Boils, Blindness and other Blarney – 9 Anti-Porn Myths Debunked

Wow Sam, you and I are totally on the same wavelength. I posted a similar entry on my blog yesterday… although certainly not as eloquent and well laid out as yours [Kitka bows].

Nice

Yes, I completely agree with you. You’re very precise and really eloquent.
Although, I would say more, maybe you don’t agree: I strongly think that the purist religions and all kinds of purists and “moralists” powers up the porn industry. It’s the strength of negotation. The ‘prohibited’ scent given to porn makes it more appealing. So the porn industry, in some way, has to thank the purists.

Three cheers for porn…….Hip Hip Horray, Hip Hip Horray, Hip Hip Horray!

I agree with almost everything you said in the above post. However, you failed to bring this up, so I will, porn is very degrading towards women.

Not all porn. But, heterosexual porn that seems to sell the best. I posted about this on my blog – http://soldierofthought.blogspot.com

David Masciotra

Stong post. I enjoyed it. Unfortunately, each and everyone of these myths . . . and more . . . will continue as the folks who most need to be re-educated are the very ones who will avoid sites like this one. All the best, Brian

What exactly about porn is degrading? Unless there is some sort of slavery/coersion involved, all of the actors do this of their own free will.

The other issue is that no one forces anyone to buy porn. So if you think it is degrading, don’t buy it.

People have fantasies that are not politically correct. Some people have rape fantasies, some girls and guys like having their faces jizzed on………..who is to say what is right……..its all about fantasy remember? Not everyone’s partner looks like a porn star, but does that make it degrading to watch porn and wish that they did?

Can’t agree with your first statement about addiction. It’s not as if people with an addiction Decided which addiction they’re get hooked on, it simply happened to feed the kind of high their brain wanted. If my brain chemistry reacts more to one drug than another, that’s not exactly a choice on my part.

i think you all missed a very important point here. just look a little further in the process and consider where it all begins. do you really think this whole “reflexion” on porn is so much a question of the “impact” on the “consumer”?

what is the central issue of porn, if not money? you all agreed that the porn industry is an extraordinary flourishing one and just analyze this “success story” saying that this only proves that people love sex!? is this how far your reflexion can go? honestly, this scares me a bit.

not once did i read a mention about what could be the “reason(s)” that pushes women to “get involved” in this industry. once a girl accepted a deal on a flix and got paid for it, how can she be sure that the game will be entirely respectful? there are so many “homemade porn productions” out there, i would be surprise to learn that the majority of them are produced in safe, respectful and explicitly defined conditions so that any girl who agrees for a shoot knows exactly the kind of business she’s dealing with.

but once she’s paid, who is she to complain for the “experience” she’s about to live?

i paid you, bitch, so shut up. would be in my opinion what she gets off-camera.

so if we start thinking pornography from this point of view, not forgetting of course that there IS a “good” form of pornography, how can we decide if the pictures or the movie we’re looking at and are sexually aroused by had actually being produced in a condition so that the girl actually did all this because she actually “likes sex” and not because she so badly needed cash?

i don’t know about you, but as an heterosexual who very likes sex myself, it really matters to me to know if the girl with whom i’m having sex actually enjoys what we’re doing and isn’t doing it for a reason that has little to do with loving and enjoying sex.

and the same thing applies to the kind of porn i like. and it may be just me, but my say about that is that more often than we would think there is somehow a very thin line between a boosted reality and a non-faked one, between a boosted and falsed fuck and a really good and enjoyed one. and here is the real deal, friends.

here, you, the consumer, have to decide if what you’re looking at is fake, boosted and forced, or plain reciprocal pleasure. and have to decide if you let this kind of material claim the right to pretend he’s fundamentaly good and legitimate.

maybe you’ll think about this before your next jacking-off on any image or movie. maybe not. but i do think that is the real question to consider. what do we know about what’s going on behind the scenes, behind the camera, once all this spectacle is over? what’s going on in this girl’s head? does she really like what she’s doing? why would she do this?

well, that was my reflexion on this very interesting subject. by the way, i’m french, so i apologize for my writing. maybe some ideas are not as clear as they should be and i will be pleased to precise some things if anyone of you happens to give a damn about it.

ciao.

fiodr.

Thanks for this. I write porn and I’m linking to you.

