Pornography, “Family Values”, and a Sexually Liberal Society

[Daradon]

Originally Posted by Textcritic

First off: I have opened this discussion thread not for the intention of posting porn-links or NSFW images and video. My intention is that this will house a thoughtful dialogue about the social conception of morality within a rapidly changing liberal culture.

Second: I am somewhat reticent to open this thread that I have been mulling over for some weeks now. The topic is a sensitive one, and in many ways a private matter, and I would ask everyone to bear this in mind before posting. If people are incapable of keeping a level head about this the subject, then I will shut it down.

In Matthew 5:27–30, Jesus is reported to have taught the following:

And then in 6:22–23 we read: “The eye is the lamp of the body. So, if your eye is sound, your whole body will be full of light; but if your eye is not sound, your whole body will be full of darkness. If then the light in you is darkness, how great is the darkness!”

The interpetation of Jesus’s instructions in modern, North American culture has taken on an absolute form:


http://newlife.com/emb/first-steps/

This has become a pretty familiar refrain in evangelical circles: It is not an exaggeration to claim that the North American Church has been irrevocably impacted by increased availability and access to pornography, and statistics show that Evangelicals consider this a matter of huge concern, often citing pornography as a primary cause of the end of marriages. Sermons dedicated to the evils of internet pornography in the Sunday morning services at our last church in Canada before we moved were among the most frequent over the past five years, and I suspect that this is likely a trend across North America.

In short, the teaching in Evangelicalism is pretty straightforward:
· Premise 1: Jesus taught that all sin was equally grave.
· Premise 2: Incorporeal lust is a sin
· Conclusion: Lust is indistinguishable from actual infidelity.

My interest in this is in how closely the modern, Evangelical ethic reflects the “secular” counterpart in Western society, especially amid our modern tendencies that are increasingly more sexually liberal. Is this nothing more than a religiously motivated problem, or will our increasing sexual liberty prove to be the downfall of our society? Is legal internet pornography (as opposed to child porn or human trafficking and and sexual slavery) a danger to adults? to relationships? Is lust merely a benign fact of biology, or is it indistinguishable with infidelity and adultery?

Well this bolded part is pretty far off base. I'd like to see some statistics about it. The primary cause for divorce (and overall marital discord) is money or money problems. Second is adultery, but just how much effect pornography has on that, I do not know, but I have never heard about it being a major factor.

Pornography has increased, there's no doubt about that. And I do believe we live in a world where it's a little too saturated with our everyday life. But that's just my opinion.

I think it may be dangerous to developing minds, though I would ask each guy to go back to his day and remember how interested he was about finding or viewing porn, and if he felt it messed him up. Of course guys, no matter what age, are always interested in sneaking a peek at their neighbour, or any attractive woman he could find, if the situations are available. This is nothing new.

I grew up just as the internet was taking shape. BBS's and dial up. Even before web browsers. The first porno I ever saw I would have been 14 and it was on VHS. My buddy got it and we watched it with a third friend of ours when his parents left one weekend. I don't feel like it messed me up at all. As far as the internet, we had to wait long hours for a few nude pics, so it was nothing that really was very exciting for very long. We would just go outside and play basketball or jump on the IRC chat and hope to find some local girls. (It actually happened a few times).

I think the big thing now is that there is SO MUCH OF IT. Even with the little that I saw, the whole sexual idea and experience was still exotic, exciting. I wonder now if teenagers already have seen and know so much that it's becomes cheapened and unexciting. Of little importance. Though this may just be conjecture as I don't have the libido of a 16 year old male anymore, and sex got regular some time ago for me anyway, just as any experience. (Getting drunk, getting high, they all lose their fun after a while.)

While I'm not happy in the direction this issue has gone, I don't think it's nearly the problem that you seem to think it is. Besides religious grounds, why do you feel it is so destructive, and more importantly how is it different than anything humans have done over the ages to get their fix anyway?

