Should Pornography be completely banned?

[Dave Gray]

The only reply is:

Who sets the limits?

And where are the limits set?

You could say every individual sets their own limits, but if an individual is overcome with his own vice, then he won't self-discipline, and there then has to be some sort of net with which to force him to discipline himself. That net is the law.

Not really, no.  There are no laws against being an alcoholic, porn-addict, glutton, etc.

[SCFinFan]

Agreed. There are no laws against "being a prostitute" either, just against prostitution. The law deals with acts, not with statuses (stati?). That's where the net's placed. It is external to your self.

[Sunstroke]

^ Well said. I concede that there is an absurd side to my comment.

But being overweight is a different vice altogether from the sexual ones. Overweight-ness never caused an abortion to happen. Or an unplanned pregnancy. Or AIDS to be transmitted. Or emotions to get caught in the tangle of adultery. Or a family to break apart (maybe it did, I dunno). Or love to begin. Or so so so many other things. There's a difference there. I'll admit it's razor thin. But it's there.

OK... instead of "overweight" in the above proposition, substitute "alcoholic" or any other "____" that affects human judgement and causes all of those traumatic factors you listed. Razor-thin becomes microscopic. I also feel that the width of the line varies based on personal perspective, and personal perspective should NEVER be an aspect of jurisprudence.

PS: How 'bout them Padres?

I object...irrelevant and argumentative.

[SCFinFan]

Sunstroke, you are always my best critic.

All I can say is that the generative function of sex lends it to be more highly regulated than anything else. Life being the highest value in a civilized society, whenever something attempts to manipulate the mechanics of life, or fiddle with the process through which life comes, then they're going to be put under a microscope.

I just think it's impossible to separate completely fertility, life, and sex. It's a pleasurable experience, no doubt, just like the consumption of alcohol, or television, or cigarettes. But beyond the pleasure is the potential for the creation of something new. And not just something, but someone.

This, to my mind, is what causes sex-addiction to be in a whole different category from other petty vices.

---

As for personal perspective not becoming part of jurisprudence. Hm, well, I agree to an extent. I don't think judges should legislate from the bench, unless, like in Miranda v. Arizona, they have the power to do something akin to legislation. But, somewhere along the line, personal perspective comes in. Either in some part of the statute is ill-defined, and thus allows a judge some leeway in understanding the term. Or the statute lacks the direction on how to apply it. Or a time-honored legal tenet, when applied to a fact pattern never imagined when it (the legal tenet) was formulated wreaks a harsh result that just isn't right.

Then and there judges can draw the lines as they see fit. And I would hope they do so. You cannot barricade personal perspective out of the law. And I think it's kinda ironic that you're (I admit, an assumption I'm making) advocating for the personal choice of people to use pornography, but advocating against judges using their personal experience in drawing up the law.

[Edited for Splomma Cices]

[run_to_win]

I just exercise restraint...

That's not very liberal of you.   

[bsmooth]

Everytime we as humans have tried to legislate morality it fails miserably. It would be better to legalize things, tax it accordingly, and use some of the tax dollars to help the % of people who will invariably become addicted. We spend exponentionally more in enforcement, prosecution, incarceration, and a failed policy of interdiction, than setting up free clinics to help addicts would ever cost.

[SCFinFan]

Everytime we as humans have tried to legislate morality it fails miserably. It would be better to legalize things, tax it accordingly, and use some of the tax dollars to help the % of people who will invariably become addicted. We spend exponentionally more in enforcement, prosecution, incarceration, and a failed policy of interdiction, than setting up free clinics to help addicts would ever cost.

Ah yes, like slavery.

[Sunstroke]

All I can say is that the generative function of sex lends it to be more highly regulated than anything else. Life being the highest value in a civilized society, whenever something attempts to manipulate the mechanics of life, or fiddle with the process through which life comes, then they're going to be put under a microscope.

Here is where our journey to a reasonable agreement could hit the proverbial fork in the road. I don't see sex, in as it relates to pornography, to be generative in nature at all. The pornography I espouse, the pornography I enjoy, and the pornographic media that I've actively earned a freelancers' paycheck by writing is a non-generative, victimless endeavor. Fetishes, role play, BDSM, multiple partners, midgets in fedoras, etc... are not crimes, but a natural exploration of human sexuality. Since my kinkiness doesn't beget any offspring, the last thing in the world I need is some puckered-tight prude in a robe telling me how to get my freak on...

This, to my mind, is what causes sex-addiction to be in a whole different category from other petty vices.

(Just a little further down the road, another fork was encountered...)

I think that the vast majority of people (please note that I didn't say "all") who claim to have a "sex addiction" don't have any addiction at all...just a compulsion toward something that's very physically enjoyable. Doctor Sunstroke prescribes a regimen of gut-checks and increased exertion of self control. Please see the receptionist on the way out for your bill.

Then and there judges can draw the lines as they see fit. And I would hope they do so. You cannot barricade personal perspective out of the law. And I think it's kinda ironic that you're (I admit, an assumption I'm making) advocating for the personal choice of people to use pornography, but advocating against judges using their personal experience in drawing up the law.

