Pornography

[Jack Kamm]

As you may know, in most states (if not all) it is illegal to sell porn to anyone under 18. As a 16 year old, I find this ridiculous. I see no reason why I shouldn't be able to view porn. I understand what sex is, I've been viewing porn since I was about 13 or 14, it gives me pleasure, and it has caused no emotional scars. I see no reason why anyone over 14 should not be able to buy porn if they want to.

On the issue of whether people under 14 should be able to view porn, I'm not sure. Does it cause emotional problems for a 7-year old to see a picture of people having sex? Or do people just want to keep their children "pure" and "innocent?" If it's the former, I could understand censoring and making selling porn to children under 14 illegal; if it's the latter, I think that censoring is rather silly. Surely minors should be able to make some choices for themselves and do some exploring.

[Loren Pechtel]

Originally posted by Jack Kamm
As you may know, in most states (if not all) it is illegal to sell porn to anyone under 18. As a 16 year old, I find this ridiculous. I see no reason why I shouldn't be able to view porn. I understand what sex is, I've been viewing porn since I was about 13 or 14, it gives me pleasure, and it has caused no emotional scars. I see no reason why anyone over 14 should not be able to buy porn if they want to.

On the issue of whether people under 14 should be able to view porn, I'm not sure. Does it cause emotional problems for a 7-year old to see a picture of people having sex? Or do people just want to keep their children "pure" and "innocent?" If it's the former, I could understand censoring and making selling porn to children under 14 illegal; if it's the latter, I think that censoring is rather silly. Surely minors should be able to make some choices for themselves and do some exploring.

To me, it depends on the porn. Stuff like Playboy I would rate G--I see nothing about nudity that warrants *ANY* restriction. The routine hardcore I would do PG-13--it needs to be kept away from those too young to understand what's being depicted and who might try to act it out without understanding. I don't think a lot needs to be done to enforce this, though--anyone who is going to actually be seeking it out is going to be old enough.

The fetish stuff I would keep NC-17. I don't think obscene is a meaningful term, though, none of it should be banned outright.

[Jamie_L]

Well, my own perspective is a little skewed, but here it is:

Viewing pornography is a potentially addictive activity, and one that can have some unintended emotional/relationship side effects. This is neither a blind assertion nor a researched topic on my part. I speak only from personal experience.

Based on my experience, I'd have to say that I don't see it as unreasonable to postpone the legal purchasing age until legal adulthood, much as gambling is denied to the 17-year-old even in places where it is legal.

If a parent or guardian wants to supply their minor with pornography, well, that's their choice as a guardian, and I have no problem with that.

All-in-all, however, I don't think run-of-the-mill porn is that threatening to our youth, so I probably wouldn't fight to stop a lowering of the legal purchasing age.

Jamie

[meritocrat]

I don't believe that porn is immoral but I think there should be a limit as to who can purchase it. Personally I think that age should correspond with the age of consent. If a person can legally have sex then they should be permitted to obtain images of sex.

[Loren Pechtel]

Originally posted by Jamie_L
Well, my own perspective is a little skewed, but here it is:

Viewing pornography is a potentially addictive activity, and one that can have some unintended emotional/relationship side effects. This is neither a blind assertion nor a researched topic on my part. I speak only from personal experience.

Based on my experience, I'd have to say that I don't see it as unreasonable to postpone the legal purchasing age until legal adulthood, much as gambling is denied to the 17-year-old even in places where it is legal.

If a parent or guardian wants to supply their minor with pornography, well, that's their choice as a guardian, and I have no problem with that.

All-in-all, however, I don't think run-of-the-mill porn is that threatening to our youth, so I probably wouldn't fight to stop a lowering of the legal purchasing age.

Jamie

How can it be addictive? This makes no sense to me. One can like it but that doesn't mean you have to have it!

[Mageth]

Originally posted by meritocrat
I don't believe that porn is immoral but I think there should be a limit as to who can purchase it. Personally I think that age should correspond with the age of consent. If a person can legally have sex then they should be permitted to obtain images of sex.

I didn't know there was an age below which one can't legally "have sex." There's laws against an adult having sex with a minor, yes, but is it illegal, for example, for two 13-year-olds to have sex? I don't think it is in my State.

[Odemus]

You would think porn isn't addictive. After all, once you've seen one, you've pretty much seen them all. The girl goes down on the guy, the guy goes down on the girl (of course she must let us all know she is in pure ecstacy by screaming and moaning "oh god" "yes! YES!" repeatedly), then the guy bangs the girl in several different positions and finally unloads on the girls face (apparently all women love their faces being ejaculated on). I don't get why people enjoy watching this stuff, but whatever.I'll take sex within a loving relationship over that nonsense any day.

[sergeyvladimirovich]

Originally posted by Loren Pechtel
How can it be addictive? This makes no sense to me. One can like it but that doesn't mean you have to have it!

Little do you know! In certain individuals viewing (and masturbating to) pornography can become a very serious problem. They can spend a few hours a day doing IT and much of the rest of the day fantascising about it or obssessively looking for it. Things like work or school suffer from the "hobby" and sometimes can be failed at althogether.

For all practical purposes it's an addiction, alright. It comes in cycles...there you are, doing your job and suddenly this wave comes over you and you cannot think of anything else. Like in a trance you run to that computer or magazine to drown in the sex images and sounds. At first you feel great and full of life and sure that you will return to what you were doing after the "fix". But it doesn't happen: instead, something in you demands more and more and you feel trapped and unable to escape the activity. A gnawing sense of desperation and guilt tortures you and a feeling of worthlessness fills you from top to bottom. It is as if the decision-maker in you is anesthesized and instead you are being brutally dragged by your out-of-control sex drive. Misery becomes so much that feeble thoughts of suicide crawl into your mind.

After a few days of the "safari" you emerge-- drained of all energy, utterly ashamed and quiet. The rational mind suddenly wakes up and its light show you the devastated landscape of your inner being. If you turn to some kind of religious ideas, for a few weeks you may feel pure and changed, but than the wave suddenly hits you again and some dark voice inside of you says "do it just once" or "it is all hopeless", but to the same effect. Or your may try to "negotiate" with the addiction by reducing frequency or controlling the kind of porn you indulge in. It might work for the time being (in keeping you from hitting the bottom, that is) but eventually the defense will be broken because you realize that restrictions imposed are arbitrary and hold no value in them. In hopelessness you board the "merry" go-round again.

The desease doesn't get better, it gets worse and you know it; the rational mind in you warns you when you are "sober" but all its warnings are buried when the addiction knocks on the door. Even when you are not doing IT, you get more and more depressed and just sit in your room watching TV or playing mindless video games. You hide from your family and friends and even their friendleness or compassion are burning you with guilt. You go to bed early and stay there as much as possible and when you finally wake up you passionately wish you slept forever....

...Now I'm not saying that the scenario above has porn as its sole cause, even though some people in the medical profession list sexual addiction as a desease. In my opinion, sexual lust in general and pornography in particular is a perfect immature coping mechanism, employed by weakness of character. Each of us has problems and worries in their lives and we seek to alleviate suffering that derives from them. When there is a way to quickly forget about the real issues and even obtain pleasure from it, the weak of charachter will seize it, disregarding all consequences and logical arguments against it. Sex release is a source of immense satisfaction and sex-addicts get attached to it like normal people are attached to food and eventually will sacrifice everything to get more and more of it. It seems to me that just masturbating to fantasies is not nearly as harmful as a sexual activity with an external stimuli: it's really as if with the former you are just drinking the wine in your fridge but with the latter you bring a whole trainload of it into your house.

So yes, perhaps pornography only exploits our voids and flaws and doesn't cause the addictive behaviour as such. However, there are way too many people with voids and flaws out there and porn can become their ruin very easily. And it is worth keeping this potentially deadly temptation out of reach of the more vulnerable members of the society (which always include the young). Yes, they may choose another self-destructive path but at least they will have more chance to choose a more wholesome path too, if only the poison is kept out of their reach.

I have given you an example of what harm pornography can do to people. In America alone, millions and millions of men (don't know about women) will subscribe to what I said in the beginning. Now please give me one instance where pornography can be useful, tell me what problems it has solved that would not be solved without it. In my opinion, even if it is not harmful per se, it is utterly useless so why would anybody in their right mind make a big fuss to expand its availability?

[Albert Cipriani]

Excellent post Serg. Best thing I've read in this wasteland all week.

Jack says: As a 16 year old... I see no reason why anyone over 14 should not be able to buy porn if they want to.

As a 13 year old, I see no reason why anyone over 11 should not be able to buy porn if they want to. And when I was 10... ad infinitum.

Get the point? You have no point. -- Albert the Traditional Catholic

[Loren Pechtel]

Originally posted by Mageth
I didn't know there was an age below which one can't legally "have sex." There's laws against an adult having sex with a minor, yes, but is it illegal, for example, for two 13-year-olds to have sex? I don't think it is in my State.

In most states it is. Just usually not prosecuted.

[Loren Pechtel]

Originally posted by sergeyvladimirovich
Little do you know! In certain individuals viewing (and masturbating to) pornography can become a very serious problem. They can spend a few hours a day doing IT and much of the rest of the day fantascising about it or obssessively looking for it. Things like work or school suffer from the "hobby" and sometimes can be failed at althogether.

In that sense, yes, but *ANYTHING* interesting could become an addiction by that standard.

So yes, perhaps pornography only exploits our voids and flaws and doesn't cause the addictive behaviour as such. However, there are way too many people with voids and flaws out there and porn can become their ruin very easily.

At best it's a symptom. It's not the cause by any means, though.

I have given you an example of what harm pornography can do to people.

I don't think you have because I don't think you're describing harm caused by porn.

Now please give me one instance where pornography can be useful,

It's certainly an aid to sexual arousal. Sex brings great pleasure and health benefits besides. That certainly counts as useful to me.

it is utterly useless so why would anybody in their right mind make a big fuss to expand its availability?

It is not utterly useless.

Besides, I think it's current treatment does harm. It's all part of our stupid repression of sex.

[Loren Pechtel]

Originally posted by Albert Cipriani
Excellent post Serg. Best thing I've read in this wasteland all week.

Jack says:

As a 13 year old, I see no reason why anyone over 11 should not be able to buy porn if they want to. And when I was 10... ad infinitum.

Get the point? You have no point. -- Albert the Traditional Catholic

I would have no problem with anyone buying mainstream porn so long as it's clearly labelled as to what it is.

[sergeyvladimirovich]

Originally posted by Loren Pechtel
Originally posted by sergeyvladimirovich
Little do you know! In certain individuals viewing (and masturbating to) pornography can become a very serious problem. They can spend a few hours a day doing IT and much of the rest of the day fantascising about it or obssessively looking for it. Things like work or school suffer from the "hobby" and sometimes can be failed at althogether.

