One of the only true hipster classics:

My mistake; I made my comment without much forethought. If only there were a delete button here...

But, I did make the comment with a general feeling for philosophical thought being more acceptable within contemporary Catholicism, vs. contemporary Protestantism. My bias, of course, but take it or leave it.

Ironically, there's arguably more Catholic Christians who have contributed to philosophy than most other forms of Christianity (Tieilard de Chardin, Maritain, MacIntyre)...

In cases of exploitation and coercion and suchlike (in more of a legal sense - some people will no doubt simply and loosely bandy around such emotive terms as labels to slap on to the target of their moral indignation), then sure, that's wrong. But these cases are a small minority and an exception; they are dealt with by the authorities; and besides such cases, I don't really see it as a problem. It's their career choice, they're getting paid, and lots of people get satisfaction from it. — Sapientia

What stats or studies can you provide to illustrate that cases of exploitation are "a small minority and an exception"?

I don't buy this "objectification" (treating people as a means to an end) objection either. For those who are dumb enough to start thinking that porn means that you can rightly treat just about anyone in similar ways outside of that context, without due consideration, then yes, that is of course a problem. But we should no less desire that publication of porn be shut down or severely limited/censored than we should desire that publication of media which contains violence or other forms of abuse, such as films and videogames, be shut down or severely limited/censored. I don't think a prudish, moralistic, Mary Whitehouse type attitude is the right one. — Sapientia

Ironically, since we're on a philosophy forum, the immediate question isn't actually about whether any law should or shouldn't be imposed about porn, which seems to be the main concern of most of the posters here who seem to be in favor of porn. As someone concerned about porn, my concern is exactly that "objectification" you speak of. Allow porn legally, till the cows come home, please. I'm in favor. It's not a matter of legislation. But from a philosophical perspective? Porn does objectify sexuality in a way that can be exceedingly harmful to human nature.

What exactly does sexual objectification mean? It means the subject (the porn viewer) takes another subject (the porn actor) and makes that subject (the actor) into an object of desire, or sexual fulfillment by way of the viewers own sexual motives, without concern for the motives of the sexual object (the actor). In other words, there's no way to know the true sexual motives of the actor, through the medium of a computer screen, not least of all because porn is, at the end of things, an act, not an accurate portrayal of the sexuality of the actor (excluding amateur porn). It's so obvious that it's stupid to say, but sexual consent within porn only and always exists through a disjointed medium of the actor consenting via monetary gain, and the viewer consenting through their own sex drive. How is this different from prostitution? Not by any definitional distinction, surely. So, within internet porn specifically, there is no mediate connection between actor and viewer. There is no ontological line between consent and prostitution (or in worse cases, rape) within the context of porn. Viewing porn is a form of voyeuristic prostitution (or at worst, rape), and there's no clear way to discern which is which, other than one's own intuition with regards to the body language of the porn actors within a given scene, which are often hard to read.

Now, who is the porn actor? The porn actor is an equal to the porn viewer, philosophically: They are both free individuals engaged in an act, but only theoretically. In context, however, the porn actor becomes subservient to the desires of the viewer (and more immediately, in initial context) the director of the film. And in this way, the viewer becomes subservient to the actor via seduction. So, the porn actor serves the same purpose as the stripper in the strip club. The porn actor is objectified in the same manner as the club stripper. The further masquerade that porn provides for us is that the actors are enjoying it, and we get more details of the farce than we used to when the strip club was all we had. Anyone with half a wits knowledge on female sexuality can dimwittedly discern that the large majority of female porn actors are not deriving very much real sexual pleasure from their work. Sure, "lesbian" porn actors (how many of them are truly lesbians, sexually?) may derive pleasure form the know-how of another woman, but this is a single category in the ever-burgeoning categories of the major porn sites, which continue to abstract themselves further and further away from any semblance of normal sexual expression, and continue to emphasize the desires of the heterosexual male. All of this emphasizes the objectification of a misguided view of female sexuality within the process of porn production, purely for the sake of the heterosexual male. Female porn actors may be willingly subjecting themselves to a sexual experience that they don't find gratifying for the sake of making a paycheck, but what toll does this take on them themselves, the actors who derive no real fulfillment form their work? And how is this different than prostitution? If a female actor is willing to make thousands of dollars on single porn scenes, without actually enjoying the work, what does this say about the gap between vocational fulfillment and monetary gain?

