Pro vs Anti - Pornography 11 replies

  • 1
  • 2

Please wait...

Adrian Ţrumpeş Forum Mod

I LOVE TRUMP

261,077 XP

10th September 2007

4 Uploads

21,712 Posts

1,753 Threads

#1 6 years ago

This is one of my favorite subjects as it has a lot of mixed opinions and some starkly one-sided stances. So the question is, are you for pornography as a mainstream thing or are you against it?

Please note: I can't show the Penn and Teller episode because it does contain nudity, but if you want to see it, just send me a PM.

As before, if you're going to vote (it's public this time :p) you must give a logical, well reasoned argument for your stance.


"I'd shush her zephyr." ~ Zephyr.



Ḷëģöläš-OLD

You'll never walk alone.

50 XP

18th June 2008

0 Uploads

9,518 Posts

0 Threads

#2 6 years ago

I voted yes because porn makes me feel all warm and fuzzy inside and out.




Flash525

The Carbon Comrade

50 XP

14th July 2004

0 Uploads

15,103 Posts

0 Threads

#3 6 years ago

In all fairness, this is a hard one to vote for or against. As an adult, watching it doesn't do anyone any harm (maybe yourself if you get a little carried away, but it's not doing anything to anyone else if you're the only one sat there watching it).

That being said, pornography and other such content is too easily accessible in this day and age, not only to children who, quite honestly, shouldn't be subjected to such material at the age they're able to get there hands on it, but there are some people (I think we'd all be surprised at how many in reality) who just don't want that sort of material shared as it stands.

You walk in to your local shop; you've got the top shelf. Sure, children can't reach that shelf, but they can damn sure see it and know what content is up there. Page 3? Topless models in a documented news paper? I'm sure it's nice and all, but it's hardly required. A topless woman isn't news. It's eye-candy so that it'll produce buyers, which is find from a business point of view, but they can easily replace that page with a clothed woman, or a page of jokes, random facts... the list goes on what they could put instead.

For the performers of porn, they get some action, and some money. For the viewers of porn, they a quick thrill, and a messy tissue. For children who've watched it, some of that stuff is easily going to leave a scar, that, or children are going to get playful at an age where they shouldn't do.

Before you know it, you'll have 10-year old children having sex, which in turn will further cause mental scars or produce an unwanted pregnancy. I don't know if there are records of ten-year old children having children of their own just yet, but it's got to be possible around that age for sure. That just isn't right.

Pornography shouldn't be as easily accessed. They've got those .xxx domains coming up soon (if not already) ~ every pornographic website, regardless of content should be moved to that domain, and to access said domain, you should need to be a subscriber. If countries can block out Google and other global-based websites, then we can sure as hell get our pornographic websites in check.

So yeah, I'm not going to vote for the reasons stated above, though (because of those reasons) I should be voting against.




Warborg

Revenge was here.

50 XP

3rd August 2002

0 Uploads

1,833 Posts

0 Threads

#4 6 years ago

I checked anti

As a Christian I have to support that it is a sin(even though it's a pleasant one). Also it's not like I could walk down the street with it on display without getting in trouble.

So the tally is 2 bad, 1 good. therefor why I voted anti




Schofield VIP Member

om :A

319,554 XP

24th October 2007

1 Uploads

30,539 Posts

0 Threads

#5 6 years ago

I voted for - it's completely harmless. The only bad things about it are the transfer of STD's, which has nothing to do with the actual porn itself.

Warborg;5627257I checked anti

As a Christian I have to support that it is a sin(even though it's a pleasant one). Also it's not like I could walk down the street with it on display without getting in trouble.

So the tally is 2 bad, 1 good. therefor why I voted anti[/QUOTE]

wat. It's not a sin to watch porn, it would be a sin to take part in it though (I think?). The sin is lust, isn't it? Porn doesn't create lust, your anatomy does because humans are supposed to have sex; the lust for sex will be there regardless if you watch porn or not.

[QUOTE=Aerilon;5627214]Pornography shouldn't be as easily accessed. They've got those .xxx domains coming up soon (if not already) ~ every pornographic website, regardless of content should be moved to that domain, and to access said domain, you should need to be a subscriber. If countries can block out Google and other global-based websites, then we can sure as hell get our pornographic websites in check.

Moving all porn to .xxx is going to make it more easily accessed. The only precautions a porn site does to protect itself is either make you subscribe to a paid membership, or make you press the "I am older than 18, but I'm actually not *snicker snicker*" button.

I also don't see how porn is going to make 10 year old kids have sex and get pregnant everywhere. If anything, it would be good for them to see it. Most girls at the age of 10-13 are already grossed out by sex, all you need to do is tell them a kid will come out of their vagina if they do it too early. Boys on the other hand will be harder to convince. =p




Octovon

Spaceman

54,945 XP

5th August 2003

0 Uploads

5,317 Posts

0 Threads

#6 6 years ago
Schofield;5627328I also don't see how porn is going to make 10 year old kids have sex and get pregnant everywhere. If anything, it would be good for them to see it. Most girls at the age of 10-13 are already grossed out by sex, all you need to do is tell them a kid will come out of their vagina if they do it too early. Boys on the other hand will be harder to convince. =p

If they want to scare kids away from sex, they should just show those videos of women giving birth. I remember seeing one of those videos as part of a sex-ed class at my high school and safe to say it had an impression on me (like how I will never be present when a woman delivers a baby).