DirtyTalkinGirl aka DTG xxoo

I have to disagree with you. Your analysis is largely based on your affinity to porn, your ignorance of marital counseling, social statistics, Biblical truth, and your adherence to the absurd idea that what is popular or makes money is therefore right.

150 years ago, slavery was considered popular, morally acceptable and profitable. Does that make slavery right? Human trafficing has never been more lucrative, so has America missed this great opportunity? If the “popularity” of child abuse increases (and it may) will you then say that it’s okay? Millions of American can be wrong. There are some absolutes, not governed by public opinion and I wouldn’t be “recruiting” to say so.

Porn is addictive. It does effect a man’s perceptions of women and their expectations of relationships. It does destroy marriages – ask any therapist or marital counselor! Not all of those stories have happy “God rescuing” endings. Wake up. We have a 50% divorce rate in America. Porn is not the sole cause, but it is a factor. You can’t debunk that. There’s too much evidence if you’d only look.

Porn was and always will be a taboo subject. From a young age, people are brain-washed with “morality” and what constitutes “morality”. Albeit, this could be due to a religious upbringing, a conservative household, or what not.

Those brought up in predominantly religious households tend to be less educated about the industry simply because it’s “morally unacceptable” and “wrong”. They are told what to believe and if porn is something proposed as evil, they admonish it. Education is the main factor. Before forming a harsh stance against any subject, someone should educate themselves fully about whatever they are protesting against. Sadly, this is not the course of action for those so called anti-porn activists.

It all boils down to knowledge and common sense. Marriages aren’t destroyed simply because of porn. They are destroyed because of dis-trust and a lack of communication between partners. On top of that, because of society’s slow acceptance to porn, people will feel “guilty” about viewing it.

Why feel guilty about watching anonymous partners simulate sexual acts? We all do it behind close doors yet act like it’s something that should be clandestine. Safe sex is something that should be understood and embraced. I saw a t-shirt at the Hustler store in San Diego that said “Shut up, it’s just sex”. Jesus christ, we all have sex often times in our life yet it’s still debated and mis-understood.

I find it difficult that the masses have a hard time accepting procreation, intimacy, and sexual relationships when they have been around since the beginning of our existence. Of course people are going to continuely disect words like “sex” and “intimacy” and connotate them with love, religion, and what not. We just need to continue educating people about the value of porn in our society. Sam Sugar has began doing just that with this well written article.

Cheers,

-Nick

What a great debate! I like the the person who compairs sex to slavery, you got serious issues, get help.

As a “fan” of porn, i can agree to most all of your statements. porn has made my marrige better, not worse. I’m an open freak, not a closet freak, sharing my freakiness with my wife, has allowed her to share some of her freakiness with me. We are both better for it.

I’m also concerned about the industry, & how it treats women. Like anything, I make informed consumer decisions. I don’t drive a Kia, I don’t have “Big Titted Ass Fuckers #62″ in my collection. I don’t frequent the “free Sites” because I don’t know how the get their material.

Can & should the industry reform? There is room for improvement, especially online. It is the consumer who will ultimatly drive that reform. I’ve been a porn consumer since the mid 80’s, the industry has reformed itself, and will continue.

I have a question for the group:

If you were to “broadcast” porn to the parts of the world, that scream Jihad, & the slaughter of the infidels, would they get as many suicide bombers to line up?

Who would they choose, 70 black eyed virgins, or Tera Patrick?

Couls Porn Save the World?

Without feeling the need to share my own specific views and therefore get unavoidably drawn into a neverending debate about this subject, I will just leave you with a few suggestions:

I thought this was interesting, however, I think it might be useful to proofread and reword a bit. Just for example, the sentence “More importantly porn companies, unlike churches which also take in billions of dollars a year, pornographers pay taxes” is a little redundant and confusing. It would probably be better to take out “porn companies” and word it as “More importantly, unlike churches which also take in billions of dollars a year, pornographers pay taxes.”

I also think some solid statistics might be more convincing to some of the skeptics who may happen across this page. If you can find actual study reports (done by impartial and credible institutions, of course) about availability vs non-availability of porn and crime rates, wealth vs lack of wealth and porn issues, the statistical standards by which the industry operates vs statistical standards of the general public, etc. and reference them it would make the statements seem more tangible.

