including anecdotes about 9-year-olds being hooked on it and dubious stats about it destroying marriages. — Arkady

They're not anecdotes. There are indubitably enormous numbers of pre-teens - literally hundreds of millions, possibly billions - who have unrestricted access to endless amounts of pornographic video. This is fact.

Of course 'censoring the internet' is controversial - as I have often observed, arguing against porn on an internet forum is like arguing against beer in a pub. Nevertheless, following a spate of truly ghastly sexual murders in the UK, the British government is actually enacting legislation to outlaw some particularly egregious categories of porn. Of course the Guardian is outraged. (I note the references to the 'inconvenience' suffered by 'mainstream adult' sites. Poor darlings.)

Yes, porn can be harmful and addictive. It doesn't follow that it's inherently harmful and addictive, unless you wish to maintain that anyone who has ever viewed porn became addicted to and was harmed by it.

Perhaps children feel the need to view porn in secret because sex is treated as dirty and shameful, and humans are made to feel sinful for having sexual desires? Perhaps then the solution is more sex education to let adolescents know how sex "really" is, and not have unrealistic or distorted expectations or beliefs about sex.

They're not anecdotes. There are indubitably enormous numbers of pre-teens - literally hundreds of millions, possibly billions - who have unrestricted access to endless amounts of pornographic video. This is fact. — Wayfarer

Firstly, I don't deny that vast numbers of children have access to porn. What I called an anecdote was the story of the child who became addicted to porn at 9 years old. Having access to X and becoming addicted to X are 2 different things.

Of course 'censoring the internet' is controversial - as I have often observed, arguing against porn on an internet forum, is like arguing against beer in a pub. Nevertheless, following a spate of truly ghastly sexual murders in the UK, the British government is actually enacting legislation to outlaw some categories of porn. Of course the Guardian is outraged.

I don't know which variety of porn you are speaking of, but I assume that it was something of a violent nature if it motivated "ghastly sexual murders"? If that's the case, then let us not draw a false equivalency between violent pornography and pornography simpliciter. Even if outlawing particular types of porn may be advisable, that doesn't entail that outlawing all porn is likewise advisable.

Yes, porn can be harmful and addictive. It doesn't follow that it's inherently harmful and addictive, unless you wish to maintain that anyone who has ever viewed porn became addicted to and was harmed by it. — Arkady

Clearly I never said that. I was asking an open question about just how harmful porn is.

Perhaps children feel the need to view porn in secret because sex is treated as dirty and shameful, and humans are made to feel sinful for having sexual desires? — Arkady

This is definitely a problem. I was mentioning the secrecy of porn though, because it's almost a joke. No one invites their friends over to watch some classic porn.

Perhaps then the solution is more sex education to let adolescents know how sex "really" is, and not have unrealistic or distorted expectations or beliefs about sex. — Arkady

Yes, that's a good idea, but porn is a huge reason why teens have unrealistic and distorted notions about sex in the first place.

If that's the case, then let us not draw a false equivalency between violent pornography and pornography simpliciter. — Arkady

The problem is that porn addiction escalates in the same way that tolerance escalates in drug or alcohol addiction. Those violent forms of pornography only exist because of porn addiction.

Should harm be the deciding factor? What of moral intuition? — anonymous66

Doesn't it just come down to one's meta-ethical stance in the end? For a utilitarian, harm would be the sole factor. For a Divine Command Ethicist it would include what God decrees. For a deontologist, the issue you mention about means and ends would come into play.

I have decided that my meta-ethical stance (currently) is Love. That's agape love, not erotic so please don't make fun of me because of the context.

Love as a meta-ethical stance is closer to utilitarian than to most others, but it's more blurry around the edges and allows for decisions that may not necessarily be seen as utilitarian.

Clearly I never said that. I was asking an open question about just how harmful porn is. — Noble Dust

You said:

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. — Noble Dust

These look more like assertions than questions to me.

This is definitely a problem. I was mentioning the secrecy of porn though, because it's almost a joke. No one invites their friends over to watch some classic porn. — Noble Dust

What's "classic porn," just out of curiosity?

The problem is that porn addiction escalates in the same way that tolerance escalates in drug or alcohol addiction. Those violent forms of pornography only exist because of porn addiction. — Noble Dust

Isn't it just possible that some people have a taste for more violent forms of porn, just as some people have a taste for S&M, sado-masochism and the like in their personal sexual lives?

