Pornography Is Anything But A Victimless Crime

Concerned Women For America ^ | Dec. 8, 2004 | Cheri Pierson Yecke

[Innisfree]

Internet sites are very rarely broadcast in Times Square, as far as I know.

/sarcasm

[TheBigB]

:-)

[Theophilus]

No, but I believe that porn is absolutely and not merely "potentially" addictive to everyone but those whose are totally disgusted by it, which is enough. The physiological effect of porn is so desirable (just like a drug) that the stimulated addict just want to see it again and again.

[AreaMan]

As you must surely know, minors are legally presumed to be unable to consent to certain things. We're talking about pornography involving only consenting adults.

Let's review.

Legally presumed. So, that is your only objection? If the law said they were able to consent, then that's ok, right?

The question cannot be more clear.

[Ken H]

Show the stats on the breakdown of marriage and societal mores.

Very well:

U.S. Per Capita Divorce Rates

Since 1990: 1991- 0.47% 1992- 0.48% 1993- 0.46% 1994- 0.46% 1995- 0.46% 1995- 0.43% 1997- 0.43% 1998- 0.42% 1999- 0.41% 2000- 0.41% 2001- 0.40%

Divorce rates

More porn is correlated with more stable marriages, yes?

[Melas]

Hell man, I can still name the entire ignoratio branch of fallacies, in Latin.

[MacDorcha]

Then make OCD people into outlaws. Force really cranky people to do hard time. Forbid marriage if an obscure aunt isn't happy with it!

We all got our problems. If you have a wife, kids, and job and your biggest problem is staying up late watching HBO, I'll say you're doing fairly well.

[MarkL]

The production of pornographic imagery does not constitute a "private activity between consenting adults."

Why not? It would be my guess that for the most part, the performers, as well as the crew, are all there voluntarily.

And if you reply that they're only there because they're being paid, well, the only reason I go to work is because my boss pays me! If I win the lottery, I'm out of here like a shot!

Mark

[Politicalities]

OK, now you've shifted the rebuttals to be about when someone dies from their activities. Again, misses the point. I have never claimed that the consumer of pornography will die, thereby leaving his widow with a difficult burden. You're fighting a straw man here.

No, I'm not. You're fighting a straw man by saying I'm fighting a straw man. I never restricted my examples to ones causing death.

Pornography contributes to real harm to real people.

So does alcohol. So does tobacco. So do trans-fatty acids.

Pornography increases likelihood of divorce => Kids harmed. Pornography contributes to both the perversion and number of pedophiles => Kids harmed. Pornography excites and emboldens sexual predators => Women and children harmed.

You think alcoholics aren't more likely to beat their wives and children? You think smokers aren't more likely to impose undue financial burden on their families? You think people who suffer non-fatal heart attacks due to overconsumption of cholesterol-dripping burgers don't hurt those who love them?

Other people don't own you, not even your family, not even your loved ones. You have the right to make your own choices, even if they don't like it, even if it imposes harm on them. They have the right to walk out on you if they don't like it.

[TChris]

You have the right to make your own choices...even if it imposes harm on them.

Well, I just have to say that I strongly disagree with you there. Interesting to see that the "I am an island" gang is alive and well.

[Innisfree]

I've already skewered this idea--see above. I have no more time for this fascinating discussion.

[tx_eggman]

BTW why do you impose your morality on me by saying the other person has to consent.

So, AreaMan, am I safe in assuming that consent isn't part of your moral compass ... you must have watch a train load of porn to get to that point ..

Or, am I safe in assuming that you've constructed yet another strawman

[Politicalities]

Well, I just have to say that I strongly disagree with you there

Then where do you draw the line? Do we have the moral authority to prohibit alcohol? Tobacco? Cheeseburgers? Bungie jumping? Is your right to cross the street limited by the harm your family will suffer if this risky act results in you being struck by a car and crippled?

[Ken H]

Pornography contributes to real harm to real people. Pornography increases likelihood of divorce => Kids harmed.

Divorce rates have fallen since 1990-- see post #265.

Pornography contributes to both the perversion and number of pedophiles => Kids harmed. Pornography excites and emboldens sexual predators => Women and children harmed.

Sex crimes have fallen by half since 1993, coinciding with the explosion of porn:

post #138

[AreaMan]

So, AreaMan, am I safe in assuming that consent isn't part of your moral compass ... you must have watch a train load of porn to get to that point ..

No, I was trying to get to the point of where the libertines get the authority to tell anyone that consent is the final arbiter of morality.

Libertines don't get it. They object to some moral standards but yet have their own moral standard, i.e. ONLY private activity by consenting adults, that all others must be beholden to.

[Lindykim]

snip....Fortunately however, it is protected....


So is the killing of babies......but not for long.

[tx_eggman]

No, I was trying to get to the point of where the libertines get the authority to tell anyone that consent is the final arbiter of morality

You're not there yet, not even close.

[NJ_gent]

"Neither of those two amendments protect the use of pornography."

They protect it from the ignorant folks who claim that we have no rights which are not enumerated in the Constitution. They also protect it from the Federal government, which is precisely what some want to use to enact their anti-pornography agenda into law. Most of the 'pornography should be illegal' people want to work on the Federal level so that they don't have to shove their agenda down peoples' throats 50+ times in different places.

"Unfortunately, in recent practice, particularly with the Texas sodomy laws, the Supreme Court has decided that somehow, inexplicably, the Constitution does indeed limit the power of the States in this regard."

While I agree with the sentiment expressed by the SCOTUS in that decision - that the private sexual acts between consenting adults in their own homes ought not be legislated - I also agree with you that the Federal government has no business sticking its nose in that fight. As it was, a lot of state supreme courts had already overturned those laws. It was simply a case of the SCOTUS extending the arm of the Federal government while once again shortchanging the rights of states.

If someone wants to ban pornography in the state of New Jersey, I'll fight that fight while recognizing the right of the state to do it (depending on the state constitution). However, whenever people get into a discussion about banning it, jurisdiction is virtually never discussed. States rights and the US Constitution are merely irrelevant details in their jihad to rid the country of something they don't like.

[Lindykim]

All users of porn are peeping toms by virtue of the fact that they are "looking through the cyber bedroom window" at other people having sex. There's nothing hard to understand about that.
Peeping tomism is peeping tomism.

[Politicalities]

Libertines don't get it. They object to some moral standards but yet have their own moral standard, i.e. ONLY private activity by consenting adults, that all others must be beholden to.

Oh, I get it all right, although I must point out that your use of the derogatory term "libertine" is yet another ad hominem. I do not deny that I want to enforce my morality on others, as you want to enforce yours. The difference is that my morality is better than yours. My morality has a name; it's called "freedom". Yours has a name too... "authoritarianism". In my morality, individuals own their own bodies and make their own choices. In yours, the government dares to presume that it has the right to dictate the behavior of its citizens "for their own good", and that people are not permitted to choose their own good for themselves.

I say without hesitation that my ethics are far superior to yours.