It's been a long time since I've debated pornography. But it used to be a staple during my early internet days.
Some posters here occasionally refer to porn as it it were understood to be a Bad Thing. So I think we should debate the point.
My claim is that porn has been studied extensively since the 70's, and the harm attributable to porn is still zero.
DanZ
Does porn cause harm?
Moderator: Moderators
-
Cephus
- Prodigy
- Posts: 2991
- Joined: Tue Jun 07, 2005 7:33 pm
- Location: Redlands, CA
- Been thanked: 2 times
- Contact:
Post #51
But years back, kids saw porn just as much, what kid didn't get to see Playboy or Penthouse? It might be more prevalent and easier to get today, but most of us grew up alright, even though we were exposed to pornography.Matthew7vrs7 wrote:I would say that allowing or offering pornography for viewing is damaging to a child's innocence - are you saying you got no problems with a small child checking out a porn flick or seeing imagery of penetration or oral or whatever. I have four small children and can attest to the fact that every single child alive imitates what they see - no danger there!
You keep insisting that porn is damaging to a child's innocence, but you haven't demonstrated that that's harmful in any way. So what? Maybe kids are too innocent. Kids aren't even told about sex in this country and the second anyone tries to teach it in school, parents freak out. Maybe if kids were a little less innocent and a little more informed, we wouldn't have the teenage pregnancy rate we have in this country.
-
OccamsRazor
- Scholar
- Posts: 438
- Joined: Wed Mar 29, 2006 7:08 am
- Location: London, UK
Post #52
I completely agree. In the Netherlands officially teach sex education starts at the age of 4 and they have the lowest rate of teen pregnancy in the world.Cephus wrote:Kids aren't even told about sex in this country and the second anyone tries to teach it in school, parents freak out. Maybe if kids were a little less innocent and a little more informed, we wouldn't have the teenage pregnancy rate we have in this country.
My sister-in-law has now started teaching sex education (she is a teacher in the UK) to her class of 6 year olds. I believe that sex education cannot really be started too early.
One should not increase, beyond what is necessary, the number of entities required to explain anything.
-
Cephus
- Prodigy
- Posts: 2991
- Joined: Tue Jun 07, 2005 7:33 pm
- Location: Redlands, CA
- Been thanked: 2 times
- Contact:
Post #53
I think that it is possible to start too early, not because it harms the children, but because they are just not equipped to comprehend what you're talking about and it's a waste of time. I think sex education, like rational thinking, have to be cornerstones of the educational system, but are both severely undertaught currently.OccamsRazor wrote:I believe that sex education cannot really be started too early.
Post #54
I'm with occam on this one, abuse can start very young and its only when the rights, wrongs and responsibilities of sex are known that the child however old is autonimous enough to understand abuse, or avoid casual or irresponsible sexual behaviour.
We underestimate children constantly. If we believe a child can come to a knowledge of God at a young age we sure as heck can believe they can understand about their own bodies and how they work.
I would love to be a fly on the wall of that classroom to find out how she deals with the age issue in a sensitive and informative way! I bet thats such a tightrope to walk on, all power to her! At least in this situation it is controlled and exposure is in context. Children are exposed to sex in the media at bad ages if they are ill prepared beforehand.
With regard to porn however I stand by the scripture in the sermon on the mount. Lust for anyone other than your husband or wife is sin according to Jesus.
We underestimate children constantly. If we believe a child can come to a knowledge of God at a young age we sure as heck can believe they can understand about their own bodies and how they work.
I would love to be a fly on the wall of that classroom to find out how she deals with the age issue in a sensitive and informative way! I bet thats such a tightrope to walk on, all power to her! At least in this situation it is controlled and exposure is in context. Children are exposed to sex in the media at bad ages if they are ill prepared beforehand.
With regard to porn however I stand by the scripture in the sermon on the mount. Lust for anyone other than your husband or wife is sin according to Jesus.
-
McCulloch
- Site Supporter
- Posts: 24063
- Joined: Mon May 02, 2005 9:10 pm
- Location: Toronto, ON, CA
- Been thanked: 3 times
Post #55
Excellent segue back to the topic for debate.Sleepy wrote:[...]
With regard to porn however I stand by the scripture in the sermon on the mount. Lust for anyone other than your husband or wife is sin according to Jesus.
Why do you agree with Jesus on this point? Is this a "because the Bible tells me so" kind of argument or do you have anything else?
Examine everything carefully; hold fast to that which is good.
First Epistle to the Church of the Thessalonians
The truth will make you free.
Gospel of John
First Epistle to the Church of the Thessalonians
The truth will make you free.
Gospel of John
Post #56
I believe there is a difference between thinking someone looks good and imagining a steamy session of passion.
