Should Pornography be banned in the US?

[Fahran]

You have to prove that your authority is objectively right.

Intuitively, the person who created the universe and everything in it is objectively right. One can, of course, suppose, said person is deliberately deceiving us for the lulz, but I digress. When push comes to shove, the disagreement is really over the existence or nonexistence of the divine - even before we discuss ethics.

[Cook-Out]

Ever since I posted this, I've seen the thread take off so much so that I couldn't read it all. When i originally started this thread, my goal was to argue against porn from the standpoint that it propagates human trafficking and sex abuse, not from a religious standpoint. Most posters have ignored this, however. I was originally going to leave the thread alone. However, I have seen many posters proudly claim to be atheist, while throwing around terms such as "right" and "wrong". Tell me, if you are an atheist, how could you have any sense of right and wrong? If this planet was randomly created after the Big Bang and we are just evolved monkeys along with millions of other species on the planet, where does morality come from? If you say that morality is just a social structure, then there shouldn't be anything wrong if so-called "human rights" are violated.

This is a very old question, and one that there are lots of varying opinions on, but I'll give mine.

Well, the characteristic of "being moral" is a social construct. That's the case with basically our entire society. It's some tangible properties given a role in society and associated with other properties. By their very nature, social constructs are always subjective. Just as what any given society or person applies to the social construct of "motherhood" is subjective and varying, the same is true of morality. Now, a subjective idea is not necessarily an arbitrary idea. They can be held for their utility, or their logical explanations, or their connections to other ideas. It's my belief that something that is moral is that it does no harm to others without just cause, or prevents unjustified harm, where justified means it prevents more harm than it creates. This stems from the ideas that 1) people are responsible for their own actions and their results, and not the actions of others or their results, which is logically true because a person uninvolved in an event has no relationship with it; 2) harm is a punishing or painful thing that people dislike, an observable fact.

Religion can't do objective morality either. Even if you try and argue from authority, you need to prove that the authority is objectively right, which is impossible.

Regarding your arguments in the OP: Yes, large distributors like PornHub should absolutely be punished for association with trafficking, bad pay, or abuse. But there are also numerous independent creators like on OnlyFans, or illustrated pornography, which have no victims. The link between porn use and depression is tenuous except in instances of powerful shame (often religious in origin) or addiction. Objectification and unrealistic body standards are nasty, but don't really do a lot of tangible harm. Either way, implementing a porn ban would be impossible, like Prohibition but now with the internet. It'd be unmanageable.

I appreciate your argument very much. I can see that you thought carefully about your answer, and I appreciate that you presented your ideas respectfully without just bashing my religion and God, unlike so many others. I disagree with you on several points, but you are certainly correct that I cannot prove God's authority is genuine. It ultimately comes down to someone having faith in Jesus in order for them to believe in God's standard of morality. Paul was right when he called the gospel "a stumbling block to the Jews (Other religions) and foolishness to the Gentiles (Intellectuals)." (1st Corinthians 1:23).

Where does that leave our argument about pornography? I guess in the context of government, I would have to go back to my original argument, that it causes harm to others, but that has been torn apart. To other Christians reading, we can't do much to change society other than preach the gospel to others and love them as Christ commanded. Locke's Toleration is a good resource for how Christians should interact with society. Also the Bible, obviously

[Hwiteard]

Or deadbeats.

Well, aren't we spicy as a habanero today.

Giving us a collection of rules and histories (the Bible), instructing the babysitter/foster parent (the Church) to explain it to us, and then leaving, do not sound like the acts of a loving parent—divine or otherwise—in the slightest. The Abrahamic deity, with his callous indifference, deserves neither obedience nor respect.

To other Christians reading, we can't do much to change society other than preach the gospel to others and love them as Christ commanded. Locke's Toleration is a good resource for how Christians should interact with society. Also the Bible, obviously

This agnostic recommends Rod Dreher's The Benedict Option, as well.

[Arval Va]

You have to prove that your authority is objectively right.

Intuitively, the person who created the universe and everything in it is objectively right. One can, of course, suppose, said person is deliberately deceiving us for the lulz, but I digress.

No. The universe could be created by anything. I would say it was probably not even sentient or sapient, in which case it could not be right or wrong.

When push comes to shove, the disagreement is really over the existence or nonexistence of the divine - even before we discuss ethics.

