Should we ban pornography?

[Xelsis]

"My grandmother smoked a pack a day and she lived to be a hundred and ten. Smoking isn't bad for you!"

That's the same argument you're making. I'm sure there are thousands of people who live to a ripe old age as smokers. That doesn't mean that smoking isn't related to an early death.

Bullshit

Both arguments are, which is the point.

Strange, then, that sexual satisfaction is rated more highly in marriages where the couple never tried it out before they got together-those same marriages that have vastly lower divorce rates, but would have much lower "sexual compatibility" by simple odds.

It is almost as if the concept of "sexual compatibility" is a product of culture.

Or surveys can be lied to. Especially by people who think "God" will judge them for complaining about sexual dissatisfaction. Which may or may not correlate with those who practice abstinence before marriage in the first place.

Or surveys could be lied to by those people who slept around beforehand claiming to have higher satisfaction than they do, for self-reassurance that they found the right one.

That surveys can be lied to isn't exactly an argument: They can be lied to by any of the groups, in any direction.

"My grandmother smoked a pack a day and she lived to be a hundred and ten. Smoking isn't bad for you!"

That's the same argument you're making. I'm sure there are thousands of people who live to a ripe old age as smokers. That doesn't mean that smoking isn't related to an early death.

One article vs. overwhelming scientific consensus. Bit of a false equivalence there.

I'm not making a case that the article is necessarily correct-I'm pointing out that the argument made against it had no foundation.

Besides, even adultery, let alone casual sex, is perfectly legal. The former probably more for fear of enforcement being worse than the crime (though frankly where to draw the line between porn and everything else is murky enough to share such concerns) but it still goes to show that the government hasn't the right to stack the deck in favour of monogamy.

It doesn't show that at all. See: Polygamy laws.

The fact that something is legal does not mean that it is good.

It is almost as if the concept of "sexual compatibility" is a product of culture.

Let me put this another way. If I am a guy who is a "top" exclusively, and the guy I am going to try to be with is also a "top" exclusively, then the fireworks will not happen, they just won't, not as far as full sex goes. Sure, other stuff could happen, but full sex won't happen. However, some same sex male couples do make that work, I have known of cases of two men that are both "tops" being able to have a very successful relationship together. But sexual compatibility is definitely a tangible thing, it isn't some cultural imaginary.

Given that you admit in the second half of this post that things can work out fine even with supposed "incompatibility", I am not sure I see your point.

"My grandmother smoked a pack a day and she lived to be a hundred and ten. Smoking isn't bad for you!"

That's the same argument you're making. I'm sure there are thousands of people who live to a ripe old age as smokers. That doesn't mean that smoking isn't related to an early death.

No that's not the argument I'm making. The entire survey was based off of people who thought they had a porn problem not people who actually just watched porn. If you took 10,000 people who actually just watch porn the numbers would be way different

Criticizing the article itself is fair game. I'm pointing out that an argument by anecdote doesn't make a case for you. The point of tendencies is that they are tendencies-not absolutes.

[The New California Republic]

Let me put this another way. If I am a guy who is a "top" exclusively, and the guy I am going to try to be with is also a "top" exclusively, then the fireworks will not happen, they just won't, not as far as full sex goes. Sure, other stuff could happen, but full sex won't happen. However, some same sex male couples do make that work, I have known of cases of two men that are both "tops" being able to have a very successful relationship together. But sexual compatibility is definitely a tangible thing, it isn't some cultural imaginary.

Given that you admit in the second half of this post that things can work out fine even with supposed "incompatibility", I am not sure I see your point.

The two tops made themselves sexually compatible somehow (I didn't ask for details!), and they both lived happily ever after in a big fabulous house with 2 cats. I like to think that it was love that did it.

[Ifreann]

Look dude sex is extremely important in a relationship. If I'm not sexually compatible with someone it's generally not going to work out.

Strange, then, that sexual satisfaction is rated more highly in marriages where the couple never tried it out before they got together-those same marriages that have vastly lower divorce rates, but would have much lower "sexual compatibility" by simple odds.

It is almost as if the concept of "sexual compatibility" is a product of culture.

Alternatively, the sub-cultures which raise most of the people who remain abstinent until marriage promote notions of sexual satisfaction totally divorced from physical pleasure, and thus those people rate their sex lives as satisfying because the acts are reproductive, with no consideration of whether they're enjoyable. And perhaps those people have lower rates of divorce because that same sub-culture taught them that divorce is a crime against the the highest possible moral authority and will be punished with an eternity of torment.