I almost completely agree with your ideas about pornography as a whole. However, I do not like generalization about ‘perverts’. I believe you used fallacy here about so called ‘majority’: if everyone does it therefore it must be acceptable. ‘Pervert’ has a definition and even if everybody is considered a pervert, it does not make pornography less perverted.

And just a bit of my own observation. As per Nick’s post above, I also believe that people need more sexual education as early as possible.

Really I just have one problem and it pertains to “morality”. Many of the people here seem to believe in the philosophy that morality is defined by the individual and that what may be morally acceptable to me may not be morally acceptable to someone else, and that a persons idea of morality is based mostly on their religious or cultural upbringing. Furthermore, no person or group of people have the right to tell another person or group what is and is not morally acceptable. My question to you then is this: Where do you draw the line? In your article you mentioned that you found pedophilia to be “abhorrent”, but a couple paragraphs previous you had said that morality is “a matter of opinion”. So then is it just your “opinion” that pedophilia is “abhorrent”, or do you actually believe in some standard of morality? If it is the former than is it not possible to say that for the person committing the act of pedophilia it is his “opinion” that it is morally acceptable? How could you tell him otherwise? Are you to be the one to create moral parameters for someone else? What gives you that right? Now you may say that the law sets parameters for us. But what is the law? Is the law not the exact thing you seem to say is a “matter of opinion”? Is democracy itself not founded on the very principle of moral absolutes? Without a firm understanding of what is and what is not acceptable would the system of this country be able to succeed? How can you allow moral relativity when it comes to pornography and yet be able to then turn around and say that pedophilia or murder are outside the realm of moral acceptability? Are they not the same? Should we only allow moral absolutes to exist when it is convenient for us or when it makes US uncomfortable, and then chalk up any resistence to our own ideas of morality as someone being a bigot, intolerant, or ignorant? One gentleman stated that for many people the objection to pornography finds its roots in ignorance of the facts, in a presupposed repulsion based on their religious upbringing. He said that it was “sad” that they did not educate themselves enough to understand that their objections lay in a false belief in the absolutes of morality. But similar advice would I give him. Do you not consider or do you just refuse to see the domino effect that would occur if everyone did what you seem to want them to do and denounce the belief in moral absolutes? The American Judicial System would fail, murder would no longer be murder, just one person of the opinion that another person was not fit to live. And who is to tell them different? You? Me? A judge? A jury? What right is it of ours to tell someone else what to believe, morality is all relative anyway right? A simple matter of differing opinions. You may be saying to yourself, “this is a debate about pornography, what is this idiot talking about murder for?” Do you not see that you cannot have it both ways? It is a conundrum, an oxymoron. Either you accept the fact that moral absolutes are a reality and all the unpleasantness that goes with it, or you continue in the belief that no one else can decide for you what is right and wrong and turn a blind eye to the problems that such a belief creates. Now you may be thinking, “who then is to say what those moral absolutes are?”. To that question I have no answer, but it seems plain to me that to accept a belief in moral relativity is to accept the downfall of American society. Do not be so quick to call someone else’s ideas uneducated or ignorant, without first taking a long hard look at your own. Most of what I have said I have no doubt will be discarded without much thought, but think about a world in which everyone calls their own shots. Do you want to live in it? I know I don’t, for as Patrick Henry once said, “Bad men cannot make good citizens. It is when a people forget God that tyrants forge their chains. A vitiated state of morals, a corrupted public conscience, is incompatible with freedom. No free government, or the blessings of liberty, can be preserved to any people but by a firm adherence to justice, moderation, temperance, frugality, and virtue; and by a frequent recurrence to fundamental principles.” I for one choose freedom.