I think the underlying point Jesus was saying is that intention is also important to God not just the act. Let me provide an example... (yes this is borrowed somewhere from one of my ethics books, i'll find the source later, lets just say for now I didn't make this one up but it illustrates possible intentional wrongs)
You have a rich uncle who has had a stroke, you happen to have a large mortgage and know you are in line for his inheritance. You decide one day to kill him and make it look like an accident. Your plan is to go into the bathroom at a particular time when you know he will be there having a bath and hold his head under the water until he dies. He is not strong and you could easily do the job using a towel and avoid making marks. The police would have to assume he slipped in the bath and drowned.
Two possible scenario's for this illustration.
You arrive at the bathroom ready to do the deal and after successfully killing him you pretend it was an accident and get away with it.
You arrive at the bathroom ready to do the deal but as you pop your head round the corner you see your uncle slip, bump his head and fall unconscious under the water. You do nothing and get the money.
In the second scenario the intention was the same even though the act was not done. In Christian terms you have still sinned because your intention was the same even though you did not actually kill him. In this way I do agree with Jesus that your intentions are important not just your actions. It is supported by scripture and is a well known ethical concept to which I do agree.
The reverse should also apply. You walk down the street and see a child step into the road where a bicycle is going to hit the child, you reach out in an effort to drag the child back but slip and manage to push the child further into the road in front of a bus. The child is instantly killed. Your intention is exceedingly important here as the outcome suggests you killed someone.
see hebrews 4v12 for the theological support
The essence of the question for a Christian is, if porn creates within you thoughts of passion involving the person in the images, this is indeed sin as the bible suggest in the sermon on the mount, so is sin harmful? The Christian answer to that is simple.
I think the underlying point Jesus was saying is that intention is also important to God not just the act. Let me provide an example... (yes this is borrowed somewhere from one of my ethics books, i'll find the source later, lets just say for now I didn't make this one up but it illustrates possible intentional wrongs)
You have a rich uncle who has had a stroke, you happen to have a large mortgage and know you are in line for his inheritance. You decide one day to kill him and make it look like an accident. Your plan is to go into the bathroom at a particular time when you know he will be there having a bath and hold his head under the water until he dies. He is not strong and you could easily do the job using a towel and avoid making marks. The police would have to assume he slipped in the bath and drowned.
Two possible scenario's for this illustration.
You arrive at the bathroom ready to do the deal and after successfully killing him you pretend it was an accident and get away with it.
You arrive at the bathroom ready to do the deal but as you pop your head round the corner you see your uncle slip, bump his head and fall unconscious under the water. You do nothing and get the money.
In the second scenario the intention was the same even though the act was not done. In Christian terms you have still sinned because your intention was the same even though you did not actually kill him. In this way I do agree with Jesus that your intentions are important not just your actions. It is supported by scripture and is a well known ethical concept to which I do agree.
The reverse should also apply. You walk down the street and see a child step into the road where a bicycle is going to hit the child, you reach out in an effort to drag the child back but slip and manage to push the child further into the road in front of a bus. The child is instantly killed. Your intention is exceedingly important here as the outcome suggests you killed someone.
see hebrews 4v12 for the theological support
The essence of the question for a Christian is, if porn creates within you thoughts of passion involving the person in the images, this is indeed sin as the bible suggest in the sermon on the mount, so is sin harmful? The Christian answer to that is simple.
-
juliod
- Guru
- Posts: 1882
- Joined: Sun Dec 26, 2004 9:04 pm
- Location: Washington DC
- Been thanked: 1 time
Post #57
Are you sure? There's a major problem with your analogy. You've suggested an action that is violent and obviously harmful in itself.The essence of the question for a Christian is, if this is indeed sin, is sin harmful? The answer to that is simple.
What if I have two apples, and a friend of mine has two oranges. I think that it would be a good idea if we traded one of each and then had one apple and one orange. We would both be happier in the end.
Is it wrong to think of such a plan? Have I committed a wrong just by imagining it?
You neeed to show that lusting after someone is wrong (and not by "because the bible says so") and then show that using porn is an example of that (not trivial, because the porn might be a drawing or animation where there is no actual other person to lust after).
(There is a big difference between lusting after someone within reach, such as a neighbor's wife, and using porn for masturbation, which is what it is intended for, and which features people you don't know and will never meet.)
DanZ
Post #58
I was asked if I agree with Jesus on the basis that intention is important and that was my reply. I'm being taken out of context in your point but nevertheless.
The bible says adultery is wrong. I agree with this, I personally feel family units such as the one I am in are the best environment for stable family life if the relationship is loving and devoted between the individuals, I believe betrayal of that devotion is wrong (adultery). I believe wrong intentions are a tendancy to wrongful actions and I also believe intentions are important considerations in ethical dilemmas. The bible says that a man should join with one woman. Lust in the manner I have said is considered intent to adultery. Ultimately the lust issue comes down to adultery which is yes a biblical principle. So your questions all revolve around biblical morality. But this is precisely the point. Whilst you may not believe lust is harmful. Harm is a different concept to a Christian because sin is harmful.
