Rick Santorum wants to ban hardcore pronography - agree or disagree (POLL)
- Thread starter zeroturbulence
- Start date
-
Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.
If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!
To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
Honestly, it seems like a lot of people have focused on how pornography affects [christian]families. I would much rather see laws intended to protect young women from getting sucked into the porn industry. Maybe raising the age to 21+? Maybe outlawing recordings of specific physical acts (heck, a lot of porn is just plain brutal) that aren't actually sexual in nature from being distributed. It certainly would leave people free to do it if they desired, or even watch it in person. But the means of making loads of money through distribution via the internet and mail ordering would be utterly devastated.
Just my thoughts...
Just my thoughts...
T
Interesting ideas. Since battery is already illegal, it seems to me that anything that involves beating should likewise be illegal. The gender(s) of the person or people involved, and how much clothing is involved, and whether the acts lead to sex, should not matter. If a person is getting hit to the point of leaving marks (and much S&M does do this ... even with a safe word) then it's illegal.
Enforcing it becomes problematic. Two consenting adults ... I don't see how anyone should, could, or would become involved to press charges. But as far as filming it and then distributing it, I see no reason why that should be legal. Why would someone film themselves robbing a bank or spray-painting? Why would there even be a market for viewing murder? Seems to me that anyone who would want to purchase such sickness should be put in an institution, not so much because they're breaking the law, but because they clearly are not healthy and they need help. Someone who gets sexual pleasure out of watching people hurting each other is not a normal person, and should not be allowed to be on the streets. As much as a freedom-lover as I am, I think this is one place where you really can draw a line. If a person is going to fantasize, there's nothing you can do about that, but to provide actual footage for their fantasies, I mean, why?
I guess one could argue that much of the non-adult film industry would be suspect, too. There's an awful lot of violence in movies, depictions of people getting killed, maimed, etc. I think one big difference is that usually (though not always), the person in the movie who is doing the violence is seen as "the bad guy." With a few exceptions, "good guys" (the ones you're supposed to be rooting for) do not inflict pain or torture on innocent people in the movies. Of course, there are some excellent exceptions to this rule I can think of off the top of my head, movies where "the good guy" does his (or her) share of killing for "the greater good." Terminator II of course even made that trope into a joke. Swing Blade comes to mind, as well. How could such a ban on porn not also ban films that I have seen and enjoyed (and would never take kids to see, but I think as long as the audience is aware of the R-rating, and why it's there, there's no reason it should be banned)?
And as long as we're on the topic.....
Why is it that if I produce a film that depicts a man who kills his wife, it only gets an R rating, or maybe even PG-13, but if I produce a film that depicts a man who makes love to his wife after they're married, it gets an X? What does that say about our society, that we allow teenagers to witness violence, and are more afraid to show sex, even within the constructs of love and marriage? Do you think perhaps sex would not devolve into porn so much if it weren't so taboo?
Again, just thinking out loud here.
Enforcing it becomes problematic. Two consenting adults ... I don't see how anyone should, could, or would become involved to press charges. But as far as filming it and then distributing it, I see no reason why that should be legal. Why would someone film themselves robbing a bank or spray-painting? Why would there even be a market for viewing murder? Seems to me that anyone who would want to purchase such sickness should be put in an institution, not so much because they're breaking the law, but because they clearly are not healthy and they need help. Someone who gets sexual pleasure out of watching people hurting each other is not a normal person, and should not be allowed to be on the streets. As much as a freedom-lover as I am, I think this is one place where you really can draw a line. If a person is going to fantasize, there's nothing you can do about that, but to provide actual footage for their fantasies, I mean, why?