The questions I referenced came right after what you just quoted:

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? — Noble Dust

The questions I referenced came right after what you just quoted: — Noble Dust

Yes, I did see your questions, but you clearly also made multiple assertions, contra your claim that you were only asking open questions about porn.

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

We are really drifting towards political philosophy at this point, but two things:

1) The claim, "it's immoral," is not a good reason to ban anything. We allow immoral acts all the time. There is a difference between the right action and the right to an action. For example, it may not be morally right to be mean to another person for no good reason, but no one would say that I do not possess the right to be mean to another person, regardless of whether the reason is good or not.

2) Harms usually must be demonstrably problematic to a society in order to garner regulatory control and awareness. The fact that it might harm myself or be a stupid decision does not mean the state or similar body can prevent the action. There are a number of religions and ideologies that I find harmful overall, particularly in specific forms, but I do not see this as grounds to ban these religions and ideologies.

Regulatory considerations come into play in issues of public welfare and (more debatably) public safety. Actions that dramatically affect the welfare of others outside an agreement, such as pollution and other externalities, demand some kind of regulation or ban because they directly harm others not inside the consensual agreements between private parties. Of more a more interesting line of discussion, we can talk about restrictions on behavior motivated by the notion of protecting people from themselves. Sometimes, even though the action is relatively localized to the private individual, we put laws into place that protect people from themselves. For example, helmet laws, laws surrounding suicide, and many drug laws are usually justified to protect people from their own poor decisions. This is the hot button issue- even if porn is harmful enough to warrant consideration to restrict access to, can the state reasonably do it?

Yes, I did see your questions, but you clearly also made multiple assertions, contra your claim that you were only asking open questions about porn. — Arkady

:-} Stop misquoting me. I never said that I was only asking questions. I said I was "asking an open question about just how harmful porn is." This is not important.

Isn't it just possible that some people have a taste for more violent forms of porn, just as some people have a taste for S&M, sado-masochism and the like in their personal sexual lives? — Arkady

Deriving pleasure from someone's else's suffering, whether real or voyeristically, is morally wrong.

Stop misquoting me. I never said that I was only asking questions. I said I was "asking an open question about just how harmful porn is." This is not important. — Noble Dust

I don't want to get too bogged down in this, but this was our exchange:

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. — Noble Dust

Yes, porn can be harmful and addictive. It doesn't follow that it's inherently harmful and addictive, unless you wish to maintain that anyone who has ever viewed porn became addicted to and was harmed by it. — Arkady

Clearly I never said that. I was asking an open question about just how harmful porn is. — Noble Dust

You said that porn is "harmful and addictive," not that it can be harmful and addictive. I took that to mean that you were saying that it is by nature harmful and addictive. If my interpretation is erroneous, how should I have interpreted that statement?

Deriving pleasure from someone's else's suffering, whether real or voyeristically, is morally wrong.

If I see a serial rapist put behind bars for the rest of his life for his crimes and take pleasure in that, is it morally wrong (let us assume that he suffers from his punishment and doesn't take some perverse pleasure in having his freedom taken away)?

Yours is a rather strong moral claim, but it seems of peripheral relevance at best to the current topic. You said that violent porn exists only due to the escalation of porn addiction, which I find dubious: I pointed out that some may just have a taste for more violent types of porn, just as some may have a taste for more violent types of sex in their personal lives. But you failed to address this point, and instead just moved on to offer your opinion as to the moral status of people who consume such fare.

I should ask: what about deriving pleasure from one's own suffering, which can be a goal of S&M (in my above post, I was redundant in invoking S&M and sado-masochism: I think I meant to also say "bondage")?

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. — anonymous66

Where did this information come from and how was it obtained?

The rate of increased diagnoses of syphilis, gonorrhea, and chlamydia has been slow but steady--when viewing the whole nation. When considering race, location, and age, we find disparities between gay men and straight men, between blacks and other races, and between southerners and other regions. Rates of STDs are highest among blacks, southerners, and gay men, and there are significant disparities which porn wouldn't seem to account for, one way or the other. If one examines the history of diagnoses at specific clinics, one might see more up-and-down movement in diagnoses.

What is most related to the levels of STDs in the population is the effectiveness of outreach, treatment, and follow-up. Has anyone collected actual data about cases who looked at, or did not look at porn? I doubt it.