So in other words, sexual objectification obtains through the process of the perpetrator (the porn viewer) gaining sexual fulfillment through the victim's (the porn actor's) consent or non-consent to performing a sexual act solely for the benefit of the perpetrator (the porn viewer), and not with any real regard for the sexual pleasure of the victim (the porn actor); the victim (porn actor) only achieves compensation through a monetary gain: i.e. prostitution.

There are no terms. — TheWillowOfDarkness

And philosophy falls apart, along with your following post.

Well, in a Protestant, evangelical understanding, having a relationship with God means communicating to him through prayer, and listening for his communication through reading Scripture. So it's more literal in that sense.

So historically, it's emphasis grew out of revivalism in the US in the 19th century. The Evangelical denomination is descended from revivalism.

I mean, you can't say all here; like I said, it's a pretty modern concept to have a "personal relationship" with God. That was not a concept from Jesus time, through the middle ages, the great schism, the reformation. It's not a big element in Eastern Orthodoxy, for instance. It does exist in the Pentecostal church, yes, which is a very modern denomination. I'm not too familiar with Catholicism, so I'm not sure, but again, it certainly can't be historically an aspect of Catholicism. Maybe they've adopted it now; I wouldn't know. So no, all Christians have not historically had that view, but nowadays, I would venture to say all evangelical Christians do (it's the basis of evangelism afterall). It's emphasis in other protestant denominations varies. And again, most of those denominations are pretty modern.

That's plausible, but I don't think the idea of personal relationship really took hold until the 20th century. Which kind of debunks my previous thought as well. Or, maybe both things and other factors influenced the change.

All I'll say is that intuition can be impressively powerful, but it mustn't be blindly trusted. — VagabondSpectre

Why not say the same thing of empirical observation?

It sounds like you're saying that religious or spiritual beliefs (and their inner life) are required for moral claims to flourish, and that the spiritual poverty of today is the cause of today's moral failings, but the past was actually no morally superior to the present by any metric. The further back you go the more spiritual things seem to get, but also the more you tend to see widespread "moral failings". Is there a context that I'm missing? — VagabondSpectre

That's certainly true, there's no moral evolution per se. But I think we're dealing with different kinds of moral failings now. Less barbarous and more cunning, so to speak. The older, more spiritual world seems less dependent on reason, and we can almost smell the blood sacrifices of the holy. A brutal and barbarous world, no doubt, but one swimming in Meaning. Now we live in a world predicated on civility, thanks to sciences offspring (technology) which allows us to live a less barbarous, more reasonable life, but the human condition (the lack), still presents itself, just in a more cunning, subversive way. See "fake news" and our apathy and inability to personally do anything about it. Fake news is almost the grand culmination of postmodernity and the loss of Meaning, and it's hard to say whether it's a comedy or a tragedy. We live in a different milieu of moral failing, but we have the cloak of civility. Blake says "Pride is shame's cloak", and we could say "civility is barbarity's cloak".

So, to be very clear, I'm not suggesting we should revert back to the barbarous times of a spiritual milieu. (impossible to do anyway, unless we find ourselves in a post-apocalyptic wasteland anytime soon, which I don't rule out). I'm just describing what I see as the change from an inner spiritual life, to a poverty of spiritual life, and the changes that occur. This change is even mirrored in the very common experience (at least in the US) of the child growing up in the church "losing her faith" in the 21st century. The microcosm reflects the macrocosm.