I guess one could argue that much of the non-adult film industry would be suspect, too. There's an awful lot of violence in movies, depictions of people getting killed, maimed, etc. I think one big difference is that usually (though not always), the person in the movie who is doing the violence is seen as "the bad guy." With a few exceptions, "good guys" (the ones you're supposed to be rooting for) do not inflict pain or torture on innocent people in the movies. Of course, there are some excellent exceptions to this rule I can think of off the top of my head, movies where "the good guy" does his (or her) share of killing for "the greater good." Terminator II of course even made that trope into a joke. Swing Blade comes to mind, as well. How could such a ban on porn not also ban films that I have seen and enjoyed (and would never take kids to see, but I think as long as the audience is aware of the R-rating, and why it's there, there's no reason it should be banned)?
And as long as we're on the topic.....
Why is it that if I produce a film that depicts a man who kills his wife, it only gets an R rating, or maybe even PG-13, but if I produce a film that depicts a man who makes love to his wife after they're married, it gets an X? What does that say about our society, that we allow teenagers to witness violence, and are more afraid to show sex, even within the constructs of love and marriage? Do you think perhaps sex would not devolve into porn so much if it weren't so taboo?
Again, just thinking out loud here.
If you distort both activities to view them as forms of communication, violence, while no more or less morally shady than illicit sex, is used far more often in the public eye. In most cultures that is.
You are much more likely to see two men fighting on the street than a man and woman disrobing outside the nearest Burger King. Neither are desirable, of course, but one is far more intimate than the other.
You are much more likely to see two men fighting on the street than a man and woman disrobing outside the nearest Burger King. Neither are desirable, of course, but one is far more intimate than the other.
Battery is violence towards an non-consenting victim.
S&M involves two consenting adults that know what they are doing.
While there is porn that does contain the former (which should be just as illegal as distributing any other filmed crime with non-consenting actors) S&M and battery are not one in the same, and is in fact a delicate topic that one should research and fully understand before forming an opinion on it.
S&M involves two consenting adults that know what they are doing.
While there is porn that does contain the former (which should be just as illegal as distributing any other filmed crime with non-consenting actors) S&M and battery are not one in the same, and is in fact a delicate topic that one should research and fully understand before forming an opinion on it.
Without getting into too much detail, lets just suffice it to say that I can relate to segments of the S&M world. I would never engage in it myself, but I can understand the appeal of it. That said, I wasn't specifically referring to S&M, but other things; things which even pornographers have called appalling. Things which are strictly about humiliation.
Either way, raising the age requirements to 21 seems to be a very feasible and enforceable way of protecting young women. Then again, maybe it would lead more to prostitution, which would be a true tragedy.
Either way, raising the age requirements to 21 seems to be a very feasible and enforceable way of protecting young women. Then again, maybe it would lead more to prostitution, which would be a true tragedy.
T
Hugs and kisses are as sexual as fighting is violent. Can a hug or kiss be non-sexual? Sure, just as a fight can be non-violent.
But I was looking for apples to apples. You're saying that sex is more taboo than violence, because you're more likely to see violence than sex in public. My point is, when you take into consideration degree, that is not necessarily true. A man and a woman sharing an intimate kiss is inherently sexual. (If you don't think so, you need some lessons, hon!) Two people can share a non-intimate kiss, and two people can engage in a non-violent disagreement (as you and I are now). Your example only affirms my analogy.
Remember those test questions? kiss:sex::fight:murder. In our society, a non-intimate kiss is probably as commonplace as a non-violent fight. And I would argue that it's less damaging, especially for a child, to witness an intimate kiss, such as one between the child's parents, than a violent fight. And yet in our society, the first, when depicted in film, is, for some reason, seen as less appropriate for children than the second. And then when you take it to the ultimate -- sex in the first case and murder in the second -- in the first case, a child cannot see a movie to witness the first, but many movies with ratings of PG-13 or even PG depict the second.
What does that say about our society that has no problem showing its children people being murdered, but wants to shield from its children the ultimate expression of love?
But I was looking for apples to apples. You're saying that sex is more taboo than violence, because you're more likely to see violence than sex in public. My point is, when you take into consideration degree, that is not necessarily true. A man and a woman sharing an intimate kiss is inherently sexual. (If you don't think so, you need some lessons, hon!) Two people can share a non-intimate kiss, and two people can engage in a non-violent disagreement (as you and I are now). Your example only affirms my analogy.