Well, not necessarily. A common strain in some atheist ideas of a hypothetical divine is the idea that a divine creator would, reflecting its creation, be amoral or immoral. A cold-blooded, detached observer; a preoccupied artist, unaware of human existence; a cruel master creating diseases and beasts to torment people. By the nature of its creation, it's believed by many that any caring or benevolent god must be impotent, for it fails to prevent suffering.

[Fahran]

Alright, ladies and gentlemen. Let's get back on-topic.

We're not here to read Fahran's sophomore-level exploration of ethics and moral philosophy or discuss whether or not one should sexually abuse male horses.

So let's instead explore Fahran's hooks-inspired, sex-negative, intersectional radical feminist take on porn as a manifestation of white supremacist capitalist patriarchy - and, yes, she genuinely uses this phrase over and over again to describe a broad institutional system. I've been told I rely too much on sources so I'll ad-lib it instead - for the empirically challenged among us.

I read this and I think 2 things.

A. Uh huh huh huh, she said "thrust." Uh huh huh huh.

Feels like a skill issue.

B. Such notions overstate the culpability of men and boys (blaming "elites" doesn't count for anything, they're just catering to the customer) and downplay the culpability of women, especially white women, who mocked gun owners and truck owners for their supposedly small penises, and not for their more verifiably dismal stance on the socioeconomic implications of clinging to their guns and their trucks. This caused white men to believe white women were using black men for their penis size, and it's a miracle that some black men didn't share this assumption. There's an infinite range of other good reasons why white women may prefer black men, but it is absolutely of white women's own doing that they gave the impression penis size was a significant factor.

So...

No. The fetishization of black men has next to nothing to do with weird insinuations by progressive women, and men funnily enough, that men who own firearms have smaller than average penises. It's also not a problem perpetuated solely by white people or men either, though white people and men have played as prominent a role in perpetuating this dehumanizing stereotype as anyone else. More so when it comes to porn in all honesty.

The characterization of black men as animalistic, sexually aggressive/threatening (especially to white women), and less than human is fairly old, even predating the establishment of the Trans-Atlantic Slave Trade. We see the trope of racial cuckoldry already well-developed in Shakespeare's Othello and, with even more vulgarity, Titus Andronicus. It occurs even earlier, glimpsing at the poetry of al-Andalus, in the writings of Wallada. So this isn't something that necessarily originated with modern pornography, but it is something that modern pornographers have repeatedly exploited and popularized.

That said, you're misunderstanding what my intention here is and perhaps how we should begin to define patriarchy and white supremacy. Indeed, I'm not attempting to allocate blame solely to men, or else I would not have mentioned Wallada, nor are men the sole participants in the perpetuation of patriarchy, though, in the context of porn, they do wield disproportionate power as producers, directors, and consumers. The point isn't which gender we blame for such occurrences, but, rather, an admission that said occurrences exist and note that porn has internalized and perpetuated nasty stereotypes - which it plainly has.

Define "objectification."

The act of degrading someone to the status of a mere object.

Any content can perpetuate stereotypes. The question is how you can be more convincing than those stereotypes.

Well, calling them out on it is a good start.

Perfectly legal in the context of gold digging and sugar daddies. Let's not be hypocrites about this, shall we?

I don't think sex-negative radfems are champions of sugar babies. As I mentioned to Ostro on several occasions, there's not really a singular feminist perspective. Feminism is a broad series of movements encompassing dramatically different, often diametrically opposing, perspectives. I'm quite different from bell hooks, Gloria Steinem, or Simone de Beauvoir. I'm quite different from our own local radfem Chessmistress. In fact, that's why I've emphasized that, while I find this perspective interesting, it's not necessarily my own perspective.

[New Master]

Absolutely, it’s a disgusting way of making money and if some woman or man wants to fap, R34 exists!

[Orcuo]

Let me ask this. Besides the psychological negative affects porn can have on the brain, and ethics, what else is there posing a threat by allowing the continued use of pornography making and viewing in the US?

[Osmauri]

Alright, ladies and gentlemen. Let's get back on-topic.

We're not here to read Fahran's sophomore-level exploration of ethics and moral philosophy or discuss whether or not one should sexually abuse male horses.

