It’s probably a better political environment to push for restrictions on access to porn than it’s been in decades. Most people still don’t approve of it. The free speech justification for it has been knee-capped on the left. And there has been a rightward turn in views towards sex among #metoo feminists.
There's nothing "liberal" about porn. Porn is neither conservative nor liberal, it is libertine.
I guess this is also a good time for vulnerability since we're talking patriarchy. I've had periods of erectile dysfunction and they almost always overlapped with periods of intense stress or depression. Other times it had to do with my diet. That didn't stop some people at the time bringing up my porn use, which feels really nasty and humiliating when it happens to you.
That isn't to say there aren't men who desensitize themselves, but I suspect that's more prevalent in young men and more of a minority in general. It is a provocative thing to bring up in conversation.
If your partner prefers interacting with porn to doing so with you, the porn use is a symptom, not the source of the problem.
And most additictions really are just a symptom for other problems.
It is an error to assume that what women “really want” is “freedom from modesty.” It’s clear how that helps men. But how does it help women?
Fourth wave feminism is where we're at now for context.
By legalizing it, you effectively add cost, or tax, and the illegal component continues to remain (unlesss you simply make it stop being illegal, and unregulated, which most people agree is a bad idea) and the market segregates the workers into legal and illegal workers. The illegal workers lives get even worse, and the legal workers end up losing a lot of their money.
Look at legal marijuana, or hell, even legal prostitution in places that allow it and you'll see that's been the real effect.
but that's the point, legalizing or decriminalizing the actual act enables the people involved to seek protection from the illegal components.
Look at legal marijuana, or hell, even legal prostitution in places that allow it and you'll see that's been the real effect
at least in germany the opposite effect seems to be the case:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prostitution_Act
"Sexual acts in the context of a prostitution contract are now valid to establish claims for compensation since the law came into force. This has not only significance for civil law, but also criminal law (property offences). In addition, prostitutes can now regularly insure in the statutory health, unemployment and pension insurance."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prostitutes_Protection_Act
"effective protection for prostitutes is only possible if this work is legalised"
in addition to that, the issue i see is, how much control is necessary to enforce a ban on prostitution. i would argue that it is not possible without a serious reduction of personal freedom. legalizing it enables to focus the control on those engaged in such activities whereas the rest of us won't be bothered.
> Each sample of national adults includes a minimum quota of 70% cellphone respondents and 30% landline respondents, with additional minimum quotas by time zone within region. Landline and cellular telephone numbers are selected using random-digit-dial methods.
https://news.gallup.com/poll/235280/americans-say-pornograph...
Dunno about you but I never answer unknown numbers, and neither does any of my friends, or anyone in my age bracket that I know, or anyone younger (gen z), so ... "Older Americans say they dislike pornography" is hardly surprising to me.
If you look at the demographic break downs its only getting more acceptable.
If you look at the demographic breakdowns, almost all the movement is among younger men. Among women 18-49, it’s only 41% approval.
E.g. I won't do drugs, I do not like people who do drugs, yet I'm all for regulation.
Did you state the end of it backwards?
I don't do drugs, I don't like drugs, but I think the drug war is worse than the drugs.
I’m pro ethical pornography. But still this is a weird argument for it.
The only argument that matters is whether the person making pornography is consenting to it and isn’t being taken advantage of. That second part is very tricky with a very wide spectrum of opinions.
Are these crimes against prostitutes factored in to the total incidence of sex crimes? I just briefly looked at your link and can't tell.
We're potentially dealing with a "The Ones Who Walk Away from Omelas" situation here.
For delivery drivers you just need to make "the streets" safer. For prostitutes you have to manage their workplace, which could be the john's house, or a random motel.
Then maybe change it so they can have a safe and legal place of business.
I’d go a step further and suggest that porn is a cause of these men’s problems. The availability of porn eliminates their incentive to go out and do things to become a desirable mate.
Those dozen women are presumably have a dozen one night stands with a dozen hot/rich guys. The numbers are averaging out. They pretty much have to.
> bunch of poor/fat/socially awkward ones can't hope for a partner
They need to lower their physical beauty standards of potential partners. Which presumably would be easier if porn (and photoshopping) was less available to distort those standards in the first place.