Remember those test questions? kiss:sex::fight:murder. In our society, a non-intimate kiss is probably as commonplace as a non-violent fight. And I would argue that it's less damaging, especially for a child, to witness an intimate kiss, such as one between the child's parents, than a violent fight. And yet in our society, the first, when depicted in film, is, for some reason, seen as less appropriate for children than the second. And then when you take it to the ultimate -- sex in the first case and murder in the second -- in the first case, a child cannot see a movie to witness the first, but many movies with ratings of PG-13 or even PG depict the second.
What does that say about our society that has no problem showing its children people being murdered, but wants to shield from its children the ultimate expression of love?
while christians on the whole may agree with santorum personally I cant support this sort of behavior. ow before anyone jumps on me I am a christian however i realize that there is a decent portion of the population who are not, and i do not believe it is our place to force our own personal morality on them. Also, we already have laws in place banning obscene material(miller v california) and that is based of a three pronged test:
- Whether "the average person, applying contemporary community standards", would find that the work, taken as a whole, appeals to the prurient interest,
- Whether the work depicts/describes, in a patently offensive way, sexual conduct specifically defined by applicable state law,
- Whether the work, taken as a whole, lacks serious literary, artistic, political or scientific value.
T
I don't know. I can say that this is a particularly American phenomenon. At least in my experience, other cultures do not seem to be as "uptight" about sex, and conversely as non-challant (sp?) about violence. Not sure what that says about us as a culture / society. Maybe some sociologist can offer an insight?
Of this, I am actually quite thankful. My body can take far more than my mind and my heart. The scars from deviant sex are far worse than deviant violence. Granted there are exceptions to this; intra-family violence for example. But comparing a sexual act to a roughly violent act, the scars resulting from the sexual act are far greater.
The body is far more resilient than the heart.
The body is far more resilient than the heart.
Without getting into too much detail, lets just suffice it to say that I can relate to segments of the S&M world. I would never engage in it myself, but I can understand the appeal of it. That said, I wasn't specifically referring to S&M, but other things; things which even pornographers have called appalling. Things which are strictly about humiliation.
Either way, raising the age requirements to 21 seems to be a very feasible and enforceable way of protecting young women. Then again, maybe it would lead more to prostitution, which would be a true tragedy.
Either way, raising the age requirements to 21 seems to be a very feasible and enforceable way of protecting young women. Then again, maybe it would lead more to prostitution, which would be a true tragedy.
It's a delicate (and to be honest, messy) situation that requires having to weigh in the harsh truth as much as you weigh in your own personal morals. If you keep prostitution illegal, and somehow manage to make porn illegal, then yes you will succeed in decreasing their support. However you will not succeed it making them cease to exist, and therefore you also put those who will still choose to work in both industries, regardless if it's legal or not, in danger by taking away their ability to run for help without facing criminal charges. And people like pimps who offer their protection in exchange for being allowed to dehumanize and degrade them will only have a stronger foothold. In the end there will always be people who will for one reason or another wish to work in the adult industry, and it'll all boil down to a choice between personal morals, or the safety of someone who doesn't agree with you. It's not an easy choice and one that should be approached with caution.
Also I should point out that women are not the only ones degraded in porn. Men are just as involved in the industry as well and are arguably just as degraded as the women. In fact you could almost argue that the porn industry is far more brutal on men since it mainly prey's on the male tendency to be more visually stimulated than women (that's not to say women don't get allured into porn as well) and are therefore more easily coerced into spending their money and time on adult materials.
In a nutshell, and to quote Ron Jeremy (find irony in that if you must), "Porn exploits people."
D
I think that most of the people on this website will agree that pornography is bad. Honestly? I'm not really comfortable watching most t.v shows now, but I don't think there should be a law banning it - that usually just encourages people, and they have their rights too. We as Christians need to be strong, keep our faith, and live by example.
Last edited:
P
No such law will ever pass in America. There is no way that it could be regulated, even if it did. People cite China as an example of how you can censor the internet, and for a while it worked there. Now though they just have the most capable hackers in the world.