[GP_Matt]

Originally Posted by Textcritic

I think in answer to your question that I would argue that fewer marriages are probably better overall, but only in combination with a dramatic increase in more responsible sexual activity.

I have to disagree completely with the above. Even though I know from history that disagreeing with Textcritic rarely works out well.

Our society is designed around a two person team. So many aspects of life are easier when you have a partner to help and support you. Living on your own is far more costly than living with a partner. Two individuals living in single small apartment will spend less money on the basics than two individuals living in separate accommodations. Buying a house will be easier with two incomes. Even if only one person is working I think it is still safe to say that the person with support will have more opportunities to succeed at work if they have someone at home to help out with the other aspects of life (cooking, cleaning, shopping, social events).

Marriage provides a permanency and stability that allows people to plan for the future. I think that a model of reduced marriage with random safe couplings would place a far greater burden on the individual and would lead to a more cut throat, me-first society.

I know that there will be a ton of examples of single people who succeeded and their married counterparts who didn't as a direct result of their relationship status but on the whole I think it holds true.

Extrapolating what I have said would lead to the obvious conclusion that if two is better than one then three must be better than two (see polyamory above). I would hazard a guess that the statement is correct except that society has had thousands of years to work out the dynamics of a two person relationship. If you can make a threesome work though you would probably be ahead of the game. At some point though the benefit of increased people will be lost by the reduced productivity inherent in a collective (see downfall of communism).

[Textcritic]

Originally Posted by MRCboicgy

...My personal opinion is that it is too easy to access, can lead to true addictions and creates unrealistic expectations. Hitting on the second point, I think it does hurt families. Again, without a religious view my mother always taught me to work on controlling my thoughts, because no action or desire just happens, there's always a thought first. I think that aligns with the lust aspect you mention in a way.

This assertion on its own convinces me that there is indeed a societal component to this discussion that illustrates the disconnect in so-called family values. Look at it again with a change in the subject:

Originally Posted by MRCboicgy

...My personal opinion is that alcohol / tobacco is too easy to access, can lead to true addictions and creates unrealistic expectations. Hitting on the second point, I think it does hurt families. Again, without a religious view my mother always taught me to work on controlling my drinking / smoking, because no action or desire just happens, there's always a thought first.

[Thor]

Just on my way to work, but recently more research has supported the idea that addiction to online porn is a growing problem, not only skewing human sexuality in people but having the same affects as other addictions.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pornography_addiction

[Textcritic]

Originally Posted by GP_Matt

Our society is designed around a two person team. So many aspects of life are easier when you have a partner to help and support you. Living on your own is far more costly than living with a partner. Two individuals living in single small apartment will spend less money on the basics than two individuals living in separate accommodations. Buying a house will be easier with two incomes. Even if only one person is working I think it is still safe to say that the person with support will have more opportunities to succeed at work if they have someone at home to help out with the other aspects of life (cooking, cleaning, shopping, social events).

I can't disagree with any of that, but I think that one could reasonably counter that all of these needs do not presuppose "marriage" as we understand it. Furthermore, if all of this is true, then how much easier would life be with two partners? Three? A dozen?

Originally Posted by GP_Matt

Marriage provides a permanency and stability that allows people to plan for the future. I think that a model of reduced marriage with random safe couplings would place a far greater burden on the individual and would lead to a more cut throat, me-first society.

The model I had in mind was not one of "random safe coupling". When I suggested a "dramatic increase in more responsible sexual activity" this includes in my mind either a much higher awareness of the sensitive emotional attachment to sex, or a progressive move away from so closely aligning the two. Moving back to your first paragraph, and reflecting off the cuff from the polyamorous FAQ that Itse posted, would not a construction of a web of relationships within a non-manogamous context prove to be much more effective in addressing the needs you pointed out? I'm thinking at the moment of the last line in the movie About a Boy...

It takes a village.