[Katganistan]

Well, let's start with the fact that I partially base them on animals' inability to feel offended and sexualized...

It's not about animals, it's about humans. It's about sustaining a set of moral stands that promote a stable, productive and equal society.

So I suppose you want to also ban any kind of sexual fantasy roleplay in the privacy of two adults' home? No more Doctor/Nurse-Patient RP, for instance?

Why not simply mind your own business, deal with your sexuality in the way that makes you feel most comfortable, and leave other people's harmless diversions alone?

[Ransium]

I will find everyone who voted yes. You better fear me anti-fappers.

*** This is so far from being okay, you will not threaten other users safety. 7-day ban with the possibility of further escalation. ***

[Alvecia]

Strange, then, that sexual satisfaction is rated more highly in marriages where the couple never tried it out before they got together-those same marriages that have vastly lower divorce rates, but would have much lower "sexual compatibility" by simple odds.

It is almost as if the concept of "sexual compatibility" is a product of culture.

Alternatively, the sub-cultures which raise most of the people who remain abstinent until marriage promote notions of sexual satisfaction totally divorced from physical pleasure, and thus those people rate their sex lives as satisfying because the acts are reproductive, with no consideration of whether they're enjoyable. And perhaps those people have lower rates of divorce because that same sub-culture taught them that divorce is a crime against the the highest possible moral authority and will be punished with an eternity of torment.

So put simply, those taught that sex isn't about pleasure derive satisfaction from non pleasureable sex, and those taught that divorce is evil don't get divorced as much?

[Free Missouri]

Strange, then, that sexual satisfaction is rated more highly in marriages where the couple never tried it out before they got together-those same marriages that have vastly lower divorce rates, but would have much lower "sexual compatibility" by simple odds.

It is almost as if the concept of "sexual compatibility" is a product of culture.

Alternatively, the sub-cultures which raise most of the people who remain abstinent until marriage promote notions of sexual satisfaction totally divorced from physical pleasure, and thus those people rate their sex lives as satisfying because the acts are reproductive, with no consideration of whether they're enjoyable. And perhaps those people have lower rates of divorce because that same sub-culture taught them that divorce is a crime against the the highest possible moral authority and will be punished with an eternity of torment.

Or maybe, you know, they're just happier with each other because they got to share one of the most intimate actions between a couple in the bounds of a beautiful institution with someone that they truly love rather than with the 10 different exes and 30 different strangers they would've had sex with beforehand if they had been promiscuous like most of our craptastic modern world.

[Katganistan]

I have 2 degrees in Philosophy, does that make a difference? I have never applied that kind of depth of thought to the issue of pornography before, but I am up for a challenge. I am going through all the books on my many shelves, only finding Simone de Beauvoir's obscure references to it, including: “The ... girl becomes an object and she sees herself as an object; she discovers this new aspect of her being with surprise: it seems to her that she has been doubled; instead of coinciding exactly with herself, she now begins to exist outside”. Apart from that, I am struggling.

Why did you get two?

It wasn't because they were running an after-Christmas sale.

[Liriena]

Getting rid of it will reduce degeneracy corrupting especially the young and improve the overall moral hygiene of the people I would ban it.

Or you'll just create an unregulated black market that will make things even worse.

[LimaUniformNovemberAlpha]

Or surveys could be lied to by those people who slept around beforehand claiming to have higher satisfaction than they do, for self-reassurance that they found the right one.

That surveys can be lied to isn't exactly an argument: They can be lied to by any of the groups, in any direction.

You were the one claiming surveys to be of value. Not me.

I'm not making a case that the article is necessarily correct-I'm pointing out that the argument made against it had no foundation.

Flawed arguments against it notwithstanding, it's still not a particularly strong case against it to cite only one article. Can't be arsed to listen to it right now, might do so later on.

It doesn't show that at all. See: Polygamy laws.

Only because marriage is designed to only account for one relationship between 2 people, not several relationships between several people. If it were about monogamy, then either adultery or casual sex would be punishable by community service at the very least.

Also, please don't misattribute my statements to Topoliani.

The fact that something is legal does not mean that it is good.

Ah, so do you plan on campaigning for laws against adultery or casual sex themselves any time soon? That might be (relatively) more reasonable than resorting to censorship.

