The Political Problem of Pornography

[ShieldWife]

Oh, she wouldn’t get mad at you. She’d laugh at you.

You’d probably prefer her to be angry.

Well, okay then.

 

[Deleted member]

I don’t support any laws restricting anyone’s place in society. A healthy, spiritual society will find the right places for exceptions and outliers. But I do oppose society being organized on the assumption men and women want the same things and so we can just structure society to measure success and reward based entirely on male ambitions and desires.

 

[Certified_Heterosexual]

The fervor and extent to which people defend porn— which runs the gamut from "so what, if you don't like it don't watch it" to "it's natural and if YOU don't like it, it's YOU who is weird" and beyond— is really shocking. After all, why would anyone devote time to watching drug addicts and teenage runaways have sex (let alone devoting time to defending and/or celebrating the same)?

Doing so is the telltale behavior of an addict, albeit of a particular kind. Presumably the person shooting heroin every night or getting shitfaced at the bar five or six times a week can at least more or less acknowledge that his behavior is, to borrow a word, "problematic." Not so for the porn addict (Or at least not explicitly. One can infer that their spirited defense of porn consumption is a tacit admission that what they are doing is wrong— you don't see people defending traditional virtues like fortitude, prudence or temperance with such vigor because virtue doesn't need a defense.) The porn addict/apologist is instead motivated by a need to have his pathological and self-destructive behavior viewed by his peers and his society as not only legitimate but also praiseworthy. Not at all coincidentally, the exact same need is evidenced by the foaming at the mouth apologists for gay and/or transsexual lifestyles.

It's a good bet that this is a result of social atomization: the acceptance/celebration demanded from society from these broken individuals serves them as a sort of ersatz sense of belonging and community that could be found in a traditional society. No doubt other factors are at play— the family of related vices descended from society's inability to distinguish liberty from libertinism being obvious candidates— but I think alienation and atomization are at the (shriveled, rotten) heart of it.

 

[The Name of Love]

The fervor and extent to which people defend porn— which runs the gamut from "so what, if you don't like it don't watch it" to "it's natural and if YOU don't like it, it's YOU who is weird" and beyond— is really shocking. After all, why would anyone devote time to watching drug addicts and teenage runaways have sex (let alone devoting time to defending and/or celebrating the same)?

Doing so is the telltale behavior of an addict, albeit of a particular kind. Presumably the person shooting heroin every night or getting shitfaced at the bar five or six times a week can at least more or less acknowledge that his behavior is, to borrow a word, "problematic." Not so for the porn addict (Or at least not explicitly. One can infer that their spirited defense of porn consumption is a tacit admission that what they are doing is wrong— you don't see people defending traditional virtues like fortitude, prudence or temperance with such vigor because virtue doesn't need a defense.) The porn addict/apologist is instead motivated by a need to have his pathological and self-destructive behavior viewed by his peers and his society as not only legitimate but also praiseworthy. Not at all coincidentally, the exact same need is evidenced by the foaming at the mouth apologists for gay and/or transsexual lifestyles.

It's a good bet that this is a result of social atomization: the acceptance/celebration demanded from society from these broken individuals serves them as a sort of ersatz sense of belonging and community that could be found in a traditional society. No doubt other factors are at play— the family of related vices descended from society's inability to distinguish liberty from libertinism being obvious candidates— but I think alienation and atomization are at the (shriveled, rotten) heart of it.

This is a good point, but this thread was about the political problem with pornography. Even if it were morally legitimate for an individual to use pornography, there is a considerable political problem with pornography.

I noticed on here that most of the people used arguments like "if you give the government the power to censor porn, they will censor you" or somesuch nonsense. Yes, skepticism about government power is nice, but if you invoke it to prevent actual discussion about what to do about the very real problem, I'm going to call you out on your bullshit.

But in the end, I think this debate has (mostly) been played out. They would neither admit defeat nor defend their claims.