So let's instead explore Fahran's hooks-inspired, sex-negative, intersectional radical feminist take on porn as a manifestation of white supremacist capitalist patriarchy - and, yes, she genuinely uses this phrase over and over again to describe a broad institutional system. I've been told I rely too much on sources so I'll ad-lib it instead - for the empirically challenged among us.

I read this and I think 2 things.

A. Uh huh huh huh, she said "thrust." Uh huh huh huh.

Feels like a skill issue.

B. Such notions overstate the culpability of men and boys (blaming "elites" doesn't count for anything, they're just catering to the customer) and downplay the culpability of women, especially white women, who mocked gun owners and truck owners for their supposedly small penises, and not for their more verifiably dismal stance on the socioeconomic implications of clinging to their guns and their trucks. This caused white men to believe white women were using black men for their penis size, and it's a miracle that some black men didn't share this assumption. There's an infinite range of other good reasons why white women may prefer black men, but it is absolutely of white women's own doing that they gave the impression penis size was a significant factor.

So...

No. The fetishization of black men has next to nothing to do with weird insinuations by progressive women, and men funnily enough, that men who own firearms have smaller than average penises. It's also not a problem perpetuated solely by white people or men either, though white people and men have played as prominent a role in perpetuating this dehumanizing stereotype as anyone else. More so when it comes to porn in all honesty.

The characterization of black men as animalistic, sexually aggressive/threatening (especially to white women), and less than human is fairly old, even predating the establishment of the Trans-Atlantic Slave Trade. We see the trope of racial cuckoldry already well-developed in Shakespeare's Othello and, with even more vulgarity, Titus Andronicus. It occurs even earlier, glimpsing at the poetry of al-Andalus, in the writings of Wallada. So this isn't something that necessarily originated with modern pornography, but it is something that modern pornographers have repeatedly exploited and popularized.

That said, you're misunderstanding what my intention here is and perhaps how we should begin to define patriarchy and white supremacy. Indeed, I'm not attempting to allocate blame solely to men, or else I would not have mentioned Wallada, nor are men the sole participants in the perpetuation of patriarchy, though, in the context of porn, they do wield disproportionate power as producers, directors, and consumers. The point isn't which gender we blame for such occurrences, but, rather, an admission that said occurrences exist and note that porn has internalized and perpetuated nasty stereotypes - which it plainly has.

Define "objectification."

The act of degrading someone to the status of a mere object.

Any content can perpetuate stereotypes. The question is how you can be more convincing than those stereotypes.

Well, calling them out on it is a good start.

Perfectly legal in the context of gold digging and sugar daddies. Let's not be hypocrites about this, shall we?

I don't think sex-negative radfems are champions of sugar babies. As I mentioned to Ostro on several occasions, there's not really a singular feminist perspective. Feminism is a broad series of movements encompassing dramatically different, often diametrically opposing, perspectives. I'm quite different from bell hooks, Gloria Steinem, or Simone de Beauvoir. I'm quite different from our own local radfem Chessmistress. In fact, that's why I've emphasized that, while I find this perspective interesting, it's not necessarily my own perspective.

"white supremacy"
Licentious desire existed before humanity even had different skin colors.
And what does dick size and firearms have to do with banning porn, prithee?
My confused two cents.

[Fahran]

Let me ask this. Besides the psychological negative affects porn can have on the brain, and ethics, what else is there posing a threat by allowing the continued use of pornography making and viewing in the US?

It's racist, sexist, and capitalist. See above. :^)

[Osmauri]

Absolutely, it’s a disgusting way of making money and if some woman or man wants to fap, R34 exists!

But R34 would get classified as illegal porn by politicians.

[Hwiteard]

Alright, ladies and gentlemen. Let's get back on-topic.
We're not here to read Fahran's sophomore-level exploration of ethics and moral philosophy or discuss whether or not one should sexually abuse male horses.

Thank you.

[Orcuo]

It's racist, sexist, and capitalist. See above. :^)

Now, call me crazy, but we have lots of things in the US that are racist, sexist, and we sure have a whole lot of things that are capitalist. We don’t ban those things, so why specifically should we banned porn?

[Osmauri]

Intuitively, the person who created the universe and everything in it is objectively right. One can, of course, suppose, said person is deliberately deceiving us for the lulz, but I digress.

No. The universe could be created by anything. I would say it was probably not even sentient or sapient, in which case it could not be right or wrong.

When push comes to shove, the disagreement is really over the existence or nonexistence of the divine - even before we discuss ethics.

