Humor will not be tolerated!! -Portia

Again, it depends on your definition of addiction. By definition, porn/masturbation will not increase your dopamine levels outside a "normal" range since normal here is defined as anything caused by internal sources. And Yarjka, we need to look at the whole set of circumstances and patterns surrounding your behavior. Did you look at porn as a coping mechanism for struggles in your daily life? Was there a desire to quit, but a struggle in doing so (you already answered this question?) Did it disrupt your other activities or distort your view of reality? Was there compulsive behavior around it to keep it secret, including lying? You say you looked at porn for several hours every day, and then list a half dozen other things that you were "addicted" to. How does the time frame compare? It can't have been similar, as there is not 48+ hours in a day. If we assume a minimum of 7 for school and 6 or 7 for sleep (being a teenager, my guess is you slept more than that) that leaves 10 or so hours in a day.

When we speak in absolutes, the truth is often lost in the mix. To say that anyone who looks at porn, or even who looks at it for a prolonged period of time, will become addicted, is an absolute. To say that no person can ever become addicted to porn, that is also an absolute. There is one absolute that I think is accurate, in this instance, however. And that is that any pornography necessarily depicts relationships in an abstract way that over time becomes toxic to one's perspective of relationships as they ought to be.

Marduk wrote:Again, it depends on your definition of addiction. By definition, porn/masturbation will not increase your dopamine levels outside a "normal" range since normal here is defined as anything caused by internal sources. And Yarjka, we need to look at the whole set of circumstances and patterns surrounding your behavior. Did you look at porn as a coping mechanism for struggles in your daily life? Was there a desire to quit, but a struggle in doing so (you already answered this question?) Did it disrupt your other activities or distort your view of reality? Was there compulsive behavior around it to keep it secret, including lying? You say you looked at porn for several hours every day, and then list a half dozen other things that you were "addicted" to. How does the time frame compare? It can't have been similar, as there is not 48+ hours in a day. If we assume a minimum of 7 for school and 6 or 7 for sleep (being a teenager, my guess is you slept more than that) that leaves 10 or so hours in a day.

Well, I'd rather not have a complete diagnosis on a semi-public forum, but yes, I'd say most of those criteria apply. As far as how I found time for it, I'd say it went in streaks--so while I was viewing porn at least a little bit each day, some weeks it would be several hours each day, and other days it would be only ten or fifteen minutes a day. And that would be the case with the other activities I listed as "addictions." There were certainly many nights I stayed up past sunrise and simply lost sleep--sometimes to view porn, sometimes to read, and sometimes to watch movies or do homework.

Marduk wrote:And that is that any pornography necessarily depicts relationships in an abstract way that over time becomes toxic to one's perspective of relationships as they ought to be.

I'd say this actually depends on what kind of porn you're talking about. When I say I looked at porn, I don't mean I watched hardcore sex videos depicting rape or obscure sexual positions (although I've certainly encountered such media, and can't say I instantly turned away). I primarily viewed images of nude women and then fantasized on my own from there. I'd scour the internet collecting images of particular models and categorizing them on my computer--something I've seen described as compulsive behavior in articles about pornography addiction. But I always considered these models to be real people portraying themselves in a certain way for an audience's enjoyment--they didn't exist solely in some abstract realm apart from reality, at least not for me.

I've had this same discussion with my wife--she can't stand to view violence in movies. For her, it makes her sick because she actually can't differentiate between that violence and blood and the violence and blood of real life. Whereas for me, that blood and violence in a movie, no matter how realistic looking, is always fake. I can see that it is artifice presented to provoke a response from me. I can see how porn can be toxic for people to view regularly, I just don't believe that porn is necessarily toxic to one's perspective of relationships.

I agree. I was reading scientific american mind, that had an article about porn, and it's not some huge terrible thing for some people (like alcohol?). In fact, the people who tried to supress their desires actually had a harder time with stopping their porn usage.

I'm going to avoid defining the term addiction since I am not a psychologist or psychiatrist. And I'm only 6% of the way through med school and we haven't gotten to addiction yet. I will just say that I don't dispute the idea that pornography use can become a compulsion or at least a negative coping mechanism for some people who use it. But not for everyone. And I think that it can be very damaging to label someone as an addict when they are not. I worry that a lot of the things we say about porn in the church (I don't necessarily mean that the church teaches these things, but the ideas I'm about to mention are certainly endemic in the way church culture talks about porn use) become self-fulfilling prophecies. I think that sometimes it ruins people's marriages because they are told that it will, and when you are expecting the worst it can cause you to act in ways that ensure a negative outcome. Certainly pornography can ruin marriages, but it doesn't have to. It is not inevitable. Another self-fulfilling prophecy is the statement that if you see porn once, you will become addicted. Curious teenager see picture of naked lady, feels guilty because looking at porn one time is supposed to cause addiction, feels that addiction is inevitable, keeps looking at naked ladies, it becomes a compulsion. Or curious teenager looks at picture of naked lady, thinks this means he is addicted to porn, confesses to bishop that he is addicted to porn, is labelled as an addict, feels he is unworthy to go on a mission, feels like he has to make a big confession about his "addiction" to every girl he tries to date, etc. I'm not denying that porn can be harmful, but I think that the fear and secrecy and shame is just as harmful.