In that sense, yes, but *ANYTHING* interesting could become an addiction by that standard.

So yes, perhaps pornography only exploits our voids and flaws and doesn't cause the addictive behaviour as such. However, there are way too many people with voids and flaws out there and porn can become their ruin very easily.

At best it's a symptom. It's not the cause by any means, though.

I have given you an example of what harm pornography can do to people.

I don't think you have because I don't think you're describing harm caused by porn.

Now please give me one instance where pornography can be useful,

It's certainly an aid to sexual arousal. Sex brings great pleasure and health benefits besides. That certainly counts as useful to me.

it is utterly useless so why would anybody in their right mind make a big fuss to expand its availability?

It is not utterly useless.

Besides, I think it's current treatment does harm. It's all part of our stupid repression of sex.

Yes, on one hand it's like you say: porn abuse is a symptom. But it can become a pretty horrible symptom. I see it as a trap for the weak, confused or sometimes outright stupid. Indeed, it is their choice to get trapped in the trap but perhaps if the trap did not exist in the first place, they would be better off? By your logic, we should OK all drugs too, because drug abuse is also a "symptom" of some other psychological issue....

However, my purpose here is not to advocate a ban on porn (I do not believe that it's goverment's job anyways) but to rather share some experience. Porn can really get one into deep sh*t and because I know about that I kind of feel obliged to warn others. I am sure that some of the men reading the thread understand exactly what the hell I'm talking about.

Yep, just like with alcohol many people handle porn just fine, but over many it takes an iron grip. You didn't really convince me that it brings any benefits (has porn made this world a much better place??) so my advise to a "beginner" would be: Using porn you may lose or may not lose but you surely will not WIN anything. Well, if you do lose, the loss can be very damaging so you are taking a risk for nothing. Forget about the darn thing and find something better to do!

And finally about porn and minors-- the subject of the whole discussion. I think it should be limited by age because youngsters are more vulnerable. This is why alcohol is not sold to them and porn is not that different from alcohol.

[Albert Cipriani]

I would have no problem with anyone buying mainstream porn so long as it's clearly labelled as to what it is.

Is that all this place is about? One non-sequitur asserted after another? Where are the arguments?

Syllogistic thinking is about as scarce as white rhinos in these parts. I came here for reasoned discourse not a bunch of people's assertions. I guess I'll have to retreat back to the philosophical forum from whence I came. -- Albert the Traditional Catholic

[Feather]

Originally posted by Albert Cipriani
Is that all this place is about? One non-sequitur asserted after another? Where are the arguments?

Syllogistic thinking is about as scarce as white rhinos in these parts. I came here for reasoned discourse not a bunch of people's assertions. I guess I'll have to retreat back to the philosophical forum from whence I came. -- Albert the Traditional Catholic

How is his statement a non-sequitir? The topic of the thread is the morality/permissibility of "minors" having legal access to pornography, and he made a statement as to what his opinion on the matter is.

It is an assertion, of course, but that doesn't make it a non-sequitir.

Also, dressing him down in the manner you did for not supplying a detailed proof in symbolic logic supporting his opinion is unproductive and, dare I say it, not very mature. It isn't his or any other poster's job to provide you with reasoned discourse. Perhaps you'd consider engaging in some yourself instead of snapping at others for not doing so. Sheesh.

[Albert Cipriani]

It isn't his or any other poster's job to provide you with reasoned discourse.

That attitude precisely articulates the problem with this place. A series of opinions that all relate like the quils of a porcupine to the topic at hand is not my idea of reasoned discourse.

My fault for assuming others here were interested in why people think what they think. I didn't realize you guys were here as survey-takers, just tallying up all the un-argued opinions of what people think. What a waste of time. -- Albert The Traditional Catholic

[Loren Pechtel]

Originally posted by sergeyvladimirovich
Yes, on one hand it's like you say: porn abuse is a symptom. But it can become a pretty horrible symptom.

First, I have my doubts about the accuracy of what you're going on.

Second, you don't blame the symptom!

I see it as a trap for the weak, confused or sometimes outright stupid. Indeed, it is their choice to get trapped in the trap but perhaps if the trap did not exist in the first place, they would be better off? By your logic, we should OK all drugs too, because drug abuse is also a "symptom" of some other psychological issue....

Well, I do favor legalization of most if not all drugs. The killer drug is already legal, why do we ban the ones that aren't so dangerous or addictive?

And finally about porn and minors-- the subject of the whole discussion. I think it should be limited by age because youngsters are more vulnerable. This is why alcohol is not sold to them and porn is not that different from alcohol.

Well, I do agree with not selling alcohol to minors but I don't think it should be prohibited outright. I think parents/guardians should be allowed to provide alcohol to their kids on a per-drink basis.

[openeyes]

Besides, I think it's current treatment does harm. It's all part of our stupid repression of sex. While I can agree that the US has a rather schizophrenic view of sex, I don't think sexual repression is really a chronic problem.

I mean, we have to live most of our day without engaging in sex, because it would be inappropriate most of the time. Others things must be accomplished. We can't go live out every sexual thought we have, so therefore repression of a sort must occur.

Porn isn't necessarily always a problem, but as sergey illustrated, it certainly can give a person an easy way to solitary pleasure, in a habit-forming sort of way, perhaps at the expense of more worthwhile endeavors. I think the degree of involvement with porn is a key. Unfortunately, although I have no data, I think early exposure can increase the likelihood of the addiction sergey described.

I guess if you teen guys (and older) are still getting educated, contributing your fair share to the upkeep of your domestic situation, expanding your horizons to be interesting people, attending to personal hygiene and health, getting to know and appreciate women for their brains, personalities and competencies, oh, maybe even contributing in some way to the communities in which you live, then there isn't a problem. I just think this is probably unlikely if you're spending a lot of time getting off to images on your computer screen.

Words from a cranky (well, not most of the time really), middle-aged woman, which you can certainly disregard. But that's one of the beauties of these discussion boards, I can give my opinion to those who I'm unlikely to sit down and converse with in real life. :)

[viscousmemories]

Originally posted by Albert Cipriani
Excellent post Serg. Best thing I've read in this wasteland all week.

Jack says:

As a 13 year old, I see no reason why anyone over 11 should not be able to buy porn if they want to. And when I was 10... ad infinitum.

Get the point? You have no point. -- Albert the Traditional Catholic
That's a strawman, not the argument in the OP.

Jack said: "As you may know, in most states (if not all) it is illegal to sell porn to anyone under 18. As a 16 year old, I find this ridiculous. As a 16 year old, I find this ridiculous. I see no reason why I shouldn't be able to view porn. I understand what sex is, I've been viewing porn since I was about 13 or 14, it gives me pleasure, and it has caused no emotional scars. I see no reason why anyone over 14 should not be able to buy porn if they want to." Yes, his argument is based on anecdotal evidence, but that doesn't make it invalid. He clearly isn't saying that because he's 16, pornography should be legally available to 14 year olds. He's saying that he doesn't believe any harm comes from 14 year olds viewing pornography, based on his own experience. Did you have some evidence to the contrary that you'd like to share, or would you rather sit on the sidelines and toss out accusations of inadequate reasoning that apparently encompass everyone here who doesn't see the world through your "Traditional Catholic" eyes?

vm

[Josie]

Early exposure to porn does not have to end in the downward spiral sergie describes. My love of erotica and porn started at puberty, first with romance novels, then I got a hold of some of my Mom's historical romances, you know the ones with implausable plots and ten-page sex scenes. Later found my Dad's stash of hard-core novels. I was a straight A student in school, active in the band and journalism, went on to college. I am about to celebrate my 8th wedding anniversary, work full time and own my house. Oh yeah, we still use porn as a tool to keep our marriage alive. If you have a busy life, you may not always have time to talk, and porn can help open the lines of commincation. As in, "that looks fun", or "that just looks silly, why would anyone try that?". It can add spice to a marriage, lessening the chance of infidelity, as there is no need to go looking for something new when you can get new experiences at home.

Of course, this is all ancedotal, and won't mean anything to those with their minds already made up that porn is bad. After all, they have all their studies on the evils of porn. We really need some non-biased studies done to see the real effects of porn on society.

[Diadectes]

That attitude precisely articulates the problem with this place. A series of opinions that all relate like the quils of a porcupine to the topic at hand is not my idea of reasoned discourse.

Hey, Trad Cath, Jack is 16 years old. I'm assuming you're not (but correct me if I'm wrong), so how about cutting a little slack. There are plenty of people in this forum quite capable of engaging you in the kind of debate you're interested in, so why not start your own thread and see if you get the responses you prefer. Or do you simply come here to get off on being pompous and condescending to those whom you consider your intellectual inferiors?

[JTC]

Originally posted by Josie
Early exposure to porn does not have to end in the downward spiral sergie describes. My love of erotica and porn started at puberty, first with romance novels, then I got a hold of some of my Mom's historical romances, you know the ones with implausable plots and ten-page sex scenes. Later found my Dad's stash of hard-core novels. I was a straight A student in school, active in the band and journalism, went on to college. I am about to celebrate my 8th wedding anniversary, work full time and own my house. Oh yeah, we still use porn as a tool to keep our marriage alive. If you have a busy life, you may not always have time to talk, and porn can help open the lines of commincation. As in, "that looks fun", or "that just looks silly, why would anyone try that?". It can add spice to a marriage, lessening the chance of infidelity, as there is no need to go looking for something new when you can get new experiences at home.

Of course, this is all ancedotal, and won't mean anything to those with their minds already made up that porn is bad. After all, they have all their studies on the evils of porn. We really need some non-biased studies done to see the real effects of porn on society.



I thought that Nixon and Reagon commissined studys on pornography with the intent on using those studys as a basis to ban porn. And surprise surprise they found that watching porn didnt make bad or immoral people.

[Jamie_L]

Some more on porn addiction from someone who's been there:

People can become addicted to activities. This is a purely mental addiction. There is, of course, a huge difference between just really liking something and wanting to do it all the time and being addicted. Some people wreck their marriages because they want to engage in their outdoor hobbies all the time. That's not necessarily an addiction, it's just misplaced priorities.

The archetypical behavioral addiction, I think, is gambling. Why should gambling be addictive? There's no substance involved. It's just an activity. But clearly gambling has something about it that can cause addiction. In fact, it does result in addiction. Frequently.

I feel pornography is similar. Sex is, in some ways, fundamentally different than a lot of other activities. Pornography, and sex in general, can create some powerful effects in your brain. I'm not saying pornography causes addiction in most cases, or even that pornography causes addiction in a large number of cases. I don't know the statistics. I just know it happens.