Some people consider cursing to be immoral. Some people consider changing religion to be immoral. Some people consider polytheism to be immoral. Some people think that atheism is immoral.

In none of these cases can any harm or benefit be seen, other than the particular actions annoying the people who don't like it. By that standard, grated coconut is immoral become some people find the taste, texture, and mouth-feel annoying. Personally, I think we should burn grated coconut at the stake.

Porn consumers should have the same attitude towards pornography performers that Livia, the wife of Augustus, (I Claudius) had for the gladiators. Here she lays out her expectations.

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. — Noble Dust

Unless you have some sort of reference on research into the alleged connection, this is just idle speculation.

Should harm be the deciding factor? What of moral intuition? Are there other forms of harm that haven't been considered (like the harm of treating people as a means to an end)?

What is porn? While answers may not satisfy, isn't it a form of parody (Rule 34), and isn't war a form of porn, a deadly parody of morality. And how does porn distinguish itself, from erotica and comedy, is there good porn, or is that a misnomer.

This is definitely a problem. I was mentioning the secrecy of porn though, because it's almost a joke. No one invites their friends over to watch some classic porn. — Noble Dust

Of course, because many people don't have sex "with their friends". "Friends" are in one group, "sex partners" are in another group, and many people keep them strictly segregated. (Clear separation makes life simpler.)

Usually, people watch porn in support of masturbation, and most people don't masturbate with the friends. Not as adults, anyway.

Many people try recreational drugs because they are, to some degree, risk takers. Another common motivation is participation in peer activities, and a third motivation is relief from unpleasant symptoms of one kind or another. Once tried, the users reactions will depend on the way their brain works. Some people are more likely to become addicted to drugs, alcohol, gambling, etc. than others.

Pornography can be made into a risk-free product for adolescents by providing them with thorough education about sex, sexuality, emotions, and sexual behavior. "WE" just don't and won't do it. As a consequence, pornography remains behind the enticing veil of forbidden fruit, adult disapproval, and "illicit" pleasures. Sure, children who base their vocational, emotional, sexual, or financial aspirations on television programs, pornography, or advertising are not going to have realistic ideas. The absence of any information doesn't do much for realism either.

Apparently, it is asking a lot of parents to engage with their children and teach them what it it means to be a sexual person. Maybe church and school--institutions--can do this better, I don't know, but they don't seem to be doing it either. [On the other hand, I don't know if there was ever a time when parents, schools, and churches did a good job teaching children about sex, sexuality, emotions, aspirations, and so on.]

What's "classic porn," just out of curiosity? — Arkady

It's variously defined. Classic porn may be defined as:

Porn produced before condoms began to appear regularly in pornographic productions (sometime in the early 1990s) roughly, 1968 to 1989
Porn produced in 8mm short form, for use in adult book stores (and home use, if one had an 8 mm projector (roughly, in the 1960s to early 1970s)
Porn produced in (whatever film format) before the 1960s (when courts began to overturn restrictions on making, selling, or distributing pornography_
Porn produced as stills on glass plates during the 1880s and later film. Fairly tame material.
Porn produced by non-photographic methods prior to the 1840s (Yes, pre-photo artists drew quite realistic pictures of people engaging in sex -- pretty much standard stuff).

Some of these definitions amount to "porn produced before you were born".
Some porn was produced on 16mm, for theaters, but most of it was 8mm. Deep Throat 1973, was probably shot on 35mm. The progression was from stills, 8mm, 16mm, 35mm, to video. I suppose somebody is shooting porn in HD video, though I don't know why they would.

is there good porn — Cavacava

Consequentialism is the hands-on winner here. If it works, it's good.

Where did this information come from and how was it obtained? — Bitter Crank

He admitted he was asserting correlation, not causation. If you're correct that the rates have actually increased for some of the things he mentioned, then his point is not only irrelevant but false.

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.
— anonymous66

Where did this information come from and how was it obtained?

The rate of increased diagnoses of syphilis, gonorrhea, and chlamydia has been slow but steady--when viewing the whole nation. When considering race, location, and age, we find disparities between gay men and straight men, between blacks and other races, and between southerners and other regions. Rates of STDs are highest among blacks, southerners, and gay men, and there are significant disparities which porn wouldn't seem to account for, one way or the other. If one examines the history of diagnoses at specific clinics, one might see more up-and-down movement in diagnoses.

