On the one hand, there is credible evidence that pornography is not harmful to individuals or to society. — anonymous66

I've never heard of it, but I have seen evidence that says the opposite. Porn causes and/or exacerbates addiction to it, general Internet addiction, erectile dysfunction, the break up of relationships and marriages, and the exploitation of vulnerable men, women, and children.

lust just seems wrong. — anonymous66

Having sexual desires is wrong?

taking acts so personal (the physical acts of sex) and making them public just seems wrong. — anonymous66

Why must sex be personal? Sex is often personal, but it need not be. Further, why is making actions public to consenting adults remove the personal aspect of sex? What is wrong with a couple who likes to do porn for others? What's wrong with an adult who likes to sexually arouse others?

doesn't the porn industry just promote the idea that people are merely a means to an end? — anonymous66

There is nothing wrong with using people as an end, but solely as an end. Whenever I hire somebody to perform some task, I am using them as an end. When I get a musician to perform at a party, we are treating each other as ends. The musician wants to get payed and get a chance to perform in public, while I want to have live music to enhance a party. We are both using the other to achieve ends we desire. There is nothing wrong here, so long as we do not treat each other as solely means. We still have to respect the wishes of others. I cannot force the musician to play, withhold pay, or anything of that sort. The same goes for the musician.

If someone is not being forced to do porn and submit it to the public, then they are not being used solely as a means to an end.

Should harm be the deciding factor? — anonymous66

The deciding factor for what? Virtually everything is harmful to some degree (trees are nice, but people are killed by falling branches; ladders help us reach otherwise inaccessible heights, but are a source of domestic accidents, etc.).

One could take a dim view of pornography, and yet maintain that the societal costs of squelching free speech and free expression outweigh the benefits of governmental censors clamping down on porn, which is likely virtually impossible anyway, at least without imposing the sort of controls which are incompatible with liberal democracy. Stamping out drug use via the "war on drugs" has been a dismal failure, and yet narcotics are less accessible than porn, as they require the acquisition of a physical substance which must be ingested in some fashion. Porn (as with any other data) can be transmitted purely electronically; it's just information.

There is nothing wrong with using people as an end, but solely as an end. Whenever I hire somebody to perform some task, I am using them as an end. When I get a musician to perform at a party, we are treating each other as ends. The musician wants to get payed and get a chance to perform in public, while I want to have live music to enhance a party. We are both using the other to achieve ends we desire. There is nothing wrong here, so long as we do not treat each other as solely means. We still have to respect rhe wishes of others. I cannot force the musician to play, withhold pay, or anything of that sort. The same goes for the musician. — Chany

So refreshing to hear someone take this very sensible view.

On the one hand, there is credible evidence that pornography is not harmful to individuals or to society. — anonymous66

I've never heard of it, but I have seen evidence that says the opposite. Porn causes and/or exacerbates addiction to it, general Internet addiction, erectile dysfunction, the break up of relationships and marriages, and the exploitation of vulnerable men, women, and children. — Thorongil

https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/all-about-sex/200904/does-pornography-cause-social-harm

I'm not arguing that porn is utterly harmless. Some men consume it so compulsively that it interferes with their lives. They need therapy. Some women become distraught when they discover that the men in their lives enjoy porn. They might benefit from couple therapy. And to the extent that porn is a sex educator, it teaches lovemaking all wrong. More about this in a future post.

But the evidence clearly shows that from a social welfare perspective, porn causes no measurable harm. In fact, as porn viewing has soared, rates of syphilis, gonorrhea, teen sex, teen births, divorce, and rape have all substantially declined. If Internet porn affects society, oddly enough, it looks beneficial. Perhaps mental health professionals should encourage men to view it.

https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/all-about-sex/201601/evidence-mounts-more-porn-less-sexual-assault

Contrary to the critics’ assertions, as porn consumptions increased, so did emotional closeness to others. Far from providing an escape from close relationships, the researchers suggested that porn use may signify a “craving for intimacy.”
Those who feel offended or disgusted by pornography are entitled to their opinion. But they are not entitled to misrepresent its effects on men and society. Porn does NOT isolate men from significant others, nor does it contribute to rape and other sex crimes.

The deciding factor for what? Virtually everything is harmful to some degree (trees are nice, but people are killed by falling branches; ladders help us reach otherwise inaccessible heights, but are a source of domestic accidents, etc.).