I must break with serg a little to say that porn addiction is not necessarily a sysmptom of some other problem. Sometimes the only problem is the addiction itself. If it's a symptom of anything, it is a symptom of that person's brain not working the same way as everyone else's. It's not necessarily a weakness of character. We all know brains are wired differently. More and more, science is showing addiction isn't all about character and willpower, but sometimes it's just about a physiological tendancy towards a particular addictive behavior.

Thus, I have very similar feelings about pornography as I do about gambling. On the one hand, people are free to do what they want, and if they want to gamble, why should it be illegal? No one's forcing them to do anything. They are the only ones getting hurt. On the other hand, I am aware that gambling addiction is real, and it can strike people without warning who otherwise seem to be perfectly strong, capable, independently-minded people. So, I am hesitant to say gambling should be unrestricted and unregulated.

So, like I said, I'm not anti-porn. I just think, like gambling, it shouldn't be treated like just another activity or media. Especially when we are dealing with people who are still maturing and learning how to make good decisions.

Jamie

[Ennazus]

If teens can watch Rated-R bloody slasher movies at age 17, they should be able to watch porno movies. The violent movies are so much more damaging to our kids than the sex movies are.

I've always thought it ridiculous that we can see decapitations, shootings and all things violent on TV, but show some skin and the "parent advisories" go wild. It's the same with movies.. Let 'em watch Freddy and Jason slice people up, but GOD forbid they see some porno!!!!!

[Tenpudo]

I wholeheartedly agree with sergey!
Originally posted by sergeyvladimirovich
Paraphrased by myself, obviously:
Yes, on one hand it's like you say: religion abuse is a symptom. But it can become a pretty horrible symptom. I see it as a trap for the weak, confused or sometimes outright stupid. Indeed, it is their choice to get trapped in the trap but perhaps if the trap did not exist in the first place, they would be better off? By your logic, we should OK all drugs too, because drug abuse is also a "symptom" of some other psychological issue....

However, my purpose here is not to advocate a ban on religion (I do not believe that it's goverment's job anyways) but to rather share some experience. Religion can really get one into deep sh*t and because I know about that I kind of feel obliged to warn others. I am sure that some of the men reading the thread understand exactly what the hell I'm talking about.

Yep, just like with alcohol many people handle religion just fine, but over many it takes an iron grip. You didn't really convince me that it brings any benefits (has religion made this world a much better place??) so my advise to a "beginner" would be: Using religion you may lose or may not lose but you surely will not WIN anything. Well, if you do lose, the loss can be very damaging so you are taking a risk for nothing. Forget about the darn thing and find something better to do!

And finally about religion and minors-- the subject of the whole discussion. I think it should be limited by age because youngsters are more vulnerable. This is why alcohol is not sold to them and religion is not that different from alcohol.

[sergeyvladimirovich]

I must break with serg a little to say that porn addiction is not necessarily a sysmptom of some other problem. Sometimes the only problem is the addiction itself. If it's a symptom of anything, it is a symptom of that person's brain not working the same way as everyone else's. It's not necessarily a weakness of character. We all know brains are wired differently. More and more, science is showing addiction isn't all about character and willpower, but sometimes it's just about a physiological tendancy towards a particular addictive behavior.


This is a dangerous swamp you are stepping in!

Physiological tendency? Aren't character, strong will, good intention and so on just physiological tendencies in a sense? Doctors say that all human personality is in the brain and the brain activity is just a bunch of electro-chemical interactions. Thus, we are not really responsible for any of our failings, because they are all a result of brain problems...

The question is where you stop blaming some mysterious "chemical imbalance" or "physiological deffect" for your failings and start saying "it's my fault" or "i need to reconsider my life". With "wonder drugs" being invented every day, we'll soon see people taking a pill at the slightest signs of discomfort about the daily routine currently accepted by the society.

No, except for the worst cases of psychiatric disorders, I believe it is the individual that must assume responsibility for their actions, their happiness and suffering. As soon as I say "It's not my fault-- it's brain chemestry", I become less human, in the sense that I give up a part of my initiative and freedom and become dependent on some dark factors in my brain with a doctor with a magic pill as my only saviour.

Back to porn addiction now. In my experience, it is best to be treated as a result of untrained character and, perhaps, adverse environmental factors. I'm not saying we should blame the addicted but rather we should say "the problem is of your own making and you can unmake it"-- do not relieve them from responsibility, as if they were hopelessly crazy. Like I said-- porn is a significant temptation and the society would save some time for its progress without it. However, we should assume responsibility for it and not blame some brain receptors, lack of protein or heck knows what.

[viscousmemories]

Originally posted by sergeyvladimirovich
No, except for the worst cases of psychiatric disorders, I believe it is the individual that must assume responsibility for their actions, their happiness and suffering. As soon as I say "It's not my fault-- it's brain chemestry", I become less human, in the sense that I give up a part of my initiative and freedom and become dependent on some dark factors in my brain with a doctor with a magic pill as my only saviour. Huh? Are you suggesting that people have a moral obligation to regulate their behavior in spite of their neurological inclination? Calling brain chemistry "dark factors" and suggesting that any medicine is "magic" was probably perfectly reasonable logic a few hundred years ago, but we've learned a lot since then. As far as I know there is sound science behind the relationship between neurology and behavior. Your opinion on this subject tends to lose a bit of force with me when make such fantastic statements.

vm

[sergeyvladimirovich]

Originally posted by Josie
Oh yeah, we still use porn as a tool to keep our marriage alive.

How romantic! :)

So you're saying that without porn you'd get divorced? I see some problems there (just my humble opinion). But this statement really fits into my picture of the issue: porn is a pain killer at the most. And sometimes it becomes addictive. Even if it doesn't (like in your case), it's not making the problems better either, it is just temporarily numbing the symptoms.

[sergeyvladimirovich]

Originally posted by viscousmemories
Huh? Are you suggesting that people have a moral obligation to regulate their behavior in spite of their neurological inclination? Calling brain chemistry "dark factors" and suggesting that any medicine is "magic" was probably perfectly reasonable logic a few hundred years ago, but we've learned a lot since then. As far as I know there is sound science behind the relationship between neurology and behavior. Your opinion on this subject tends to lose a bit of force with me when make such fantastic statements.

vm

I am saying that the more responsibility you assume, the more you are of a human. If you say "I'm sick", you become fearful of yourself and dependent on some doctor. Sometimes (like with cancer), you seem to have no choice. Yet sometimes, you just want a quick solution without really digging into the problem(what are these dozens of millions of Americans on Prozac all about?).

Ok, I'll give you two examples.

1. Imagine a person who sees monsters everywhere and runs around with a hatchet in public places. If you gently tell them that monsters are hallucinations, he'll think you're "one of them" and spill your brains on the floor.

In this case, few people would disagree, that the guy needs some thorazine(or whatever is the new version of it) for the sake of everybody's safety.

2. Now imagine a person who gets stressed out or is mildly depressed, or has mood swings and so on (I know such people). They have a good personality and are quite brilliant, it's just that sometimes they are not functioning too well.

The modern approach is becoming "give 'em a pill and forget". For one, most pills now have side effects (I know this one guy who gave up on them because they made him fat and irritant). More importantly, a change in attitude and lifestyle (with the help of a "shrink", perhaps) would probably also do a job but that would involve digging into the true causes of the problem and also would take a long time. The modern market-society wants a quick fix just to make superficial symptoms go away and put the person back in the line. This is why you hear about "chemical imbalances" so much now a days-- because there can be quick fixes for them and people are willing to pay.

No, biology is to be blamed only in extreme cases. For every feeling we have, good or bad, has its neurological basis. So by your logic of excusing individuals for neurological flaws, we'll end up taking pills when we want to fall in love, when we want to stop loving, when we are lazy, when we eat too much, when we are longing for better life, when we...I think I conveyed the idea.

[sergeyvladimirovich]

P.S. Vm, when I said that brain factors are "dark", I meant it in the sense of the person's point of view. A brain factor is something that they, by definition, have no control over-- it's something that is their despite their will. In that subjective sense, brain factors can certainly be called "dark" (because they are not consciously in control of them).

The crux of my argument is that the boundary between such "brain factors" and personal responsibility is a tricky buisness. Now this boundary is shifting more and more towards the former and this is where we're becoming more and more like the zombies dependant on our doctors and medications rather than on ourselves (similar to what is described in the "Brave New World" by Huxley).

[Barney Gumble]

Originally posted by sergeyvladimirovich
How romantic! :)

Sexual passion isn't part of romance?

Your definition of "romantic" applies to every couple & culture on the planet? Would you mind detailing "Serge's Book of Romantic Behavoir" for us please?

We certainly wouldn't want to be deviating from established(?) norms of romanticism, would we?

So you're saying that without porn you'd get divorced?

I believe she meant "alive" as an ALIVE - ie, getting the juices going/have a spark/etc. For some couples, sexual chemistry is a significant part of the relationship.

porn is a pain killer at the most.

Seeking an activity which brings about pleasure does not immediately imply that the user is seeking to relieve any substantial amount of "pain". You would have to define pain more clearly for that comparison to be valid.

And sometimes it becomes addictive.

Almost anything that brings you increased pleasure outside of your daily routine can become addictive. The simplistic truisim that "sometimes it becomes addictive" cannot be regarded as a valid criticism of the activity without a significant detailing of the depths of such an "addiction", how frequently this occurs, how it compares to other addictions, etc.

Even if it doesn't (like in your case), it's not making the problems better either, it is just temporarily numbing the symptoms.
Last I checked, I wasn't aware of any established peer-reviewed studies which indicate pornography is a definitive cure for mental disorders.

[Demigawd]

Originally posted by sergeyvladimirovich
2. Now imagine a person who gets stressed out or is mildly depressed, or has mood swings and so on (I know such people). They have a good personality and are quite brilliant, it's just that sometimes they are not functioning too well.

The modern approach is becoming "give 'em a pill and forget

:rolleyes:

And what was the ancient approach? Calling the person a lazy good-for-nothing parasite on his family or community? Kick him out of the house to fend for himself or die?

Also, why are you using the case of a psychotic maniac to trivialize people who suffer from depression and anxiety? As someone who suffers from chronic depression and anxiety attacks, and who currently takes prozac as well as being involved in psychological therapy, I find your stance very odious. Basically, all you're saying is "stop being a wimp! Pull yourself up by the boots and be a real man!"

[Barney Gumble]

Originally posted by Demigawd
Also, why are you using the case of a psychotic maniac to trivialize people who suffer from depression and anxiety? As someone who suffers from chronic depression and anxiety attacks, and who currently takes prozac as well as being involved in psychological therapy, I find your stance very odious. Basically, all you're saying is "stop being a wimp! Pull yourself up by the boots and be a real man!" [/B]
And the counter example of course, is using the example of Huxley.