What is most related to the levels of STDs in the population is the effectiveness of outreach, treatment, and follow-up. Has anyone collected actual data about cases who looked at, or did not look at porn? I doubt it. — Bitter Crank

From this article:

* Sexual irresponsibility has declined. Standard measures include rates of abortion and sexually transmitted infections. According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), since 1990, the nation's abortion rate has fallen 41 percent. The syphilis rate has plummeted 74 percent. And the gonorrhea rate has plunged 57 percent.

* Teen sex has declined. The CDC says that since 1991, the proportion of teens who have had intercourse has decreased 7 percent. Teen condom use has increased 16 percent. And the teen birth rate has fallen 33 percent.

* Divorce has declined. Since 1990, the divorce rate has decreased 23 percent.

* Rape has declined. According to the Justice Department's National Crime Victimization Survey, since 1995, the sexual assault rate has fallen 44 percent.

And this article:

Arrival of the Internet: More Porn, LESS Rape

Before the late-1990s when the Internet revolutionized access to information, porn was available in books, skin magazines, rented videocassettes, and at the limited number of seedy theaters that screened X-rated movies. But with the arrival of the Internet, millions of porn images and videos were suddenly just a few clicks away for free. As a result, porn quickly became one of men’s top online destinations and porn consumption soared.

If the anti-porn activists are correct, if porn actually contributes to rape, then starting around 1999 as the Internet made it much more easily available, the rate of sexual assault should have increased. So what happened? According to the Justice Department’s authoritative National Crime Victimization Survey, since 1995, the U.S. sexual assault rate has FALLEN 44 percent. For more on this, see my previous post, Does Porn Cause Social Harm?

Clearly, the anti-porn activists are wrong. Porn doesn’t incite men to sexual violence. It looks more like a safety valve that gives men an alternative outlet for potentially assaultive energy. Instead of attacking women, men who might commit that crime can masturbate to unlimited amounts of Internet porn.

The Czech Republic: More Porn, LESS Rape

Another natural experiment involves the political changes in Eastern Europe. From 1948 to 1989, the Communist police state then known as Czechoslovakia made possession of pornography (including relatively tame publications like Playboy) a criminal offense punishable by prison. As a result, porn was largely unavailable to Czech men. But when Communism collapsed and the democratic Czech Republic emerged, it legalized porn, which became easily and widely available. So what happened to women’s risk of sexual assault?

Using Czech police records, American and Czech researchers compared rape rates in the Czech Republic for the 17 years before porn was legalized with rates during the 18 years after. Rapes decreased from 800 a year to 500. More porn, less rape.

In addition, the legalization of porn was associated with a decrease in another despicable sex crime, child sexual abuse. Under Communism, arrests for child sex abuse averaged 2,000 a year. After porn became legal, the figure dropped by more than half to fewer than 1,000. More porn, fewer sex crimes.

Denmark: More Porn, LESS Rape

In the 1970s, Denmark relaxed restrictions on pornography, and the country quickly became a center of porn production. Researchers compared arrest rates for sexual assault before and after the change. When porn became more easily available, allegations of rape decreased.

Japan, China, Hong Kong: More Porn, LESS Rape

Around the millennium, partly in response to the availability of Internet porn, Japan, China, and Hong Kong relaxed laws that restricted its availability. In all three places, as porn became more easily available, sex crimes decreased.

Compared with Most Men, Rapists Consume LESS Porn

UCLA researchers surveyed recollections of porn use among law-abiding men and a large group of convicted rapists and child sex abusers. Throughout their lives, the sex criminals recalled consuming LESS porn. More evidence that porn is a safety valve. Instead of committing rape and pedophilia, potential perpetrators find a less harmful outlet, masturbating to porn.

Pornography DOESN’T Isolate Men

As evidence mounted that if anything, porn helps PREVENT sexual assault, porn critics changed their tune. Instead of blaming X-media for harming women, they claimed it harms MEN by confining them in a dark prison of masturbatory isolation that destroys their interpersonal relationships with others.

English researchers gave 164 men standard psychological tests of interpersonal connectedness to determine their emotional closeness to—or distance from—the important people in their lives (spouses, family, friends). Then the researchers surveyed the men’s porn consumption.

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.”