So we need to separate out atheism from my existential/moral views, and also my existential views from my moral views, because they're not predicated on one-another and are distinct aspects of my mind. — VagabondSpectre

I'll trust that you're able to do that, but I'm cautious of the idea that a separation of those views can be actual. It's certainly possible to do so in abstraction, for the sake of analyzing each, but surely each aspect of your whole view of life affects the other, whether you're aware of it or not.

A good moral tenet is like a technology that allows humans to thrive; it's like offering irrigation to a farmer, you just need to show them and they will want it. — VagabondSpectre

I think this analogy breaks down when you include the variable of human consciousness or mental health, though. Depression, suicidal tendencies, addiction, past abuse, these things inhibit the "farmer of life" from accepting "irrigation". So, predicated on that problem, your (attractively) simple approach to a moral framework wouldn't be universally effective given the state of humanity. More variables would need to be factored in, which would add complexity to the moral situation.

When it comes to my position as an agnostic atheist, I'm not actually very interested in convincing you to join me in my atheism, but I am quite interested in refuting any proof's of god that you might offer. — VagabondSpectre

Why be interested right away in refutation if soft-atheism is merely the lack of belief? Wouldn't soft-atheism entail an openness to new proofs of God that would overturn said atheism? As you say in the next sentence, your atheism is tentative.

How long should I search for the truth of god to the expense and detriment of searching for other truths (non-god related truth)? — VagabondSpectre

I'm not sure; you're free to end the search anytime you like. To be clear, I'm not here to try to convince you to pursue God, just as you say you're not here to convince me of atheism. Anyway, on days when I believe in God (tuesdays??) I'm a universalist...

I will say, though, that as far as "proofs for God", I consider it the wrong approach entirely. I actually have no interest in the classical proofs, or whatever else. The possibility of God to me is existential; it's based on existence and experience. How else can we go about an inquiry into an infinite being that exists outside of and generated the world we know? Not through empiricism, clearly. Empiricism deals with that world outside of which the eternal being would exist. This is why I find your soft-atheism unsatisfying. It's not about empirical proof. On the other hand, I'm way more sympathetic to the idea of God being unknowable. So, the God concept is only irrational insofar as it transcends rationality. The reason you find it irrational and end your inquiry there is that your inquiry seems to begin and end with rationality.

I'm not saying for certain that your creative energy doesn't come from god, but can you actually prove to a reasonable degree or persuade me that your experience did in fact come from god or the infinite and not your own subconscious mind? — VagabondSpectre

No, because I can't put you in my shoes and let you experience what I experience. This is the limit of existentialism, in a way. And I'm fine with that. I don't expect my experience to be compelling to someone who relies on rationality to determine their view of reality. I'm open to the possibility that subconscious processes are not self-contained within the mind. And as to the mechanical workings of my brain, it's less important to me than the whole canvas of my life's experiences, and how my experience of this intense form of creativity relates to all the rest of the canvas. It's a bold color among other pastels and shades. I often wonder who the artist is.

What if science and technology could offer you potentially infinite life extensions and no upper limit on your ability to increase your freedom? (ignoring that it doesn't). — VagabondSpectre

If it was accompanied by a moral evolution, then I would be interested.

I'm curious because I'm trying to understand the root of the value you place in the infinite... If infinite freedom and infinite life was your state of existence in this world, would that be a capital M source of Meaning? — VagabondSpectre

I don't blame you for trying to figure this out, because I haven't done so myself. The curse of an intuitive approach to life and philosophy. I don't have a firm structure of my philosophy in place as you do, and I'm ok with this for now. But things like infinite freedom, infinite life and Meaning all need to be predicated on a supreme moral reality, a reality that I don't think exists yet. Optimistically, I'm searching for a way for morality to evolve. Pessimistically, I'm not sure if it can. But my experience of the infinite (almost related too to Plato's "memory" thing), is a driving factor in my view of how morality could evolve. That's more of the thrust here for me, not the infinite itself. The use of the word infinite in this discussion actually came about arbitrarily in the midst of it. It's just an aspect of my view, not the goal. My discussion of the infinite was just in response to your questions about it, as far as I remember. Again, I'm not over here in my corner trying to work out how to fool God into letting me live eternally and avoid hell. If I have any fixation on the infinite, it's because of my search for a moral evolution that I find satisfying. I'm a bit of a perfectionist.