One could take a dim view of pornography, and yet maintain that the societal costs of squelching free speech and free expression outweigh the benefits of governmental censors clamping down on porn, which is likely virtually impossible anyway, at least without imposing the sort of controls which are incompatible with liberal democracy. Stamping out drug use via the "war on drugs" has been a dismal failure, and yet narcotics are less accessible than porn, as they require the acquisition of a physical substance which must be ingested in some fashion. Porn (as with any other data) can be transmitted purely electronically; it's just information. — Arkady

What I see is that those who argue that porn is not harmful, or no more harmful than other things we allow, are met with the claim "people only want porn because there is something wrong with the way they view morality."
How to counter the claims about morality? Do moral intuitions about porn have any bearing on the issue? At the very least, the argument, "assuming that fornication and/or adultery is immoral, then porn is immoral", is plausible.

What I see is that those who argue that porn is not harmful, or no more harmful than other things we allow, are met with the claim "people only want porn because there is something wrong with the way they view morality."
How to counter the claims about morality? — anonymous66

I think the reasons people want porn are rather different from the reasons one might invoke to justify porn.

In any event, such a response seems to be an ad-hom, and to beg the question ("porn is immoral because people who use it have a skewed morality").

There are feminist pro-pornography arguments, as well.

The pro-porn argument:

Why should we completely censor the fantasies that allow people to explore their desires and interests from a safe distance? Why not allow porn to be an opportunity for minority directors and actors to create media that does not stereotype or degrade them? In a previous Ms. Blog article, pornography scholar Mireille Miller-Young says,

Surely there’s racism in the porn industry. It affects how people of color are represented and treated, but there are counter-stories–especially among women of color who are creating and managing their own product. This doesn’t get enough attention.

While acknowledging that porn the way it is now can sometimes perpetuate harmful ideas about sex and further objectify the bodies of women and minorities, many do not believe that this means that porn is inherently wrong. There is an upswing of “female-friendly” videos that depict sex as a shared and mutually enjoyable experience rather than purely a male pleasure-focused activity, as well as instructional pornography videos that show viewers how to safely participate in fun and consensual sex. A quick Google search can lead pornography consumers to safe and informative websites, and there are many books written on the topic of feminist porn.

And at what point do we stop holding the media accountable for how people interpret pornography? Following the same logic about how porn should be banned because of the potentially harmful and misleading information that it presents, shows like SpongeBob SquarePants would have been cancelled because of children who drown looking for the characters. Mary Poppins would have been banned because she encouraged me to try flying with an umbrella when I was eight years old. Why, then, is porn held so accountable for the way people think about and act out sex? Why are the squeamish school systems and parents not held responsible for teaching children and young adults to respect each other’s and their own bodies? Why does the responsibility for teaching the nation’s youth about sex fall to strangers on the Internet?

Many anti-pornography feminists believe that porn is an apparatus of the patriarchy that reduces women to sex objects and is a part of the systematic oppression and degradation of women, but this claim robs the performers of control over their bodies and shames them for participating in an industry that provides them with financial stability and the opportunity to explore their sexuality. As feminist writer Ellen Willis once said, “The claim that ‘pornography is violence against women’ was code for the neo-Victorian idea that men want sex and women endure it.”

Why do people assume that the women performing in porn are not enjoying it themselves? Claims that the women who perform in porn are being coerced or indoctrinated into the patriarchy simply belittle women and question their right to bodily autonomy. By hating porn and considering it to be a shameful pastime, profession or method of achieving sexual pleasure (both as performers or consumers), we force performers into the role of being lesser humans and hurt efforts to empower or legally protect performers.

The problems within pornography stem from larger patriarchal frameworks, so while the industry may require drastic improvement, pornography cannot be blamed for sexism and violence—particularly when there are institutionalized policies that repeatedly shame and debase the female body. Rather than blame pornography or attempt to censor it, we can think critically about the way it is packaged and sold as a commodity for men rather than as a universally enjoyable and empowering method of exploring sexuality. In order to reform the pornography industry, we must first work to destigmatize it, starting with accepting it as a legitimate method of employment and sexual enjoyment for women.

Do moral intuitions about porn have any bearing on the issue? — anonymous66

I have no idea. Are moral intuitions dispositive of moral questions in general? Whatever the answer, I see no reason that questions surrounding pornography would be exempt.

At the very least, the argument, "assuming that fornication and/or adultery is immoral, then porn is immoral", is plausible.