> but since this is not the reality, what is your next plan?
Erotic comics or literature that doesn't involve images and movies of real people.
Except that as humans we invented police, welfare and birth control, so now the hot/rich guy has less responsibilities and it can be just one night stands rather than having at least some concerns about upkeep of the harem/mistresses. And marginal guys no longer have an option of a discarded mistresses who has a child that needs at least some kind of support.
Historically, also, some of those harem women were having fun with men who weren't their husband. This is also common in other species, with at least one species of old-world primate that I can't recall the name of having a sexual structure where the females, who are technically part of a harem of an alpha male, will have sex with other males with the alpha male's tacit knowledge, as long as it isn't in his face.
For some the thrill of the cheating is enough to make the partner seem more attractive than they physically are.
None of this is rocket science. Society figured this out a couple thousand years ago when monogamy became normal even for royalty before/under Christianity. Of course some would try to make exceptions for themselves (eg Henry VIII), but they typically aren't held up as exemplary people today (or those particular actions against monogamy is viewed negatively, like with King David), and rightfuly so.
If you place restrictions on possession of material, it would have free speech implications that I don't think are trivial. Sure, we don't have absolute free speech but then there would be a debate about what porn is and the worst part of this is there is enough porn out there already that a lot of people would become felons once banned. It could even be weaponized to destroy websites where users can host content. Porn detectors would probably have to scan everything and there would be a non-zero false positive rate.
If you use the internet to restrict it, you're creating this powerful device the government has to censor the internet. I think this last one is something the government is very very interested in having. It's just hard to see how any of this would improve people's lives even if you are totally opposed to porn.
This is a fully general argument against banning anything at all. Nevertheless, we ban things, and moreover, we do not seem to act as if act of banning is meant to be pointless charade.
We ban smoking in many public places, we ban possession of weapons by felons, or carrying them without a license in many places. We ban selling alcohol to minors, and we ban kids from driving a car.
These measures are highly successful, they resulted in great reduction of the banned activity, and most people would oppose lifting this bans.
In other words, the answer to the question “how banning porn would work?” is “very effectively, like most other things that government bans and actively enforces”.
Likewise, on the internet, for a ban to be effective, heavy handed measures will have to be implemented. For example, a legal apparatus for effective policing and enforcement will grow in power against citizens, edge nodes of a country's internet border will be monitored, personal information and identity will be stored and tracked, etc. The internet has many uses so even if you do not like porn, I think a porn ban specifically will adversely effect people's free speech rights. That is not necessarily true for other types of bans.
https://news.gallup.com/poll/235280/americans-say-pornograph...
And note the breakdown by religion--most of the opposition to pornography is religious-based.
What does that matter? The objection to pornography among religious people isn’t rooted in the supernatural or doctrinal aspects of religion. It’s not like mixing fabrics or eating shellfish. If you broke down the results by different religions, I suspect you’d find that Hindus and Muslims and Christians are all pretty opposed to pornography.
What you’re really talking about is moral philosophy. Do you believe that society should prioritize individual self expression and satisfaction, or collective duty and family formation? These are correlated with, but separable from, supernatural religious beliefs.
It matters because we have a secular government, so we don’t make laws based on people’s religious beliefs, no matter how popular those beliefs may be.
Religious people are welcome to live by whatever set of rules their books dictate, as long as doing so doesn’t infringe on other people’s rights. But they are not welcome to apply their religious restrictions to everyone else.
I also think that “nonreligious” people tend to retain much of the non-falsifiable moral philosophy they grew up with, and that for purposes of politics, it doesn’t make a difference whether you call that “religion” or not. As a foreigner, I find the phenomenon of white people who start fights with their family for saying racist things fascinating. In my culture you wouldn’t do that because preserving harmony within families is highly prized. It’s very Christian, though. “Do not think that I have come to bring peace to the earth; I have not come to bring peace, but a sword. For I have come to set a man against his father, and a daughter against her mother, and a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law; and one’s foes will be members of one’s own household.” Similarly, American political debate about LGBT “human rights” is deeply Christian. People can’t come out and say “God created everyone in his image.” But they would flip out if you proposed a utilitarian calculus that couples who can naturally create more taxpayers are more socially valuable than couples who cannot. These people think of themselves as atheists but coming from a non-Christian country it’s easy to see the through-line in their beliefs.