[woob]

Hey Text - Just popping in to see if you can update this thread, now that I presume you're all settled in. That is all.

[troutman]

Originally Posted by GP_Matt

Our society is designed around a two person team. So many aspects of life are easier when you have a partner to help and support you. Living on your own is far more costly than living with a partner. Two individuals living in single small apartment will spend less money on the basics than two individuals living in separate accommodations. Buying a house will be easier with two incomes. Even if only one person is working I think it is still safe to say that the person with support will have more opportunities to succeed at work if they have someone at home to help out with the other aspects of life (cooking, cleaning, shopping, social events).

I think this might be a relatively recent development in human history. Before that, I think humans lived and raised families communally. I'd be interested to see more anthropological research on this topic.

'Sex at Dawn: The Prehistoric Origins of Modern Sexuality'

Forget what you think you know about the origin of species. "Sex at Dawn" sets out to prove that our prehistoric ancestors were happy and healthy, thanks in no small part to lots of egalitarian, polyamorous, noisy group sex.

http://www.thedailybeast.com/newswee...sexuality.html

The survival benefits were immense: since there was no way of telling who fathered which child, children were raised by the community of foragers rather than single monogamous pairs. Everyone had lots of orgasms (women most of all). Women weren’t used as property or bartering chips, which led to more equality between the genders. That’s why men today are more interested in pornography featuring group sex scenes with multiple men and one woman, and why many people have a hard time staying faithful. It’s just not natural. Whew!

[GirlySports]

I heard once (maybe in a book or podcast, can't remember) that in tribal times thousands of years ago, it was about community. Women would sleep with many men to create a 'sperm race'. The best and strongest sperm would win the race and thus create the best and strongest child. The child would then be raised by the entire community as a collective.
In fact women would make loud noises during sex to attract other men to her (seeing that she was enjoying it). I guess incest didn't matter back then.

It's interesting to me that today's society it is totally opposite. Women are not supposed to enjoy sex or attract many men. I know it's more open in the western world but women are still stigmatized as sluts or someone's 'old shoes' (a common chinese expresion).

I wonder how, where, when and what caused to shift from one extreme to another.

[Daradon]

Originally Posted by GirlySports

I heard once (maybe in a book or podcast, can't remember) that in tribal times thousands of years ago, it was about community. Women would sleep with many men to create a 'sperm race'. The best and strongest sperm would win the race and thus create the best and strongest child. The child would then be raised by the entire community as a collective.
In fact women would make loud noises during sex to attract other men to her (seeing that she was enjoying it). I guess incest didn't matter back then.

It's interesting to me that today's society it is totally opposite. Women are not supposed to enjoy sex or attract many men. I know it's more open in the western world but women are still stigmatized as sluts or someone's 'old shoes' (a common chinese expresion).

I wonder how, where, when and what caused to shift from one extreme to another.

Monotheistic and organized religion. And it wasn't all about controlling the women either. Those at the top end of the power structures found out you could control the men, by controlling the women. Basically by controlling the sexuality of a culture. If a man is getting the sex he desires, he doesn't really care about too much else. If you take that away from him you can get him to go to war, follow your lead, engage in behaviors that you want him to.

Course the women had to pay the worst prices of this.

[GirlySports]

Yes however women are the worse culprits of this as well now. My mom for example frowned on me forever. When she approved or disapproved of a wife for my brother, it was also based on virginity.

And we're not religious.

[Daradon]

Originally Posted by GirlySports

Yes however women are the worse culprits of this as well now. My mom for example frowned on me forever. When she approved or disapproved of a wife for my brother, it was also based on virginity.

And we're not religious.

Fair enough, but it's probably safe to say that your culture (which is where her feelings come from I would think) adopted that somewhere from those beginnings. A lot of people practice the same behaviors and dynamics your family does from long standing cultural beliefs or traditions (even if they don't view or understand them as such) without ever knowing where they came from.

Old world European family (Eastern usually) often have the same type of mothers.