I think any SOMA reference in a thread dealing with the possible over-prescription of drugs should invoke a form of Godwins Law, personally. :)

[viscousmemories]

Originally posted by sergeyvladimirovich
I am saying that the more responsibility you assume, the more you are of a human. And I'm saying that humans are humans. The only thing, in my opinion, that makes someone less of a human is replacing any of their organic parts with artificial parts. Not taking responsibility for your actions may or may not make you a poor excuse for a human, but it doesn't make you any less of one.

If you say "I'm sick", you become fearful of yourself and dependent on some doctor. You are right. The effect of self-diagnosis can be unpredictable and potentially dangerous. However, you should trust yourself and your own perception of reality no matter how many people suggest you are being irrational. :rolleyes:

Sometimes (like with cancer), you seem to have no choice. I'm sorry, but if you have cancer, you have no choice. It doesn't just seem that way. You really have no choice.

Yet sometimes, you just want a quick solution without really digging into the problem(what are these dozens of millions of Americans on Prozac all about?). Prozac is a prescription drug. If a person is taking Prozac without medical counsel, I agree that there is a problem. However, if medical counsel suggests that a person can benefit from taking Prozac and is in no need of other treatment, I suppose they probably have a sound rationale for making that decision.

<snip mostly irrelevant reiteration of basic idea>

No, biology is to be blamed only in extreme cases. For every feeling we have, good or bad, has its neurological basis. So by your logic of excusing individuals for neurological flaws, we'll end up taking pills when we want to fall in love, when we want to stop loving, when we are lazy, when we eat too much, when we are longing for better life, when we...I think I conveyed the idea. Do you even see what happens if you rearrange that paragraph? You get this:

Every feeling we have, good or bad, has its neurological basis. If we excuse individuals for neurological flaws, we'll end up taking pills when we want to fall in love, when we want to stop loving, when we are lazy, when we eat too much, when we are longing for better life. No, Biology is to be blamed only in extreme cases.

That makes no sense.

And besides, you don't think "longing for better life"(sic) is a good enough reason to take medication? That's just bizarre to me. If you think "being human" (which you seem to define as not taking medicine) is more important than "having a better life", the quality and duration of your life is going to suffer.

vm

[Jamie_L]

serge, et. al.,

The issue of personality and character traits vs. physiological brain functioning is, to me, a very fascinating topic of discussion. It's one that I struggle with, and an area where my opinions on things are somewhat fluid at the moment.

However, I hesitate to get into those details in this thread. Maybe another thread perhaps? I don't have time to start one now. Perhaps tomorrow I'll start a new thread. It's a great area for good debate, serious thought, and questioning conventional thinking.

Man, I want to jump into this here. But I'll be good.

Jamie

[Loren Pechtel]

Originally posted by JTC
I thought that Nixon and Reagon commissined studys on pornography with the intent on using those studys as a basis to ban porn. And surprise surprise they found that watching porn didnt make bad or immoral people.

Reagan's did but only because he stacked the deck. Nixon's was the fair one and it came back saying it's ok, no reason to ban it. Reagan went ape over that and appointed a new panel, this time making sure it would rubber-stamp his opinion.

[Loren Pechtel]

Originally posted by Suzanne**Atheist
If teens can watch Rated-R bloody slasher movies at age 17, they should be able to watch porno movies. The violent movies are so much more damaging to our kids than the sex movies are.

I've always thought it ridiculous that we can see decapitations, shootings and all things violent on TV, but show some skin and the "parent advisories" go wild. It's the same with movies.. Let 'em watch Freddy and Jason slice people up, but GOD forbid they see some porno!!!!!

Agreed. In fact, I would go farther than that--I would say that any movie that portrays smoking in a positive light (including having anyone who is portrayed in a good light light up) should make for an automatic R.

On the other hand, take every stitch off every character and to me a G movie is still a G movie.

[Loren Pechtel]

Originally posted by sergeyvladimirovich
How romantic! :)

So you're saying that without porn you'd get divorced? I see some problems there (just my humble opinion). But this statement really fits into my picture of the issue: porn is a pain killer at the most. And sometimes it becomes addictive. Even if it doesn't (like in your case), it's not making the problems better either, it is just temporarily numbing the symptoms.

I think he means they use it to add something to their sex life.

[viscousmemories]

Originally posted by Loren Pechtel
On the other hand, take every stitch off every character and to me a G movie is still a G movie. I'd definitely pay $8.50 to see your Pocahontas.

vm

[sergeyvladimirovich]

Originally posted by Barney Gumble
Sexual passion isn't part of romance?

Your definition of "romantic" applies to every couple & culture on the planet? Would you mind detailing "Serge's Book of Romantic Behavoir" for us please?

We certainly wouldn't want to be deviating from established(?) norms of romanticism, would we?

I believe she meant "alive" as an ALIVE - ie, getting the juices going/have a spark/etc. For some couples, sexual chemistry is a significant part of the relationship.

Seeking an activity which brings about pleasure does not immediately imply that the user is seeking to relieve any substantial amount of "pain". You would have to define pain more clearly for that comparison to be valid.

Almost anything that brings you increased pleasure outside of your daily routine can become addictive. The simplistic truisim that "sometimes it becomes addictive" cannot be regarded as a valid criticism of the activity without a significant detailing of the depths of such an "addiction", how frequently this occurs, how it compares to other addictions, etc.

Last I checked, I wasn't aware of any established peer-reviewed studies which indicate pornography is a definitive cure for mental disorders.

1. Yes, sex is important in marriages. But what would you say about the case when spouses need to be separated for a few years (like my parents) or one of them cannot perform sexually for health reasons? If sex is so important, then they should either cheat or divorce! This is why I'm sarcastic about "porn keeping marriage alive"-- sex is a bloody dubious keeper that alone will never do the job.

2. Regarding you doubting porn addiction. Research "sex addiction" and "porn addiction" and you'll see that the problem is frequent. And it can get pretty nasty (read above). It's a temptation-- not a cause but some temptations are just too much...

[tronvillain]

While I am sure it is possible to be addicted to porn (as it appears to be possible to be addicted to almost anything), but I do not see that as much of an argument against viewing porn. Given the huge number of porn consumers, it is not clear that the problem is especially signicicant. I myself consume a large amount of porn, but am not addicted in any sense of the word.

As for being able to buy porn at a younger age, I am all in favour of it. I know that I certainly wanted and obtained porn long before it was easily or legally obtainied. With the existence of the internet these days there is really no obstable to obtaining porn at whatever age you become interested in it, but I think it would be a good idea to make such consumption more accepted and public rather than needlessly attempting to repress it.

[sergeyvladimirovich]

I also address this to Vm.

Originally posted by Demigawd
:rolleyes:

And what was the ancient approach? Calling the person a lazy good-for-nothing parasite on his family or community? Kick him out of the house to fend for himself or die?

Also, why are you using the case of a psychotic maniac to trivialize people who suffer from depression and anxiety? As someone who suffers from chronic depression and anxiety attacks, and who currently takes prozac as well as being involved in psychological therapy, I find your stance very odious. Basically, all you're saying is "stop being a wimp! Pull yourself up by the boots and be a real man!"

When you blame all emotional problems on brain chemestry, you will never be able to say "stop being a wimp" or "be a real man" to anybody. Instead, you will have to say: "This is all because of brain chemestry. Please take some Prozac(or whatever) and not think too hard about your problems. Your worries will go away and when they come back, just take one more pill".

When everything is written off as neurological issues, nobody will have to be responsible or make decisions for themselves-- all the initiative will be with the bunch of almighty Psychiatrists.

You know one reason that would be bad? Because this would mean stagnation. All changes in the society are brought about with quite a bit of emotional suffering. Whether you are a composer or a revolutionary, there's a burning need within you to change things, to make the world a beautiful place. And this world makes you "anxious" and "depressed" and because of that, you write that beautiful music or you form that political party. The wonder doctors now suggest that all the symptoms should be suppressed and the world should go on like it did. Instead of fixing the problem in the outside world, they suggest that people drink their pills and forget about the problems.

The American Family Healthbook lists for many psychological problems environment as a cause. It also says that it is not clear whether the brain chemestry changes are the cause or the result of some disorders. Even the doctors have their doubts! (and they are more than anyone else interested in finding a mechanical reason for a problem and "correcting" it). It is a well known fact that population of psychiatric wards rockets during wars and similar tribulations. People get anxious or depressed for a reason-- not just because of brain chemestry (that is often just an intermediary).

Not to sound like I'm making things up, I'll share some experience of my own. When I was at school and now at work I often get depressed. However, when I'm on a long buisness trip or a vacation I am quite happy! I know that my attitude to work, its nature and certain cirumstances around it are the problem-- not some receptor in the brain. Guess what, I'm working on myself and getting better! Never took any pills and don't want any.

Now Demigawd, I don't know the severity of your case. Maybe I'm just luckier. However, I know that people with problems of my intensity certainly qualify for some Prozac or some other wonder-potion. I know I don't want them or need them so this is why I'm saying that brain chemical imbalance is vastly overrated.

Cheers!

[Jack Kamm]

Wow! I haven't checked for a couple days and this thread I started as become quite heated.

Anywho, I'll respond to the original points about porn itself...don't want to get into discussion about brain chemistry or whatever it is you're talking about.

First of all, let me just say that I'm 16, I look at porn and masterbate, and almost all of my male friends do the same. I started when I was around 13 or 14, and I think most of my friends started around the same time. In fact, I think that most adult males I know have either viewed porn or currently view it, and almost all of them have masterbated.

I am not aware of anyone in my life who is addicted to porn or harmed by it. I am sure porn can be addictive to some people (a lot of things can be), and I am sure, like all addictions, porn addiction is a terrible thing. However, I do not think banning porn would be either a fair or an effective way to deal with the problem. It would not be fair to the rest of us who want to view porn but don't have an addiction, and since sexuality and masterbation is a natural part of human life, I doubt a ban would be effective. Therapy would probably be the best solution.

Other than possible addiction (which I believe is rare, since I have encountered no one with such an addiction), I see nothing harmful or immoral with viewing porn.

To Serg:
So yes, perhaps pornography only exploits our voids and flaws and doesn't cause the addictive behaviour as such. However, there are way too many people with voids and flaws out there and porn can become their ruin very easily. And it is worth keeping this potentially deadly temptation out of reach of the more vulnerable members of the society (which always include the young). Why is a natural sexual urge a flaw? Why is satisfying a natural sexual urge a sign of weakness or immoral? On your second point, from my experience, trying to keep this "deadly temptation" out of reach of youngsters has not worked, nor has this "deadly temptation" caused any harm which I have observed, leading me to conclude it is remote. I doubt a ban on porn for minors would prevent any cases of addiction, and a ban would be unfair to the vast majority of us without the addiction.