Actually I have not missed the third way, I have simply discarded it as immaterial. The third way is a farce, a smoke screen designed to make way one (moral absolutes) and way two (moral relativity) seem reconcilable, but in reality is nothing more than another way of wording moral absolutism so that people who want to hold onto moral relativity feel more comfortable. You stated way three as a “defined set of rules, in which each case is looked at individually.” I would be interested to hear how that is any different from moral absolutism. Of course each case is judged on its own merits, but it is judged against a “golden” standard or absolute truth, without that standard the word “judge” loses all meaning. Judge what? The justification of a murder? Who’s justification, and by what standard? A murder is almost always justified in the mind of the murderer, sex with a child is almost always justified in the mind of the pedophile. Is that not enough? Should we make them accountable to us? What gives us that right? Why can a judge sit on a bench and “examine” the merits of someone else’s actions? Is it not their own business what they find pleasure in? If you want to look at pornography, and you find nothing wrong with it, who than am I to tell you otherwise? I have no sovereignty over your life, my morals are a figment of my own imagination sculpted through years of “brain-washing”, just as yours are, and just as everyones are. Who then has the right to place their own ideas of morality above the ideas and opinions of others? You said that “rules” are made, but how and by whom, and on what authority? How is one to decide that another person is to be put to death, or locked in prison for the remainder of their lives? When you eliminate some sort of original morality, or some sort of original standard by which to live, all other standards become meaningless. They are nothing more than one man giving his “opinion” to another man on how he thinks the other man should live, but as I think you would agree, this is a fruitless and foolish endeavor. You obviously do not want me to tell you how to live, and I certainly do not want you to tell me how to live. You said that a society of moral absolutes would be defined as “fundamentalist”, a society in which the laws are not able to be bent or challenged. I however disagree, laws are made based on truths that were considered absolute and unchangeable by the people who made them. While the truths that the laws are based on may be unchangeable and enduring, the laws founded on those truths are most certainly able to be challenged and changed. Laws are interpreted, challenges are raised, and laws are changed, and laws are removed, and new laws are made. Not only is this important, but it would not work otherwise. However, just because the interpretation or understanding of a truth has changed, does not mean the truth itself has changed at all, only the way it is looked at. This may seem like semantics, but I think it is an important distinction, and one that you fail to see. I do not make a blanketed criticism of pornography, nor of books, nor of television, quite the opposite, but what I do criticize is the belief that morality can change depending on a person’s state of mind. I do not understand how someone can say, “They only think it is wrong because of the way they were brought up.”, could I not then say, “well you only think it is right because of the way you were brought up.”? This line of reasoning is circular and a waste of time, either it is wrong or it is right, it cannot be both based on the person perceiving it. Attacking of concepts is the very reason philosophy exists, and I do not know how you can say that it eliminates reasoning and debating, when it does exactly the opposite. I am attacking your concept of morality and you are reasoning and debating your side of the argument. Makes perfect sense to me. You may think that my view of the world is overly simple, but as the great English theologian Julius Charles Hare once said, “The greatest truths are the simplest, and so are the greatest men.”

Side note: The man who posted an anology comparing slavery to pornography I think was responded to unfairly. Although pornography has nothing directly in common with slavery it was the moral acceptance of the two that he was trying to draw attention too. Now someone who does not understand the purpose of an anology may think it sounds crazy to try and equate something as horrific (again only my “opinion”, some people find slavery highly attractive) as slavery to something as relatively minor as pornography. But he could have just as easily used the example of say, the moral acceptance of witch hunts in the 17th century. The point I believe he was trying to make was not that pornography is somehow as bad as slavery, but that they were both at one time morally acceptable, and that we may one day look back on pornography, just like slavery, and think, “Wow, what were we thinking with that pornography, that was crazy and wrong (again “wrong” being relative to him).” Summing up, just because the two things are not similar does not make it a bad analogy, just look at Mr. Sugar’s use of blue jeans and rape in an early part of this very article.

Good debate. A bit long-winded, but good.

What Axiom described sounds to me exactly like what Mr. Sugar said about a “third way.” One based on morals/laws but flexible enough to accomodate the realities of life. If our laws were based on moral absolutes, like “thou shalt not kill”, then murder would always be wrong. But there ARE times when, for instance, a policeman must shoot a robber holding an innocent person hostage in order to save the life of the latter. That is not wrong. Like you said, laws based on absolutes but given the flexibility, decided on by majority consent, to work with the unforseen situations of life.

But this is all philosophical anyway. This topic was about porn. Trying to pull this conversation into a right vs. wrong discussion is pointless. People who like it should enjoy it. Those who don’t like it should avoid it. Easy squeezy.

Even if you could prove your point about moral absolutes, there will be no way everyone will agree with it. Burning witches, slavery and murder all involve taking away someone else’s rights. Porn does not. I see what Axiom is saying about drawing the analogy between what is morally accepted, but it’s really a flawed comparison.

Fiodr brought up some interesting thoughts about the true conditions of workers in the sex industry. That, to me, is far more important than debating whether porn is right or wrong.

