Pornography. Shameful Pleasure, or Perfectly Natural?

[Rehab]

People tend to have casual sex because it makes them happy at some point, basically. (which I think most people would call an emotion)

Or at least that's the goal.

If casual sex ever makes them unhappy, I get the impression most people who've ever had or considered casual sex would argue they probably shouldn't/wouldn't do it at that point in time.

Edited June 2, 2014 by Rehab

[Zeithri]

I voted on perfectly natural and yes.

But I'd like to also sorta stress that it probably depends on what exactly you do watch.

[Alertcircuit]

But I'd like to also sorta stress that it probably depends on what exactly you do watch.

Where's the line drawn in your opinion?

[Northwind]

It's normal, it's natural, it's a safe and fairly harmless way to deal with horniness as long as done (like anything else) in moderation. I'm not particularly interested in hearing about your kinks or tastes, but what you do with your sex life is none of my business unless it involves harm to others.

[Len1million]

I say no. It's one of the reasons why I became an extremely depressed emo. Why? If I said it people will think there is definitely something wrong with me and that I'm mental/demonic/etc. I'm being serious alright, porn was the reason why I am now a sad man.

When I was 10 I had never watched porn before. One day, removed

It's also a sin in my religion. And considering it's one of the majority (with quite a few of said religion completely disregarding it, it's sad) it's probably how it should be, at least for me.

[eclipse]

I say no. It's one of the reasons why I became an extremely depressed emo. Why? If I said it people will think there is definitely something wrong with me and that I'm mental/demonic/etc. I'm being serious alright, porn was the reason why I am now a sad man.

When I was 10 I had never watched porn before. One day, removed

It's also a sin in my religion. And considering it's one of the majority (with quite a few of said religion completely disregarding it, it's sad) it's probably how it should be, at least for me.

I'd be interested to hear your personal take on it, if you're willing to share it. Otherwise, your stance leaves a lot of questions in my mind.

[dondon151]

It's also a sin in my religion.

sorry, you need to do better than this. many perfectly ethical practices are considered sins in various religions, and many sordid practices are either ignored or encouraged in various religions.

Edited September 24, 2014 by dondon151

[Excellen Browning]

The thing that gets in the way of sex only relationships is everything that tends to come with attraction, a feeling of bonding, connection and belonging and things like possessiveness and jealousy. Basically feelings besides the sexual gratification.

Also dondon, something that can be considered ethical can still be considered a sin. If you want to argue something like this, take a good route please.

[dondon151]

Also dondon, something that can be considered ethical can still be considered a sin. If you want to argue something like this, take a good route please.

sin¹

sin/

noun

noun: sin; plural noun: sins

1.

an immoral act considered to be a transgression against divine law.

(underline for emphasis)

a basic interpretation of ethics that many apologists of abrahamic religions adopt is that what god commands is what can be considered good. this is called divine command theory. if god commands man to not partake in viewing pornography, then viewing pornography is not ethically good.

so i disagree with your objection; i think it is fundamentally nonsense unless you want to split hairs on the meaning of ethics vs. morals. i'm not really interested in doing that.

Edited September 25, 2014 by dondon151

[Rapier]

My take on it is that pornography can easily become a vice, hence why it is essentially bad. Discussing morals isn't my point here, but pointing out that it can be harmful if watched excessively based on how easily addictive it is, how it can influence one's hormones and how it encourages others to give in to their sexuality in order to fulfill their desires and irrational urges, therefore being harmful to the self.

sorry, you need to do better than this. many perfectly ethical practices are considered sins in various religions, and many sordid practices are either ignored or encouraged in various religions.

Would you explain why is it wrong for him to believe that watching pornography is wrong based on his religious doctrine and ideology?

The thing that gets in the way of sex only relationships is everything that tends to come with attraction, a feeling of bonding, connection and belonging and things like possessiveness and jealousy. Basically feelings besides the sexual gratification.

Sexual gratification can also easily become a vice.