Also, later on you claim porn has no use. It does have use; to give pleasure. But since porn's threat to society is small, and since banning it has not been effective, I don't see why it's use even matters; people should have the freedom to do what they want, unless it poses a reasonable threat to others.

To Albert:

Around the age of 13 or 14 is when minors start becoming interested in sexuality, start masterbating, and often start looking at porn. The chance of a 14 year old being harmed by porn is remote, whereas a 7 year old has a much greater chance of being harmed (or confused) by porn.

I said I see no reason why anyone over 14 should not be able to view porn. Instead of actually giving a reason why a minor over 14 should not be able to view porn, you set up a strawman and then said I have no point. I would appreciate it if you were courteous enough to actually respond to what I was saying.

[Albert Cipriani]

I said:
As a 13 year old, I see no reason why anyone over 11 should not be able to buy porn if they want to. And when I was 10... ad infinitum. Get the point? You have no point.

Viscus said:

That's a strawman, not the argument in the OP.

If my argument is fallacious, it would qualify as the slippery slope variety, not the straw man species of speciousness. The OP argument is based upon the poster's 16 years of experience. If that's valid, so is a 13-year-old's experience and so is my argument.

Viscus says:
He's saying that he doesn't believe any harm comes from 14 year olds viewing pornography, based on his own experience.

Duh, and your point is???

My point is that his non-existent "argument" is based upon his experience as a 16 year old. If that's valid, why isn't the experience of a 13 year old just as valid? Where do you draw the line and why do you draw the line?

You can avoid this slippery slope by recognizing the truth that morality is not based upon our worthless paltry experience, but upon rationality, ie. the natural law. If you don't understand this, try reading my explication of the natural law vis a vis drugs in the formal debat forum here http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?s=&threadid=59583

-- Sincerely, Albert the Traditional Catholic

[viscousmemories]

Originally posted by Albert Cipriani
If my argument is fallacious, it would qualify as the slippery slope variety, not the straw man species of speciousness. The OP argument is based upon the poster's 16 years of experience. If that's valid, so is a 13-year-old's experience and so is my argument. You used creative quoting of the OP to make it sound like Jack’s argument was that porn should be legally allowed for 14 year olds and above because he’s 16 years old, and then challenged that argument. As that was clearly not the argument Jack presented, the argument you refuted was a strawman. I didn’t notice any slippery slope fallacy in your argument, but I’ll take your word for it that it’s there. ;)
My point is that his non-existent "argument" is based upon his experience as a 16 year old. If that's valid, why isn't the experience of a 13 year old just as valid? Where do you draw the line and why do you draw the line? That you didn’t understand his argument is not good cause to conclude he didn’t make one. Since you missed it, here’s his argument again: I understand what sex is, I've been viewing porn since I was about 13 or 14, it gives me pleasure, and it has caused no emotional scars. I see no reason why anyone over 14 should not be able to buy porn if they want to. Yes, as we all know, anecdotal evidence doesn’t make his assertion true. However, it doesn’t make it false either.
You can avoid this slippery slope by recognizing the truth that morality is not based upon our worthless paltry experience, but upon rationality, ie. the natural law. If you don't understand this, try reading my explication of the natural law vis a vis drugs in the formal debat forum here http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?s=&threadid=59583 I promise I’ll head over there and read that just as soon as I have time. In the meanwhile, do you have any evidence that supports your claim that Jack’s argument has no merit?

vm

[Jack Kamm]

Albert said:

If my argument is fallacious, it would qualify as the slippery slope variety, not the straw man species of speciousness. The OP argument is based upon the poster's 16 years of experience. If that's valid, so is a 13-year-old's experience and so is my argument.

The OP argument is not based upon my age and my wanting to view porn. It is based upon the fact that I and the majority of my male friends began viewing porn around the age of 14, and as far as I know, not one of us has gotten any harm from it.

In order to refute my argument, you must show that viewing porn constitutes a realistic threat to 14-year olds.

If a 13 year old were able to show that viewing porn constitutes a nonexistant or remote threat to 11 year olds, then his experience and argument would be just as valid as mine, and I would take the position that 11 year olds should be able to view porn. None has done so, and the consensus seems to be that porn can confuse and cause harm to young children; therefore, I set the bar at 14, which seems to be a safe age. The main reason I started this thread was to try and find out the threat to children under 14, to see if the bar should be set even lower.

[Josie]

Barney and Loren, thanks for defending me, I am never online when these things heat up. Loren, I'm a she. :)



Originally posted by sergeyvladimirovich
How romantic! :)

So you're saying that without porn you'd get divorced? I see some problems there (just my humble opinion). But this statement really fits into my picture of the issue: porn is a pain killer at the most. And sometimes it becomes addictive. Even if it doesn't (like in your case), it's not making the problems better either, it is just temporarily numbing the symptoms.

I never even implied that, in fact I made a point that we celebrating our anniversary. But to clarify, porn is used as spice. It is something to help bring back that new feeling you have when you are first dating, the excitment of discovering each other for the first time.

A major cause of infidelity is boredom, if you can reduce the possibility of boredom, you can reduce the possiblity of infidelity. I offered my experience to counter your point that porn has no use for healthy people.

And yes, it can be very romantic. It is a planned date, were we both do whatever we can to make the night special for the other.

[Albert Cipriani]

Viscus asks: Do you have any evidence that supports your claim that Jack’s argument has no merit?

Murder raps require evidence. Specious arguments do not. But what Jack said does not even qualify as a specious argument. All he did was express his opinion about something based upon his and his friends' experiences.

What’s amazing to me is that you guys really don’t seem able to distinguish between inferential thought and mere opinion. This place if full of it... the latter, that is, mere opinion. And opinions do not an argument make.

So, to answer your question, no. I do not have any evidence to support my claim that Jack has made no argument. Which is tantamount to me saying I don’t have any evidence to refute those dancing pink elephants some drunken fool claims to see.

Point is, what Jack said does not even qualify as a dull point. It is simply pointless prattle. – Albert the Traditional Catholic

[viscousmemories]

Originally posted by Albert Cipriani
Viscus asks: I can't tell if your bastardization of my user ID is an attempt at some kind of wit, or a rather juvenile attempt to annoy me. If the latter, you have succeeded.

Murder raps require evidence. Specious arguments do not. But what Jack said does not even qualify as a specious argument. All he did was express his opinion about something based upon his and his friends' experiences. Okay, fine. I will give you that Jack's OP doesn't qualify as a full-fledged, formal argument. What you don't seem to realize is that there is nothing wrong with that. There is no requirement that every thread at the IIDB be a formal argument.

People are allowed to voice their opinions and make assertions at will. You and I are free to challenge those opinions with argumentation or even simply voice our own opinion. All you have done in this thread is accost Jack for not making a formal argument. Do you have some rationale for that beyond attempting to prove your intellectual superiority to him?

So let's call Jack's OP what it is, then: an assertion based on his own anecdotal evidence. Jack is apparently of the opinion that it is no more or less moral for a 14 year old person to view pornography than it is for an 18 year old to view pornography, but that it may be immoral for someone younger than 14 to view pornography. Now, would you care to make an argument challenging his assertion, voice your own opinion on the subject, or continue to rail against all of us for not ensuring that every thread at the IIDB meets the guidelines of a formal argument?

What’s amazing to me is that you guys really don’t seem able to distinguish between inferential thought and mere opinion. This place if full of it... the latter, that is, mere opinion. And opinions do not an argument make. Still on about the OP not being a formal argument, are you? You've made your point. Jack has merely stated his opinion. Now quote the rule that every thread at the IIDB has to be a formal argument, and I will join you in condemning the young man that dared give voice to his unqualified views. Or do something even more interesting, like making a contribution to the discussion that has some value. Or, and I admit this would be my choice, move along.

So, to answer your question, no. I do not have any evidence to support my claim that Jack has made no argument. Which is tantamount to me saying I don’t have any evidence to refute those dancing pink elephants some drunken fool claims to see. On the contrary, you do have evidence that Jack has made no argument, you presented the evidence, and I have become convinced. Congratulations. You have succeeded, apparently, in spite of yourself.

Point is, what Jack said does not even qualify as a dull point. It is simply pointless prattle. – Albert the Traditional Catholic Is that an argument? I must say it really doesn't look like one. It looks more like an assertion based on anecdotal evidence. I'm appalled that you would waste our time thusly. If you have an argument to make, let's hear it. Nobody is interested in your opinion.

vm

[Loren Pechtel]

Originally posted by Josie
Barney and Loren, thanks for defending me, I am never online when these things heat up. Loren, I'm a she. :)

Sorry--there's enough people on these boards that I sometimes lose track of details like that that don't make themselves obvious.

[Jack Kamm]

Thanks for defending me, viscousmemories :)

For Albert, I will try to spell out this argument.

1. Things should not be banned unless there is a good reason to ban it.
2. There is no good reason to ban porn for a 14 year old.
3. Porn should not be banned for 14 year olds.

What I consider a good reason to ban something is a) it harms other people, b) it presents a threat to other people's wellbeing, and c) in the case of minors, it harms oneself/presents a threat to oneself. And the threat or harm has to be large enough to warrant prohibition. How large is "large enough" is questionable, but I think we all have a general idea and this does not need further explanation.

I apologize if I did not write my argument in a coherent way or you did not understand. But above is the argument, clearly spelled out. You can argue against it, but I find it rude of you to set up strawmen or simply dismiss it without good reason.

Point 3 logically follows from 1 and 2. So you would have to discount either premise 1 or 2 to defeat my argument. I don't think it is reasonable to argue with premise 1, unless you think things should be banned arbitrarily. If you argue against premise 2, you can either show that reasons a, b, or c apply, or say that I have not presented the complete set of good reasons, add in a reason for why porn should be prohibited for 14 year olds, and then say why it is a good reason.

[Josie]

Originally posted by Loren Pechtel
Sorry--there's enough people on these boards that I sometimes lose track of details like that that don't make themselves obvious.

No problem. I wasn't sure if it was a typo (just leaving off the s), or if you didn't really know. I don't post much on the upper forums, so you might not know me.