Porn is like Lord Voldemort. We have to confront it and not be afraid to say its name and talk about it honestly and without sensationalizing if we want to lessen its power.

So, it sounds like most people here agree that porn usage, especially when compulsive, can be harmful. Is that accurate? Or is there still anyone giving the argument of "everyone does it and it is absolutely normal in every way?"

Marduk - I don't think that porn is inherently harmful (excluding child pornography, which exploits children), but I do recognize that any compulsive behavior has the potential to be harmful - whether that be a compulsion to look at naked women online or to eat a whole tub of ice cream when you're depressed. I don't think that "everyone does it," but to me, people who look at porn are just as "normal" as people who don't. I guess I see it more as an expression of sexual preference or sexuality than as a judgement on how "normal" someone is. Does that make any sense?

My point isn't to describe the behavior as deviant (outside of religious cultures, I think it is as normal as say, drinking alcohol) rather, my point is to say that its tendency to become compulsive is the harm. Speaking of which, alcohol is a good analogy for the point I'm trying to make. An alarming percentage of people who drink alcohol are alcoholics. Not all, not most, not even a majority. But some. For them, it is devastating. Even among those who aren't addicts, some do it to excess or make stupid and harmful decisions while drinking. And then there are many, probably the majority, for whom it isn't really ever that big of a deal, it is just something they do. But to use the last group as a justification to ignore the first two groups is intensely problematic.

And I disagree with saying that compulsive behavior "has the potential to be harmful" - I think by its nature it alters our decision making in a way that is unhealthy.

UnluckyStuntman wrote:Marduk - I don't think that porn is inherently harmful (excluding child pornography, which exploits children)

I'm intrigued at this thought. At what point is the distinction made defining child pornography? Under 18, as the US defines it? oftentimes looking at our boundaries we can gain insights into the whys of our thinking. Once defined, what is it about our boundaries that makes the same thing 'safe' for one set, and 'exploitation' of the other?

Tao wrote:I'm intrigued at this thought. At what point is the distinction made defining child pornography? Under 18, as the US defines it? oftentimes looking at our boundaries we can gain insights into the whys of our thinking. Once defined, what is it about our boundaries that makes the same thing 'safe' for one set, and 'exploitation' of the other?

Heh. If I understand correctly (and my understanding is based entirely on a news story that was posted on Slashdot, so I may not), Australia recently passed a law that includes erotic images of small-busted women as child pornography, regardless of their age or any other circumstances. I remember another story (again, on Slashdot) that raised the issue of computer-generated pornography. I never knew that defining pornography was that complicated... Anyway, what do these things say about boundaries and the whys of thinking?

oh, yeah, if you take a picture of yourself naked and then look at it after you're 18, it's practically illegal

Whistler wrote:oh, yeah, if you take a picture of yourself naked and then look at it after you're 18, it's practically illegal

This is a great point. If I took a collection of pictures of myself as a child, and then as an adult I decide I want to publish those pictures, I would be breaking the law (unless I can claim artistic purposes, then I believe there are some loopholes). There is clearly more involved with the proscriptions against child pornography than the welfare of the child involved. I think we as a society simply don't want to perpetuate the sexualization of children (although I think our tolerance for this is becoming less strict). This is the same reason people who have sex with minors still come under trial even if that minor as an adult says they don't want to press charges (I don't know all the details of the Roman Polanski case, but I believe that is what is going on there).

If you look at the current child pornography and sex offender laws, there are several situations that seem overly harsh or unfair. I have a relative who is in prison for child pornography--but I completely believe him when he says he has never looked at it. He had downloaded several files of pornography from websites, and they did contain child pornography on them. That is a stupid move, for sure, but I'm not sure it validates prison time. The trouble is, when faced with these charges, you have to accept a plea because the penalty if you are found guilty is so extremely harsh that it's not worth the risk. (I should add that I don't know the ins and outs of his case--I know illegal drug use and possession were involved, and probably had more to do with his judgment than anything else. I think they simply used the child pornography found on his computer as a lynchpin to secure his confession).

But perhaps this is simply derailing the topic. If you're against pornography in general, then of course you're against child pornography as well, so the case is practically moot.

Yarjka wrote:But perhaps this is simply derailing the topic. If you're against pornography in general, then of course you're against child pornography as well, so the case is practically moot.

Aye, but the reverse case is where things get interesting. If someone is ok with pornography but not child pornography, does this represent a flaw in their logic? And if so, does that conclusion affect our actions concerning US law; which seems to espouse that very idea?