Even granting the premise that fornication is immoral, it is a non-sequitur that watching fornication is also immoral, which is at issue here. Watching fornication is not equivalent to engaging in fornication, and thus whatever moral opprobrium may attach to the latter doesn't necessarily attach to the former.

@Arkady
I suppose one could say, "if you think it's immoral, then don't watch it." and then the argument goes back to proof of harm.

Arkady
I suppose one could say, "if you think it's immoral, then don't watch it." and then the argument goes back to proof of harm. — anonymous66

I don't believe that harm is necessary or sufficient to render something immoral. And even if it were, it doesn't follow that any and all immoral actions or behaviors ought to be regulated, outlawed, or otherwise be made a matter of public concern.

I wasn't saying anything about harm being proof of something being immoral. But, rather reasons to allow or disallow. If the claim, "it's immoral" isn't enough to persuade people to disallow something in our society, then it seems the next step must be to show that it is harmful.

I do also wonder about those who may acknowledge that porn isn't harmful (or not very harmful). In that case, what do they make of their conviction, "I know it isn't harmful, but I still think it's immoral"?

But the evidence clearly shows that from a social welfare perspective

From that perspective, sure, I suppose one can agree with the apparent correlation (causation would be another story). But surely a lack of syphilis and gonorrhea is not the only thing that makes for a good, healthy society.

What about correlations to reduction in rape and other sex crimes and increase in prosocial behavior?

rates of syphilis, gonorrhea, teen sex, teen births, divorce, and rape have all substantially declined.

Contrary to the critics’ assertions, as porn consumptions increased, so did emotional closeness to others.

What about them? My same point still stands.

So, you become aware that there something that reduces rape and other sex crimes, divorce, std's, teen sex, and that increases prosocial behavior... and you want to prevent that thing? On what grounds?

So, you become aware that there something that reduces rape and other sex crimes, divorce, std's, teen sex, and that increasea prosocial behavior... and you want to prevent that thing? — anonymous66

1) Porn does not "reduce" said things, it is correlated with their reduction, and 2) I never said I wanted to prevent porn. I'm actually on the fence about it. Sometimes I think it would be good to ban it, other times I think not.

1) Porn does not "reduce" said things, it is correlated with their reduction

Okay, you become aware that there is something that is correlated with a reduction in rape and other sex crimes, divorce, std's, teen sex, and that increases prosocial behavior... what doubts could you/do you have about said thing?

I wasn't saying anything about harm being proof of something being immoral. But, rather reasons to allow or disallow. If the claim, "it's immoral" isn't enough to persuade people to disallow something in our society, then it seems the next step must be to show that it is harmful. — anonymous66

Perhaps I misunderstood you, then. My mistake. So, you are saying that your hypothetical interlocutor might say that if something is immoral (whether or not it is also harmful) or it is harmful (whether or not it is also immoral), then that would be sufficient grounds for regulating or banning it. And if the immoral disjunct is ruled out, the possibility that it is harmful is to be examined to see if there are grounds for banning it.

Surely there’s racism in the porn industry.

Surely.

http://www.theonion.com/video/use-of-n-word-may-end-porn-stars-career-14174

Out of curiosity, on what basis might you consider something to be immoral if not harmful?

In other words, if something is not harmful what makes it immoral?

Out of curiosity, on what basis might you consider something to be immoral if not harmful?

In other words, if something is not harmful what makes it immoral? — VagabondSpectre

I don't think I have a comprehensive theory of morality which will cover every possible case of moral vs. immoral action (and I'm skeptical that the world of human action can be so cleanly dichotomized; there may well be a spectrum of morality).

However, in saying that I don't believe harm to be necessary condition of immorality, I think there are a few examples of actions one would typically regard as immoral and yet not harmful per se, sometimes in part due to moral luck.

For instance, consider the situation in which a person is unfaithful to their spouse, and yet the spouse never learns of the affair, and thus suffers no harm (whether psychological or physical). I believe it is reasonable to consider the adultery immoral, and yet no one was harmed.

Also consider the case of driving while severely inebriated: one may be lucky and not harm anyone, and yet such an action may well be viewed as immoral because a person knowingly and unnecessarily put others at great risk by dint of his irresponsible actions.

Consider another instance in which one greedily pilfers money from a person who is so rich that he doesn't even notice the money is missing, and thus suffers no psychological or physical harm. Is not the theft immoral, even though no one was technically harmed (one could perhaps argue that more abstract entities such as his bank account or his estate were harmed)?