You cannot ask a Christian to justify an ethic without bringing up the issue of what God thinks at the end of the day. Gods word is a guide to who God is. You cannot deny me referring to Gods word when I am telling you why a Christian believes something is wrong.
A Christian believes sin = death
'The wages of sin is death'
I'd call that harmful.
Now you are arguing that you disagree with the bible. I was simply asked if I agreed with the teaching of Jesus on intention and I have answered that and why. I have illustrated both. You may not feel the same way, but that is you, and this is me.
The bible says adultery is wrong. I agree with this, I personally feel family units such as the one I am in are the best environment for stable family life if the relationship is loving and devoted between the individuals, I believe betrayal of that devotion is wrong (adultery). I believe wrong intentions are a tendancy to wrongful actions and I also believe intentions are important considerations in ethical dilemmas. The bible says that a man should join with one woman. Lust in the manner I have said is considered intent to adultery. Ultimately the lust issue comes down to adultery which is yes a biblical principle. So your questions all revolve around biblical morality. But this is precisely the point. Whilst you may not believe lust is harmful. Harm is a different concept to a Christian because sin is harmful.
You cannot ask a Christian to justify an ethic without bringing up the issue of what God thinks at the end of the day. Gods word is a guide to who God is. You cannot deny me referring to Gods word when I am telling you why a Christian believes something is wrong.
A Christian believes sin = death
'The wages of sin is death'
I'd call that harmful.
Now you are arguing that you disagree with the bible. I was simply asked if I agreed with the teaching of Jesus on intention and I have answered that and why. I have illustrated both. You may not feel the same way, but that is you, and this is me.
-
OccamsRazor
- Scholar
- Posts: 438
- Joined: Wed Mar 29, 2006 7:08 am
- Location: London, UK
Post #59
I thought that I would just reply here to tell you what she did.Sleepy wrote:I would love to be a fly on the wall of that classroom to find out how she deals with the age issue in a sensitive and informative way!
The kids new that sex eduction was coming up so she decided to say.
"Ok for the next 10 minutes I want you all to say all of the rude words you can think of and we will all have a giggle about them. But no giggling after 10 minutes".
She then added in some more 'rude' words (not swear words) and promptly told the class the meaning of all of the words that she and the class had said, purely so no child felt embarrassed that he or she didn't understand. After the 10 minutes were up they were all giggled out and she progressed with her prepared class.
One should not increase, beyond what is necessary, the number of entities required to explain anything.
Well...
Post #60I'd have to argue that porn can be harmful. Keep in mind that I'm not trying to force my views on anyone here, and I could care less what you do with your own time.
My argument is that viewing pornography can be harmful in many ways. First of all, like anything pleasurable (which porn is supposed to be pleasurable to watch/see on the sexual level) it can become addictive. Addiction can lead to social reclusion, among other things, and hurt the addict in general in all the classic ways that addiction has been recorded to do so. Secondly, porn can lead to a warped mindset. I realize this is mostly only in people with very easily molded or sensitive minds. But nevertheless, porn can lead to ideas like the objectification of women (or men even) and put more emphasis on sex than other more important aspects of life. Porn is also the embodiment of the deadly sin: lust. As in looking only for the superficial sexual pleasure instead of looking deeper.
I disapprove of porn of all kinds. I find it offensive. That doesn't mean that I think that everyone should be forced to look at it my way. It's your choice what you do. All I can say is that I strongly encourage each of you to think about whether or not it reallly does cause harm. Lust isn't called a deadly sin for nothing.
Food for thought provided by:
blackfish
My argument is that viewing pornography can be harmful in many ways. First of all, like anything pleasurable (which porn is supposed to be pleasurable to watch/see on the sexual level) it can become addictive. Addiction can lead to social reclusion, among other things, and hurt the addict in general in all the classic ways that addiction has been recorded to do so. Secondly, porn can lead to a warped mindset. I realize this is mostly only in people with very easily molded or sensitive minds. But nevertheless, porn can lead to ideas like the objectification of women (or men even) and put more emphasis on sex than other more important aspects of life. Porn is also the embodiment of the deadly sin: lust. As in looking only for the superficial sexual pleasure instead of looking deeper.
I disapprove of porn of all kinds. I find it offensive. That doesn't mean that I think that everyone should be forced to look at it my way. It's your choice what you do. All I can say is that I strongly encourage each of you to think about whether or not it reallly does cause harm. Lust isn't called a deadly sin for nothing.
Food for thought provided by:
blackfish