[Katganistan]

In some cases cross species breeding us beneficial for survival and its how evolution evolves. For example lions and tigers, cows and yaks, heck mules have been a staple of human development for years.

So if you get off to watching anthropomorphized animals mating (imagine the Attenborough voice to that) then by all means. Porn makes people happy, it's literally addictive (dopamine ftw) and its great for population growth (if you believe that there are too many people around).

To be fair, in some cases being an actual furry with a furry partner, actually enables offspring in some cases. I mean some people actually get together at furry conventions can you believe that?

uhhh you know the defining fact of the mule right?

Uhhhhh, you know they are costumes, correct? they come off.
Humans are well able to breed with each other.

[Free Missouri]

Getting rid of it will reduce degeneracy corrupting especially the young and improve the overall moral hygiene of the people I would ban it.

Or you'll just create an unregulated black market that will make things even worse.

Hence my idea: ban unpaywalled pornography, or otherwise regulate it so damn hard that all of it becomes economically infeasible not to be behind a paywall.

[Katganistan]

Looking at it right now. Off spring of a donkey and a horse. Donkey is E. Africanus horse is E. Ferus.

This is modern "intellectual" knowledge in all its glory.

They are not wrong about the taxonomy of both animals. Your disdain is noted, and treated as irrelevant.

[Thermodolia]

Given that you admit in the second half of this post that things can work out fine even with supposed "incompatibility", I am not sure I see your point.

The two tops made themselves sexually compatible somehow (I didn't ask for details!), and they both lived happily ever after in a big fabulous house with 2 cats. I like to think that it was love that did it.

And it's most likely an open marriage

[Xelsis]

Given that you admit in the second half of this post that things can work out fine even with supposed "incompatibility", I am not sure I see your point.

The two tops made themselves sexually compatible somehow (I didn't ask for details!), and they both lived happily ever after in a big fabulous house with 2 cats. I like to think that it was love that did it.

That's the point. Love won't make water and oil mix-they're incompatible. If it's something you can make work with relational effort, then you were never incompatible in the first place.

Everybody has preferences. What we don't have is some kind of compatibility that makes us non-functional if we get hooked up with someone with a different kind.

Strange, then, that sexual satisfaction is rated more highly in marriages where the couple never tried it out before they got together-those same marriages that have vastly lower divorce rates, but would have much lower "sexual compatibility" by simple odds.

It is almost as if the concept of "sexual compatibility" is a product of culture.

Alternatively, the sub-cultures which raise most of the people who remain abstinent until marriage promote notions of sexual satisfaction totally divorced from physical pleasure, and thus those people rate their sex lives as satisfying because the acts are reproductive, with no consideration of whether they're enjoyable. And perhaps those people have lower rates of divorce because that same sub-culture taught them that divorce is a crime against the the highest possible moral authority and will be punished with an eternity of torment.

A reasonable theory. One could also argue that such persons, being raised in an environment in which sex is considered almost evil, and enjoyment of it hedonistic, if not outright sinful, would underreport their sexual satisfaction, for fear that that marking a high rating would be considered living for pleasure, and lustful.

One can make a case in either direction.

[The Republic of Christiandom]

I will find everyone who voted yes. You better fear me anti-fappers.

...
Threats.
Wonderful.

[LimaUniformNovemberAlpha]

Alternatively, the sub-cultures which raise most of the people who remain abstinent until marriage promote notions of sexual satisfaction totally divorced from physical pleasure, and thus those people rate their sex lives as satisfying because the acts are reproductive, with no consideration of whether they're enjoyable. And perhaps those people have lower rates of divorce because that same sub-culture taught them that divorce is a crime against the the highest possible moral authority and will be punished with an eternity of torment.

Or maybe, you know, they're just happier with each other because they got to share one of the most intimate actions between a couple in the bounds of a beautiful institution with someone that they truly love rather than with the 10 different exes and 30 different strangers they would've had sex with beforehand if they had been promiscuous like most of our craptastic modern world.

Who knows?

But the burden of proof is on those pre-marital sex, and so long as the results are open to interpretation, the burden has not been met.

[Katganistan]

Just joined the topic. But I insist that pornography only be banned on common places, such as TV and news and such. If someone has to be naked in a picture that has to be shown, at least a censorship tape. Allow pornography on places such as common as the Internet, or some parts of it and disallow it on TV’s and such.