This is a roundabout way of saying that I agree people who don’t believe in God can be moral. But I think that anyone who is moral has a framework of non-falsifiable moral beliefs that, for purposes of politics, isn’t materially distinguishable from religion. Certainly, there is nothing about our Constitution that prioritizes moral systems that arise from university departments over those that arise from organized religion.
For political purposes, Christianity is just another “ism” that motivates people’s political choices. If the government has the power to restrict access to porn under the first amendment, then it doesn’t matter whether people support such restrictions because they are Christian and think that porn creates social harm or because they read Andrea Dworkin and think that porn creates social harm: https://www.nytimes.com/2021/09/24/opinion/sex-positivity-fe....
What is not ok is for a bill to be drafted that starts out with “Whereas the Christian Bible contains teachings implying pornography is against God, and Whereas we seek to glorify God…”. (This is just an example to illustrate the point. I’m not implying you or anyone who understands our constitution would think laws should be written this way, but this is what a non-secular law might look like.)
Bills must be based on evidence. “Whereas scientific studies by competent and qualified scientists and researchers have recently concluded that exposure to pornography is harmful to children,…”
Again, I think we were arguing related but distinctly different points about the original “most of the opposition to pornography is religious-based” and “What does that matter?” statements.
It’s impossible to avoid basing laws on moral beliefs, because fundamentally, moral beliefs are directed to notions of what will make a better society. Your version of “secularism” doesn’t take non-falsifiable moral judgments out of lawmaking. It just gives preference to one set of non-falsifiable beliefs over another. For example, acceptance of pornography or sex work is heavily based on the idea that people should be able to do what they want sexually so long as there is consent. What is the scientific evidence behind that belief? There isn’t. It’s based on a moral belief about sexual satisfaction being an important part of the human experience, it’s based on a moral belief about individual freedom and the limits on it, etc. Ultimately, it’s a moral belief about what kind of society is better.
Some Christians might have had that belief, but many racist (and, years earlier, slave-owning) Christians believed the opposite to be true, and used the Bible to justify slavery [1]. Jefferson Davis was quite explicit about it [2]:
> [Slavery] was established by decree of Almighty God...it is sanctioned in the Bible, in both Testaments, from Genesis to Revelation...it has existed in all ages, has been found among the people of the highest civilization, and in nations of the highest proficiency in the arts.
When I say "based on evidence" I mean that bills must have some basis that everyone can agree on. People may not agree with the conclusions, but there is a firm basis there nonetheless.
It doesn't take a lot of imagination to consider the consequences of religiously based laws. Imagine you're a Christian in a small town, and for whatever reason, your town becomes a popular place for immigrants/refugees from the Middle East to settle, and all of a sudden your town has a slight Muslim majority. Would it be ok for them to vote to require all women in the town to wear hijabs in public because they believe God demands it? To such a proposal, you might say "that's absurd! God doesn't want us to wear hijabs!" There's no way to settle the argument, because there's no evidence for the claim one way or the other.
That's the problem with laws based on religion, and that's why our constitution protects against them.
[1] https://time.com/5171819/christianity-slavery-book-excerpt/
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_views_on_slavery#Opp...
Imagine if Christians had a strong belief in tending the garden given to them by God, and it entailed a strong wish to fight climate change. It would be absurd to say that they cannot do anything in that direction, just because their reasons for this are religious in nature.
If you don’t like majority imposing restrictions on minorities based on their moral theories, your problem is not with religion, but rather with democracy.
If Christians want to fight climate change because they believe that's what God wants, great! They should seek policies to do just that. But what the lawmakers cannot do is write laws that say "the EPA must impose greenhouse gas limits because God commands it."
The lawmakers can have their reasons for the bills they write (they can believe it's what God wants, or they can know it's what their voters believe it's what God wants), but the laws themselves cannot be based on religion.