 

[Doomsought]

The fervor and extent to which people defend porn— which runs the gamut from "so what, if you don't like it don't watch it" to "it's natural and if YOU don't like it, it's YOU who is weird" and beyond— is really shocking. After all, why would anyone devote time to watching drug addicts and teenage runaways have sex (let alone devoting time to defending and/or celebrating the same)?

The problem is that you start with the assumption that the state should do anything at all, and never justify the means that the state must go to in order to enforce the action you want from it.

Remember, no matter what you ban, some black guy will get shot by the police because he had that thing and wasn't willing to comply with the police enforcing your ban.

 

[ShieldWife]

The fervor and extent to which people defend porn— which runs the gamut from "so what, if you don't like it don't watch it" to "it's natural and if YOU don't like it, it's YOU who is weird" and beyond— is really shocking. After all, why would anyone devote time to watching drug addicts and teenage runaways have sex (let alone devoting time to defending and/or celebrating the same)?

Doing so is the telltale behavior of an addict, albeit of a particular kind. Presumably the person shooting heroin every night or getting shitfaced at the bar five or six times a week can at least more or less acknowledge that his behavior is, to borrow a word, "problematic." Not so for the porn addict (Or at least not explicitly. One can infer that their spirited defense of porn consumption is a tacit admission that what they are doing is wrong— you don't see people defending traditional virtues like fortitude, prudence or temperance with such vigor because virtue doesn't need a defense.) The porn addict/apologist is instead motivated by a need to have his pathological and self-destructive behavior viewed by his peers and his society as not only legitimate but also praiseworthy. Not at all coincidentally, the exact same need is evidenced by the foaming at the mouth apologists for gay and/or transsexual lifestyles.

It's a good bet that this is a result of social atomization: the acceptance/celebration demanded from society from these broken individuals serves them as a sort of ersatz sense of belonging and community that could be found in a traditional society. No doubt other factors are at play— the family of related vices descended from society's inability to distinguish liberty from libertinism being obvious candidates— but I think alienation and atomization are at the (shriveled, rotten) heart of it.

Why do you assume that people have to engage in something to not want it to be outlawed? There are people who don’t view pornography who think it should be legal. There are people who don’t take drugs who think that drugs should be legalized. There are straight people who think that gays shouldn’t be persecuted.

It’s really just an ad hominem argument - don’t want to kill witches, must mean you’re a witch too. Don’t like punching Nazis, it must mean you’re a Nazi.

 

[The Name of Love]

The problem is that you start with the assumption that the state should do anything at all, and never justify the means that the state must go to in order to enforce the action you want from it.

Remember, no matter what you ban, some black guy will get shot by the police because he had that thing and wasn't willing to comply with the police enforcing your ban.

What can the state legitimately do, in your eyes?

Why do you assume that people have to engage in something to not want it to be outlawed? There are people who don’t view pornography who think it should be legal. There are people who don’t take drugs who think that drugs should be legalized. There are straight people who think that gays shouldn’t be persecuted.

It’s really just an ad hominem argument - don’t want to kill witches, must mean you’re a witch too. Don’t like punching Nazis, it must mean you’re a Nazi.

No, it's not an ad hominem. To point out the fervor with which people defend pornography and theorize that it's probably because they themselves enjoy it isn't the same as saying "they don't want porn to be banned, so that must mean they are a porn addict." Come on, ShieldWife, you are better than this.

 

[Certified_Heterosexual]

No, it's not an ad hominem. To point out the fervor with which people defend pornography and theorize that it's probably because they themselves enjoy it isn't the same as saying "they don't want porn to be banned, so that must mean they are a porn addict." Come on, ShieldWife, you are better than this.

And even if I did imply that they were porn addicts (which I didn't), that's not even that condemnatory. Oftentimes, recovered porn addicts are the best possible critics of porn's grip on people, much like the heroin addict who knows he needs to get clean having more experience with the problem than most.