What I’m doing here is protecting children from Pornography. Children have limited access to The Internet but they have a higher chance of seeing some porno on TV. Maybe put websites children-allowed and such? And allow devices from taking the screen onto those ‘children-not-allowed’ sites for children using devices? Porno is one of the reasons why I hate shows like GoT and I’ve definitely seen boobs at a young age, not from my Mother or grandmother.

Edit: no ones gonna reply to my comment is there? just a comment.

Perhaps, and this is a radical idea, I know, parents should supervise their children and not allow them to watch GoT or age-inappropriate material? Just a thought.

I mean those ratings are there for a reason.

[The New California Republic]

Getting rid of it will reduce degeneracy corrupting especially the young and improve the overall moral hygiene of the people I would ban it.

Or you'll just create an unregulated black market that will make things even worse.

Ahem:

Why do you want gay porn banned? That's the only shit i watch

It's OK Thermy, we could just set up our own illegal gay porno store if they banned gay porn, disguised as a bookstore or something, just like they did with the speakeasies during Prohibition. We would make a shit ton of money.

[Trumptonium]

>insert completely unenforceable law here for 15 minutes of feelgood altruism

the chances of this ever leading to anything positive are so slim you can get it through the eye of the needle

[LimaUniformNovemberAlpha]

Or you'll just create an unregulated black market that will make things even worse.

Hence my idea: ban unpaywalled pornography, or otherwise regulate it so damn hard that all of it becomes economically infeasible not to be behind a paywall.

You can legislate the live-action stuff as "protecting the actors and actresses," but any regulation of the animated stuff would be censorship, full stop.

[The New California Republic]

The two tops made themselves sexually compatible somehow (I didn't ask for details!), and they both lived happily ever after in a big fabulous house with 2 cats. I like to think that it was love that did it.

And it's most likely an open marriage

I didn't ask, but they are happy anyway even if that is the case, it matters not, as far as I am concerned.

[Xelsis]

Or surveys could be lied to by those people who slept around beforehand claiming to have higher satisfaction than they do, for self-reassurance that they found the right one.

That surveys can be lied to isn't exactly an argument: They can be lied to by any of the groups, in any direction.

You were the one claiming surveys to be of value. Not me.

I'm pointing out that you're rejecting surveys, regardless of how scientifically conducted, as worthless as a whole, which throws out most active research in social science right off the bat.

I'm not making a case that the article is necessarily correct-I'm pointing out that the argument made against it had no foundation.

Flawed arguments against it notwithstanding, it's still not a particularly strong case against it to cite only one article. Can't be arsed to listen to it right now, might do so later on.

Entirely fair.

It doesn't show that at all. See: Polygamy laws.

Only because marriage is designed to only account for one relationship between 2 people, not several relationships between several people. If it were about monogamy, then either adultery or casual sex would be punishable by community service at the very least.

There is a difference between public attitudes on a matter, and governmental right, as you argued. That there is little public will for criminalization of adultery does not mean the government lacks a right to criminalize it. (Not to say that it does, but that the argument does not show such.)

Also, please don't misattribute my statements to Topoliani.

I am still struggling with the forum, my apologies.

The fact that something is legal does not mean that it is good.

Ah, so do you plan on campaigning for laws against adultery or casual sex themselves any time soon? That might be (relatively) more reasonable than resorting to censorship.

I personally don't especially favor any governmental regulation of marriage. If it is to be recognized as a government-approved contract, it would not be unreasonable to treat adultery as a breach of said contract.

[Thermodolia]

Or you'll just create an unregulated black market that will make things even worse.

Hence my idea: ban unpaywalled pornography, or otherwise regulate it so damn hard that all of it becomes economically infeasible not to be behind a paywall.

The deep web is a thing. People will always find a way to get free shit. Unless you try some 1984 style shit you aren't going to be able to regulate porn

[Katganistan]

We should at least ban it for the youth. It has become far too casual and the fact that a large portion of, if not most teenagers have watched porn regularly, is simply vile.

It is banned for youth. They watch it anyway.
Just as underage drinking is banned for youth.
Just as underage smoking is banned for youth.

What you need is enforcement. Fining both the youth practitioner and the supplier (if it's clear the supplier has not taken sufficient steps to keep it from kids) would be good.

If a kid presses the "I'm over 21" button though -- fine should be 100% on them and their family.