I don't agree with any aspect of pornography, for similar reasons to why I don't agree with drug use, no matter how casual. They are degrading to the self and to others, and lead to spiritual bondage (no pun intended).
America has already declared two very expensive and unwinnable wars, on drugs and terrorism, and most of the fighting in these wars occurs in other countries. Suddenly having another on start over the 'American' parts of the Internet is futile, especially when you already have big groups like anonymous there to fight you (and believe me there are others) whose primary ethic is the freedom of information and the right to choose.
Pornography isn't an issue that will just go away with legislation. Like the bingedrinking issue here in Britain it is people's attitudes that must change, not the law. If I'm honest I'm not entirely sure that this fight can be won in a political arena. The difference between porn and the drinking issue is that drinking in huge amounts is measurably bad for your health. Alcohol addiction effects your productivity in a work place, regardless of you job. Porn doesn't. to be honest video game addiction is en as more of a threat to this US economy, as those who engage in it don't sleep much. The main issue with porn is a moral one, and with the rise of the post-modernist worldview no one has the right to judge morality anymore. Politicians hate moral debates because all of a sudden every politician's private life is under scrutiny by the press and his rivals. Corporations don't like moral arguments because they don't make money, so they won't help and these days having any form of religious conviction means being portrayed as a dangerously misguided fanatic, so any church with any kind of public favour bows out too. You can't educate on porn either because that means taking it into schools, and considering the fact that lots of Americans disagree with sex ed makes this unlikely to say the least . Plus telling most teenagers not to do something is kinda like giving them an excuse to try it out. I'm not saying I like this, and I hope to God someone more educated than I am will come along and blow my arguments out of the water. I'm sorry i sound cynical. I know that my Lord and Saviour can do anything, but it says that this sort of stuff is going to become increasingly prevalent in the Bible. Near the end.
I don't agree with any aspect of pornography, for similar reasons to why I don't agree with drug use, no matter how casual. They are degrading to the self and to others, and lead to spiritual bondage (no pun intended).
America has already declared two very expensive and unwinnable wars, on drugs and terrorism, and most of the fighting in these wars occurs in other countries. Suddenly having another on start over the 'American' parts of the Internet is futile, especially when you already have big groups like anonymous there to fight you (and believe me there are others) whose primary ethic is the freedom of information and the right to choose.
Pornography isn't an issue that will just go away with legislation. Like the bingedrinking issue here in Britain it is people's attitudes that must change, not the law. If I'm honest I'm not entirely sure that this fight can be won in a political arena. The difference between porn and the drinking issue is that drinking in huge amounts is measurably bad for your health. Alcohol addiction effects your productivity in a work place, regardless of you job. Porn doesn't. to be honest video game addiction is en as more of a threat to this US economy, as those who engage in it don't sleep much. The main issue with porn is a moral one, and with the rise of the post-modernist worldview no one has the right to judge morality anymore. Politicians hate moral debates because all of a sudden every politician's private life is under scrutiny by the press and his rivals. Corporations don't like moral arguments because they don't make money, so they won't help and these days having any form of religious conviction means being portrayed as a dangerously misguided fanatic, so any church with any kind of public favour bows out too. You can't educate on porn either because that means taking it into schools, and considering the fact that lots of Americans disagree with sex ed makes this unlikely to say the least . Plus telling most teenagers not to do something is kinda like giving them an excuse to try it out. I'm not saying I like this, and I hope to God someone more educated than I am will come along and blow my arguments out of the water. I'm sorry i sound cynical. I know that my Lord and Saviour can do anything, but it says that this sort of stuff is going to become increasingly prevalent in the Bible. Near the end.
O
we are still in Acts 1 times we must save ourselfs from this wicked evil generation sus as this horrible sinfully sin we just pray agianist it and live chaste pure cleannholy rightous upright life weather married or single spiriually now and forever eternally allways 33 hoyurs a day 9 days a week amen allways...