nobible wrote:zoegirl wrote:Except for the fact that
1) the vast majority of women in the porn industry are abused, start too young, etc
2) the major object of porn is to feed lust, to create objects out of people, not promote healthy relationships
3) porn focuses of dominance and hatred.
4) your argument that it is ok rests on the fact that "we all do it" nad "it's natural" which is a convenient argument for things we want to do. But if we use that argument for many things that we all do, we would be in a lot of trouble. (cheating, lying, stealing, jealousy, etc) And because of the existence of those that use it, even secretely, does nothing bu prove that it is tempting, it does nothing to prove its rightness.
5) you are simply wrong about it's non-effects. Porn feeds desire. MOst pedophiles start with porn and while you can argue that they would be pedophiles without, it still has a negative effect.
1. No, they're not abused. They choose to work in that field and laws are enforced to make sure that they are of legal age.
2. There are plenty of married and cohabitating couples that watch porn and have no problem with it. In fact, it enhances the sex lives of some, but that's beside the point I made earlier.
3. Some forms of porn may involve domination and violence but so do many action and horror movies. Should we ban those?
4. Your examples of cheating and stealing aren't relevant. Those involve hurting people who typically do not volunteer to get hurt. Somebody watching porn in the privacy of his/her home and enjoying it doesn't affect other people.
By the way, are you suggesting that it's better for someone to not watch porn and sleep around rather than engage in abstinence through watching porn?
5. I suspected you'd bring up the porno encourages rape and pedophilia argument. I reply with this from Wikipedia:
"The effects of Pornography: An International Perspective"[1] was an epidemiological study which found that the massive growth of the pornography industry in the United States between 1975 and 1995 was accompanied by a substantial decrease in the number of sexual assaults per capita; and reported similar results for Japan.
People can argue that there's a relationship between sexual predators and Harry Potter movies because those were found in their homes, but that doesn't make it true.
The morality of pornography is arguable, but to say that the legality of pornography contributes to sexual crimes is unfounded...not to mention that banning it would violate the Constitution.
1. You respond with a universal negative which indicates to me that you're arguing more emotionally than rationally. Why argue that all women involved in the porn industry are not abused? You cannot know that and at best, should be arguing in terms of a majority or plurality.
2. There's no question that porn is extensively distributed and used. Most "couples" don't use it together. It is primarily a male dominated market (although female involvement is increasing). Are you aware of what the citation rate of porn use and online addictions of this nature are in divorce cases? Does that support your contention of a universal negative?
3. Your argument begs the question, should we ban or regulate anything? Do you draw any lines? Is there inherent wrong involved in the purveying of violent, domination that is actual verses other medium you cite which are representative and symbolic in most cases.
4. Porn is universally victimless? Do you know what the suicide and depression rate is among actors and actresses in the sex industry? Is that relevant? Does the "innocent" consumption of the product in the privacy of one's home eliminate the harm in terms of the lives and outcomes of many who are involved in the sex industry? What about the divorce and broken family incidences. Do you believe it is a primary couples consumed item or does it feed in many cases an addictive habit and pattern in the one using it, often in secret, who in turn becomes emotionally and physically less available? Is there a societal impact that accrues from these factors or do you honestly believe there is no impact or harm experienced because technology now allows for anonymous and private access at a higher level?
5. Laws by nature are moral. Legality and efficasy are not mutually inclusive. Arguing for the constitutionally of something (independent of the fact that it is arguable in an of itself) doesn't extend to the realm of morality and advisability.
Dogmatism is the comfortable intellectual framework of self-righteousness. Self-righteousness is more decadent than the worst sexual sin. ~ Dan Allender
The guy in my English class is hot, but I never thought about having sex with him. 