 

[Doomsought]

What can the state legitimately do, in your eyes?

Defend its borders, track down thieves and murderers, enforce liability, basically anything you can justify someone getting possibly shot over.

 

[Certified_Heterosexual]

Defend its borders, track down thieves and murderers, enforce liability, basically anything you can justify someone getting possibly shot over.

Girls Do Porn Was a Crime Ring, Not a Porn Site, Industry Experts Say

Filming a pack of strangers jizzing all over some crying teen runaway's face under threat of canceling her plane ticket home isn't something you'd be willing to get shot to prevent?

 

[Deleted member 88]

Liberty is an imposition because you are talking about what the political order should be, and all politics is inherently an imposition. Questions of politics always concern questions about the common good (that is, what is good for all members of the political community). Part of the problem I have with liberalism is that it seems to posit that it doesn't have a substantial vision of the good while invoking "liberty" as the highest political value, which is, in fact, a substantial vision of the good.

I don't see anything wrong with "moral crusades" because laws ought to be derived from ethical considerations of contingent circumstances. What I'm noting here is a double standard. If I value natural order in the Aristotelian-Thomistic sense and want to see my values reflected in politics, I'm "imposing my moral standards" or going on a "moral crusade," and that's wrong for some reason. But if you value liberty and want to see your values reflected in politics, you're not imposing anything, you are "liberating" people. This anti-conservative fallacy is discussed in greater detail here. Highly recommend you read it.



As an Aristotelian, I believe the moral character of individuals is inevitably deeply influenced by the character types and sensibilities prevailing in the society around them. A society where people are free to commit all manner of vices is, therefore, unlikely to create a lot of morally upright individuals and would be, therefore, an unjust society. Your assertion that "if individuals are incapable of holding themselves from vice, they are at fault personally and individually" is correct but entirely misses the point. The question isn't whether people are at fault for succumbing to vice, but whether or not we want a society where the majority of people succumb to this vice. And I think we ought not to. As I pointed out earlier, pornography promotes both the decline of religiosity and the decline of the family, and both of those things are central to a functioning society.

Do you concede that, if you had your way, if your ideal society came to fruition, you would be creating a society that I don't consider to be just?



I conceded my views on sex are in the minority, and that the liberal views on sex are themselves widely popular, and then said that that's not an argument for the wrongness of my position. It's like you ignored how I gave my arguments for my position (porn undermines family formation and religiosity, promotes egalitarianism, promotes unrealistic ideas about sex and women), provided some responses to possible counter arguments (like "how will it be implemented without tyranny ensuing?" or "doesn't this violate the first amendment?" or "Don't you see how unpopular your position is?"), and then gave an aside as to why I think our current status quo is in place (because our elites favor it for nefarious purposes).

What's so fallacious about that? Where did I not address liberal views on sex? Where did I use "circular reasoning"? It just seems like you are throwing accusations and seeing what sticks.


Your solution would only work only if we assume a Cartesian view of the individual whose ideas are entirely their own. But in fact, we as individuals are shaped by our societies irrevocably. I wouldn't have the values I had without my parents, my Church, my peers, and my choice in reading material and friends. I can choose these things, sure, but it was unlikely I would ever come to these opinions I have on my own, and those choices were heavily influenced by my previous experiences and values, which were also shaped by society. I had to actually go out of my way to not do these things.

Now before you strawman me, I'm not saying people don't have free will and they aren't responsible for their actions. They are. But can you understand my wanting a society that reflects my values, especially when I think the things that I value (traditional families and religion) are essential not only for individuals but for the political order itself? Can you blame me for wanting a political order whose goal is to help people become the best they can be while giving them enough liberty to grow? I don't think it's fair to presume that I'm some kind of control freak that hates freedom because I disagree with you on what the political order is?