[yesterday]

pornography is just selling sex. people are animals and most probably enjoy sex and many enjoy pornography.
but western society regards sex as a way to express intimate emotions and to bond with another person. pornography diminishes the value of sex as way to forge intimate relationships.
adults have much more emotional experience than a sixteen year old. this emotional experience might allow them to differentiate and control animal urges and human desires. thereby allowing them to satisfy their carnal desires and to still regard sex as a way to maintain and establish more intimate and meaningful relationships.
an adolescent or a child with little or no intimate sexual experience might not be able to maintain an objective differentiation. Sex may become a reenactment of some porno they happen to like. By being unable to connect emotionally through making love, a person may lack something crucial to a better existence.
Pornography is not bad. Sex is beautiful. If pornography causes sex to become less beautiful, then that is bad. Kids do not have enough life experience to allow pornography to be what it is and still have sex be beautiful. Pornography should only be viewed by adults (presumably when 18 years old).
--note--
I consider pornography to be a depiction of sex. Naked people is not pornography. Implying sex is not pornography.

[Albert Cipriani]

Dear Viscousmemories,
I've dyslectic tendencies. One coping technique is to abbreviate names so I have some sort of chance of remembering them. No insult intended, sorry insult was taken.

You said: If you have an argument to make, let's hear it. Nobody is interested in your opinion.

Bravo! Now that's the attitude I wish more people in these parts had. I'm not even interested in my own opinion. Opinions are all boring. But the reasoning behind them can be interesting.

My argument would follow the same outline as my argument against drugs followed in the formal debate I'm in here: http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?s=&threadid=59583

That is, the moral test is the rational test. If we will the effects of our causes, if we accept the consequences of our actions, if we do not uncouple means from ends, we are subjectively moral no matter how depraved our action may prove to objectively be.

Now pleasure is not an end, it is but a means towards an end. The end of sexual pleasure is the potentiality of children. Pornography, then, when used for pleasure as an end in itself is a misuse, i.e., an abuse of sexual pleasure for no pleasure as no pain constitutes an end in and of itself. It's a prima fachi slam dunk.

To illustrate. The pain of hunger motivates us to induce the pleasure of eating, both of which are means to the ends of maintaining our metabolism. When one eats for the pleasure of eating itself and not because one is hungry, one has abused the pleasure of eating and will likely suffer the consequences by becoming obese. -- Sincerely, Albert the Traditional Catholic

[Luiseach]

Originally posted by Albert Cipriani
Now pleasure is not an end, it is but a means towards an end. The end of sexual pleasure is the potentiality of children.

Oh dear...

My husband and I have decided not to reproduce...does this mean he and I should refrain from making love because we have chosen not to breed?

[viscousmemories]

Albert,

I really think you should address Jack’s argument, since this is his thread and he’s gone through all the trouble of framing it to meet your exacting specifications. But I can see why you wouldn’t bother. You really had no business participating in this thread to begin with. Why would you participate in a discussion of “at what age is it morally acceptable to view pornography”, when in all likelihood you don’t believe that viewing pornography is morally acceptable at any age.

Originally posted by Albert Cipriani
Bravo! Now that's the attitude I wish more people in these parts had. I'm not even interested in my own opinion. Opinions are all boring. But the reasoning behind them can be interesting. Of course I was being flippant in the interest of making a point. I disagree that opinions are all boring. Some are definitely boring (like the opinion that pornography is inherently immoral, for example) but that’s mostly because I was inundated with that puritanical nonsense growing up as a Catholic in a Charismatic Christian cult. In contrast, I enjoy hearing opinions that are new to me which directly challenge my own.

My argument would follow the same outline as my argument against drugs followed in the formal debate I'm in here: http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?s=&threadid=59583

That is, the moral test is the rational test. If we will the effects of our causes, if we accept the consequences of our actions, if we do not uncouple means from ends, we are subjectively moral no matter how depraved our action may prove to objectively be. So you agree that 14 is cool, then? I guess I could live with that. Heck, I think there’s a good case for going as low as 12, actually. I don’t know why not. But I’ll go along with you and Jack on 14. That seems reasonable.

Now pleasure is not an end, it is but a means towards an end. I disagree.

The end of sexual pleasure is the potentiality of children. Funny, but the end of sexual pleasure for me is cumming all over the place. And quite frankly, the chance of children springing forth from the places I tend to soil with my cursed seed is about nil.

Pornography, then, when used for pleasure as an end in itself is a misuse, i.e., an abuse of sexual pleasure for no pleasure as no pain constitutes an end in and of itself. It's a prima fachi slam dunk.

To illustrate. The pain of hunger motivates us to induce the pleasure of eating, both of which are means to the ends of maintaining our metabolism. When one eats for the pleasure of eating itself and not because one is hungry, one has abused the pleasure of eating and will likely suffer the consequences by becoming obese. -- Sincerely, Albert the Traditional Catholic Riiiiight. Mustn’t do anything pleasurable for its own sake. I’ll make a note in my journal… Sorry I can’t play more just now, but my eyes are closing. Time for bed.

vm

[Theli]

Now pleasure is not an end, it is but a means towards an end. The end of sexual pleasure is the potentiality of children.
The fact that people do watch and read pornography and use condoms while having sex would suggest the opposite. Where is the difference here?
Children is one end, not the end.

[Albert Cipriani]

Theil says:
Children is one end, not the end.

Well said. I meant as much with the indefinate article "an" in my statement: "pleasure... is but a means towards an end."

Of course children are not the only end, otherwise all couples would have to stop screwing after menopause. Sex can be an expression of love and an act of giving as well as receiving. -- Albert the Traditional Catholic

[Albert Cipriani]

Luise says:
Oh dear... My husband and I have decided not to reproduce...does this mean he and I should refrain from making love.

It means you and your husband are a living lie when you get laid in that neither of you are open to the consequences of your actions. What you are doing is analogues to what a bulimic does in eating yet not digesting.

You say you “make love” but that’s a euphemism for pleasuring yourselves while making your womb a garrison against your mutual lives in the form of a new form of life. If love may be defined as the willingness to foster life and life more abundantly, then a willfully closed womb is the antithesis of love making. – Sincerely, Albert the Traditional Catholic

[Loren Pechtel]

Originally posted by Albert Cipriani

It means you and your husband are a living lie when you get laid in that neither of you are open to the consequences of your actions. What you are doing is analogues to what a bulimic does in eating yet not digesting.

What's living a lie about it? Assuming they are taking adequate precautions against pregnancy what's the problem?

It's not like a bulimic, it's the equivalent of olestra.

You say you “make love” but that’s a euphemism for pleasuring yourselves

You mean it's not an act of emotional closeness if there's no chance of conception??

If love may be defined as the willingness to foster life and life more abundantly, then a willfully closed womb is the antithesis of love making.

You are making up your own definition. Love for a partner says nothing about whether you want to make a child.

Also, you can love someone that you would not choose to have a child with.

And what about those who have genetic defects that they do not want to pass on? My parents had me when they were 46/43 because of the possibility of inheriting my mother's blindness--once there was a reliable treatment for it they had me.

[Albert Cipriani]

Loren says: You can love someone that you would not choose to have a child with.

Then what are you doing naked with them? If you don't want their child, stop acting as if you do by engaging in sexual intercourse. It's that simple. Likewise, if you don't want the calories, don't eat. But to eat and then barf it up is a futile attempt to cheat.

And what about those who have genetic defects that they do not want to pass on?

That just demonstrates their irrationality under the guise of compassion. It says that they think no loaf is better than half a loaf. -- Sincerely, Albert the Traditional Catholic

[Philosoft]

Originally posted by Albert Cipriani
You say you “make love” but that’s a euphemism for pleasuring yourselves while making your womb a garrison against your mutual lives in the form of a new form of life.
By golly, there's a pick-up line in there somewhere.
If love may be defined as the willingness to foster life and life more abundantly, then a willfully closed womb is the antithesis of love making.
Why would anyone propose such a ridiculously restrictive definition of "love"? Especially a theist who might presumably trot out "love" as an example of something that can't be defined when it suits him?

[Luiseach]

Originally posted by Albert Cipriani
...you and your husband are a living lie when you get laid...

We are?

...neither of you are open to the consequences of your actions.

We aren't?

What you are doing is analogues to what a bulimic does in eating yet not digesting.

It is?

...making your womb a garrison...

What's all this about my womb?

[Edited to add the following excerpt from another post]

Originally posted by Albert Cipriani
Of course children are not the only end...Sex can be an expression of love and an act of giving as well as receiving.

Doesn't this statement contradict some of the statements you made in your post to me?

[Clutch]

Albert,

For someone who enthused about providing the reasoning behind his opinions, you seem to have backslid rather quickly. In same post as the enthusing, we get this:Now pleasure is not an end, it is but a means towards an end.As it stands this is a patent falsehood; many people treat pleasure as an end; hence, pleasure is or can be an end in itself.

What you really mean, it seems, is that pleasure ought not be treated as an end in itself; that it is, in some sense, bad to do so.

But that's what you've been trying to prove. The circle in this reasoning is so tight that it does not have the look of an argument -- just the presentation of your sense of moral enfranchaisement.

[Edited to add: I've never known a womb that was a garrison, though I'm sure that some have seen their share of soldiers.]

[Clutch]

Originally posted by Albert Cipriani
That just demonstrates their irrationality under the guise of compassion. It says that they think no loaf is better than half a loaf. -- Sincerely, Albert the Traditional Catholic Albert, before weighing in about others' irrationality, perhaps you should check your own output for coherence. What you've just written is -- shall we say? -- not entirely clear.

When people elect not to conceive a child, who exactly do you think is deprived of a "loaf"? The child thereby not conceived?

How many such children are there (...er, are there not)? How do you propose to count them? Do you suppose they should sue for wrongfully never being conceived?


Would you like to buy all the bridges that have never been built?

[Jack Kamm]

That is, the moral test is the rational test. If we will the effects of our causes, if we accept the consequences of our actions, if we do not uncouple means from ends, we are subjectively moral no matter how depraved our action may prove to objectively be. What?

The common definition of moral is what we ought to do. The common definition of immoral is what we ought not to do. You seem to accept this definition when you imply certain things are immoral and should not be done.

You seem to believe accepting all possible consequences of an action is moral, and avoiding possible consequences is immoral. You fail to justify this. You give no reason why we ought to "will the effects of our causes." You give no reason why we ought to "accept the consequences of our actions." You give no reason why we ought not to "uncouple means from ends."

In an earlier post in your debate thread, I think you try to give a reason with this:Thus, what is happening – insofar as it is the effect of a cause – is by definition good and is the present-perfect progressive grammatical equivalent of St. Augustine’s static passive aphorism: “All that is, is good.” In other words, what’s happening is what’s good, or, all of the effects that are being caused are good. You seem to have a rather strange definition of good. More importantly, you give no reason why we ought to work to achieve what you define as good. This explanation fails.