If you can't make secular decisions in your job representing all people in your constituency, if you can't separate your religious belief and personal morals from what is legislatively appropriate, then just maybe, you shouldn't be a politician. On the other hand, if you can act appropriately as a legislator, then I have no problem with a person who is personally deeply religious from holding elected office.
If you are a Senator or Representative in the US, you also represent the atheists in your constituency, as well of those of all other religious beliefs than your own. You don't just represent the ones who align with your religious belief.
So yeah, this is exactly what I was talking about: this is disenfranchising people based on their religion.
> If you can't make secular decisions in your job representing all people in your constituency, if you can't separate your religious belief and personal morals from what is legislatively appropriate, then just maybe, you shouldn't be a politician. (...) If you are a Senator or Representative in the US, you also represent the atheists in your constituency, as well of those of all other religious beliefs than your own. You don't just represent the ones who align with your religious belief.
This is just an isolated demand of rigor, it's a standard that you would not apply in other circumstance. Try making the same argument, but replacing religion with political party. "Sure, you are personally deeply aligned with Democratic policy, but you also represent Republicans in your constituency, so you should separate your personal beliefs and morals from your politics, and don't push for policy that your Republican constituents would not agree with". This is of course ridiculous.
You need to understand that what you proposing here is plainly disadvantaging (some) religious beliefs compared to other philosophies, and holding them to a different, higher standards. Why do majority of voters have to give "sufficient secular reason" for a given law? Constitution doesn't demand this sort of "parallel construction".
If you allow religious belief to be the sole factor behind legislative action, then you also open the door to a different religion coming in and democratically taking the reins of that action.
They also will heavily vocalize their opinion that no other religion should be able to come in and do exactly that. In the years after 9/11, they would harp about "Sharia law" and how it was allegedly "taking over parts of the US".
It is very clear in the Constitution that the government may not favor one religion over another. Ergo, to open legislative action to religious motivation allows any religion to do the same, no matter what. The US is pretty open about what it considers to be a "religion" as well, we're one of the few countries that allow Scientology to be considered a religion.
In the interest of identifying bias, I live in Tennessee, right in the middle of the bible belt. Thus, my opinion is indeed biased by experience in this area. I've seen how nasty and bigoted this neck of the woods can be, and these are the people that the region's politicians tend to pander to.
Nobody ever addresses the middle ground...the group of parents who have no objection to adults' use of it but believe it's not something that the developing minds of children should have unfettered access to.
I don’t think the commenter necessary would disagree that many parents _do_ want to protect children, but that so much of the electorate turns off their critical thinking skills when that sheepskin is used. They don’t seem to remain skeptical that the law could actually be a wolf in sheep’s clothing.
Or maybe I’m just projecting…
https://news.gallup.com/poll/235250/say-consuming-alcohol-ma...
Also, the proportion of people who find hate speech morally acceptable is likely much lower than 43%, yet that is still protected in the U.S. by the First Amendment.
An activity needs to be more than merely "morally unacceptable" to some people to justify banning it through legislation. You must also consider the infringement of personal liberties that a ban on that activity would cause, the resulting collateral damage, and whether the ban is practically enforceable. Prohibition was unsuccessful in the U.S. even at a time when the temperance movement triggered a wave of anti-alcohol sentiment because there were enough people who rejected the belief that others should be able to restrict their liberties based on different opinions on what is morally acceptable.
Why? States, at least, have the general police power. The first amendment limits it, but the government can regulate conduct generally, and laws against an adultery have impeccable constitutional pedigree.
The government should be able to protect its citizens from harm for the good of the overall community. For example, infidelity hurts children and thus creates a negative externality. Why can’t the government address such externalities like it can with others?
Yes, children walking by pornographic content on an open public street is obviously ridiculous. But it bothers people like me too. I used to even work for a short time in the industry writing software, and I have completely changed my view of the entire situation.
The reality is, that Christians put up with a lot already. Most of us are pretty tolerant, despite what you may believe. Or how many times have you said the name of Jesus Christ in vain and had someone rebuke you for it in public? This stuff really bothers us and we bite down and take it. How often do you see "Christians" hatefully use the F word referring to men who have sex with men? I don't see it much, and when I do I forcefully tell them to stop.