On the one hand, there is credible evidence that pornography is not harmful to individuals or to society. — anonymous66

There's research (fringe research, not mainstream research) that points to porn being harmful to the brain:

https://yourbrainonporn.com/

There's also a lot of anecdotal evidence, within this online community, of the effects. It's certainly an addiction for a lot of people:

https://www.nofap.com/

If someone is not being forced to do porn and submit it to the public, then they are not being used solely as a means to an end. — Chany

There appears to be a connection between human trafficking and the porn industry. It's difficult to come up with hard data on the subject, since one industry is illegal, and the other is...well, porn. Most research is done, then, by advocacy groups, not by neutral parties. Which is understandable.

One could take a dim view of pornography, and yet maintain that the societal costs of squelching free speech and free expression outweigh the benefits of governmental censors clamping down on porn, which is likely virtually impossible anyway, at least without imposing the sort of controls which are incompatible with liberal democracy. — Arkady

On the one hand, porn should absolutely be legal for the reasons you gave, but on the other hand, the porn industry's potential connection to human trafficking needs to be further investigated. There's also the potential connection to child porn. What percentage of adult porn actors started their careers in child porn? The demarcation between trafficking, prostitution, child porn and adult porn is not at all so clear cut. It's a complex issue. Realistically, making porn illegal would have more damaging effects than not, I would guess, but that doesn't mean it's not having hugely detrimental effects on society as we continue to allow it. It's not black and white.

On the one hand, porn should absolutely be legal for the reasons you gave, but on the other hand, the porn industry's potential connection to human trafficking needs to be further investigated. — Noble Dust

Sure. And labor abuses are also rampant in the agricultural and seafood industries. Perhaps something like a certification process for "clean" porn should be instituted (much as one can buy "conflict-free" diamonds).

There is also the troublesome phenomenon of "revenge porn," which does not involve consenting parties (if they consented to the original taping, they did not consent to its release online).

There's also the potential connection to child porn. What percentage of adult porn actors started their careers in child porn?

I assume that you're thinking specifically of female porn stars? Either way, I don't have the answer, and I suspect that reliable data is hard to come by.

The demarcation between trafficking, prostitution, child porn and adult porn is not at all so clear cut. It's a complex issue. Realistically, making porn illegal would have more damaging effects than not, I would guess, but that doesn't mean it's not having hugely detrimental effects on society as we continue to allow it. It's not black and white.

I am skeptical that its effects are "hugely" detrimental (especially as compared to say, smoking, opioid abuse, high-calorie food consumption, etc), but no doubt it does have some problems associated with its use. But again, this could be said about virtually anything which humans engage in (some things more than others).

Perhaps a compromise position would be to ban the production of new porn, while not outlawing the consumption or sale of existing porn. The amount of pornography in existence is quite vast: even the most dedicated pornaholic would likely have trouble exhausting the current stock in his lifetime.

One could take a dim view of pornography, and yet maintain that the societal costs of squelching free speech and free expression outweigh the benefits of governmental censors clamping down on porn, which is likely virtually impossible anyway, at least without imposing the sort of controls which are incompatible with liberal democracy. — Arkady

It's trivially easy to filter out porn sites on the level of domain name servers.

There are a lot of children, particularly but not only male, whose social and sexual attitudes are being shaped, or malformed, by the easy accessibility of any amount of porn. But almost every school-age child now has a smart phone, and a fair percentage have tablet devices, and the free porn services - porntube, redtube, etc - are all completely open to pubic, er, public view by anyone. I know damn well if that had been available when I was ten or eleven what I would have done. But in any case, I think continued exposure to the extravaganza of publicly-available porn at a young age can't help but be deleterious for the psycho-sexual development of children. It changes the definition of normal behaviour, by over-stimulating and presenting what would previously have been regarded as abberant sexual behaviours as normal. So when it comes to the reality of intimacy with a treasured other who is just an ordinary boy or girl, I'm sure there will be, shall we say, scope for considerable dissappointment, on both sides.

A 15-year-old boy confided in me after I addressed his class at a Sydney school last year. He cried as he told me he had been using porn since the age of nine. He didn't have a social life, had few friends, had never had a girlfriend. His life revolved around online porn. He wanted to stop, he said, but didn't know how.

I have had similar conversations with other boys since then.

