The Student Room Group
Uni students - Complete our survey >>
Uni students - Complete our survey >>
Uni students - Complete our survey >>

Do you think the government should censor porn sites?.

Scroll to see replies

Original post by Robby2312
Where did I say child abuse was ok?


You wrote that nobody forces children to watch porn. That children actively go out searching for it because of a sexual desire that they have and that that is healthy ...I am applying this logic, your logic to children who go out searching for sex because they have 'sexual desire' for it.

Original post by Robby2312
no one has conclusively proven porn to actually be harmful to the people watching it.Its a lot of moral outrage over nothing.


Who is this no one that you are referring to?

Go work with an NHS psychosexual therapist for a week and then come back and tell me that.
(edited 7 years ago)
if the sites are a bit rubbish or have viruses then the Govt. should step in and block them.
Reply 62
Avatar for Nadile
Nadile
13
Original post by CookieButter
You wrote that nobody forces children to watch porn. That children actively go out searching for it because of a sexual desire that they have and that that is healthy ...I am applying this logic, your logic to children who go out searching for sex because they have 'sexual desire' for it.



Who is this no one that you are referring to?

Go work with an NHS psychosexual therapist for a week and then come back and tell me that.

A child stumbling upon porn and watching it is in no way equivalent to an adult taking advantage of a horny child. If the child asked an adult for porn and the adult provided it, then that would be comparable to your example.

Things in our society are usually deemed safe and harmless until proven otherwise. Meaning that we don't need to prove that porn is harmless, you need to prove that it isn't. Mentioning a psychosexual therapist isn't proof, I'm asking about research and actual proof.

Also I'd like to ask what your exact stance is. Do you think porn is bad for everyone and should therefore be banned completely? Because that's the idea I'm getting from you. If so, why bother talking about children in particular if it's bad for everyone? Also, in what way is it harmful that you'd choose to ban it over something like cigarettes or alcohol that has very serious, obvious effects on ones physical health?
Original post by CookieButter
Our point of argument in this thread is that pornography is a violation of the rights of others. I think that its form of sexual exploitation.


Have you actually spoken to anyone who makes porn to verify this view? Because I work with porn producers and actors for my PhD, and not once have I seen any instances of exploitation. What I see are consenting adults who choose to produce sexual images and videos with one another. This is not to say that there isn't exploitation in the industry, and the studio I work with is one that pays particular attention to ethical practice, but from what those in the actual industry have told me, it's rare. The industry is not what it was in the 70s and 80s; it's now saturated with independent studios with self-employed producers and performers (and many who are both).

Of course porn that is sexually exploitative is not okay. But the way to tackle that is not to ban all pornography. The way to tackle it is to increase regulation within the industry and imbue those who work within it with more rights, which will be achieved most effectively by talking to those who work in it and actually finding out what they want.
Original post by CookieButter
You wrote that nobody forces children to watch porn. That children actively go out searching for it because of a sexual desire that they have and that that is healthy ...I am applying this logic, your logic to children who go out searching for sex because they have 'sexual desire' for it.



Who is this no one that you are referring to?

Go work with an NHS psychosexual therapist for a week and then come back and tell me that.


No I never said children go looking for sex.I said they look at pictures of it.Its not exactly unheard of for teenage boys at least to look at pictures of naked girls.No one has conclusively proven porn harms people.In fact from the amount of people who allegedly watch it I'd say the opposite is true.I also never said 11 year olds were ready to have sex, just that it is around that age that attraction first manifests itself.
Original post by Nadile
A child stumbling upon porn and watching it is in no way equivalent to an adult taking advantage of a horny child. If the child asked an adult for porn and the adult provided it, then that would be comparable to your example.


His argument was that satisfying sexual urges is a process that children actively seek out thereby making it natural and healthy. Its based on this argument that I wrote my reply.

Original post by Nadile
Things in our society are usually deemed safe and harmless until proven otherwise. Meaning that we don't need to prove that porn is harmless, you need to prove that it isn't. Mentioning a psychosexual therapist isn't proof, I'm asking about research and actual proof.


