Posted on 05/14/2014 10:36:31 AM PDT by Kaslin
Thirty years ago Congress passed protective measures regarding pornography. On May 21, 1984, President Ronald Reagan signed into law the Child Protection Act, which was supposed to protect persons younger than 18 from exploitation by pornographers. (Other measures were designed to keep those under 18 from accessing pornography.) Two months later President Reagan signed into law the National Minimum Drinking Age Act, designed to keep persons below age 21 from purchasing alcoholic beverages.
Now, visualize this scene: Herbie, 13, walks into his local tavern and asks for a vodka martini—shaken, not stirred. Tex the barkeep asks, “Are you at least 21 years old?” Herbie says, “Sure.” Tex serves him. As he sips, Herbie pulls out his iPhone and watches a pornographic scene. I suspect most of you know what’s wrong with that picture: In all 50 states Herbie would not get his martini. Tex or anyone else would card him, demanding a driver’s license or other official proof that Herbie is at least 21. But the porn? No one would interfere.
The poet Ogden Nash (1902-1971) wrote, “Candy is dandy but liquor is quicker.” Today, I’d add another line with a different rhyme scheme: “Porn’s even faster but it leaves you forlorn.” I won’t go into detail here, but relatively few porn sites electronically card users. Some require use of a credit card to access much of their content, but even they are like bars at which persons of any age can get drunk.
And yet, pornography is a huge problem not only among adults but among children and teenagers as well. If you’re sending your very well-mannered children to college and the dorm Wi-Fi has no filtering mechanism, they are likely to be exposed early and often to hard-core porn—and some become addicted. Even if it does have a filter, your son and perhaps your daughter will probably see porn at some point.
Why the difference between alcohol and pornography, both products that sideswipe many teens? Thirty years ago President Reagan at the signing ceremony said he would appoint a commission to investigate pornography, and he did. Attorney General Ed Meese headed it up, citizens including James Dobson served on it—and the press ridiculed its serious conclusions. The U.S. Supreme Court also failed to take pornography seriously enough to change the almost-anything-goes attitude it had pioneered during the 1960s.
Now, as the group Enough Is Enough reports, porn makes up more than one-third of the internet industry and earns its purveyors more than $3,000 per second. Porn sites get more visitors each month than Twitter, Netflix, and Amazon combined. Most teens view pornography online, and one survey of 16- to 20-year-olds found nearly one out of four young men and one out of 10 young women admitting they tried to kick the habit but could not. Many young men expect dates and wives to perform as do actresses in the 11,000 porn films shot each year.
Need other dire stats? Witherspoon Institute conference research (proceedings published as “The Social Costs of Pornography”) showed that two-thirds of 18-to-34-year-old men visit porn sites regularly. (My hunch is that many of them go to church less often in part because they marry less often, and they marry less often in part because they access pornography more often.) Many men find it harder to relate to real women. Most divorces involve one partner compulsively using pornography.
Does this evidence mean legislators should act? Here’s the problem: A push to restrict pornography can play into the hands of those who hate Christian truth-telling. Now that influential atheists and secularists hope to restrict evangelistic efforts, our legal protection is the First Amendment proclamation of freedom for religion, speech, and the press—but since pornographers also rely on that amendment (as mistakenly interpreted), limits on it will rain on the innocent as well as the guilty.
A hard truth: Christians are a minority in America, and minorities should oppose increases in majoritarian power. A hard question: If we now should be quiescent on one issue to lessen the likelihood of a spillover to another, what hope do we have for constructive change? Not much, except what Christians have learned throughout the ages: Our hope is in the Lord, the maker of heaven and earth. He changes hearts and viewing patterns.
I don’t think it’s as clear cut as you suggest. Porn could be considered addictive for some people. Here are some personality traits of addiction:
http://www.erikbohlin.net/Handouts/personality_traits_of_addiction.htm
It’s possible to be addicted to virtually anything. As you wrote, young men (in general) are especially attracted to sex, and I think that would make them especially vulnerable to porn addiction. I know several Christians who are fighting what I would call porn addictions. It isn’t some mere thing they can easily give up or ignore.