Jesus' teaching is not what most impressed contemporaries (though it impressed them somewhat. in some occasions -- not so much in other occasions). Jesus' personality is what mattered. — Mariner

That's an interesting observation. I wonder if that could be the genesis of the evangelical emphasis (fixation) on a "personal relationship with God". Almost a cult of personality in regards to Jesus.

I'm not nearly the scholar you are on those various sources, and I'm interested in learning more, but at the same time, how should religious experience be factored into interpretations of historical religious texts? After all, it must be factored in, because we're dealing with religion. So Paul, for instance, claims to have had a miraculous encounter with Jesus that turned all of Paul's allegiances on it's head. If there's truth to his experience, then a radical reinterpretation of Christ is plausible.

and that means grappling with the Judaism of his time, and how he fit into it, not how later interpreters wanted you to see him.. Remember, all the Gospels were written AFTER Paul's writings..and thus reinterpretation. — schopenhauer1

The only thing I don't understand in what you've said here is how you come to the conclusion that Jesus was basically teaching to just follow the Torah better. Does that come from historical documents, is it an interpretation, or what?

It can be either -- the Kingdom of God is within you, or the Kingdom of God is breaking into this world. — Bitter Crank

Or both! breaking into the world through the inner life of the creative spirit within you. This is actually closest to my current interpretation. So it would involve the physical world in this case, but in order for the Kingdom to also be salvific, it can't be purely social, and it can't stay within the bounds of physical reality. The Kingdom does have to transcend the physical, I think. How, exactly, I'm not sure...all just conjecture here.

others replaced by only El to become possibly Elohim (god but curiously plural)- all the gods into one universally relevant one. — schopenhauer1

Fascinating.

To me the fact that it begins with "not against flesh and blood" just signifies that it's not a physical struggle, and so then whatever comes next (principalities, etc.), must be metaphorical to refer to something spiritual. On that note, I've always interpreted the Kingdom of God as teleological. But that doesn't exclude the possibility of it existing physically. Another interesting perspective is Tolstoy's "the kingdom of God is within you", which I think is from the Gospel of Thomas or something.

It almost seems like you place all of your eggs in the basket of texts dealing with the Judaic people and religion, using it to refute the version of Jesus the early church portrayed, and yet the early Church itself is equally documented by historical texts. And the fact that the early Church didn't start solidifying it's views until a few hundred years after Jesus seems just about parallel to how the earliest texts in the OT (Genesis, Job etc) are symbolical myth, and not direct historical accounts. So in other words, both religions, Judaism and Christianity, are not generated historistically (yay I made a word).

More a revolution and an overthrowing of the establishment than a cataclysmic end of the world: "For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places (Ephesians 6:12). — Bitter Crank

But how would "principalities, powers, rules of the darkness of this world and spiritual wickedness" signify the establishment? Right at the beginning there it says "not against flesh and blood".

I was replying to Willow of Darkness saying "how is porn virtuous?"

I'm honestly having trouble parsing through what you're trying to say here. The typos are not helping either to be honest.

Why are people interested in porn? Because people are sexual creatures, and porn presents a fantasy world of sex. And a better question to begin with would be "is porn virtuous?"

The Journey is a quest to find out how to make the meaningless world ("temporal," in your words) into the meaningful one ("infinite,"in your words). — TheWillowOfDarkness

The circumstances of a spiritual journey for truth differs from person to person. For instance, I don't begin with the assumption that the world is meaningless, as you suggest here, because I don't equate the temporal with meaninglessness, as you do here.

Let's put it in context. How is it that any state of action is worthwhile? Is caring for your community only worthwhile because it'll get you eternal life? Is protecting your child only worthwhile becasue it will mean you will get to live forever? Is writing a symphony only worth it becasue it means endless life?