[Excellen Browning]

Don't give me a dictionary entry, especially when the supposed morality mentioned there is an incorrect use of the term (erronous pleonasm)

Though many faithful people would argue that religion and religious values(taken out of religious texts, the word escapes me) are the very basis of ethics/morality. In this case something that is a sin(bad) and ethical(good) at the same time cannot exist; they are mutually exclusive.

If we take ethics as something that is separate of religious views however, it does not it any less true that a sin is a sin, and if you value these religious views highly, committing a sin would be considered bad.

All of this however has been a complicated way of me trying to tell you to get off that kid's back.

[dondon151]

Would you explain why is it wrong for him to believe that watching pornography is wrong based on his religious doctrine and ideology?

he can believe whatever he likes, for whatever reason he likes. but if he wants to engage in a discussion about the subject, claiming that X is bad because a religion considers it a sin is equivalent to claiming that X is bad because your parents told you so. it's an authoritarian statement of the nature that can't be challenged.

Don't give me a dictionary entry, especially when the supposed morality mentioned there is an incorrect use of the term (erronous pleonasm)

Though many faithful people would argue that religion and religious values(taken out of religious texts, the word escapes me) are the very basis of ethics/morality. In this case something that is a sin(bad) and ethical(good) at the same time cannot exist; they are mutually exclusive.

If we take ethics as something that is separate of religious views however, it does not it any less true that a sin is a sin, and if you value these religious views highly, committing a sin would be considered bad.

All of this however has been a complicated way of me trying to tell you to get off that kid's back.

what i'm saying is that ethics should be completely divorced from religion. if it is completely divorced from religion, then there's no business bringing sin up in an ethical discussion.

why not give a dictionary entry? it's the first definition of "sin" that comes up if you search for it in google. and i'm pretty sure that for whatever reason you used the word "pleonasm," it doesn't make sense in this context.

Edited September 25, 2014 by dondon151

[Chiki]

Don't give me a dictionary entry, especially when the supposed morality mentioned there is an incorrect use of the term (erronous pleonasm)

Though many faithful people would argue that religion and religious values(taken out of religious texts, the word escapes me) are the very basis of ethics/morality. In this case something that is a sin(bad) and ethical(good) at the same time cannot exist; they are mutually exclusive.

If we take ethics as something that is separate of religious views however, it does not it any less true that a sin is a sin, and if you value these religious views highly, committing a sin would be considered bad.

All of this however has been a complicated way of me trying to tell you to get off that kid's back.

Yes, since you know the meanings of words better than a dictionary.

Anyway, there's at least 3 interpretations in the following dictionary entry:

any act regarded as such a transgression, especially a willful or deliberate violation of some religious or moral principle.

A sin can be an act that violates only a moral principle, or only a religious principle, or a principle that is both religious or moral, depending on one's interpretation.

[Junkhead]

Oh ho ho, semantics.

[Cancer Lancer]

Not shameful, but definitely not something I'd consider 'natural.'

We have sex drives, sometimes we can't help but succumb to them. It's not really a battle of will when it comes to this. It's just rather embarassing that I could have a girlfriend do it instead, but unfortunately lately I've been too shy and low of self esteem to attempt to score one, so porn is like a lazy alternative.

So I'd say it's embarrassing rather than shameful or natural. I mean, there's no way I'd confess to it to people I know nor would I engage in conversation about it, but I wouldn't deride it and look down on it either. I just find it a bit embarrassing on my own part.

But of course, some of the stuff that's impossible in real life can be very very interesting to watch...

[Rapier]

he can believe whatever he likes, for whatever reason he likes. but if he wants to engage in a discussion about the subject, claiming that X is bad because a religion considers it a sin is equivalent to claiming that X is bad because your parents told you so. it's an authoritarian statement of the nature that can't be challenged.

His post claims that pornography was harmful to his life and he also says that it is wrong on his religion. If anything, he has given his opinion but not elaborated his statement or argumented against pornography at all. He never formally stated that pornography is bad because his religion condemns it.

A sin can be an act that violates only a moral principle, or only a religious principle, or a principle that is both religious or moral, depending on one's interpretation.