Well, not necessarily. A common strain in some atheist ideas of a hypothetical divine is the idea that a divine creator would, reflecting its creation, be amoral or immoral. A cold-blooded, detached observer; a preoccupied artist, unaware of human existence; a cruel master creating diseases and beasts to torment people. By the nature of its creation, it's believed by many that any caring or benevolent god must be impotent, for it fails to prevent suffering.

Failing impotence, there has to be an equally powerful evil god, so that any benevolent god would risk destruction of everything to confront the evil here.

Of course, that breaks out of the monotheistic mold that Christians so enjoy hewing to.
+ minus the Cathars, of course.

[Fahran]

"white supremacy"

I think dehumanizing black people is pretty conducive to white supremacy, yes.

Licentious desire existed before humanity even had different skin colors.

We're not talking about licentious desire in the abstract. We're discussing the American porn industry. And this is a problem that has been noticed by a good many people, including those who do not set out to ban the industry as a whole.

And what does dick size and firearms have to do with banning porn, prithee?
My confused two cents.

Not much. As I pointed out above.

[Floofybit]

You can't catch my thoughts.

You said "pray to my god" which implies physically praying.

You can pray in secret. As long as you have the intent, you can pray standing, or pray while imitating sleeping.

[Fahran]

Now, call me crazy, but we have lots of things in the US that are racist, sexist, and we sure have a whole lot of things that are capitalist. We don’t ban those things, so why specifically should we banned porn?

Comrade, do you want to preserve racist, sexist, and capitalist things? Seems reactionary to me.

[Name 0]

It should be banned, to be honest. Immature.

[Cla Lervad Trez]

no

[Orcuo]

Comrade, do you want to preserve racist, sexist, and capitalist things? Seems reactionary to me.

I’m not saying I support these concepts, I’m asking that out of all things racist, sexist, and capitalist, why must pornography go?

Also, are you implying that all porn is inherently racist, sexist, and capitalist? A simply yes or no will do.

[Diarcesia]

Absolutely, it’s a disgusting way of making money and if some woman or man wants to fap, R34 exists!

Nissan Skylines?

[Ryemarch]

It should be banned, to be honest. Immature.

Lot of bans in the future if immaturity is the criterion. Tons of comedy, tons of media in general, children...

[Juansonia]

"white supremacy"

I think dehumanizing black people is pretty conducive to white supremacy, yes.

I wouldn't say that sexualisation (or fetishisation) is dehumanisation.

Also, I forgot where specifically you talked about this, but some people think that "objectifying" and "dehumanising" are the same. I disagree, because "object" simply means "data structure with methods and fields, or what said data structure represents".

Now, call me crazy, but we have lots of things in the US that are racist, sexist, and we sure have a whole lot of things that are capitalist. We don’t ban those things, so why specifically should we banned porn?

Comrade, do you want to preserve racist, sexist, and capitalist things? Seems reactionary to me.

If you are going to get rid of a specific product because "it's capitalist", it's a distraction at best, and grounds for being mocked at worst. You can't abolish capitalism one sector at a time.

[Osmauri]

Now, call me crazy, but we have lots of things in the US that are racist, sexist, and we sure have a whole lot of things that are capitalist. We don’t ban those things, so why specifically should we banned porn?

Comrade, do you want to preserve racist, sexist, and capitalist things? Seems reactionary to me.

Banning things is the lazy way out. It takes actual effort, urgency and gathering help to fix them, which is hard and understandably (and lamentably) the path less beaten.

It should be banned, to be honest. Immature.

Immature how? What part is immature?

It should be noted that I really don't care about the subject too much, as it doesn't affect me terribly (see my forum sig), but I'm still going to debate fuzzy logic like this one.

[Floofybit]

Bonobos have group orgies all the time.

Not that I'm agreeing with them, but we're not bonobos.

[The North-Western State]

Now, call me crazy, but we have lots of things in the US that are racist, sexist, and we sure have a whole lot of things that are capitalist. We don’t ban those things, so why specifically should we banned porn?

Comrade, do you want to preserve racist, sexist, and capitalist things? Seems reactionary to me.

*Pointing at Orcuo* Reactionary! Reactionary! Please don't hurt me, reactionary! Please, I'm just a helpless little kitten. You wouldn't hurt me, right, Comrade?