It's Always the Family - Whoever said that pornography is a victimless crime?

New Oxford Review ^ | January-February 2010

[GonzoII]

It's Always the Family

January-February 2010

Whoever said that pornography is a victimless crime?

"The family is usually the first to suffer from pornography," said Pope John Paul II in an address to the Religious Alliance Against Pornography back in 1992. "Con­sequently," he continued, "as the primary cell of society, the family must be the first to champion the battle against this evil."

It is apt, then, that the Family Research Council would authorize a study on "The Effects of Pornography on Individuals, Marriage, Family and Community," released this past November.

By 1992 the porn industry in the U.S. was firmly established, having emerged from the seedy, back-alley urban environs to which it was largely confined in the 1970s. The home-video boom of the 1980s (of which porn was arguably the cause) offered Americans the opportunity to welcome porn discreetly into their own bedrooms. Still, when John Paul identified it as a "serious threat to society as a whole," porn had yet to burgeon into the mammoth industry it now is.


The decade of the 1990s marked the beginning of the current golden age of pornography. Pornographic culture rippled all the way into the Oval Office, resulting in the impeachment of President Bill Clinton. And once the Internet took hold of our daily lives (thanks, Al Gore), pornography became America's open secret. Indeed, it could be argued that pornography fueled the success of the 1990s Internet boom.

[Antoninus]

I’m pretty sure autumnraine was talking about consenting adults, not children.

Oh yes? Who decides if and when one is a "consenting adult"? Or is one a criminal pervert if he views porn involving a girl 17 years and 364 days old, but a perfectly righteous gentleman if the girl is one day older?

And what if the porn in question was filmed in a place where the "age of consent" is 12? Is it still your God-given right to view it?

The point is, the term "consenting adult" is completely arbitrary and mostly meaningless in this context. Viewing pornography is immoral regardless of the age of subject.

[Antoninus]

It's not your right to force others to follow Him. It's called "liberty". You might want to look into it.

Is that so. OK, how about this. Let's say a town decides it's going to be porn-free. The citizens vote in favor of the no-porn ordinance and the local government enforces it. Do you believe that a few porn-hounds in the city have the right to call in federal government to have the ordinance overturned?

Simply put, do you think you have a God-given right to view pornography?

[MHGinTN]

Um excuse the intrusion, but your post made little sense. You asked, “Simply put, do you think you have a God-given right to view pornography?” But the previous verbiage posited an ‘unto Caesar, from Caesar, for Caesar’ scenario. I mean, the community has a right to write law based upon the community values, else you are no longer sovereigns of your community. Yet what you tried to posit was a transmogrification of unalienable rights and community sovereignty. Want to try again?

[Lurker]

Let's say a town decides it's going to be porn-free. The citizens vote in favor of the no-porn ordinance and the local government enforces it.

How would such an ordinance be enforced? Would the local Police Dept demand access to my home to make sure it's porn free? Would the town somehow monitor what I get from DirectTV? Would they be opening my mail to see what movies I've ordered?

How will the Town Council decide what is and what is not 'porn'? Will they keep a list or will they have some criteria? Will they come up with some kind of Porn Matrix?

Do you believe that a few porn-hounds in the city have the right to call in federal government to have the ordinance overturned?

Absolutely.

[autumnraine]

That is so not even the same, I don’t know how you could possibly think so. Condoning freedom is NOT condoning child abuse. Talk about non-sequitor!

[GonzoII]

"This powerful video is in loving memory of hundreds of dead porn stars. This video is dedicated to porn stars still alive. My hope is this video will touch many lives and they will stop viewing and doing porn. www.shelleylubben.com to hear more from ex porn stars. "

Dead Porn Stars Memorial www.shelleylubben.com [VIDEO]

slubben - October 07, 2008

[Ruy Dias de Bivar]

***Since a study showed that every single man with internet access has looked at porn***

And sometimes it comes looking for you! Once, at work, I checked out Drudge Report. There was an interesting link to a news story and when I clicked on it I GOT AN EYE FULL and it wasn’t news!

Because such a thing could get a person immediatly fired I closed the page out and shut down the computer!

Later at home, I brought up Drudge and the link was gone. How it slipped by our company’s filters I don’t know.

[Persevero]

I think the degeneration of society, corruption of morals, and objectification of persons is my business.

I don’t live in a vacuum.

[little jeremiah]

Here we go.

Moral Absolutes Ping!

Freepmail wagglebee or DirtyHarryY2K to subscribe or unsubscribe from the moral absolutes ping list.

FreeRepublic moral absolutes keyword search
[ Add keyword moral absolutes to flag FR articles to this ping list ]

A few thoughts, and will also re-post my "Two religions of the world" comment below.

Okay, so consenting adults are fine. How many are non-consenting? I've read plenty about girls abudcted or forced into prostitution. Porn is prostituion on video. Maybe it's not always consenting.

Where to draw the line? Some people want to watch humans and animals. There is no logical reason not to, if "regular" porn is okay.

What about S&M? If they're consenting, why not? And how bizarre can the S&M get? The argument that "some people want to watch it" and "consenting" leaves no argument against the most hellish and disgusting things.

Well, how about necrophilia? Actually in Portland, OR about 15 years ago someone did post some necrophilia action on Community Access TV. It took the city a while to find some legal loophole to remove it. If the deceased had left it in their will that necrophilia was fine with them, and they got deceased in a natural way (of course, on OR it could be doc assisted suicide!), than there is no logical argment against necrophilia.

And the argument "we want it so we must have it" leads to easily available porn on TV that kids can easily - and do - get ahold of. Then the argument is "well, parents have to control their kids. We want it 24/7, so we get to have it 24/7".