[Russic]

Originally Posted by Daradon

Well this bolded part is pretty far off base. I'd like to see some statistics about it. The primary cause for divorce (and overall marital discord) is money or money problems. Second is adultery, but just how much effect pornography has on that, I do not know, but I have never heard about it being a major factor.

...

I'm going to have to agree with this. I've seen a lot of people divorce, but I can't say a single one ever deemed porn as a cause in any way. I think it is understandable that an unhappy marriage leads to a sexless marriage which leads to pornography. To say pornography is the culprit there is odd reasoning. As always, I'd be happy to eat crow if statistics showed otherwise, but I think the current stats we have point to Daradon's statement ($).

[FlamesAddiction]

Originally Posted by GirlySports

I heard once (maybe in a book or podcast, can't remember) that in tribal times thousands of years ago, it was about community. Women would sleep with many men to create a 'sperm race'. The best and strongest sperm would win the race and thus create the best and strongest child. The child would then be raised by the entire community as a collective.
In fact women would make loud noises during sex to attract other men to her (seeing that she was enjoying it). I guess incest didn't matter back then.

It's interesting to me that today's society it is totally opposite. Women are not supposed to enjoy sex or attract many men. I know it's more open in the western world but women are still stigmatized as sluts or someone's 'old shoes' (a common chinese expresion).

I wonder how, where, when and what caused to shift from one extreme to another.

Keep in mind though that back in those days, there was a lopsided demographic between males and females. Men often died earlier as a result warring and hunting (which was very dangerous in tribal societies). Communities tended to have way more women than men and in order to keep them all reproducing and the community growing, men would be expected to impregnate many females (something else that is frowned upon in modern western society). It's not just females that are being restricted sexually against their biological evolution due to societal changes.

[Joborule]

Originally Posted by Russic

I'm going to have to agree with this. I've seen a lot of people divorce, but I can't say a single one ever deemed porn as a cause in any way. I think it is understandable that an unhappy marriage leads to a sexless marriage which leads to pornography. To say pornography is the culprit there is odd reasoning. As always, I'd be happy to eat crow if statistics showed otherwise, but I think the current stats we have point to Daradon's statement ($).

That's my viewpoint. In my mind porn is an art, and just a source of entertainment like movies, but with more pleasure involved like video games. While sex has been a big deal in all of mankind much like wealth, I don't believe porn can be considered a big contributor in vices dividing relationships within society.

People can do or do without porn, since it doesn't effect someone living, unless it reaches extreme levels. Money has a much bigger impact in our lives since that effects standard of living, and the foundations of relationships.

Good topic though Text. Some good posts in here.

[GirlySports]

Originally Posted by Joborule

That's my viewpoint. In my mind porn is an art, and just a source of entertainment like movies, but with more pleasure involved like video games. While sex has been a big deal in all of mankind much like wealth, I don't believe porn can be considered a big contributor in vices dividing relationships within society.

People can do or do without porn, since it doesn't effect someone living, unless it reaches extreme levels. Money has a much bigger impact in our lives since that effects standard of living, and the foundations of relationships.

Good topic though Text. Some good posts in here.

Yes, unless the porn replaces sex with the wife.

I think it also comes down to sexual compatibility. In a monogamous relationship, if one person has more of a sex drive than the other, there's going to be problems no matter what.

[polak]

I don't know why religious text was included in this?

It's one thing to discuss whether pornography is having a negative impact on society and it's another to discuss whether it's having an impact on what a religion deems the ideal society should be like.

The day religious beliefs no longer guide what is "acceptable" or "correct" for our society, will be the day we inch closer to getting rid of hate and discrimination in this world.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by MRCboicgy

Taking the Biblical discussion out of it - there was a recent study in the UK (not going to Google it here at work...ha) that found that most kids <15 have easy access to hardcore stuff and the researchers found that once they reached the 18-21 stage, they were having more trouble performing.