In every case, the answer is no. In each case, there is an important state, done for itself, which is worthwhile. They don't matter merely because they are a means to get eternal life. — TheWillowOfDarkness

I never suggested that any moral act is only good insofar as it gets you eternal life. That completely misses the point of what I'm trying to express. I need to make an important distinction here between Religion as such, and my own views. What you say is often true of the religious, but I'm not arguing from their perspective, I'm arguing from my own perspective here.

So, the relationship between morality and eternity is not "a moral life leads to immortality". It's the opposite: The eternal is one with Goodness, of which Meaning and morality are then generated. (These terms start to get hazy here). So the moral act is good because of it's prior relation to the eternal, not a future relation.

You're absolutely right that the underlying atheistic position is "dogmatic." From the point of view of religion, it's even worse than the fundamental atheists. — TheWillowOfDarkness

As someone neither religious nor atheist, I actually find this form of atheism as more level-headed than the Dawkins crowd.

To understand the world, itself, is meaningful undercuts religion on its own terms. It eliminates the "problem of Meaning" which drives The Journey and supposed need for religious belief. — TheWillowOfDarkness

You have yet to explain just exactly how the world is Meaningful from this atheistic perspective. So, the world is Meaningful on its own terms. How? In what way?

My morality stems from values I derive through experience (values which are shared by others). — VagabondSpectre

I'm fine with this, but I think the difference is that I don't stop there. I can see how this jives with your reliance on empirically observing reality. I rely more on creativity or intuition; that's what leads me to go beyond simple experience. I do really on experience, but I also drape it unto the backdrop of what my intuition tells me about reality. This is connected to the experience of the infinite, which I'll get to later as per your question.

The desire to go on living substantiates value in preserving life itself. And finally, the joy that can be found in life substantiates the value of actually living. (the last bit is more existential than moral). — VagabondSpectre

I can agree with this, if I sort of re-frame it within a mode of thinking that I've been entertaining lately. The idea of "belief in life". (yes, you may find the word belief annoying). I recently wrote this note to myself: "Belief in life means passively leaving yourself open to the possibility that life has a meaning or purpose." Along with your comment above, it's definitely a much more existential approach. The reason I call it belief is because I think it's possible to have a belief in life even within feelings of meaninglessness. I may feel no meaning in my life, but I might still believe in life. But the difference is that I won't necessarily stop there; that's not the end point. Belief leaves me open to experience in a way that can change my perspective in the future. That's why it's a passive, open stance, rather than an active, closed stance of putting the lid on the jar of meaning/truth. This is an important principle to me, especially when it comes to avoiding dogma or fundamentalism, whether religious or atheistic or otherwise.

You can say that Christianity had "don't murder" first, but that doesn't mean Christianity or some other eternal framework is required to have it make sense or be useful. — VagabondSpectre

I didn't mean it needs a Christian framework specifically. My concern is that, when religious principles are taken out of their religious or spiritual context, they lose the inner life that substantiated them. Moral claims need a rich inner life in order to flourish. We live in an age of spiritual poverty, and I think the moral failings in the world right now are a clear indicator of that inner poverty. This may or may not apply to you or me specifically, but it applies to the general state of humanity.

Since a temporary life seems to be what we've got, it's imperative we make the most of them. — VagabondSpectre

Why?

You're approaching the question of "what's the meaning of life" as if we can make sense of it from outside of the subjective human perspective. — VagabondSpectre

What I'm trying to point out, is that if life is in fact tentative, and so meaning is also, then your position needs to be equally tentative. It needs to be open to change and correction, but the way you've been arguing has been with such a firm hand that it almost feels dogmatic; I would expect your arguments to be more open and tentative if you see life and meaning in that way. You seem to be invested in convincing me of your position, for instance. Why do so if it's only tentative?