Firstly, in ‘our society’ things are not deemed safe until proven otherwise. That would be absurd and dangerous. I cannot for example design a product, a drug, and sell it for consumption/use until it is proven unsafe. No, firstly, I have to prove that it is safe for use before I am allowed to market it. That is how things work in a rationale, logical society.

Secondly, logic entails that, if you make a claim, regardless of what it is, the obligation is on you to provide sufficient evidence to support it. That’s not what I say, but that is how logical discourse is defined in epistemology. If you make a claim that pornography is harmless then you have to prove that it is harmless. If on the other hand you want your adversary to prove to you that pornography is harmful then you cannot start by making a claim that ‘pornography is not harmful’ because then the burden of proof lies on you and not on your adversary. Instead, your argument should take the form of a question. For example ‘why is pornography harmful’ that way you lay the burden of proof on him/her. When you receive a reply as to why it is harmful with the proof you can work to refute it. That is how logical discourse works. If you make a claim you have to provide evidence to support your claim. That is how things work in 'our society'.

Original post by Nadile
Also I'd like to ask what your exact stance is. Do you think porn is bad for everyone and should therefore be banned completely? Because that's the idea I'm getting from you. If so, why bother talking about children in particular if it's bad for everyone? Also, in what way is it harmful that you'd choose to ban it over something like cigarettes or alcohol that has very serious, obvious effects on ones physical health?


I think that pornography is bad for everyone. I stated that clearly in my first post in this thread. The issue of children was brought up in comments by the person I replied to above. So naturally my reply to him was going to concern children.

I think that porn is a form of sexual exploitation but not in the conventional sense, in that it is sexual exploitation by women (the performers) (mostly) of men (the viewers) (mostly) for sexual gratification and financial gain. I think that it is greatly damaging.

We are a constructive logical species. We have sexual urges. These sexual urges serve a constructive purpose. For example they encourage us to find partners and have sex and this sex strengthens bonds empowering relationships. In this context they also serve a reproductive function, one that prevents our species from extinction. what is the function of porn besides gratification? what is its purpose? what do you gain from doing it? It is not very much unlike taking drugs in that it provides gratification without function. The problem with such practices is that they become destructive habits/addictions that render people non-people who are consumed by that habit. what is worse than a habit that risks rendering you obsolete?

Additionally, there is another psychologically destructive side to pornography. As I mentioned earlier, we have sexual urges that encourage us to seek out partners and pornography and masturbation can act as a barrier to that. Furthermore, there are sexual health problems associated with such practices as the ones I’ve mentioned above. There are issues of desensitisation and habituation which are guaranteed with chronic masturbation and viewing of pornography and there are issues of impotence and vaginal dryness which have become all too prevalent in the UK amongst the younger population (http://www.bbc.co.uk/newsbeat/article/37058019/easy-access-to-online-porn-is-damaging-mens-health-says-nhs-therapist - Article by the BBC, http://www.mdpi.com/2076-328X/6/3/17- A systematic review. The most reliable and valid study type) .

Additionally pornography does not only affect those who view it but those around them in many ways. There are a million and one problems out there for pornography. There is so much harm done by it for so little gain.

Original post by clonedmemories
Have you actually spoken to anyone who makes porn to verify this view? Because I work with porn producers and actors for my PhD, and not once have I seen any instances of exploitation.


Your entire comment is based on a misunderstanding of what I mean by sexual exploitation. When I called porn sexual exploitation I wasn’t referring to those making the porn, the actors etc. as being the victims but rather those who view it. I believe that porn is sexual exploitation of those who view the pornography by those who make it. As in, I think that those you refer to in your comment, those people who choose to make pornography, are the victimisers not the victims. I previously made that clear in this thread. I think that pornography is sexual exploitation by mostly women of mostly men. As in the porn actors actresses are the exploiters not the ‘exploitees’ if thats a word.
(edited 7 years ago)
Reply 66
Avatar for RJDG14
RJDG14
16
No. At most the parent should restrict access.
Original post by CookieButter
the average age of exposure to 'pornorgaphy' is 11 years old....