The only line I could possibly see any judge drawing in the sexual sandbox is for non-consentual sex. No one should ever be forced to do anything they don't want to do. As far as the consentual variety goes, I don't see any need to have another person tell me which sexual stimuli is legally and socially acceptable.

Now, if you'll excuse me, I have to go. It's "Spank your Spouse" night at the Caligula Club, and I'm running really late. 

[CF DolFan]

We must just be very different kinds of people.  They have nudie bars here, and I just exercise restraint and don't go.  Rather than go spend money and lie about it, I don't go.  But that decision rests with me, not the state.

It's good if you're finding better things to do with your time (and don't take this the wrong way), but if you are unhappy with the choices you make, why not work on changing yourself, rather than laws?

I wouldn't have an issue now but I wasn't too excited when they closed them down. They went well beyond "nudie" bars.  We started going as early as age 15 as the drinking age was 18 then and the laws were way more lax than today.  Sex was kind of habitual to a young man.  Looking back I'm not sure when I would have quit going had they not stopped me but I'm pretty sire I wouldn't still have an issue.  At least I don't think I would. The moral voters kind of helped me to clean up my act.  I wasn't too excited then but certainly see benifits today.

[Defense54]

The only difference between now and 30 years ago is people are taping it and others are watching it. 

[SCFinFan]

Here is where our journey to a reasonable agreement could hit the proverbial fork in the road. I don't see sex, in as it relates to pornography, to be generative in nature at all. The pornography I espouse, the pornography I enjoy, and the pornographic media that I've actively earned a freelancers' paycheck by writing is a non-generative, victimless endeavor. Fetishes, role play, BDSM, multiple partners, midgets in fedoras, etc... are not crimes, but a natural exploration of human sexuality. Since my kinkiness doesn't beget any offspring, the last thing in the world I need is some puckered-tight prude in a robe telling me how to get my freak on...

I mean, I guess if that's the way you want to put it, then sure. But I don't think the logic is there, just the rhetoric. If all those things are "natural" and innocent "exploration" then, yes, there should be no law against them. But I highly doubt that's what those things really are. Consider this statement from a pornographer's blog:

"The smart porno whores — or the ones who have smart agents — keep their “do” list slim at the onset of life in porn. A life, I might add, that usually runs about 6 months, and can be significantly lower, but usually not too much higher. Some girls go a year or two or three, but not many…mainly cause it’s a tough biz, with creepy people; that or the girl gets “shot out”.

[...]

It’s a Catch-22, really, cause the girls wanna make a ton of money, and their agents wanna make a ton of money, and the quickest, easiest way to make a whole bunch of money is do it all right away: solo, hj’s, bj’s, swallow, g-g, b-g, b-b-g, gang bangs, bukkakkes, anal, interracial, double-vag, double-anal…which is just about everything I can think of off the top of my head.

Throw a new cutie-pie into Porno Land doing all that, and she’ll work until her pussy breaks…or her mind breaks — whichever comes first."

http://www.ishootporn.com/index.php?s=mind+breaks&submit=Search

Does that sound innocent to you? Does it sound like mere exploration? Sounds more like an industry worried about the bottom line rather than the people who work in it. Calling it exploration, I think, is a nice euphemism, but not truthful. At least de Sade could admit to himself what he was doing.

Thus the law could regulate consumption and creation of porn, because of these ill effects and because it is an industry like any other, with banning it one of a panoply of options.

-On a side note, if you think that the people who advocate against such things are merely "puckered-tight prudes" then you're just buying into stereotypes. Is that how you see me? 

The only line I could possibly see any judge drawing in the sexual sandbox is for non-consentual sex. No one should ever be forced to do anything they don't want to do. As far as the consentual variety goes, I don't see any need to have another person tell me which sexual stimuli is legally and socially acceptable.

I would hope you'd see the judge having a little more leeway than that. Otherwise you just wiped out the existence of laws against consensual incest, statutory rape, and perhaps even kiddie porn.

[run_to_win]

Doctor Sunstroke prescribes a regimen of gut-checks and increased exertion of self control.

What the hell is the world coming to?  First we have Dave pushing personal restraint and now 'Stroke is pushing self-control?  The damn conservatives are taking over!

 

Hey, could the "sex-addiction is just a lack of self-control" brush be used to explain alcoholism, compulsive eating, etc, etc, etc?    

[Sunstroke]

I hear you, SC...but think you just closed the door on hearing me. I can pull some really nasty examples of people talking about the industry of politics or religion just as easily as you pulled a far-right viewpoint of the porn industry for your example.

And as far as the incestual, kiddie porn examples...not even worthy of a response.

[SCFinFan]

I bet you could.

My quote was actually pulled from a pro-porn website.

[bsmooth]

Ah yes, like slavery.

HAHAHA this is the best you can come up with? When did we have universal laws across this country outlawing slavery and yet people kept going to clandestine meetings to purchase their fellow human beings agianst their will to use them as slaves? So the prohabition against slavery in this country has been a stunning failure due to people's overwhelming desire to own another human being?
Someone size him up for his clown shoes.