Porno-sex is not real sex, its mechanical and lacks any of the real, personal aspects and consequences of sex. Over-exposure to pornography creates a false idea of what sex is for teens (predominantly males). Pornography is about catering to the audience (which is typically male), and as a result what is depicted in pornography (it has been argued) changes what men/teenagers expect of their partners when it comes to sex. I read an article a while back that argued that reports/instances of anal sex among teenagers have tripled in North America, and because anal sex is performed in a lot of pornography, male teens increasingly expect their partners to be willing to perform anal sex.

I'm pro-pornography in the sense that I think there is a place for pornography in society, but anti-pornography as it relates to the ease of which children and teenagers are exposed to it and can access it on the internet. I think there should be some greater measures to limit access to pornography to children/teenagers, but I do not think governments should necessarily intervene and decide what is and what isn't appropriate as that's a fairly slippery slope when it comes to the internet. Parents perhaps need to do a lot more parenting, maybe install some internet security to block those kinds of sites, and talk with their kids about sex, explain these kinds of things to them.




Commissar MercZ

Notable Loser

300,005 XP

29th January 2005

0 Uploads

27,113 Posts

0 Threads

#7 6 years ago

I don't really know if 'pro-' or 'anti-' really is a good way to approach the issue like this, one of those with different angles. Some pornography I think is very demeaning to women and borderline misogynist at times, not so much from a position that it's just 'bad' from a moralistic position. I don't agree either that teens being exposed to pornography encourages sexual activity, that's more from a number of factors that play from biological and social sources.

I don't really think there is a significant movement to out-straight 'ban' pornography as an immoral vice currently though. I know Santorum has made comments along this lines, saying that (hardcore) pornography should be banned under current obscenity laws, and is defending that from a Christian perspective. I don't agree with him to begin with there, especially saying that is the major source of domestic violence towards women and sex-trafficking, that's a very big stretch. That kind of thing ties more into some serious public policy and can't be solved by banning things.

It goes without saying that I think all people, except for a nutty few, are opposed to 'pornography' in the form that it involves minors and such. Government methods of screening pornography seem to catch those when they arise, though of course it's still everywhere. A blanket ban on pornography that some countries do isn't desirable though.




Fortune

something to believe.

50 XP

19th February 2005

0 Uploads

7,750 Posts

0 Threads

#8 6 years ago

This feels like a lopsided question.

The one option, "Anti" pornography, implies that action (Presumably government action) would be taken to make pornography illegal. That seems to have a vaguely fascist ring to it, so I'd have to say I'm not anti-pornography.

On the other hand, to me, putting the title of "Pro" on pornography just makes it sound like you'd want it sold at Wal-Mart and flaunted like every other consumer good.

Should it be made illegal? Of course not.

Should it be sold next to the floral aisle and advertised? Probs not.

I think of porn the same way I think of tampons. I acknowledge that it is a useful tool that keeps a large portion of the population from getting into dangerous and messy situations; but that doesn't mean I should have to talk about it in the presence of women, children, parents, grandparents, or while eating or trying to enjoy my life while shopping for frozen pizza.




Emperor Benedictine

You can't fire me, I quit

55 XP

16th April 2005

0 Uploads

2,437 Posts

0 Threads

#9 6 years ago

If pornography is available to anyone, it will be ultimately be available to children and teenagers, like any form of media. Since minors have had relatively easy access to pornography for what, thirty years? I think it's time society moved on and stopped using censorship to make up for inadequate parenting and education. If teenagers are getting all their ideas about sex from watching pornography, I don't think the real problem is with the way porn is regulated.




Nemmerle Forum Mod

Voice of joy and sunshine

298,262 XP

26th May 2003

0 Uploads

28,138 Posts

5 Threads

#10 6 years ago

I'm strongly pro. As far as I'm concerned, it should be just another magazine, or TV channel or whatever. Kids should be able to get a hold of it whenever they like.

We shouldn't be teaching people to be ashamed of sex, or fetishes - that's how we end up with all this maladaptive stuff in the first place: A kid gets his or her first bit of porno, most likely through the internet these days, and it's something ... forbidden, something bad, something sneaked in order to avoid punishment - or at least embarrassment.

And so every sexual behaviour is reduced to more or less the same level of sanction - watching someone get throat fucked until they're sick is the same as watching someone play with vibrators. You lose the ability to differentiate between relative degrees of harm; to make the distinction between a, relatively, health fetish and something that's worthy of sanction.

You can either work with a desire, or you can work against it - and working against it frequently just renders you totally irrelevant to it.




  • 1
  • 2