I don't intend to nitpick on this matter much, but morals are essentially associated with religion. How can one separate both? Our western civilization employs the judaic-christian morality without any scism between both, and this union has helped with the development of the western world as we know it, therefore I can affirm that it is harmful to separate religion from moral.

Anyway, saying that pornography is bad because it is immoral is perfectly valid, even though it is a hollow argument which needs a further explanation on how it is immoral.

[dondon151]

His post claims that pornography was harmful to his life and he also says that it is wrong on his religion. If anything, he has given his opinion but not elaborated his statement or argumented against pornography at all. He never formally stated that pornography is bad because his religion condemns it.

read his post again. he said it was "sad" that people who identified with his religion disregarded the sinfulness of pornography. tell me that doesn't suggest that pornography is "bad."

I don't intend to nitpick on this matter much, but morals are essentially associated with religion. How can one separate both? Our western civilization employs the judaic-christian morality without any scism between both, and this union has helped with the development of the western world as we know it, therefore I can affirm that it is harmful to separate religion from moral.

no, it doesn't. you could not be more wrong about this. post-enlightenment western civilization is secular. the western civilization that employs christian morality existed back in the time of the inquisition.

i will educate you about this as nicely as i can, because if you tried to make this argument against most moral philosophers, you would embarrass yourself. christian ethics bears little resemblance to secular ethics. vast swaths of ethical declarations in the old and new testaments are either completely ignored or have been thoroughly repudiated in the ethics of modern times (take your pick from the pentateuch or the gospels, either one). there is no meaningful association between ethics and religion if the ethics of religion can be manipulated to justify a broad spectrum of ethical values. this indicates that ethics are agreed upon by people, not dictated from some higher being.

many enlightenment period thinkers (locke, hume, voltaire, paine, franklin, etc.), on whose ideas modern secular society is built, were not christians, but deists who rejected the notion of an omnipresent being that intervened in our daily lives. almost all secularists and atheists today will reject the notion that ethics are "essentially associated" with religion, because it is plenty self-evident that not only can they be ethical people without subscribing to any holy text, but also that myriad believers attempt to use holy texts to justify abhorrent behavior.

long before the rise of western civilzation, while europe was still chasing jews and witches in the dark ages (in no small part due to the influence of the roman catholic church), the intellectual center of the world was in mesopotamia. you may not claim that western civilization grew on the basis of christian ethics when christian ethics were in vogue for over a millenium prior to the enlightenment. this is as silly as the claim that enlightened thought grew out of islamic culture, because we are all familiar with what happened to mesopotamia after islam started being taken a bit more seriously in the 11th century - it transformed into the backward cesspool of extremist religious thought that we see today.

Edited September 25, 2014 by dondon151

[Chiki]

therefore I can affirm that it is harmful to separate religion from moral.

This is one of the worst posts I've seen on the Serious Discussion forum. Congrats.

[Rapier]

read his post again. he said it was "sad" that people who identified with his religion disregarded the sinfulness of pornography. tell me that doesn't suggest that pornography is "bad."

When you are part of a religious group, you are supposed to follow their doctrine. His comment is perfectly legit since it expects people who identify themselves with his religion to actually FOLLOW their doctrine. He is not, in any way, telling everyone to follow his religious beliefs about pornography because it condemns such practice; this is not the case.

no, it doesn't. you could not be more wrong about this. post-enlightenment western civilization is secular. the western civilization that employs christian morality existed back in the time of the inquisition.

Then how can you explain the fact that the western civilization has constitutions based on the judaic-christian principles? It is enough evidence to prove that their nations were founded and still run on said principles. Therefore, I don't see how we are employing a secular morality instead of a judaic-christian morality.

christian ethics bears little resemblance to secular ethics. vast swaths of ethical declarations in the old and new testaments are either completely ignored or have been thoroughly repudiated in the ethics of modern times (take your pick from the pentateuch or the gospels, either one). there is no meaningful association between ethics and religion if the ethics of religion can be manipulated to justify a broad spectrum of ethical values. this indicates that ethics are agreed upon by people, not dictated from some higher being.

many enlightenment period thinkers (locke, hume, voltaire, paine, franklin, etc.), on whose ideas modern secular society is built, were not christians, but deists who rejected the notion of an omnipresent being that intervened in our daily lives. almost all secularists and atheists today will reject the notion that ethics are "essentially associated" with religion, because it is plenty self-evident that not only can they be ethical people without subscribing to any holy text, but also that myriad believers attempt to use holy texts to justify abhorrent behavior.