In my opinion, porn is similar to drugs. It feeds the pleasure centers of the brain, and it takes a stronger dose to achieve the same degree of pleasure over time.
I respect liberty, and that means I must tolerate some things I don’t agree with so long as they aren’t harming me or mine. Regardless of whether one thinks porn should be regulated or not, one should be honest and admit it’s a social ill. It’s like pot in that regard. We may eventually decriminalize it, but let’s not kid ourselves and say pot is totally harmless. There may be some wiggle room concern its potential medical benefits, but it’s generally better if people aren’t potheads.
Since I’m not a libertarian, I think government policy should encourage responsibility even if it doesn’t make “bad” things illegal. It’s like laws supporting marriage (there’s no such thing as homosexual marriage, since two homosexuals cannot create a union in the same way as two heterosexuals, but I digress...). A libertarian would probably say government has no role in marriage at all, but that’s foolish. Government should encourage marriage, because it’s a socially good thing that helps build the civil society.
In other words, we all benefit when two people marry, stay married, and raise their children to adulthood. That’s something worth preserving. In the opposite way, porn is generally bad. Some people may have no issues with it, but porn is not harmless. Therefore, government reasonably should try to find ways to at least not encourage the use of porn.
I’m sure it does, although I do not know of any instances personally.
That subtle distinction is codified in law.
Oh, so you think porn won’t hurt children.
You are utterly loathesome, but I knew that already.
To what depths FR has sunk.
And the law is always right, right?
“My guess is that if the truth were known, porn is the underlying problem that caused the fairly recent increase in ED.”
Possibly. I know that porn sets unreasonable expectations. Women in porn are filmed in the best possible way, and there are all sorts of women. It’s impossible for any single woman to measure up to that, even if she’s considered near perfect. No matter how beautiful, no single woman can look or act like all women.
Porn, I think, causes men (and probably women) to have higher expectations. The man must look like Adonis and be able to last for hours. The woman must look perfect at all times—no blemishes anywhere—and be willing and capable of doing anything, to include sharing the man with another woman—a common porn theme. Real men and women are going to have a very difficult time living up to that fantasy, and people come with emotions and personalities. They aren’t the sex robots depicted in porn.
So, yeah. I think it’s possible that people could have trouble performing, especially if they think they’re constantly being compared to porn. Maybe that’s also why alcohol is very prominent in the hook up culture. You drink a lot of alcohol if you want to loosen up and not care.
If your children are well-mannered, etc. Do you really think just seeing some porn will ruin them? I
You are clearly saying that viewing pornography will not harm children.
Well said.
And yet you continue to associate yourself with it.
Not for long if people who think porn doesn’t hurt children are fine here.
Well, then do what you have to do.
Do you actually read comments, or just pick things out of context for your convenience?
Had you read what was replied to, you would realize we were talking about well- mannered college kids.
I thank God that she does.
Even if she’s wrong?
“A wife who refuses to let him eat in his own home should not be upset if he goes to a restaurant now and then.”
One sin doesn’t justify another, and a wife who refuses to let her husband “eat in his own home” is sinning. That is why a married couple needs to have sex regularly so that they are not tempted to sin. It’s in the Bible.
BTW, the more I read the Bible, the more amazed I am at just how good it really is. It is, at the barest minimum, an excellent guide to a healthy and happy life. It’s much more than that of course, but it’s also good advice for how to live well in this world.
Porn hurts everyone, well mannered or not.
To me the word “children”, which you used, does not mean “young adults in college”, but minor children.
Weasel out of it if you like, you said what you said.
I’m wrong that seeing porn hurts children?
So you think it’s fine for children to see porn, like the other two on this thread?
Are you serious?
The Plymouth Colony laws allowed divorce on the grounds of no sex/children.
The “Puritans” or whatever you know thought sex was supposed to be happening in marriage.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.