I somewhat agree with your original post. I don't think that pornography should be regulated though.I think its a form of sexual exploitation by mostly women of mostly men and young boys and i think it should be banned.

....but i disagree with the idea that men are 'hornier' than women. I think that this is just a lie propagated by modern day media...just think about it for a second 99% of pornography is done by women so who's 'hornier' than who? We are just programmed not to question women. We live in a world that likes to protect women and their privacy whilst publicising and shaming men for any sexual act making men appear as though they are more dependent on sex than women, when the truth is very far from that....i mean, we don't have a biological timer ticking on top of our heads.


Well if heterosexual men are the ones watching porn in their own time then surely they must be hornier than the women who are getting paid for doing their job. And I highly doubt that 99% statistic is genuine.
Original post by ElspethC
Well, now you've met one - girl over here who watches porn to get off, and who deliberately searched it out from about 14 onwards (so for the last four years), and whose brain was coming up with some pretty graphic scenarios even before I'd seen any. Same as about 60% of my friends. Whoever thinks that girls don't get horny obviously don't know many girls that well.


Hell yeah!! 100% agree with you.
Naw a need ma fix!


Posted from TSR Mobile
Jk but no I don't think they should censor them. It's legal to have sex at 16 so why not watch porn. The government also has a similar stupid rule: can join the army at 16 but can't play call of duty lol.


Posted from TSR Mobile
Original post by RegrettingAS
Well if heterosexual men are the ones watching porn in their own time then surely they must be hornier than the women who are getting paid for doing their job.


The porn industry mainly targets men through porn so naturally there's going to be more men consuming this sort of thing than women. This doesn't mean that men are 'hornier' than women.

Feminised culture preaches that men are 'hornier' than women thus preaching that men need women more than women need men. Its a way of subjugating men to women. I think that this way of thinking is dangerous and sexist but more importantly this way of thinking is far from reality. I am going to give you some numbers:

In a study recently conducted on eleven thousand college age women in the USA over 60% of these women viewed pornography* and 1 in 5 of these eleven thousand women were addicted to pornography. Another study conducted in Sweden found that over 70% of Swedish women viewed pornography on a habitual basis**. In another study conducted by an organisation for women with sexual health problems*, 20% of the women were found to be addicted to viewing pornography, 90% were addicted to masturbation such that they felt that the "matter was out of their control" and 50% stated that they had started habitually viewing pornography between the ages of 13-17. All this despite pornography being mainly targeted at men. I dread to think what the numbers would be like if pornography was targeted at women.

Note - All of these numbers are thought be much lower than the actual numbers of women who view pornography as women are less likely to admit to consuming porn than men. I think these numbers speak volumes.

Even if men were 'hornier' than women I dont think that this is a natural male trait. I don't think that men are naturally 'hornier' than women. I think that this can be the result of nurture. Men are being raised this day and age in a culture that exploits their sexuality, one that targets, trains and inflames their sexual interests from a very young age such that it makes them become 'hornier' than women.

Additionally, we live in a society that hides and protects anything to do with female sexuality that is perceived as being shameful or weak whilst exposing and shaming men for their sexuality in every way. I mean, a man that consumes pornography is called a pervert whilst a woman that does this same thing is not. No, women who do such things are often celebrated as heroes. Again, this way of thinking helps to promote the idea of 'men' being 'hornier' than women.

We live in a sexist society that subjugates men in every way and i think that this 'men are hornier than women thing' is just part of this sexist culture. Reality is very very far from it. I think you only realise this when you visit other countries where pornography and sexual exploitation of men is not so prevalent. You realise that men aren't so interested in sex or women and this realisation hits you hard and really makes you think.