You also run straight into Hume's is-ought problem. You say: 1) Things are this way, 2) therefore they ought to be this way. The problem is #1 by itself does not imply #2. And you give no reason to derive #2 (ought) from #1 (is).

Now pleasure is not an end, it is but a means towards an end. First of all, as I would like to say again, this doesn't explain whether we ought or ought not to work for pleasure. Secondly, it is false. If I desire pleasure, I work for pleasure, and then I achieve pleasure, pleasure is quite clearly an end I achieved. In fact, I would go as far as to contradict you outright: pleasure is not a means, it is always an end. One does not use pleasure to achieve anything. It is always the result of something; it is always an end.

[Theli]

That just demonstrates their irrationality under the guise of compassion. It says that they think no loaf is better than half a loaf.
Are you saying that the most loving thing humans can do is to endlessly multiply, and then view their offspring as belongings?
What does "half a loaf" really mean within the context?

[Graeme]

Originally posted by Albert Cipriani
Now pleasure is not an end, it is but a means towards an end. The end of sexual pleasure is the potentiality of children.

Albert,

Take this hypothetical situation: A married couple who are for whatever reason infertile and completely incapable of producing children (and know this), having sex. Is this immoral in your opinion?

[Albert Cipriani]

Graeme: A married couple who are... infertile (and know this), having sex. Is this immoral in your opinion?

No. Since the primary ends of sex is no longer operative for them, its secondary ends (expression, bonding) subsume that role.

We must never forget that the prerequisite of all moral acts is volition. Assuming that the couple's infertility was not willed by them (getting their tubes tied), they are not responsible for the disconnection between their means (sexual pleasure) and non-existent ends (children). -- Sincerely, Albert the Traditional Catholic

[Luiseach]

Originally posted by Albert Cipriani
We must never forget that the prerequisite of all moral acts is volition. Assuming that the couple's infertility was not willed by them (getting their tubes tied), they are not responsible for the disconnection between their means (sexual pleasure) and non-existent ends (children).

So, is this what you are saying ---> a heterosexual couple that uses some form of contraception...any form at all...are being immoral whenever they have sex with one another, because they have opted to not use themselves and each other as means towards some other end (i.e. the production of offspring).

Actually, this view of the worth, purpose and function of human beings can lead to immoral consequences.

These two hypothetical people have opted to view one another as ends in themselves, which is a far more moral view of humanity...

People are not means; they are ends.

[Albert Cipriani]

Theli:
Are you saying that the most loving thing humans can do is to endlessly multiply, and then view their offspring as belongings?

Now you’re just being silly. After one intelligent comment we get treated to rhetoric. Notice the superlatives: “most loving, endlessly multiply,” and gross equivocation “offspring as belongings.” Even within the confines of my analogy, a loaf a bread is hardly thought of as a “belonging.” There’s a world of difference between a consumable (which is what loafs of bread and we humans are) and a possession.

What does "half a loaf" really mean within the context?

It means:
It is profitable for thee that one of thy members should perish, and not that thy whole body should be cast into hell. [Matthew 5: 29]

Loren’s had a roughly 50/50 chance of inheriting her mother’s blindness. So they held off conceiving anyone until the odds improved. Hence, the sighted Loren but the absence of who knows how many potential Lorens. That’s giving up many loafs to avoid a half a loaf. That’s giving up the better for the ostensible best. That’s a sin. – Sincerely, Albert the Traditional

[Luiseach]

Originally posted by Albert Cipriani
Loren’s had a roughly 50/50 chance of inheriting her mother’s blindness. So they held off conceiving anyone until the odds improved. Hence, the sighted Loren but the absence of who knows how many potential Lorens. That’s giving up many loafs to avoid a half a loaf. That’s giving up the better for the ostensible best. That’s a sin.

So, going by this 'reasoning,' then, the most moral thing a woman could do is make certain she is pregnant as often as is humanly possible.

Firstly, to make sure that sex always leads to the production of as many of the potential offspring as possible.

Secondly, to avoid having sex that didn't lead to offspring.

Think what a frightening, horrible world that would be...

[Loren Pechtel]

Originally posted by Albert Cipriani
Then what are you doing naked with them? If you don't want their child, stop acting as if you do by engaging in sexual intercourse. It's that simple. Likewise, if you don't want the calories, don't eat. But to eat and then barf it up is a futile attempt to cheat.

Engaging in sexual intercourse doesn't mean either of us has any interest in conceiving a child.

That just demonstrates their irrationality under the guise of compassion. It says that they think no loaf is better than half a loaf.

So everyone should keep having kids and hand them over to social services to die in orphanages. After all, half a loaf is better than none.

[Loren Pechtel]

Originally posted by Albert Cipriani
Graeme:

No. Since the primary ends of sex is no longer operative for them, its secondary ends (expression, bonding) subsume that role.

We must never forget that the prerequisite of all moral acts is volition. Assuming that the couple's infertility was not willed by them (getting their tubes tied), they are not responsible for the disconnection between their means (sexual pleasure) and non-existent ends (children). -- Sincerely, Albert the Traditional Catholic

So it's impossible for them to *CHOOSE* to only use the secondary end and avoid the primary??

[Loren Pechtel]

Originally posted by Albert Cipriani

Loren’s had a roughly 50/50 chance of inheriting her mother’s blindness. So they held off conceiving anyone until the odds improved. Hence, the sighted Loren but the absence of who knows how many potential Lorens. That’s giving up many loafs to avoid a half a loaf. That’s giving up the better for the ostensible best. That’s a sin. – Sincerely, Albert the Traditional

Actually, later information says they never knew what the true risk was--she didn't fit the profile at all.

[Albert Cipriani]

Luis asks:
So, a heterosexual couple that uses some form of contraception...any form at all...are being immoral whenever they have sex with one another, because they have opted to not use themselves and each other as means towards some other end (i.e. the production of offspring)?

Bingo. You win the brass condom.

Luis opines:
These two hypothetical people (hypothetical!!! try virtually all 1st world countries.) have opted to view one another as ends in themselves, which is a far more moral view of humanity... People are not means; they are ends.

Oooh. That sure sounds good. Sounds highfaluting and noble. Care to explicate your position? Here is mine:

No thing is an end in itself. All things are means to ends which are means to other ends ad infinitum until we reach the first cause of all ends and means, God.

Aristotle thought that only the good (which is not a thing but a subjective experience) was an end in and of itself. Now we know better. Since no one but God is absolutely good but only relatively good, we know that only God is good and the good toward which all relative goods tend. Good Day, Albert the Traditional Catholic

[Albert Cipriani]

Loren says:
Engaging in sexual intercourse doesn't mean either of us has any interest in conceiving a child.

That’s precisely the problem. Like saying just because we eat a seven course meal doesn’t mean either of us has any interest in gaining weight.

Obviously, what you’re interested in is irrelevant. What you objectively do and the consequences of which you objectively seek to avoid is all that is relevant. It is by such irrational behavior that you are judged deficient by your own nature as the rational creature you were born to be.

Tell you what, why don’t you just hook up a feeding tube going the wrong way into a bucket. Then you could eat 40 course meals to your heart’s content and never gain a pound. How is that any different than fucking to your heart’s content with your tubes’ tied? – Albert the Traditional Catholic

[Clutch]

Albert,

I realize you've got everyone asking you questions and all, but I did get mine in before some of the ones you've been replying to.

Namely: What argument supports the claim that pleasure is not an end in itself, especially in light of the fact that, palpably, pleasure serves as the end of many, many actions every day? (By "argument" here, I mean something not transparently circular, now.)

And: How is your "no loaf" analogy even intelligible? Who is harmed by the non-conception of fetuses when, by definition, there is nobody to harm?

Thanks for your time.

[Luiseach]

Originally posted by Albert Cipriani
Oooh. That sure sounds good.

It does, doesn't it?

Sounds highfaluting and noble.

Well, that's what the view is like from here.

Nice, isn't it?

Imagine, a view of humanity that ennobles us rather than reduces us to the level of our reproductive systems!

Care to explicate your position?

I've already explained it...

Here is mine:

No thing is an end in itself. All things are means to ends which are means to other ends ad infinitum until we reach the first cause of all ends and means, God.

I am quite aware that this is your view, which is a decidedly utilitarian one.

Aristotle thought that only the good (which is not a thing but a subjective experience) was an end in and of itself. Now we know better.

Who is 'we'? Theists, you mean?

Since no one but God is absolutely good but only relatively good, we know that only God is good and the good toward which all relative goods tend.

Aw...have we foiled 'God's' wee 'go forth and multiply' plans, then? ;)

[Kalkin]

Albert, I don't think this is your position, but from a lot of what you write (on this thread and the drugs thread), you seem to be saying that having fun or feeling good, without some ulterior purpose related to survival or procreation or worship of god, is inherently immoral. So, if I have nothing to do tomorrow morning, it would be wrong of me to play Warcraft 3? If you're not defending the old Puritan any-fun-for-its-own-sake-is-wrong position, how do you differentiate the immoral pleasure-for-its-own-sake involved in marijuana or masturbation from the pleasure I get from playing a computer game or listening to music or whatever you think is an acceptable form of fun?

[Jack Kamm]

Originally posted by Clutch
I realize you've got everyone asking you questions and all, but I did get mine in before some of the ones you've been replying to.

Namely: What argument supports the claim that pleasure is not an end in itself, especially in light of the fact that, palpably, pleasure serves as the end of many, many actions every day? (By "argument" here, I mean something not transparently circular, now.)

Ditto.

You have given no reason why one ought not to "uncouple means from ends," or why one ought to "accept the consequences of our actions," or why one ought to "will the effects of our causes." You have simply asserted that doing so is moral, and therefore one ought to do it.

In other words, you simply have an assertion and opinion. You have offered no reasoning to back it up.

[Kalkin]

Yes, I basically am asking the same thing as Jack Kamm and Clutch, I guess, although also if there's something special about the topics you've applied this claim to so far I'd like to know what it is.

[Loren Pechtel]

Originally posted by Albert Cipriani
Loren says:


That’s precisely the problem. Like saying just because we eat a seven course meal doesn’t mean either of us has any interest in gaining weight.

Obviously, what you’re interested in is irrelevant. What you objectively do and the consequences of which you objectively seek to avoid is all that is relevant. It is by such irrational behavior that you are judged deficient by your own nature as the rational creature you were born to be.

Tell you what, why don’t you just hook up a feeding tube going the wrong way into a bucket. Then you could eat 40 course meals to your heart’s content and never gain a pound. How is that any different than fucking to your heart’s content with your tubes’ tied? – Albert the Traditional Catholic

We do not currently have a practical means of avoiding the calories of the seven course meal. That doesn't mean we won't develop something in the future and nothing says that something that negated calories would be wrongful.

