Friday, March 10, 2006

Paul Cella...

...asks a question: Do you believe, aside from all questions of legal sanction, policy, even social pressure, that pornography is a bad thing? That, in the older language, to indulge it, to create it, to implicate oneself in it, is to commit a sin?

A fine post at Redstate, with plenty of contrarian, libertarian, and even Pelagian sensibilities on display in comments. Remove three letters from the latter and you end up with 'pagan.'

10 comments:

Amy said...

Before my conversion, I really didn't see anything wrong with pornography. It just seemed to me that if that's what someone wanted to do, then who was I to tell them they couldn't?

Then I had a course in college in abnormal psychology, and we discussed the impact of molestation on children and some of the signs that indicate a child has been molested. Promiscuous behavior is one of those signs, and over 80% of the women involved in the pornography industry were molested as children. Even from a purely secular viewpoint, I couldn't dismiss pornography as harmless after that because the women weren't just nameless, faceless objects anymore - they were little girls who had been hurt and needed help.

Now I wonder how anyone can defend pornography.

alicia said...

Leaving pornography lying around is one of the ways that molesters 'soften up' (aka groom) their intended victims. Most children tend to read (view, listen to) anything that is readily available - whether it is "The Wizard of Oz" or "Lady Chatterly's Lover" - "Anne of Green Gables" or "Fanny Hill" - blues clues or a blue movie. Pornography is a tool that is used to make the unthinkable seem to be not only routine but exciting and desirable. As such, it may even be more morally evil than the behaviours it portrays and encourages.
Witty little ditties such as Tom Lehrer's "SMUT" tend to minimize the harm that can be done. But Mr. Lehrer does have a good point.
Let me quote:
All books can be indecent books,
though recent books are bloder
For filth I"m glad to say)
is in the eye of the beholder
When correctly viewed, everything is lewd
I could tell you things about Peter Pan
and the Wizard of Oz
is a dirty old man

William Luse said...

Good comments, ladies.

Kevin Jones said...

I cannot for the life of me see how pornography is distinguishable from prostitution. Money is exchanged for sex. If pimps had any business sense and legal acumen, they'd advertise "porn star lessons" for johns. Recording such sessions would, I think, grant them legal protection under current jurisprudence.

Has anybody calculated how many porn starlets are sex slaves trafficked in from Eastern Europe or Asia? I wonder if it were revealed that most internet porn was based in such slavery, it would not lower esteem for pornography but rather raise the esteem for slavery.

Kevin Jones said...

One more thing: Did you catch the reflections of a repentant prostitute who worked in a legal Nevada brothel?

She was treated little better than a sex slave for two weeks: Wayward Catholic

William Luse said...

No, I haven't, Kevin. I'll check it out.

Paul Cella said...

Amy, do you have a citation from the 80% figure?

William Luse said...

Paul, here are a few sites to check out, obtained via a quick Google:

http://www.cwfa.org/articledisplay.asp?id=3323&department=LEGAL&categoryid=pornography

http://www.capalert.com/pornandkids.htm

http://www.family.org/pastor/resources/sos/a0006443.cfm

http://www.prostitutionresearch.com/ProsViolPosttrauStress.html

Paul Cella said...

Thanks Bill.

What's Google?

Amy said...

Amy, do you have a citation from the 80% figure?

Just that it was the number the prof. mentioned in class. I don't remember the source he gave for it, if any.