My personal opinion is that it is too easy to access, can lead to true addictions and creates unrealistic expectations. Hitting on the second point, I think it does hurt families. Again, without a religious view my mother always taught me to work on controlling my thoughts, because no action or desire just happens, there's always a thought first. I think that aligns with the lust aspect you mention in a way.

I think a lot of parents don't know how to deal with it. I see this among some of the 'social' conservative friends I have. The 'talk' has to consist of an explanation of what pornography is, and how a lack of self control can lead to problems down the road. Otherwise kids will just figure it out themselves, and by that time it may be too late.

Hell, I wonder if some parents actually bother talking to their children about sex at all.

[octothorp]

Originally Posted by troutman

I think this might be a relatively recent development in human history. Before that, I think humans lived and raised families communally. I'd be interested to see more anthropological research on this topic.

'Sex at Dawn: The Prehistoric Origins of Modern Sexuality'

Forget what you think you know about the origin of species. "Sex at Dawn" sets out to prove that our prehistoric ancestors were happy and healthy, thanks in no small part to lots of egalitarian, polyamorous, noisy group sex.

http://www.thedailybeast.com/newswee...sexuality.html

The survival benefits were immense: since there was no way of telling who fathered which child, children were raised by the community of foragers rather than single monogamous pairs. Everyone had lots of orgasms (women most of all). Women weren’t used as property or bartering chips, which led to more equality between the genders. That’s why men today are more interested in pornography featuring group sex scenes with multiple men and one woman, and why many people have a hard time staying faithful. It’s just not natural. Whew!

I haven't read this book, but I have taken some social anthropology classes, and I don't really buy what they're selling. (If you've read it, I'd love to hear more detail on this point.) The argument that we were sexually most like the bonobo doesn't really hold up, because we've evolved to be pretty different where it matters most:
Bonobos have the largest phallus-to-mass ratio of any ape, because their orgy style of reproduction meant that larger phalluses were of great reproductive benefit (basically, whoever can get in furthest has the best chance of having his genetic material passed on). By contrast, in gorilla society, where there's no chance for such selection, and little chance for females to execute choice, phalluses are completely minuscule. Humans fit somewhere in the middle in terms of phallus-to-mass ratio, but are actually adapted to be quite different from any other primate: we lack the phallic bone that other primates have, making us somewhat more bendy, and we are relatively girthy compared to other primates. Both the added girth and flexibility suggest that there is some element of female selection and a modest amount of competition (more than gorillas, less than chimps and bonobos). Essentially, what we see in society today. When you're looking at the evolutionary record, it's important not to focus on what's the same across related species (as these may be vestigial devices in some species), but what's different, because differences are always a response to change and don't happen randomly.
I think there's certainly a strong argument to be made that many primitive societies used communal care-giving approaches and less formal male-female relationships and certainly there probably have been some societies that have been more free-loving in their mating, but the evolutionary record just doesn't suggest that a bonobo-style mating system was ever a part of our history.

Although I think that the whole argument is moot, because it attempts to use historical record to explain what is 'natural'. That somehow, what our ancient ancestors did was somehow superior than the behaviours that our more puritan recent ancestors held. (Not sure if that's the message of the book, but that's certainly the tone of the review.)

[Daradon]

^^^ Not sure which theory I agree with more, yours or the ones you argue against, but a great read nonetheless! Very interesting.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by Russic

I'm going to have to agree with this. I've seen a lot of people divorce, but I can't say a single one ever deemed porn as a cause in any way. I think it is understandable that an unhappy marriage leads to a sexless marriage which leads to pornography. To say pornography is the culprit there is odd reasoning. As always, I'd be happy to eat crow if statistics showed otherwise, but I think the current stats we have point to Daradon's statement ($).

I would venture a guess that for a lot of couples where 'pornography' is or has become a problem, the couple can tend to work it out, but that isn't the cause with adultery or financial problems.