Tolerance works both ways. I shouldn't have to see graphic pornographic content when I walk down the street.
Plenty of times, unfortunately. You might not see it often— are you openly, publicly gay? Do you hold your boyfriend or husbands hand in public? Are you seen going to and leaving a queer bar on the regular? Have you tried to adopt a child with your same-sex significant other, or are seen in public or going to a public school with your adopted child? If you’re not the target of homophobia it makes sense to not experience very much of it.
I'm sorry you hear things in public that offend you, but others in your group are literally telling others they are evil for existing, so maybe you can handle a 'Jesus Christ' here an there.
I feel for you, having the world disagree with your values and opinions can be exhausting. Wouldn't it be nice if we could force people to live the way we want, even if they don't agree? It'd be nice to have that sort of authority, wouldn't it?
For example, it really bothers me when I hear hateful religious doctrine spouted in public. I shouldn't have to listen to that when I walk down the street.
We should have to, though, because of freedom of speech. Graphic pornographic content is a different animal legally. Though I would suggest the parent poster avoid walking down the dead-end street clearly marked "pornhub".
"Legally" isn't really the question, as that's about what is rather than what ought to be.
That said, nobody has to listen, that's definitely not part of freedom of speech. They have to be allowed to listen, which is related but different.
And for what ought to be… well, christian religious commandments have included calls to burn people at the stake if they follow a different faith, and such calls have been listened to and acted on. Heck, I'm in at least four distinct groups people have used religious justifications to demonise.
If you think it won't happen to you, I'd add that sacred cows can be literal, so what happens when Hindu fundamentalism reaches your doorstep and some people call for you to be lynched for eating beef (which is a thing that has happened)? And unlike sexuality, you have a degree of control over the food you consume.
Why should it be. You are claiming one thing falls under the general "freedom of speech", I assume you mean the 1st admendment, but then you call pornography different but cite the law.
Why is pornography wrong? Why is it worse than hate speech? How does it harm you directly? Hate speech can make people feel unsafe, uncomfortable, and can cause stress but it's allowed.
Imagine you walked down the street and two people were just openly having sex, how does that harm you, how does that harm your family? Maybe I should ask, is that harm worse than hate speech?
Freedom of speech is just one part of the 1st amendment, there's also freedom of expression.
I can't read the original article (503 - "Service Unavailable" from a capacity issue), but where are you exposed to "graphic pornographic content" walking down a street today?
If that's happening on a public street today, I tend to agree with you, but I struggle to understand where that's happening today.
"this stuff really bothers us" Have you tried minding your own business? Christianity is forced on people through money ("in god we trust"), politics, the legal system (christianity-based laws and morality) schools (pledge of allegiance, book bans), etc.
But sure, you shouldn't have to see graphic porn when walking down the street; is this an actual issue? Does people's privacy and online services have to be amended to make this illegal? Because last time I checked, nothing changed about public decency, and it's not a religious issue.
If you wouldn't mind reviewing https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and taking the intended spirit of the site more to heart, we'd be grateful.
Tolerance works both ways. I shouldn't have to see cows getting eaten when I walk down the street.
TLDR don't cry me a river your Protestant work ethic already increased water levels
The persecution complex some Christians have is insane. Your moral values shouldn't be enforced by the government, period.
But I can say I grew up in a country where senior Bishops get a direct opportunity to review legislation, the coins have (Latin initial for) "defender of the faith" embossed on them, there is (or was, I don't keep up) a legal requirement for "broadly christian" themed school assemblies, and the national broadcaster has regular Christian shows on both radio and TV.
And despite all that, 52% of the population identifies as "no religion".
Are you in the country that has "in god we trust" printed on the currency, and in use as an official motto?
The social and political impact of mass surveillance and secret targeted profiling of human behaviors is unlikely to dramatically change the trajectories of the lives of people who are today adults, even if it may impact the way our state functions. But for children, having a massive corpus of data on their ever preference, with which to manipulative them as consumers and voters, forever? This is an existential threat to their ability to mature into free-thinking adults.
I don't mind 'think of the children' arguments; but they need to actually rationally consider the impact on children in the first place.