My argument is below, but here is another one as well:

When you live in a garbage dump, no matter how clean you keep your own house, flies, rats, stink and disease will enter your home. Hedonists are turning the entire world into a garbage dump and their argument is "clean your own house then". Let them do their dirt in the closets and leave the rest of the world alone. They don't own the world. Although they're trying to. Plus, the argument that everyone watches porn is a lie.

[little jeremiah]

What do you think of this? I wrote it a few days ago and posted it on two or three threads that needed it.

If we take the word “religion” to be mean a belief system and world view determined by said belief system*, there are two religions in the world. Everyone, regardless of label, falls into one category or another**.

1. Those who not only believe in God, but accept and try to follow the rules set out in the scriptures of the world; which are, in the main, largely in agreement over the basic rules of morality, behavior and values for human society. For instance, prohibitions of sex before and outside of marriage, against homosexual acts, against murder, theft, false witness, blasphemy, and so on. And finer concepts as avoiding lust, greed, anger, envy, covetousness, and so on.

Another aspect of this meaning of religion is the world view that this mortal world is not our eternal home, but a sort of testing ground; with the real home in the eternal Kingdom of God, and that true happiness can be found only in relationship with the Supreme Godhead.

2. The other world view and belief system is based on atheism, hedonism and moral relativity - which is based on hypocrisy, since what it really means is that only their view point is valid.

This world view is not just espoused by outright atheists*** but many who claim to believe in “God” - but the “God” they supposedly worship does not have the actual qualities of God. For instance, various denominations who allow homosexuals to be priests and ministers, consider abortion perfectly okay, and so on. Up to the Metropolitan Community “Church” that is focused solely on homosexuality, or Jeremiah Wright’s Trinity Church which is merely a racist and marxist political group using sort of Christian sounding slogans occasionally.

Religion #2 views this world as all in all, and seeks to find perfection in this world; perfection in their eyes meaning the most enjoyment possible (in their view) before the worms take over. “Eat, drink and be merry, for tomorrow you die”. There is no God in control (other than a superficial label pinned on), you make your own rules, each sees his own desires and whims as the guiding light in life, or the whims of others who have similar values and world view.

The really bad news is that Religion #2 is completely intolerant of any of the viewpoints, morality or world view of religion #1 having any sway in public life. They pretend that there is “neutral ground” for public life, and that Religion #1 should not have influence over public policy, in supposed deference to “secularism” or “neutrality”.

But, the problem is that there are only two world views, or two religions. If theists cannot influence public life, than atheism and hedonism are the standard. There can only be one standard, there is no neutral ground.

* Of course, there are other meanings of the word “religion” but leaving that for another day.

** I am also leaving Islam aside for now as that is a whole ‘nother category in a sense. Or a subset.

*** An interesting point is that there atheists who are content to live in a world peopled by group #1 with the morals and values of group #1. Such atheists are another subset. :-)

[Lurker]

I think the degeneration of society, corruption of morals, and objectification of persons is my business.

Never said it wasn't. You're free to use the power of persuasion until the cows come home. What you're not free to do is use the force of the State to impose your will.

It's also very instructive that you didn't answer a single one of the questions I posed.

[little jeremiah]

Feel free to (try to) prove either of my posts above wrong.

[Lurker]

Feel free to (try to) prove either of my posts above wrong.

They're irrelevant to the discussion at hand.

[Sir_Ed]

Yup...porn destroys souls. It should never have been legalized.

America would have been so much better off if the Supreme Court hadn’t legalized that stuff when all those cases came up in the ‘50’s & ‘60’s, I Am Curious Yellow, Howl, The Green Door, etc.

Ed

[little jeremiah]

They are indeed relevant.

Did you even read them?

[oust the louse]

wow...that video is powerful. Tons of young lives wasted in that industry....incredible...I imagine the producers welcome their new stars into the business but try and not get attached to them.

[Lurker]

Yes I did and no it isn’t.

[little jeremiah]

My arguments below are indeed relevant and you are avoiding addressing them.

Okay, so consenting adults are fine. How many are non-consenting? I’ve read plenty about girls abudcted or forced into prostitution. Porn is prostituion on video. Maybe it’s not always consenting.

Where to draw the line? Some people want to watch humans and animals. There is no logical reason not to, if “regular” porn is okay.

What about S&M? If they’re consenting, why not? And how bizarre can the S&M get? The argument that “some people want to watch it” and “consenting” leaves no argument against the most hellish and disgusting things.

Well, how about necrophilia? Actually in Portland, OR about 15 years ago someone did post some necrophilia action on Community Access TV. It took the city a while to find some legal loophole to remove it. If the deceased had left it in their will that necrophilia was fine with them, and they got deceased in a natural way (of course, on OR it could be doc assisted suicide!), than there is no logical argment against necrophilia.

And the argument “we want it so we must have it” leads to easily available porn on TV that kids can easily - and do - get ahold of. Then the argument is “well, parents have to control their kids. We want it 24/7, so we get to have it 24/7”.

[GOPJ]

The problem isn’t usually pornography as much as it is addiction to it. In that case, addiction of all sorts have destroyed families, including lottery addiction. You usually aren’t addicted to GOOD things, but I still have a problem with making everything that SOME get addicted to illegal. I know plenty of people out there are alcoholics, but I don’t support prohibition.

Good point, autumnraine.

[Persevero]

—”You can follow Jesus if you wish, that’s your right.

It’s not your right to force others to follow Him. It’s called “liberty”. You might want to look into it.

If you don’t want to partake of erotic films, that’s also your right. It’s not your right to use the force of Law to prevent my wife and I from enjoying them in the privacy of our own home.

Everyone involved is a consenting adult so that quite frankly makes it none of your business. “—

I don’t see any questions in there. Maybe you are thinking of someone else.