Of course secular ethics differ to christian ethics - they are roughly each one's opposite. Also, before I partake in the matter, why are you discussing about ethics when I am speaking about morals? I know they are intrinsically related, but I never referred to ethics.

Also, the rejection of an omnipresent being that intervenes in our daily lives does not deny one's christianity. You can be a deist who believes in God but disagrees with the common concept that most religious people have, this being somewhat my case.

This is one of the worst posts I've seen on the Serious Discussion forum. Congrats.

Smuggily telling other people they suck is not an argument or rebuttal. Try again.

Edited September 25, 2014 by Rapier

[dondon151]

Then how can you explain the fact that the western civilization has constitutions based on the judaic-christian principles? It is enough evidence to prove that their nations were founded and still run on said principles. Therefore, I don't see how we are employing a secular morality instead of a judaic-christian morality.

they aren't based on christian principles. read your bible, and then read a secular constitution. please. some nations proclaim a state religion, but their constitutions were not written until europe stopped taking christianity seriously.

for example, sweden has a state religion, but it has one of the largest atheist populations as a fraction of total population in the world.

do you know what constitutions are based on religious principles? look at the official laws of an islamic country. death to apostates, death to infidels, death to homosexuals. christianity is almost as barbaric as islam, but not a single western secular nation has a constitution that remotely resembles this.

Of course secular ethics differ to christian ethics - they are roughly each one's opposite. Also, before I partake in the matter, why are you discussing about ethics when I am speaking about morals? I know they are intrinsically related, but I never referred to ethics.

are you fucking kidding me.

ethics and morals are almost exactly the same thing. individual morals can disagree with generalized ethics, but this is not permissible in abrahamic religions under divine command theory. if your morals do not agree with religious ethics, then you are immoral. are you seriously going to split hairs on this? even i am not this pedantic.

Also, the rejection of an omnipresent being that intervenes in our daily lives does not deny one's christianity. You can be a deist who believes in God but disagrees with the common concept that most religious people have, this being somewhat my case.

yes, deism does deny christianity. the definition of a christian is one who accepts christ as his or her savior. if a deist does not believe that god intervenes in human affairs, then he does not accept christ as his savior. if god doesn't intervene in human affairs, then he cannot send his son to save humanity.

there is a term "christian deist," but christian deists are not christian - they doubt the divinity of christ.

i would highly suggest you do your research before digging yourself into a deeper hole. chiki is correct; these are some of the worst posts in this forum because they display a profound ignorance complemented by an illusion of correctness.

Edited September 26, 2014 by dondon151

[Dwalin2010]

Dondon, just a curiosity: why are you always insulting people who disagree with you in this topic, calling them "ignorant", what they say "nonsense" etc? I won't bother anyone with what I previously said, but the condescending attitude always amazes me, is mutual respect not a norm according to you? After all, the opposite side never really insulted you with such words, nor myself previously, nor others lately.

Sorry for this small off-topic.

Edited September 26, 2014 by Dwalin2010

[Chiki]

Ethics and morality are pretty much the same thing, by the way. =_= Ethics, to put it as simply as possible, is the study of what is moral and what is not. There are so many things wrong with the stuff that you're posting that I don't want to get into it, and dondon pretty much covered the most important bits. You should go and read about ethics online on Stanford Encyclopedia or something.