Your reasoning “it works for me and my wife” and “I wouldn’t have cared when I was 6″ is goofy logic…Very poor debating skills…you argue from personal experience…Those against porn do the same thing from thier personal point of view…both points of view are drivel…

I agree with what Sugar is saying and with what a lot of the other comments said. And it is a “free country” when it comes to speaking you mind so no one is wrong here and no one is right but everyone is having some fun : ) no debate about that!

Only one more comment and then I am done, but if anyone would like to discuss anything in more detail or hear my view on something, you can easily email me, which is given. I would love to hear from you. That being said, Reverse, like I stated previously I have no problem with the third way, and stated that the third way was nothing more than rewording the first way. Living based on the principle “thou shalt not kill” for example, does not mean that a police officer cannot kill a robber defending himself, or that I cannot engage in combat with an assailant if my life is in danger. As stated, these would be interpretations of the truth, and able to be judged on their own merits. This in no way conflicts with what I am trying to say. You are right that this topic was about porn, but through that topic the subject of relative morals was brought up, not only by the articles’ author, but also by several respondents to said article. It was not my intent to turn this comment page into some righteous crusade against porn, I do not care one way or another about porn, and have no problem with someone enjoying if that is what they want to do. But as I said, my main focus in writing these “long-winded” posts as you put it, is that I felt it important that the people sitting on their high horses telling others that their ideas are uneducated, ignorant, uninformed, or even a result of “brainwash”, look at their own worldviews and the incredible shortsightedness of looking at the world in shades of grey. I am not trying to debate about what is right and what is wrong, I am simply trying to show that right and wrong exist. Obviously there are no proofs for the existence of absolute truth, other than logical ones, but to deny its existence I think I have shown would result in widespread chaos, a point that was not missed on the founding fathers. I do not expect everyone to agree with it, that would be foolhardy and stupid, I accepted it was probably a lost cause before my fingers ever touched the keyboard, but that does not stop people from sharing their opinion, just as I am not inclined to agree with many things you may believe. As for the analogy, I do not know if you thuroughly read my explanation, but I will explain it again. The point was not about unalienable rights being taken away or infringed upon, it was about the moral comparison between the two. It may not be the greatest of analogies but it served the purpose of the person writing it, and that was once again to show the parallel between moral acceptance of something that was later deemed to be immoral. To use Mr. Sugar’s example of blue jeans to make my point, blue jeans are worn on your legs, and porn is not, but that does not mean his analogy is a faulty one, it just means you are missing what the analogy is attempting to compare. I do agree with you on one thing, debating whether or not porn is right, is pointless, which is why I have not done so. What I am attempting to debate is the underlying issue and by far the more important one in all this. I apologize for my redundancy, but it is the only way to make sure I am understood. Mr. Sugar, I do not think Dude was trying to say you had a wife, I believe he was referring to another respondent who had said something about porn making his marriage stronger and allowing him to be an open freak with his wife. Also, I do not think anyone has to “say” you were debating, because the definition takes care of that for us, “to debate: To engage in argument by discussing opposing points”. Now if we are discussing concurrent points than I think I have made a terrible mistake. Your are expressing a point of view as you said, and I am doing the same, no college paper necessary, just two people discussing an interesting topic, I for one think that challenging your own beliefs as well as others is very healthy and far from a waste of time. Yes Blink it is a free country, and a great one at that, but the reason it is great is because the state has moral sovereignty, take away that sovereignty and all you will have left is a governless country ripe for a tyrant. John Adams summed this up nicely when he said, “We have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion. Avarice, ambition, revenge, or gallantry, would break the strongest cords of our Constitution as a whale goes through a net. Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate for the government of any other.”

P.S. Any responses to my comments can be sent to my email if you so desire, for I do not think I will be visiting this site again. I would be more than happy to talk with anyone willing to listen, and happy to listen to anyone willing to talk.

Sorry to burst all of your bubbles, but this article is a COMPLETE AND TOTAL LIE! I find it very sad that you don’t think exposing children to sex at an early age is wrong…and that you don’t feel that porn can break up marriages. It does both these things and much more. I also find it sad that two people can’t enjoy sex without bringing third (albethey not real) parties in. I know plenty of kids who are totally screwed up and have a completely unrealistic expectation of sex. I’m a Christian and I don’t see anything wrong with sex, God made it and it’s good, but it’s the best when it’s just you and your spouse (not girlfried, boyfriend, or F***buddy…I wasn’t always saved)! I feel sorry for your kids and your significant other…I’m more than enough for my husband. I’m sorry if you don’t agree…we all have opinions…Not sarcastically, but seriously, I’ll be praying that God shows you the joy of what He created…ain’t nothin like doin’ it in the will of God.

