Who Here Supports and Defends Pornography as Legitimate?

[_Jonah]

"...the strip-tease that my wife filmed and sent to me while i was in China a couple months ago..."

CFR

[_stemelbow]

Guess what, i am not religious and i don't care if others "enjoy" or pretend to "enjoy" being religious.

That seems to belie nearly every response you offer here. It seems to me you do care, you care a great deal, I'd wager.

[_schreech]

That seems to belie nearly every response you offer here. It seems to me you do care, you care a great deal, I'd wager.

CFR - or are you, as usual, talking out your arse? You whiny board nanny....

[_asbestosman]

Guess what, i am not religious and i don't care if others "enjoy" or pretend to "enjoy" being religious.

And yet here you are mocking them for their religious standards on pornography. Go figure.

Does your wife never want you to look at her as an object of desire/sexuality/lust?

Yes.

But she wants me to lust not only her body but her mind, her personality, etc. That's the difference between porn and romantic love which contains the erotic.

Again, what is wrong with occasionally fulfilling a primitive biological drive if it completely involves consenting adults?

Legally? Nothing. Doesn't mean it's something to be commended. Eating lots of fatty, sugary food is a biological drive too, but that doesn't mean obesity is laudable.

I find it . . . disturbing but unsurprising that you seem to insist on conflating pornography with erotic love in a committed relationship. There is some hope though--at least you're not conflating it with prostitution.

yet

[_Dr. Shades]

The pornographic arts are one of the greatest gifts that God has given us, to be partaken of in the spirit of joy and thanksgiving.

[_Fiannan]

The weird thing is, a documentary came on TV about this subject the other night. I would link the program, but some of the content of the TV station site (yes, TV station) might go against what is allowed here. However, when it dealt with making movies in this category it did not appear exploitive whatsoever. I have seen more yelling and abuse coming from high school drama or football coaches towards their students while there seemed no such abuse in these movies. As for money, I really do hate to see that many people who might feel that fornication and adultery are wrong might go into these movies so their family can eat, or that they don't become homeless. However, there are many people who go into this line of work because they think it is fun.

That said, I oppose porn on the grounds that you are paying people to engage in non-marital sex. I do not see it as addictive, or mind-destroying as some do in the Church, nor do I see it as carefree entertainment as some on this board.

[_malaise]

Just for the record, and so as not to paint anyone into a corner they are not in, who in this forum would defend the creation, dissemination, and indulgence in pornography, on principle, against the Church's view of the matter?

Who is pro, and who is con?

Sexual activity is enjoyable, even if you do not have a partner to have sex with. Pornography increases the amount of sexual pleasure that people have, which means that I believe it is perfectly acceptable for people to use it, unless the actors in the film were coerced or harmed in some way. I watch porn and I enjoy it greatly.

[_Droopy]

Sexual activity is enjoyable, even if you do not have a partner to have sex with.

This is not in question.

Pornography increases the amount of sexual pleasure that people have,

Upon what basis so you make this claim?

which means that I believe it is perfectly acceptable for people to use it, unless the actors in the film were coerced or harmed in some way. I watch porn and I enjoy it greatly.

Your philosophy here then is, leaping into the Wayback machine for a moment to the swinging, liberated sixties, "If it feels good, do it." In other words, based upon what you've written, you appear not live your life in accordance with any set of moral, ethical, or philosophical principles underlying and informing a coherent understanding of the meaning of existence, but fundamentally upon psychological and phisiological impulse and appatite satiation.

[_brade]

Sexual activity is enjoyable, even if you do not have a partner to have sex with.

This is not in question.

Pornography increases the amount of sexual pleasure that people have,

Upon what basis so you make this claim?

which means that I believe it is perfectly acceptable for people to use it, unless the actors in the film were coerced or harmed in some way. I watch porn and I enjoy it greatly.

Your philosophy here then is, leaping into the Wayback machine for a moment to the swinging, liberated sixties, "If it feels good, do it." In other words, based upon what you've written, you appear not live your life in accordance with any set of moral, ethical, or philosophical principles underlying and informing a coherent understanding of the meaning of existence, but fundamentally upon psychological and phisiological impulse and appatite satiation.

I don't think that's a fair summary of his view. After all, he did say "unless the actors in the film were coerced or harmed in some way". It looks like there is something of a harm reduction principle in there somewhere. I'm not defending or advocating porn, I'm just sayin.

Also, I'm not sure how I see that that sort of attitude about porn entails that one doesn't live their life in accordance with any set of moral, ethical, or philosophical principles underlying and informing a coherent understanding of the meaning of existence. Maybe you're right that he doesn't life his life in accordance with any set of moral, ethical, or philosophical principles underlying and informing a coherent understanding of the meaning of existence, but, again, I'm not sure how what he's said implies that.

[_Droopy]

Droopy:

Your philosophy here then is, leaping into the Wayback machine for a moment to the swinging, liberated sixties, "If it feels good, do it." In other words, based upon what you've written, you appear not live your life in accordance with any set of moral, ethical, or philosophical principles underlying and informing a coherent understanding of the meaning of existence, but fundamentally upon psychological and phisiological impulse and appatite satiation.

I don't think that's a fair summary of his view. After all, he did say "unless the actors in the film were coerced or harmed in some way". It looks like there is something of a harm reduction principle in there somewhere. I'm not defending or advocating porn, I'm just sayin.

My fundamental problem with pornography qua pornography is only tangentially related to the coeirciveness of some aspects of the pornography business, and is focused generally on its salient moral, social, cultural, psychological, and, subsuming all of these, spiritual effects, including its historic overarching criminal associations.

Also, I'm not sure how I see that that sort of attitude about porn entails that one doesn't live their life in accordance with any set of moral, ethical, or philosophical principles underlying and informing a coherent understanding of the meaning of existence.

Perhaps so, in some sense. Would you call Hefner's Playboy Philosophy a system of belief "underlying and informing a coherent understanding of the meaning of existence?"

Maybe you're right that he doesn't life his life in accordance with any set of moral, ethical, or philosophical principles underlying and informing a coherent understanding of the meaning of existence, but, again, I'm not sure how what he's said implies that

I do suppose this would hinge, to a great degree, on the definition of the term "moral" and "ethical."