Girls also share their experiences. Of boys pressuring them to provide porn-inspired acts. Of being expected to put up with things they don't enjoy. Of seeing sex in terms of performance. Girls as young as 12 show me the text messages they routinely receive requesting naked images.

Pornography is invading the lives of young people - 70 per cent of boys and 53.5 per cent of girls have seen porn by age 12, 100 per cent of boys and 97 per cent of girls by age 16, according to a study behind the book The Sex Lives of Australian Teenagers, by Joan Sauers.

SMH

There's a lot of high-minded nonsense spouted about 'freedom of expression' but sex is a biological drive, mediated by the amazingly sophisticated forebrain of h. sapiens. But a great deal of it is a reflex. We're primed to react to certain stimuli and also primed for biological reasons to want to continually engage in sex. I think the upshot is bound to be a great deal of confusion, unhappiness, and frustration, masquerading as fantastic pleasure. You have to ask the question, 'what does liberty or freedom amount to'? I suppose, in the abstract, it has to allow for you to voluntary enslave yourself, but I don't think that is what freedom really ought to mean.

I'm not conversant with the technical issues, but I have little doubt that with enough technical saavy, those who wish to purvey and consume porn would find a way to do so by getting around any governmental roadblocks. Sites such as Silk Road (which offered a variety of illegal fare) are shut down, and new sites spring up like weeds in their place. You are probably aware of the so-called "dark web," which is also a hive of illegal online activity.

Governmental censor or prohibition almost never works: this has been shown time and time again, with the abject failure of Prohibition in the U.S. and the "war on drugs," which has led to widespread violence and sky-high rates of incarceration.

There is also a lot of high-minded nonsense about the dangers of porn, including anecdotes about 9-year-olds being hooked on it and dubious stats about it destroying marriages. Freedom of expression is arguably the highest ideal of a liberal democracy (and it also protects those modes of expression about which you may have particular interest in safeguarding, such as religious speech), and is not something to be sneezed at or dismissed in the name of the latest moral panic.

I am skeptical that its effects are "hugely" detrimental (especially as compared to say, smoking, opioid abuse, high-calorie food consumption, etc) — Arkady

Porn has actually been shown to have the same chemical response in the brain as heroin.

And see Wayfarers comments above about the effect of growing up in the age of internet porn. The average age of exposure to porn is somewhere around 11, but I've seen different numbers. But all the numbers given now are well below the age of puberty, let alone sexual consent. The youth of today have literally grown up on porn. That is completely unprecedented. None of the pro-porn research seems to address this.

Perhaps a compromise position would be to ban the production of new porn, while not outlawing the consumption or sale of existing porn. The amount of pornography in existence is quite vast: even the most dedicated pornaholic would likely have trouble exhausting the current stock in his lifetime. — Arkady

I'm sorry to say, but this is totally unrealistic.

Porn has actually been shown to have the same chemical response in the brain as heroin. — Noble Dust

Again, I don't deny that porn can be addictive or otherwise taken to excess. Likewise, alcohol, gambling, junk food, and a host of other things are potentially addictive, and yet we don't feel the need to ban them (though they are of course subject to regulation, as is porn). Opioid abuse is a much larger problem than porn, I would argue, and yet no one denies that opioids have their place in medicine.

I'm sorry to say, but this is totally unrealistic. — Noble Dust

Well, I agree, insofar as I believe that any serious attempt to regulate the consumption of porn would be unrealistic in any liberal democracy worth having. In what other sense do you find it to be unrealistic?

Again, I don't deny that porn can be addictive or otherwise taken to excess. Likewise, alcohol, gambling, junk food, and a host of other things are potentially addictive, and yet we don't feel the need to ban them (though they are of course subject to regulation, as is porn). — Arkady

The problem of legalizing things seems complex to me; Portugal seems to have done well with legalizing pretty much everything. I'm not necessarily arguing that porn should be banned or outlawed. That's also an unrealistic notion. I'm simply arguing that porn is harmful and addictive. What I find worrisome is that so many people don't seem to see it as an addiction. Society at large continues to seem to think that porn is a positive thing. It's not. And what percentage of people are using porn in a "healthy" manner, exactly? Plenty of social drinkers are not alcoholics, but virtually all cocaine users are addicted on the first hit. Where does porn fall on the spectrum? How many porn users are addicts? Children and even teenagers being exposed to porn in secrecy is never a healthy thing. I was exposed to porn as a teenager, and it was an instant addiction.