Your main argument is that it's "harmful to separate religion and morality." "There's a whole list of things I could say to show that you're wrong:

1. The main problem with your claim is that religion has nothing to do with establishing moral facts. Religion may be a good way of spreading these moral facts, but religion itself has absolutely no bearing on what is moral and what isn't. Here's the problem (I've changed it a little bit for this context though): Is what is morally good commanded by God because it is morally good, or is it morally good because it is commanded by God? If we go with the first, then God has no bearing on what is moral, because there is an objective morality out there that God thinks is moral. If we go with the second, then God could say things like genocide and such are moral (which he does in the Bible), which is unacceptable. This is known as the "Euthyphro dilemma."

2. Secular ethics and Christian ethics (today) believe it or not, have most things in common. They're not opposite at all. I'm pretty sure any Christian and myself would agree that it's wrong (assuming that objective morality is true, which I don't think so) to steal, kill, maybe eat dead babies, etc. But we draw the line on things like incest, eating animals.

3. This is related to the previous two points. Christian ethics is really freaking disgusting, and we intuitively do not want it to have anything to do with our ethics. It encourages a lot of things that any modern, rational person would not encourage. There's no animal rights in the Bible. Incest and homosexuality are prohibited. And so on. "Secular" ethics had to come up with all those things by challenging the disgusting morality espoused by the Bible in some bits.

I'm not really that familiar with the Bible so I'll talk about the Quran. The Quran, which I'm most familiar with, is just appalling in terms of its ethics. It encourages murdering apostates (people who leave Islam) unless they flee from the country, encourages discrimination towards women and people of other religions (Christians and such are forced to pay jizya, a kind of tax simply for having certain beliefs), beat your wife if she disobeys you, engage in jihad, and so on. I can cite sources for all of these.

Qur'an (4:89) - "They wish that you should disbelieve as they disbelieve, and then you would be equal; therefore take not to yourselves friends of them, until they emigrate in the way of God; then, if they turn their backs, take them, and slay them wherever you find them; take not to yourselves any one of them as friend or helper."

Quran (4:76) - "Those who believe fight in the cause of Allah…"

Quran (2:191-193) - "And kill them wherever you find them, and turn them out from where they have turned you out.

Qur'an (2:228) - "and the men are a degree above them women"

Qur'an (9:29) - "Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger, nor acknowledge the religion of Truth, (even if they are) of the People of the Book, until they pay the Jizya with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued."

Quran (33:59) - "Tell thy wives and thy daughters and the women of the believers to draw their cloaks close round them..."

4. You're completely ignoring the contribution of people like John Locke, who I think is probably more influential than even Jesus in terms of influencing Western morality lol. I took a class in political science in my first semester in which the professor said that the Declaration of Independence in the US, perhaps the most morally influential text in US history, was completely ripped off from John Locke by Thomas Jefferson. There's also important philosophers who influenced ethics today: Mill is known for his utilitarianism, Kant is known for his deontic ethics, and so on. None of these people were religious.

Edited September 26, 2014 by Chiki

[dondon151]

Dondon, just a curiosity: why are you always insulting people who disagree with you in this topic, calling them "ignorant", what they say "nonsense" etc? I won't bother anyone with what I previously said, but the condescending attitude always amazes me, is mutual respect not a norm according to you? After all, the opposite side never really insulted you with such words, nor myself previously, nor others lately.

i don't respect bad ideas. why should i?

[Dwalin2010]

3. This is related to the previous two points. Christian ethics is really freaking disgusting, and we intuitively do not want it to have anything to do with our ethics. It encourages a lot of things that any modern, rational person would not encourage. There's no animal rights in the Bible. Incest and homosexuality are prohibited. And so on. "Secular" ethics had to come up with all those things by challenging the disgusting morality espoused by the Bible in some bits.

I promise this would be the last off-topic on my part, but why did you put the prohibition of incest in the allegedly "disgusting" part of the Christian ethics? I don't remember ever meeting anyone who thinks incest can be ok from any point of view (except for people who don't care about any rules at all, even though I am not saying you necessarily are such a person).

Edited September 26, 2014 by Dwalin2010

[Dwalin2010]

i don't respect bad ideas. why should i?

Then why shouldn't they say the same about you? Just saying it's "bad" and therefore "unworthy of understanding" isn't rational, even though I think you suggested in your previous posts you try to reason rationally.