a link but Victor Cline and Dolf Zillmann spring to mind.
I didn't say porn, I said the internet. There's more to the internet than just porn you know
You're not basing your 'problem' on anything except circumstantial evidence and specious reasoning, though. Surely you realise obscenity is relative and down to each individual to decide that for themselves? Are you honestly saying that because you find something obscene, everyone else has to adhere to your conservative way of thinking even although such choices don't actually affect you? And who's to say you're right? Who's to say hardcore aren't right Christians are right and all pornography's bad? Why are you so against people making their own choices and insistant they think what you think?
You are, by proxy. The same argument against is made against violent movies/computer games, heavy metal music etc that has been made against porn. There is no evidence to show that watching or listening to these forms of entertainment cause you to have inclinations to do the things described and depicted therein. If this were the case, I would be a high school massacring, Satan worshipping rapist. As has been said in the thread before, people with already existing tendencies toward a certain thing are going to seek out the forms of media depicting it. Someone who has leanings toward rape are probaaably going to download rape porn. The same as someone who has leanings toward pop music is probably going to download pop music, or someone who has leanings toward Celtic aren't going to find themselves in a Rangers strip. I'd really love to see evidence supporting your claims, as it sounds based on entirely nothing.
The only people who believe this kind of nonsense are religious based parents group, and there's a reason they're a joke in the world.
My mistake, I thought the debate was about obscene pornography.
Well let me worry about what i'm basing my opinions on. You've misunderstood what I was saying though. I'm not insisting that you or anybody else think what I think or make the same choices as I do. And yes, of course it is down to everybody to decide what they think on an individual basis, and of course they will come to differing conclusions. I am not imposing my view on you (or anybody else) who holds on to a moral view that I disagree with simply by disagreeing with it. Now, you're quite right if you say that I would be imposing my views on somebody who disagrees with it if, as a politician or a citizen, I voted for a law which stopped them from doing something they see nothing wrong with doing. I hate to break it to you, but I'd gladly ban the likes of 'Milk Nymphos' and 'Storm Squirters 2' because I think they're obscene. I'd shed no tears, I'd lose no sleep and my conscious wouldn't be assailed by the thought that my vote had contributed to a law which stopped perverts from making and watching what I consider immoral and degrading material; even if - shock, horror! ? the perverts don't see anything wrong with it. The joy of democracy as oppose to dictatorship, though, is that everybody has their say. If you've searched your soul and come to the moral conclusion that there's nothing wrong with filth like this, then I'm not going to somehow force you to change your moral view. You would be free to search your conscience and vote accordingly. I'm not going to not vote according to my conscience, because it will be stopping people from doing something my conscience tells me is wrong. Luckily, being a democracy, if most people feel the same way as you the makers of such filth will be allowed to make it, and the watchers will be allowed to watch it.
No I'm not talking about those things 'by proxy'. I'm not talking about them at all. Just because in all those cases people are arguing that something may lead some people to behave in a certain way, doesn't mean we're talking about the same thing. As far as what i'm basing my views on, I'd check out Victor Cline and Dolf Zillmann. Reading the bible wouldn't hurt either.
Aye, in your world you mean. On the other hand people who think the kind of nonsense you think are probably a joke in theirs.
What light could the bible shed on any question of modern morality? Not only is it out of date now, but it was out of date morally, when it was written. There's a reason that Christianity and Islam are the two world's biggest religions: because they are the most likely to create a society that violently spreads those ideas throughout the world. But anyway, not only admitting to being a proponent of fascism, but also religious fascism all in one post. And you have the audacity to say that the objection to pornography isn't a religious idea, and then in the very next post, try to point to the bible as a source. Now I know you have absolutely no evidence to back up your views. Only people who have no evidence are desperate enough to turn to ancient texts in a political debate. Not only that, but you also therefore admitted that the banning of pornography on this basis is a violation of of the first amendment of the United States constitution, and therefore illegal. Thank you. :thumb:
You didn't bother checking out the names I gave you did you? You probably haven't read the bible either I suspect. You talk as if you're completely unaware that the right to freedom of speech enshrined in the First Amendment of the United States constitution has been curtailed by Supreme Court rulings when it comes to obscenity.
technically that's true and i had stated this fact earlier, it doesnt rule out the fact what is obscene is pretty subjective and therefore should follow the rules of "if it's illegal in private, it should be illegal to trade videos of'
however this porn doesn't follow that - did you know that fisting comes under obscenity in america but putting a foot in someone doesn't :rolleyes: - yes it's possible
And just for the record, I have enough of a knowledge of the bible not to be stupid enough to hold it up as a beacon of morality. There is no document or video that the porn industry could dream up that degrades women to the same extent as the bible. 16 years of Catholic education mate. Don't tell me I've never read the bible. Of course it was after the Catholic education that I read all the bits the preists and teachers were scared to tell you exist.
And? You act as if the US constitution hasn't been shit on again and again by the religious right. The very fact that they have "In God We Trust" on their currency is testament to that. I'm just saying what I believe will happen. And history is on my side. Laws surrounding porn have become more and more liberal as time has gone on. And the countries with the most liberal attitudes to porn, also have the lowest rates of all of the problems that plague the self-appointed moralists of America in their own back yard.
Actually I never claimed to have the research studies sitting in front of me. I mentioned that such research had been done and what the conclusions suggested. I did so because you seemed to think that no research has been done into it at all, and that there is no evidence (short of some sexual offenders having been avid porn watchers) to suggest that it has negative effects - which is wrong. If you had said that the research studies aren't credible because you've read them and there were faults in this that or the other, that would be fair. But don't say that there's no research evidence at all, and that arguments against porn are wholly based on religion because that's nonsense.
You obviously haven't understood the bible. And if you claim that it degrades women more than the porn industry does, then I put it to you that either you don't have enough knowledge of the porn industry, or you have a warped view of what degrades women.
Laws surrounding porn have become more liberal. My point was that despite that, throughout history and up to the present those whose job it has been to interpret the First Amendment (supposedly they've all been from the mythical 'religious right') have seen it fit to put limits of decency between what is allowed and what is not. They've all been intelligent enough to recognise that it is society's prerogative to legislate against obscenity - even if the lines have shifted over time. You seem to think that liberal democracy is all about not having obscenity laws, that soldiers fought Hitler and Mussolini so that there would be no restrictions on the obscene.
And supposedly IWS doesn't think that that is degrading or obscene.
People will have varying views about what is 'obscene', but there will also be a lot of common ground. Its subjectivity doesn't preclude society's ability to define and legislate against it; and societies have every right to do so; i'd even go as far as to say that they have a duty to do so.
Well we all know what's going to happen here. I'll come out with the various quotes from the bible (new and old testaments) that degrade women, you'll disagree. So let's get back to the original proposition. What can the bible teach us about the effects of pornography on modern society?
A liberal democracy is about not restricting the freedoms of people when those freedoms do not infringe upon the freedoms of others. And if only a few people want to engage in such an activity, that doesn't give the majority that don't any right to legislate against it, no matter how distasteful they find it, because frankly, it's none of their business. Exactly the arguments you are making were used to legislate against homosexual acts for years.
Don't make assumptions. I wouldn't be closed minded enough to come to a conclusion about the obscenity or otherwise of something I have never seen and only have a title to go off.