If you are curious about this, I think we can have a broader discussion about political philosophy (which is why I started this thread; to be a place of dialogue between people of differing political philosophies). Stop, take a deep breath, and recognize that I'm not some evil boogeyman.


Well yes. I think you could make the case for a paleolibertarian or fusionist order, where private institutions rather the state enforces moral laws. I don't personally agree with it, it's a position that's out there for everyone to make.

Actually @prinCZess makes a good point here.

People would rebel against your impositions.

Your familiar with prohibition and the drug wars I’m sure?

Did you know young people in Iran use discrete means to arrange sexual or romantic encounters outside of the traditional purview? How do you plan on stopping that?

And yes people can develop identities and values that are not in accord with the dominant norms of their society. That was kind of the essence of the sexual revolution. It’s the essence of the Bible Belt kid becoming an aggressive atheist as soon as they don’t face crippling social stigma once they’ve moved to California.

You don’t seem to consider rebellions against your program will exist and unless you are willing to use severe means to suppress them, they will bring down your impositions and any government doing the imposing.

 

[Doomsought]

Filming a pack of strangers jizzing all over some crying teen runaway's face under threat of canceling her plane ticket home isn't something you'd be willing to get shot to prevent?

The crime there is slavery, not porn.

 

[Terthna]

And even if I did imply that they were porn addicts (which I didn't)

Here's a tip; lying does not work when we can just scroll up and see the truth for our own eyes.

 

[Scottty]

Actually @prinCZess makes a good point here.
People would rebel against your impositions.

Your familiar with prohibition and the drug wars I’m sure?

Did you know young people in Iran use discrete means to arrange sexual or romantic encounters outside of the traditional purview? How do you plan on stopping that?

And yes people can develop identities and values that are not in accord with the dominant norms of their society. That was kind of the essence of the sexual revolution. It’s the essence of the Bible Belt kid becoming an aggressive atheist as soon as they don’t face crippling social stigma once they’ve moved to California.

You don’t seem to consider rebellions against your program will exist and unless you are willing to use severe means to suppress them, they will bring down your impositions and any government doing the imposing.

But... it's a Catholic Monarchy, where the king rules by Divine Right!
Are you implying that people would actually... rebel... against the decrees of their king?
How can you even think of such a thing?

Silly joking aside, yes, @The Name of Love, you do come across at times as talking as if a government passing a law against something is like pushing a magic button. It doesn't work that way.

And even if I did imply that they were porn addicts (which I didn't), that's not even that condemnatory.

Sorry, but you did:

Doing so is the telltale behavior of an addict,

Now I agree that if people get really worked up and aggro when a topic is discussed, that is strong evidence that the matter touches them on some deep emotional level. But we cannot go beyond that with certainty.
For some people, it may simply be a "free speech" issue. For others, it might be concern with how such government powers would be abused.
For example: in some Communist countries, they persecuted people for distributing Bibles by calling the Bible "pornography".

 

[Certified_Heterosexual]

I remember when incest porn of the "hot stepsister" variety started to be pushed in my porn days. I don't care to dig up any evidence of this, but I'm sure of it: the hottest, youngest, most innocent-looking, and overall most desirable new recruits would be put into these videos, always in the highest video quality the site would allow. Predictably, they'd skyrocket to the most popular videos on the site.

The strategy was (and is) to get guys to click on these videos DESPITE the incestuous themes, with the hope that they would eventually click BECAUSE of them. Once a guy hits this stage, he is burrowed entirely into his own shame, completely addicted and isolated, and therefore much more likely to "convert" (techspeak for "become a paying customer"—and it doesn't matter at which site since they're all owned by the same people).

So much of porn degrades or fetishizes "oppressed" identities, or else fantasizes about illegal abuses of power (predatory "step" parents, predatory bosses, predatory teachers, etc.). On its face, it's amazing how little scrutiny porn gets from the social justice set. Aren't millions of people watching these "problematic narratives" as they're iterated and reinforced? If a director glamorized that kind of exploitation in an ordinary movie, the outrage would be audible from Saturn.