Diamond, M. et al. “Pornography and Sex Crimes in the Czech Republic,” Archives of Sexual Behavior (2011) 40:1037

Diamond, M. “The Effects of Pornography: An International Perspective,” in Pornography 101: Eroticism, Sexuality, and the First Amendment, edited by J. Elias et al. Prometheus Press, Amherst, NY, 1999.

Diamond, M. and A. Uchiyama. “Pornography, Rape, and Sex Crimes in Japan,” International Journal of Law and Psychiatry (1999) 22:1.

Goldstein, M. et al. “Experience with Pornography: Rapists, Pedophiles, Homosexuals, Transsexuals, and Controls,” Archives of Sexual Behavior (19971) 1:1.

Kutchinsky, B. Pornography and Rape: Theory and Practice? Evidence from crime Data in Four Countries, Where Pornography is Easily Available,” International Journal of Law and Psychiatry (1991) 14:47.

Kutchinsky, B. “The Effect of Easy Availability of Pornography on the Incidence of Sex Crimes: The Danish Experience,” Journal of Social Issues (1973) 29:163.

Poipovic, M. “Pornography Use and Closeness with Others in Men,” Archives of Sexual Behavior (2011) 40:449

What would you make of an argument like this one?: Porn is giving people the wrong idea. It suggests that all consensual sex is fine. What we need is porn with a different message. The message being: sex is great, but it's for married people (or just for people in committed relationships?) So, instead of creating porn w/ sex fantasies implying or outright promoting fornication and adultery, create a genre of porn with fantasies of people meeting other wonderful people that they respect and treasure, falling in love, getting married, then having great sex.
Sounds like a great way for profiteers to make some money and for them to do society a favor in the process.

What would you make of an argument like this one?: Porn is giving people the wrong idea. It suggests that all consensual sex is fine. — anonymous66

I would say that it likely has the causal arrow reversed, to the extent there is a causal relationship between the belief that "all consensual sex is fine" (which I doubt is even a widespread view, as, for instance, adulterous sex can be consensual and yet frowned upon) and the societal acceptance of porn. I think it is more likely the case that more relaxed social mores regarding sex fuels the societal acceptance of porn than vice-versa.

is there good porn
— Cavacava

Consequentialism is the hands-on winner here. If it works, it's good.

Then porn has (what) a negative aesthetic, if it's only function is to get you off or to titillate, but if it has utility then it can be improved, it can be crafted...porn sites do rate their videos, there is a rating system.

I would say that it likely has the causal arrow reversed, to the extent there is a causal relationship between the belief that "all consensual sex is fine" (which I doubt is even a widespread view, as, for instance, adulterous sex can be consensual and yet frowned upon) and the societal acceptance of porn.I think it is more likely the case that more relaxed social mores regarding sex drives the societal acceptance of porn than vice-versa. — Arkady

Can you think of a solution?

Issues of escalation aren't really about whether people are inclined towards S&M or not. The trouble with porn, for many who are watching purely for excitement, is it gets boring. After seeing two people fucking, watching another couple do so is less interesting. With each iteration, it only gets more and more beige.

Noble Dust is mistaken to say it's a question of addiction. Even a responsible but habitual porn watcher is going to get bored of two people doing missionary, if pure excitement is their goal. Escalation is driven by differentiation and generating interest. Products have to be bigger and bolder-- bonus points if controversial-- so the audience will go: "LOOK AT THAT" and be clamouring to watch it. As with any business model entirely dedicated to generating new consumption, escalation is understood to be a necessity. Got to be the shiniest (or most degrading or violent or disgusting) one on the block.

The trouble with porn, for many who are watching purely for excitement, is it gets boring. After seeing two people fucking, watching another couple do so is less interesting. With each iteration, it only gets more and more beige. — TheWillowOfDarkness

If this is the case, then won't porn just go away without anyone having to do anything about it?

Can you think of a solution? — anonymous66

I don't think that more relaxed or permissive social mores surrounding sex are necessarily a problem, so I don't believe that any solution is required (teen pregnancy is down in the U.S., for instance). The antidote to bad speech (if one so considers porn), as in most cases of bad speech, is more speech, in this case jettisoning foolishness such as abstinence-only sex education and giving adolescents realistic, frank, and comprehensive education about sex and human sexuality.

It might also behoove parents to raise their own children, instead of leaving it to the government to filter, sort, and approve what citizens in a liberal democracy may or may not view.