The difference seems to be that an atheistic seeking of the truth remains less open. The classic spiritual seeker, whether studying religions, committing to asceticism, philosophy, meditation, etc etc., is on a journey, and takes the position of a student. I don't get that sense from atheists who claim to be seeking the truth, rather they seem to feel that they've found it. This is what leads to atheistic dogmatism and fundamentalism. I'm not accusing you of that, but I do feel like I sense a little bit of it in your arguments. You seem very settled for one who claims to be seeking the truth.

how are you going to find the objective meaning of human life itself? — VagabondSpectre

I'm not sure yet, but I'm open to it being possible, whether in this life or no.

If I reject hell because it doesn't resonate with reality, then I've got to reject heaven too. — VagabondSpectre

Why?

Can you describe your glimpse of the infinite? — VagabondSpectre

I can give it a shot. I'm a songwriter/composer, and the best stuff I've written has been in uninterrupted 7 or 8 hour sessions, usually totally spontaneous. The feeling of not really being responsible for writing the song is real, regardless of how cliche it may be. The experience is of a real connection with a force outside of oneself; outside of one's own creative ability; it's the experience of being a conduit. The Greek understanding of time is Cronos (linear time) and Kairos (God's time). Kairos cuts into Cronos at opportune times; the infinite cuts into the temporal. I've experienced that on many occasions.

I don't know what that means though (objectivization of spirit). — VagabondSpectre

It's an idea borrowed from the Russian philosopher Nikolai Berdyaev. I personally am not married to it, but I like it. The idea is that freedom is ultimate, prior to being. From freedom springs spirit, and the physical world is a symbol, an objectivization of the spiritual world.

"Dialectic materialism in the form it has taken in Soviet Russia has been an attempt to introduce correctives into the theory of evolution and to recognize self-movement within. Thus matter was endowed with qualities of spirit, with creative activity, with freedom, and intelligence. In this way violence was done to language. A thoroughgoing transvaluation of naturalistic determinism is required. Laws of nature do not exist, laws that is, which dominate the world and man like tyrants. All that exists is a direction in the action of forces which in a given co-relation act uniformly as regards their results. A change in the direction of the forces may change the uniformity. In the primary basis of these forces there lies a spiritual principle, the noumenal. The material world is only the exteriorization and objectivization of spiritual principles. It is a process of induration, of fettering. It might be said that the laws are only the habits of the acting forces, and frequently bad habits. The triumph of new spiritual forces may change the effect of the measured tread of necessity. It may bring about creative newness." - Berdyaev, Divine and the Human

Perhaps the thinking is something like this:
I'm not sure the best world is one in which sex is treated the way it is in porn videos. Wouldn't a world in which people use sex to express their love, respect and commitment be better than our current world? — anonymous66

How would a virtue ethicist view porn? Would a virtuous person enjoy porn? (hard to see how porn promotes wisdom, courage, justice and temperance). — anonymous66

Well said.

Fine, no problem. The issue of violent porn or BDSM was tangential to the main point I've been trying to address, which is addiction. I can entertain the possibility of having an interest in those forms of porn before seeing porn. Fine, I'm just trying to underline the issue of addiction. I think I've probably worn out my welcome in this thread.

Perhaps porn addiction is the "most pressing aspect" of porn from a public health standpoint, but this isn't a public health forum: it's a philosophy forum, and there are other aspects of the topic which are salient and (IMO) interesting in their own right, apart from the issue of addiction. — Arkady

Addiction has always been relevant to the OP; he stated that there's evidence that porn is not harmful. I never directly addressed the OP, but bringing up addiction is relevant to the topic; it was a response to that part of the OP. Perhaps not the most directly philosophical aspect, no.

Consider for instance, that in 2005 (couldn't find something more recent on a super quick search), 2.5 million people in the US were treated for alcohol addiction, surely one of the oldest addictions in the world. Porn addiction is in it's infancy in terms of our recognition of it, study of it, and recommendations of treatment. So out of 200,000 plus addicts who acknowledge their problem enough to join an online community about it, combined with those who are struggling too much with the addiction to even take the step of joining a community, and those who are addicted but don't believe themselves to be...it doesn't look like that much smaller of an addiction than something like alcoholism. Sure, maybe it's not as widespread, I'm just trying to pull together some (almost non-existent) numbers here.