Part of it, I guess, is that you can't really analyze porn without subjecting yourself to it. Examination implicates and entangles the viewer. This is true even for these redditors who would be happy to admit to their copious porn use. They're browsing pornography a lot, that's how they've noticed the big inexplicable incest push. But because of this, they're not in a good position to take their indignation to the public. "Let me enjoy my knifeplay gangbang videos in peace, sir, without having to see your disgusting incest roleplay" is not persuasive.

There's really only one solution; you have to indiscriminately destroy the material and never look back. Which is, incidentally, the moral lesson encoded in the Sodom and Gomorrah story.

 

[Yinko]

In terms of political capability to do anything, I do kind of think the ship has sailed. In the past it was honestly pretty practical, make porn magazines and vhs production companies illegal and the amount of stills and home videos available would not be able to satisfy the market demand, thus transitioning the public more towards prostitution or other forms of sexual release.

Now, mainly because of the internet, it really is close to impossible. If the Great Firewall of China can't do it, you wouldn't want to see that government that could.

The way to accomplish the desired result would be to make pornography shameful, seen by people as being neurochemically and ethnically equivilent to substance addiction. Guys like Terry Crews and Mark Manson have already been trying to do that, and there are quite a few doctors, neuroscientists and aid-programs dedicated towards that end as well.

 

[Certified_Heterosexual]

In terms of political capability to do anything, I do kind of think the ship has sailed.

Thinking about this post today, and it reminded me of something that happened recently.

I was catching up with one of my high school friends recently. The subject of pornography came up and he talked about watching it like it's a perfectly normal thing for a 28-year-old adult man with a good job to do. I told him that if I had absolute power, I would use it to ban pornography and execute pornographers.

It was hard to convince him that I wasn't joking. When he realized I was dead serious he didn't know what to think. It was shocking to him that I found it repulsive, that I never watch it, that I advise no one partake in it, and that I think it's a cognitive poison that destroys normal, healthy human sexuality.

The point of this isn't to brag about what a staunchly conservative Internet Tough Guy I am, but that my friend and many others like him can't even imagine a life without their precious pr0n and constant cummies. The shock and confusion in his face was very telling. Porn is as much a part of modern male life as breathing, eating, drinking. "How do you NOT watch porn, dude?" is something I've heard many times from acquaintances but, thankfully, only a handful of my friends. I've managed to get a lot of them to stop the stuff and they thank me all the time for it. They thought it was no problem too, until I suggested they try and go without it... then they realized what a hold it had on them. Being anti-porn is one of the few right-wing views you can still have in polite society, so I push it as much as possible.

 

[Deleted member 88]

Again, I really do think prostitution is a healthier outlet for the insatiable male drive.

Prostitutes are actually real, and also there is some responsibility involved-their not free.

 

[LordsFire]

Again, I really do think prostitution is a healthier outlet for the insatiable male drive.

Prostitutes are actually real, and also there is some responsibility involved-their not free.

Given how exploitative prostitution is ~99% of the time, I'd say you're absolutely wrong.

Given how it almost guarantees a miserable life for the prostitute, I'd say you're wrong.

Given it's a lot easier to move away from a secret porn addiction than it is from habitually visiting prostitutes, I'd say you're wrong.

I'd just say you're wrong in general.

 

[Deleted member 88]

Given how exploitative prostitution is ~99% of the time, I'd say you're absolutely wrong.

Given how it almost guarantees a miserable life for the prostitute, I'd say you're wrong.

Given it's a lot easier to move away from a secret porn addiction than it is from habitually visiting prostitutes, I'd say you're wrong.

I'd just say you're wrong in general.

I know this will sound callous, but I have little interest in the concerns, sentiments, feelings, or state of the prostitutes. They exist to serve a need, nothing else.