*http://www.covenanteyes.com/2013/08/30/women-addicted-to-porn-stats/
**https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15807936
(edited 7 years ago)
I always think banning something is just a *****y step around actually educating people on issues
Firstly porn is Not fine and healthy. It is addictive and creates unrealistic expectations of what sex should be like. Do you know that a high proportion of devorcing couples site pornography as the main reason why their marriage broke down? Once you are hooked it is a hard habit to break; Initial images and theams soon lose there apeal, so in order to maintain the fix, conventional senarios give way to more deviant, degrading and harder core fetishes. I'm a committed christian and still struggle with it. So should the Government bad porn? Yes absolutely.
Original post by Nighthawk662
Firstly porn is Not fine and healthy. It is addictive and creates unrealistic expectations of what sex should be like. Do you know that a high proportion of devorcing couples site pornography as the main reason why their marriage broke down? Once you are hooked it is a hard habit to break; Initial images and theams soon lose there apeal, so in order to maintain the fix, conventional senarios give way to more deviant, degrading and harder core fetishes. I'm a committed christian and still struggle with it. So should the Government bad porn? Yes absolutely.


oh my god, you are being *completely* absent-minded
nobody justifies porn on purely the grounds that it is "fine and healthy" - people justify the use of porn because a) it's harming nobody, and b) mind your own business, actually - my adult body my rules.
the thing about being an adult citizen in a republicanesque society like britain is that the government takes the position that YOU
What I find mad is the porn tv stations are censored to the point where you cant see below the waist, which just means people will watch it online instead.

The ideal solution is to make it less a rite of passage for young people to watch.

Either way the OP is a troll.
Original post by Nighthawk662
Firstly porn is Not fine and healthy. It is addictive and creates unrealistic expectations of what sex should be like. Do you know that a high proportion of devorcing couples site pornography as the main reason why their marriage broke down? Once you are hooked it is a hard habit to break; Initial images and theams soon lose there apeal, so in order to maintain the fix, conventional senarios give way to more deviant, degrading and harder core fetishes. I'm a committed christian and still struggle with it. So should the Government bad porn? Yes absolutely.


oh my god, you are being *completely* absent-minded
nobody justifies porn on purely the grounds that it is "fine and healthy" - people justify the use of porn because a) it's harming nobody nor depriving others of rights, and b) mind your own business, actually - my adult body my rules.
the thing about being an adult citizen in a republicanesque society like britain is that the government takes the position that YOU are responsible for yourself. your responsibility is derives from your liberty - if you had no liberty, you'd have no responsibility, and you have liberty as an adult human being because you have rationality and the understanding of consequences. the law is laid down in your favour as an individual because you aren't some trembling child - you are a human being who is ready to take life as it is and to brave it out regardless of what it might throw at you. that's why we have both billionaires and homeless people; body-builders and drug addicts.

if you are going to argue that we ban something because it is addictive and socially damaging (potentially - only if you LET it become socially damaging to your relationships) then you are going to have to advocate a hell of a lot more than just banning porn.
for example, I think christianity is a curse upon the country - I think it is a delusive, mental disorder that justifies irrationality, homophobia, misogyny, etc - it is basically a huge obstacle to human beings mentally and socially progressing. you could even compare it to an addiction because once you've come to believe that hell exists, you can't stop believing in it because you'll be scared of eventually going to that ficticious dungeon. if anything, christianity in its restrictive and berserk mindset is far worse than simply relieving sexual stress via the visual aids of porn. porn makes you happy and christianity makes you fearful. I think being responsibly happy is much better than being confined to a life of worthless misery and personal shame (the effects of christianity).
so effectively, you are advocating a ban on christianity as well as porn if your criteria are 1) addictiveness, and 2) social effects (i.e. think of all the damage christianity has done to certain demographics and all it's done to justify stupid laws). you are arguing, if you are at the very least logically consistent, that things of *that* nature, then we must ban cigarettes, alcohol, video games, sports, even reading novels - if it has any capacity to, via the potential for addiction, stun people's socialities, then you are wanting them to be banned, even though the philosophy of western civilisation is liberty and responsibility via our human rationality. your philosophy would seem to compare adult human beings to mere children who need a big daddy government to take care of them (even though, if adults are like children - irresponsible and fragile - they as the government are ALSO just as limited as all the other citizens under the law because they are only adults as well!!!)
(edited 7 years ago)
Original post by hellodave5
I always think banning something is just a *****y step around actually educating people on issues