You seem fixated on the issue of porn addiction, to the exclusion of virtually every other consideration. There are other aspects of the topic, and I don't think they should be tossed off as "minutiae." — Arkady

But the most pressing aspect of the topic is addiction because of it's prevalence and the way it affects peoples lives. What's worse right now is there isn't much data or studies to support the obvious problem that porn addiction presents. All we have are a few studies, and anecdotal evidence from hundreds of thousands of addicts, not to mention those who haven't shared their evidence yet, or those who haven't yet acknowledged that they have a problem. This is why I'm focusing on the problem of addiction. I feel like a broken record at this point.

Good to know I'm too implausible to exist! — TheWillowOfDarkness

Lol what?

Your approach here bothers me. Why is the question of whether people might like violent pornography an issue? — TheWillowOfDarkness

I guess because it's violent?

You seem desperate to equate interest in bondage or BDSM with addiction, as if such desires or interests were nothing more than a horror generated out of porn addiction. — TheWillowOfDarkness

I don't understand how you're coming to this conclusion. Your responses don't deal with what I mentioned about what you said about escalation.

I'll pose the same question to you as to Arkady: What do you think about the possibility of porn addiction?

The possibility I suggested is that some people seek out or preferentially enjoy more violent sorts of porn, not out of an escalating addiction, but just due to their tastes. — Arkady

Fine, I can entertain the possibility, I just don't think it's important or relevant to the issue of addiction. It doesn't affect the problem of addiction in any way. I'm primarily concerned with the issue of porn addiction, and it seems like all that you and other folks here have to say about that is "sure, addiction is possible". These arguments that fixate on the minutae are distracting from the bigger issue.

What do you think about the possibility of porn addiction?

What are you talking about? I wasn't saying no-one was addicted. — TheWillowOfDarkness

You said:

Noble Dust is mistaken to say it's a question of addition. — TheWillowOfDarkness

And then proceeded to describe "issues of escalation" outside of the context of addiction, so I assumed you meant that porn isn't an addiction. Apologies for the assumption, but I'm still unsure what exactly you're arguing here. I guess it's this:

My point was people get bored of things if they are only consuming them for excitement (whether they are addicted or not), so escalation is driven by an underlying motive to attain ever increasing interest and consumption. — TheWillowOfDarkness

And I'm just not even sure why this matters. Sure, there's other instances of escalation; hotter and hotter spicy food. But to me, bringing that up in this context only obscures the issue of porn being an addiction. And it's still unclear why you think I'm mistaken to say it's a question of addiction, within the argument you then are proceeding to make.

I took issue with Noble Dust's claim that such porn exists only because of porn addiction, and suggested an alternative route whereby one might seek out such porn due to a taste for more violent fare, rather than needing a more potent "hit" to satisfy their addiction. — Arkady

The problem is that this is too theoretical. It's implausible to imagine someone who's never been exposed to porn seeing it for the first time and going "yeah, but where's the violent stuff?". It's theoretically possible that violent or more unusual forms of porn could exist without addicts who need more novelty (tolerance), sure. It's just not plausible. I'm not a psychologist, but I would imagine studying addiction is better done by analysis and observation of addicts, not posing theoretical scenarios. The problem is there isn't alot of studies like that being done yet.

I don't think so. Not everyone is watching purely for excitement. Some people would happy watch couples doing missionary every day of their whole lives, much like plenty of people develop a habit of eating the same cereal for breakfast. The why someone is watching or consuming matters.

Then for the people who do become bored, it doesn't necessarily mean they will always find it boring . After some sort of break, it may be they find watching two people just having vanilla sex is interesting (or interesting enough) again.