Interesting article – I don’t totally agree with everything you said, but good on you for stating your POV.
BUT, I digress – what I found fascinating is if you change one word throughout the 9 “anti-porn myths debunked”, I believe you have 9 irrefutable fact statements.

Substitute the first word of each of the 9 “myth” headings (PORN) with the word “WAR” – now read each heading and you see that every “myth -point” becomes a valid truth, and for those of you who want to nit-pick about the revised point 8, “WAR spreads STDs”, if you don’t believe that, just ask any military Medical Officer and you’d find that treating STDs in the military is all part of love & war (jeez, I’m on a roll here)

Anyway, enough of this – my final point is that if you substitute PORN for WAR, and now re-read those 9 points, they’re no longer myths, and surely WAR is the true PORN anyway?

NOTE TO SELF – cut back on the caffeine and take a nap

we can watch porn if we want, it soesnt harm anyone, people choose to be harmed by it. all it is is pleasuring the sences in a diffrent way! so anyone who wants to complain… UP YOURS!!!!!

Little bit off your subject, but almost any person you were to ask these days as to why porn is illegal, they will give you a spill about the indecent content it contains. And that is total lack of knowledge.
Porn only became illegal when the FBI in the USA linked Organised Crime to the laundering of drug money via the sex industry. Wrap up, finish end of story.
The only porn that you could truly say is banned because of content is child porn. And rightly so.
Jaron

Okay, so you like porn. You can do your best to defend it all you want but this particular posting is an opinion piece and you haven’t actually debunked anything. You don’t have a single fact backing you up.

Porn doesn’t always hurt, it can be fun. I don’t think there’s anything wrong with nudity, or children seeing nudity. I don’t think there’s anything wrong with sex between consenting adults, no matter what they decide to do with or to each other. I don’t have any religious beliefs, you might say my morals are even questionable. I look at porn sometimes, all sorts of it, I’ve seen a lot, but I also know what it can do and what it DOES do.

Try being a woman for a while. It just isn’t safe in the world for half of the population. I just followed a link to a site about a cartoon that was run in softcore porn magazines in the 70s and 80s. Sounds pretty harmless, but the focus of this widespread cartoon is a clumsy woman who constantly gets molested and raped by strangers with a “What can you do?” attitude. Men loved that shit. Lots of men.

I have a friend who runs a porn site, she (yes, she) makes sure that it’s a fun experience for her employees, doesn’t make them do anything they aren’t comfortable with, and doesn’t choose women based on unrealistic ideals. It’s not nearly as popular as the airbrushed crap but put a nude girl somewhere but it’s got a steady fan base. Not only does most porn (as well as most magazines and television shows and movies, etc.) give women terrible self-esteem, it makes them competitive and angry. It can make women pathetic and only focused on getting approval from men.

It does break up marriages, women often feel insecure that their husbands aren’t satified with them sexually, or that they can’t live up, or they’re just pissed because their man stares at naked chicks and jerks off all day which, really, do it often enough and I’d bet it’s fucking annoying to someone who has to live with you. Porn itself isn’t to blame, in that case, I guess. That’s men who have their priorities wrong, or are addicted, but porn is certainly involved heavily, so I think it counts.

Rape is a constant fear, only men can stop rape, even if a woman fantasizes about being raped, she doesn’t EVER want it to happen. I was a rape counselor for a few years, the results are devastating and I have to say that I have seen a huge amount of porn that certainly deals with force. That’s powerful, to tie sexual gratification to force. I get turned on by it sometimes, but I hate that. I would never want to be involved on either side of it in reality.

In college, we were shown a video of soldiers preparing for combat. Before being sent off to fight, they were shown hardcore porn to make them more aggressive. That’s telling. It says something about what we get out of porn, energy, yes, but not always happy, post-cum glory energy. Sometimes it’s just rage.

I’m not going to take you point by point, it would take a long time and you can see that I have a lot to say, BUT you have NOT made good, valid points. You could have tried harder. I was interested to see what this article was about, I followed a link here, too, but it’s a bunch of opinion, nothing has swayed me in the least.