Tao wrote:

Yarjka wrote:But perhaps this is simply derailing the topic. If you're against pornography in general, then of course you're against child pornography as well, so the case is practically moot.

Aye, but the reverse case is where things get interesting. If someone is ok with pornography but not child pornography, does this represent a flaw in their logic? And if so, does that conclusion affect our actions concerning US law; which seems to espouse that very idea?

It would be logically consistent if child pornography were A and pornography were B as in the following image:

But more likely especially when two or more humans are trying to feel out and agree upon the boundary line your Venn Diagram will look more like this:

Digit, I find that.... less than helpful.

As someone who is fascinated by tricky legal situations, I'd just like to point out the legal statute in two instances with regards to child pornography: one, it is not illegal if they are computer generated images, and two, it is not illegal if it is simply literature involving underage individuals.

This, of course, makes sense from the point of view of exploitation; one cannot claim that individuals are being exploited if there is no real individual involved.

I guess the main thesis of my last post on this thread is that finding the absolute border of a legal distinction is a little like finding the end of a rainbow. No matter where you draw the line, someone will probably be able to persuasively argue that the line should actually be drawn just one half of a decillionth of a femtometer off of where you drew it, and when you concede and draw the line there, the same again.
I would agree with your argument regarding computer-generated images in pretty much all realistic cases, but to make my point about the problem with taking things to their logical extremes, imagine two guys, Jim and John who have never met. Jim is the most skilled graphic artist in the world. One day, Jim crafted a JPG purely out of his mind of a picture of a naked 5-year-old boy, and he had a video camera on him as he was making it and a bunch of witnesses, so he can really prove that he made that photo-realistic image. The image is digitally identical down to every '1' and '0' to a JPG from the digital camera of a picture John took of a real 5-year-old boy. Should John be prosecuted and Jim not?

Digit wrote:I would agree with your argument regarding computer-generated images in pretty much all realistic cases, but to make my point about the problem with taking things to their logical extremes, imagine two guys, Jim and John who have never met. Jim is the most skilled graphic artist in the world. One day, Jim crafted a JPG purely out of his mind of a picture of a naked 5-year-old boy, and he had a video camera on him as he was making it and a bunch of witnesses, so he can really prove that he made that photo-realistic image. The image is digitally identical down to every '1' and '0' to a JPG from the digital camera of a picture John took of a real 5-year-old boy. Should John be prosecuted and Jim not?

Which is exactly why the discussion has merit. If pornography is outlawed in any form, it is assumed such an action is for a reason. Child pornography in particular has strict laws, and it would seem from previous posts, severe enforcement of such. If regulation is due to harm of the child(ren) depicted, then your hypothetical is easily answered. But if your hypothetical does not have an easy answer, then there must be some harm or predilection toward harm done to the viewer; which is rather significant to this thread. (err, at least to the pornography part of the thread)

If harm or predilection thereunto is incurred due to viewing child pornography, is there something unique to the medium that causes such harm, or is it general to all pornography? Is this harm an indelible impression upon the viewer, self-sustaining as an addiction, or simply a solitary impact that is nevertheless negative enough to merit legal action?

I'm okay with adults having consensual sex, but a child can't give consent, so, yeah, seems unambiguously morally wrong for a child to be exploited by an adult for pornography!! Is this honestly at issue? Women are neither minors nor legally incompetent. If i wanted to earn money fulming some sex scenes (hint:i dont) that would be my choice. Children cant and ought not to be in such situations... i see no logical contradiction. There's a big ol chasm between permissiveness ans just plain perviness

Age of consent in many -actually most - states is 16, so I don't think it is as unambiguous as you think.

So Portia, every 18 year old everywhere is intellectually and emotionally capable of making that choice, but no 17 year old anywhere is intellectually and emotionally capable of making the same choice?

Portia wrote:I'm okay with adults having consensual sex, but a child can't give consent, so, yeah, seems unambiguously morally wrong for a child to be exploited by an adult for pornography!! Is this honestly at issue? Women are neither minors nor legally incompetent. If i wanted to earn money fulming some sex scenes (hint:i dont) that would be my choice. Children cant and ought not to be in such situations... i see no logical contradiction. There's a big ol chasm between permissiveness ans just plain perviness

You're assuming that it's only exploiting the people who are filmed in the pornographic scene. That's just not true. That's like saying that as long as a person is an adult, they should be able to smoke anywhere because they are old enough to make the decision, completely ignoring the effects of secondhand smoke. Pornography harms more than just the people making the film. It harms people who watch the film and those who don't even watch the film. It objectifies women. It tells them and the world that they are only good if they are sex toys. It's crushing to women who can no longer measure up sexually for their husbands because pornography has set unrealistically high expectations. In my opinion, that's why all pornography is dangerous, not just child pornography.