Well depeds fam, if you wanna ban killing ppl that's a good thing right xD
Still you educate them and tell em it's wrong
Original post by Nighthawk662
Firstly porn is Not fine and healthy. It is addictive and creates unrealistic expectations of what sex should be like. Do you know that a high proportion of devorcing couples site pornography as the main reason why their marriage broke down? Once you are hooked it is a hard habit to break; Initial images and theams soon lose there apeal, so in order to maintain the fix, conventional senarios give way to more deviant, degrading and harder core fetishes. I'm a committed christian and still struggle with it. So should the Government bad porn? Yes absolutely.


haha
someone else who doesn't like it so their opinion must be put into action.

well u know what, why don't they teach it in school then? why not sex ed in all school to educate the population?
Original post by sleepysnooze
oh my god, you are being *completely* absent-minded
nobody justifies porn on purely the grounds that it is "fine and healthy" - people justify the use of porn because a) it's harming nobody nor depriving others of rights, and b) mind your own business, actually - my adult body my rules.
the thing about being an adult citizen in a republicanesque society like britain is that the government takes the position that YOU are responsible for yourself. your responsibility is derives from your liberty - if you had no liberty, you'd have no responsibility, and you have liberty as an adult human being because you have rationality and the understanding of consequences. the law is laid down in your favour as an individual because you aren't some trembling child - you are a human being who is ready to take life as it is and to brave it out regardless of what it might throw at you. that's why we have both billionaires and homeless people; body-builders and drug addicts.

if you are going to argue that we ban something because it is addictive and socially damaging (potentially - only if you LET it become socially damaging to your relationships) then you are going to have to advocate a hell of a lot more than just banning porn.
for example, I think christianity is a curse upon the country - I think it is a delusive, mental disorder that justifies irrationality, homophobia, misogyny, etc - it is basically a huge obstacle to human beings mentally and socially progressing. you could even compare it to an addiction because once you've come to believe that hell exists, you can't stop believing in it because you'll be scared of eventually going to that ficticious dungeon. if anything, christianity in its restrictive and berserk mindset is far worse than simply relieving sexual stress via the visual aids of porn. porn makes you happy and christianity makes you fearful. I think being responsibly happy is much better than being confined to a life of worthless misery and personal shame (the effects of christianity).
so effectively, you are advocating a ban on christianity as well as porn if your criteria are 1) addictiveness, and 2) social effects (i.e. think of all the damage christianity has done to certain demographics and all it's done to justify stupid laws). you are arguing, if you are at the very least logically consistent, that things of *that* nature, then we must ban cigarettes, alcohol, video games, sports, even reading novels - if it has any capacity to, via the potential for addiction, stun people's socialities, then you are wanting them to be banned, even though the philosophy of western civilisation is liberty and responsibility via our human rationality. your philosophy would seem to compare adult human beings to mere children who need a big daddy government to take care of them (even though, if adults are like children - irresponsible and fragile - they as the government are ALSO just as limited as all the other citizens under the law because they are only adults as well!!!)


Have you ever noticed the religous are obsessed with sex? Stephen fry put it well.The only people obsessed with food are anorexics and the morbidely obese and that basically decribes the religous perfectly.They are like anorexics with regard to sex.Most people have a normal healthy attitude to sex.But the religous think its sinful and priests remain celibate.If those priests had a normal healthy attitude I'll bet anything that there would be a lot less child abuse going on.
Original post by AmericanDreamer
It shouldn't be legal.
Pornis destructive.
it destroys the minds of it's viewers.
I am a man, you as a woman should be the first to be against porn as it objectifies women.
So do films, tv series, adverts which nobody has a problem with. the objectification of women is more a problem with our culture than just porn alone. And the main reason it objectifies women is that the majority of viewers are men. But if you watch gay porn or porn targeted towards women then it will be the male character who is objectified.

Quick Reply

Latest

Trending

Trending

Articles for you