[viscousmemories]

Originally posted by Clutch
Albert,

<snip> What argument supports the claim that pleasure is not an end in itself, especially in light of the fact that, palpably, pleasure serves as the end of many, many actions every day? (By "argument" here, I mean something not transparently circular, now.) Albert, I'd like to hear your answer to this too. In this thread and in the formal debate you're in, which I read last night, your assertion that pleasure is not an end in itself appears to be foundational to the bulk of your arguments. As someone who appears to be genuinely committed to making a reasonable argument, I'm surprised that you would ignore what seems to be such a key point.

As an aside, your reasoning about human sexual relationships sincerely disturbs me. Based on the arguments you have presented here and in your formal debate, you believe that it should be illegal for a married couple (who are capable of reproduction) to have sex, unless they intend to procreate. I find that suggestion inhumane to a chilling extent.

vm

[Loren Pechtel]

Originally posted by Luiseach
So, going by this 'reasoning,' then, the most moral thing a woman could do is make certain she is pregnant as often as is humanly possible.

Firstly, to make sure that sex always leads to the production of as many of the potential offspring as possible.

Secondly, to avoid having sex that didn't lead to offspring.

Think what a frightening, horrible world that would be...

No.

1) There's nothing in his position against sex that might not result in offspring. If she can't conceive he didn't say you can't have sex.

2) The flip side of this is that if conception is possible, sex is required.

Is he really going to tell his 13 year old daughter to go get knocked up ASAP?

[viscousmemories]

Originally posted by Loren Pechtel
We do not currently have a practical means of avoiding the calories of the seven course meal. That doesn't mean we won't develop something in the future and nothing says that something that negated calories would be wrongful. On the other hand, I'm sure that stuffing tasty food in your mouth while vomiting incessantly would be every bit as much fun as marathon fucking. Who could deny that? :rolleyes:

vm

[Albert Cipriani]

Dear Clutch,
Both pleasure and pain occur in our head, not in that other head. Ergo, it can be classified as a subjective experience -- induced by but not causally necessitated by objective experience.

For example, the objective experience of seeing a lady’s ankle could be sexually arousing in Victorian times whereas in today’s degenerate miasmal climes prurient interest requires something more like full frontal nudity.

Since subjective experience is, by definition, not necessarily the result of objective experience, that is, since it can be decoupled from its ostensible cause, it cannot be considered an end. Subjective experiences are better thought of as a species of effect, a byproduct like the sparks flying off the anvil blows of Mr. Reality the blacksmith pounding out his endlessly long chain of means and ends.

Pleasure, like all subjective experiences, is not only not an end, but also not a means. If you see reality as the objective unfolding of means and ends, then you must not see pleasure or pain as an integral aspect of reality. Neither pleasure nor pain, in and of themselves, are the means to any end. Both pleasure and pain must be mediated by our free will to become the means of any end.

For example a hot poker burns flesh but is not the means of pain or any reaction to pain for someone who is comatose or in a trance. Even for a conscious person, burnt flesh is the end (literally) of the hot poker, not that person’s pain. For that person’s pain is the means of no other ends whereas that person’s burnt flesh continues the infinite chain of further means and ends (e.g., dehydration, infection, perhaps death).

Like wake ripples, pleasure and pain are but the eddying memory of our passing through. They’re the dead-end byproducts of certain means veering off from the infinite course of means and ends that commenced with the Big Bang. Our pains and pleasures are neither us nor our reality, neither the boat nor the lake, but the temporary perturbation of the lake by the boat, the warping of our reality by our course through it.

If you want a more logical less poetic proof of my contention that pleasure is not an end, here are the syllogisms:
1) Movement is reality.
2) A series of means and ends constitute movement.
3) Ergo, a series of means and ends constitute reality.

Obversely:
1) Non-movement is non-real. (I.e., nothing doesn’t move.)
2) A series of means and ends constitute movement.
3) Ergo, what is neither a means nor an ends is non-real.

Extrapolating:
1) If all that is real moves and mental thoughts are real, then thoughts constitute mental movement.
2) If movement is never an isolated event but always a never-ending continuum of interrelating means and ends, then an apparent mental movement that is not the means to any other mental movement is only an apparent mental movement and not really a mental movement.
3) Pleasure and pain are apparent mental movements because neither of them are the means of anything other. (I.e., pleasures and pains merely form our data base of static sensory memory as brute facts whose causes can be probed and linked to means and ends but cannot in themselves even be thought of, only remembered.)
4) If pleasure and pain are merely the effect of mental movements and not mental movements in and of themselves, and movement is a series of means and ends, then pleasure and pain is neither a means nor an end.
5) It follows that if means and ends constitute movement and movement constitutes reality, pleasure and pain (the effects of mental movements that are not in themselves mental movements) are not real. Ergo, the hedonist and the coward stalk and flee an illusion.

-- The End, Albert the Traditional Catholic

[Albert Cipriani]

Kalkin asks:
How do you differentiate the immoral pleasure-for-its-own-sake involved in marijuana or masturbation from the pleasure I get from playing a computer game or listening to music or whatever you think is an acceptable form of fun?

As you may have guessed, I hate the word fun. But I know that in you using it you do not mean to sandbag me with all my issues with it. So I’ll ignore them and treat the word “fun” as if it meant “moral pleasures.”

Our moral pleasures are always expansively relating us to reality whereas our immoral pleasures always narrow our relationship with reality into something resembling the oxymoron of our relationship with ourselves. Moral pleasure vs. immoral pleasure is the sensual equivalent of inductive versus deductive thinking, or the difference between inferential thinking versus bombastic rhetoric.

Ask yourself if what pleases you involves an expansion of your involvement with what pleases you or a circumscription of your involvement with what pleases you.

If, for example, you expand your relationship to the pleasing sight of a beautiful woman by introducing yourself to her, you’ve taken a moral step. If you constrain your relationship to her by furtively snapping her photo and stealing away, you’ve taken an immoral step. This is true regardless of the consequences, i.e., your introduction may only induce the pain of rejection and your photograph may induce solitary pleasures.

For a more realistic example, look no further than Loren who thinks it’s OK to say “yea” to intercourse while saying “nay” to its potential consequences. If moral pleasures integrate us with reality, and she’s really in love, what better image is there of that integration than Loren’s propagation of herself. Contraception prevents that integration. Literally half of Loren and half of whoever she’s bedding are flushed down the toilet instead of being allowed to become one.

To answer your question in a totally specific way, I’d say that the pleasure of computer games and music are contingent upon some level of knowledge and all our dealings with knowledge are at least potentially rational and therefore moral. But immoral pleasures require no knowledge, only the sensory capacity -- as opposed to the intellectual capacity -- to process inputs.

Ergo, unless purely sensory pleasures can be supposed to have some rational end independent of the sensation of pleasure, they should be avoided as – at the very least – a waste of the only thing any of us have, time, or – at the very worst – a waste of your potential to integrate yourself with reality. – Sincerely, Albert the Traditional Catholic

[Luiseach]

Originally posted by Loren Pechtel
1) There's nothing in his position against sex that might not result in offspring.

Albert Cipriani's position is that sex between a man and a woman in which some form of contraception is being employed is immoral.

When I asked the following question, namely,

So, is this what you are saying ---> a heterosexual couple that uses some form of contraception...any form at all...are being immoral whenever they have sex with one another, because they have opted to not use themselves and each other as means towards some other end (i.e. the production of offspring).

Albert Cipriani replied in the affirmative.

His exact words were 'Bingo. You win the brass condom.'

If she can't conceive he didn't say you can't have sex.

He is saying that sex which involves the wilfill avoidance of potential offspring through contraception is wrong:

Albert Cipriani
It means you and your husband are a living lie when you get laid in that neither of you are open to the consequences of your actions.

Is this condoning sex that involves the deliberate avoidance of offspring? Or does it suggest the opposite?

Here's another quotation:

Albert Cipriani
Assuming that the couple's infertility was not willed by them (getting their tubes tied), they are not responsible for the disconnection between their means (sexual pleasure) and non-existent ends (children).

2) The flip side of this is that if conception is possible, sex is required.

And?

Is he really going to tell his 13 year old daughter to go get knocked up ASAP?

This is a non sequitur...
:confused:

[Diadectes]

Ask yourself if what pleases you involves an expansion of your involvement with what pleases you or a circumscription of your involvement with what pleases you.

It pleases me to please my partner sexually. I derive pleasure from the knowledge that I am giving them pleasure. It brings us closer together, we have knowledge of one another that no one else can have. And the great thing is it works both ways. To gain pleasure by giving pleasure seems to me a perfectly acceptable means to an end. Then we get on with something else. No children? So what? In any case, if it was God's plan that sexual intercourse should only be engaged in as part of the effort to make babies then why didn't he design the human body so that conception occurs every time a couple has sex? Seems to me that by not doing so, he is secretly condoning sex that 'merely' results in two people giving one another pleasure. The intention on the part of the couple to conceive might be there, but God knows they're not going to, so doesn't that make him a bit of a hypocrite? "You can't have sex without wanting to make a baby, but I've designed you so that nine times out of ten you won't. So during those nine attempts you'de better damned well be hoping that this is the one otherwise off to the burning lake you go!"

[Clutch]

A student once wrote, on one of my exams, "The problem with GE Moore is that he's making it all up!"

The problem with your "argument", Albert, is that you're making it all up. Originally posted by Albert Cipriani
Dear Clutch,
Both pleasure and pain occur in our head, not in that other head. Ergo, it can be classified as a subjective experience -- induced by but not causally necessitated by objective experience.

For example, the objective experience of seeing a lady’s ankle could be sexually arousing in Victorian times whereas in today’s degenerate miasmal climes prurient interest requires something more like full frontal nudity.

Since subjective experience is, by definition, not necessarily the result of objective experience, that is, since it can be decoupled from its ostensible cause, it cannot be considered an end.That just does not follow. It would only be relevant were there some obvious principle like:

X can only be an end if the causal connections between it and its causes cannot be broken.

But there is no reason whatever to hold such a weird principle. You're just making it up.
Subjective experiences are better thought of as a species of effect, a byproduct like the sparks flying off the anvil blows of Mr. Reality the blacksmith pounding out his endlessly long chain of means and ends.Er... why is this "better"? More importantly, why would pleasure's being a "species of effect" entail that it is not an end?

Again, here's a datum: People do, as a matter of fact, use pleasure as an end in itself.

If you wish to claim that what people actually do is impossible, then... you got some 'splainin' to do.
Pleasure, like all subjective experiences, is not only not an end,And just like that, you're back to simply asserting what you must prove. ... but also not a means.
[...]
For example a hot poker burns flesh but is