Wow, you have an interesting thread here, guys
I do not want to be involved in porn discussion – not because I feel porn wrong but just because there is no sence trying to talk reasonable with people who do not use logic in their POV. Once God, morality or other things like that are involved there is no place for logic. So I won’t vote for or against porn. Although I DO know Sam makes great sence with his article.

So why am I writing here you ask? Just because of great POV of Axiom. He (she?) misses one of the most important (if not the very most important) thing of moral aspects. There are just two words which explain every of Axiom’s doubts: FREE WILL. Everything that limits free will of one is WRONG. Everything that doesn’t is RIGHT.
Due to that murder is always wrong because no person wants to die. It is the ultimate immoral doing at all. For the same reason slavery (in it’s classical meaning) is wrong. Rape (real I mean) is always wrong. But other things may be right or wrong depending on willingness of involvers. Yes, sex with minors may be right – if no harm is done to minor and no pressure was made to convinve minor to have sex. Porn is right when we don’t HAVE people who do not want to see it to do so. Right because of that trying to restrict porn is WRONG because part of people have others to do what they do not want.

Just try to view at this from the two magic words position – and many things become clear and simple. You want porn – you have the holy right to see it. Your wife doesn’t want it – you must take care of her and decide what to do to not harm her. If you can’t live without porn – your wife should reconsider her hate for porn and decide if she want to change her mind. If you both can’t change then possibly you should distort because you are too different people to be happy together. Things are simple if we get down from cosmic problems to just two people relations.

There is no single truth: porn is good/porn is bad. It is like sugar – some people can’t imagine their life without it and it would kill others almost on sight. It would be wrong if people who can’t eat sugar would try to close all sugar manufacturies or restrict selling sugar, isn’t it?

Raven was perfect. That’s all.

By the way, although at the end I understood your point about sugar, at first I thought you’re talking about Sugar. It was fun: “sell Sugar, kill for Sugar, EAT Sugar…”

hehehe…

I’d say Sugar not sugar in this case But LOL

I know I said I would not respond anymore to these posts, but I was bored and this one is classic. Free will you say? Wow I really missed that huh? You must have felt pretty good when you came up with that. Unfortunately your argument makes no sense, or should I say sence? Explains everyone of my doubts? I do not see how. You must have not read my posts. The only thing it changes is the word “opinion” to “will”. Exact same argument other than that. Trying to say that anything that someone is forced to do against their will is wrong, is quite possibly the most unreasonable and illogical thing I have ever heard. I take it then that you believe our public school system to be wrong? Do you think that forcing children to learn against their will is somehow immoral? Or do these rules only apply to adults? So then should we get rid of prisons? After all it is wrong to force someone to give up their free will is it not? And what do you say when someones will conflicts with someone elses? Who’s will is the right will? If I will to murder you, and you will me not to, whos will is more important? I mean I could go on and on and on and on. The point is that just by saying “free will” you have accomplished nothing, other than maybe showing how ignorant you are. The same rules still apply as before, laws are made to infringe on the wills of people who would will to do wrong, and without setting a standard for wrong the laws still have no power. Change the wording if you want, argue semantics until your blue in the face, the underlying facts are just as relevant if you want to say “opinion” or “free will”. Sorry that you could not see the correlation, next time I will attempt to make it clearer. Just to sum up, your argument makes no sense, your logic is unbelievably flawed, and your claim that you know anything whatsoever about what is and is not logical quite honestly makes me laugh. I have decided to go easy on you because English is obviously not your first language, but your attempted analogy about sugar to conclude your argument made me wonder if your whole post was a joke. People cannot live without sugar? Die on the sight of it? What are you talking about? I do not think that anyone finds the seasoning of food with sugar to be wrong in anyway, but lets suppose that someone did for some reason hate sugar, so what? I hate spinach, but I certainly do not care if Pop-eye loved it, more power to him. That analogy has no value at all when it comes to this argument, I never once said that porn should be banned, and in fact several times stated that I did not mind it one way or the other. This argument was about whether or not morality exists, but judging by your post you must have missed that entirely.

I guess the founding fathers of this country were illogical and unreasonable to create a system of government that relied on the principles of morality and God authority. Maybe you could have done better. Then again, probably not. But that is just me.