It's just these don't hold as great promise for ever increasing interest and market. — TheWillowOfDarkness

I don't get why you don't think it's an addiction; you're essentially describing addiction, just using slightly tamer language. Have a look at this:

https://yourbrainonporn.com/doing-what-you-evolved-to-do

Why would people be trying to prove that porn is an addiction if there weren't, in fact, thousands of people who feel that it's an addiction for them? There's not some alterier motive here to get porn off the internet; this isn't over-protective Conservative Christian moms making these claims, it's the porn addicts themselves, the majority of which are young males. This community has over 200,000 members:

https://www.reddit.com/r/NoFap/

Yes, I did see your questions, but you clearly also made multiple assertions, contra your claim that you were only asking open questions about porn. — Arkady

:-} Stop misquoting me. I never said that I was only asking questions. I said I was "asking an open question about just how harmful porn is." This is not important.

Isn't it just possible that some people have a taste for more violent forms of porn, just as some people have a taste for S&M, sado-masochism and the like in their personal sexual lives? — Arkady

Deriving pleasure from someone's else's suffering, whether real or voyeristically, is morally wrong.

The questions I referenced came right after what you just quoted:

And what percentage of people are using porn in a "healthy" manner, exactly? Plenty of social drinkers are not alcoholics, but virtually all cocaine users are addicted on the first hit. Where does porn fall on the spectrum? How many porn users are addicts? — Noble Dust

If that's the case, then let us not draw a false equivalency between violent pornography and pornography simpliciter. — Arkady

The problem is that porn addiction escalates in the same way that tolerance escalates in drug or alcohol addiction. Those violent forms of pornography only exist because of porn addiction.

Yes, porn can be harmful and addictive. It doesn't follow that it's inherently harmful and addictive, unless you wish to maintain that anyone who has ever viewed porn became addicted to and was harmed by it. — Arkady

Clearly I never said that. I was asking an open question about just how harmful porn is.

Perhaps children feel the need to view porn in secret because sex is treated as dirty and shameful, and humans are made to feel sinful for having sexual desires? — Arkady

This is definitely a problem. I was mentioning the secrecy of porn though, because it's almost a joke. No one invites their friends over to watch some classic porn.

Perhaps then the solution is more sex education to let adolescents know how sex "really" is, and not have unrealistic or distorted expectations or beliefs about sex. — Arkady

Yes, that's a good idea, but porn is a huge reason why teens have unrealistic and distorted notions about sex in the first place.

Again, I don't deny that porn can be addictive or otherwise taken to excess. Likewise, alcohol, gambling, junk food, and a host of other things are potentially addictive, and yet we don't feel the need to ban them (though they are of course subject to regulation, as is porn). — Arkady

The problem of legalizing things seems complex to me; Portugal seems to have done well with legalizing pretty much everything. I'm not necessarily arguing that porn should be banned or outlawed. That's also an unrealistic notion. I'm simply arguing that porn is harmful and addictive. What I find worrisome is that so many people don't seem to see it as an addiction. Society at large continues to seem to think that porn is a positive thing. It's not. And what percentage of people are using porn in a "healthy" manner, exactly? Plenty of social drinkers are not alcoholics, but virtually all cocaine users are addicted on the first hit. Where does porn fall on the spectrum? How many porn users are addicts? Children and even teenagers being exposed to porn in secrecy is never a healthy thing. I was exposed to porn as a teenager, and it was an instant addiction.

I am skeptical that its effects are "hugely" detrimental (especially as compared to say, smoking, opioid abuse, high-calorie food consumption, etc) — Arkady

Porn has actually been shown to have the same chemical response in the brain as heroin.

And see Wayfarers comments above about the effect of growing up in the age of internet porn. The average age of exposure to porn is somewhere around 11, but I've seen different numbers. But all the numbers given now are well below the age of puberty, let alone sexual consent. The youth of today have literally grown up on porn. That is completely unprecedented. None of the pro-porn research seems to address this.

Perhaps a compromise position would be to ban the production of new porn, while not outlawing the consumption or sale of existing porn. The amount of pornography in existence is quite vast: even the most dedicated pornaholic would likely have trouble exhausting the current stock in his lifetime. — Arkady

I'm sorry to say, but this is totally unrealistic.