This was a VERY interesting article…from today’s Patheos’ evangelical newsletter.
I’ve heard a lot of nonsense about porn, both pro and con, over the years. I was a young’un when Hefner started his little enterprise, but even before that I had run across various items - decks of cards with the nudies on the back at a friend’s house that his dad thought were hidden, that type of thing. Porn hit the popular scene at about the time I hit puberty - a volatile mix, and not just for me.
I’ve read a lot about porn, as well, a couple of good ones being ‘Pornified’ by Pamela Paul, and the more direct ‘Getting Off’ by Robert Jensen.
The article from Patheos was on target in some ways - the statistics and percentages were probably in the right area, for instance - but sadly lacking in making the argument against porn.
To be made, that argument demands very clear thinking, not dogmatic thinking, and not so overbearing that it throws the baby out with the bathwater. In other words, it takes real, wise, judgment by mature people. I’m still looking for that argument to be made by such a person or group.
Yes there can be danger from pornography; as there is in alcohol, weed, and other stimulants.
Dave, I am surprised by your post… Can you clarify your position? In previous threads, I would expected your response to have been “This guy is right on”… But, maybe I don’t actually understand your position on sexuality?
Actually I tend to be firm where I think the issue is very clear.
The porn issue is not clear to me, so I reserve judgment on this, except in the obvious cases where persons are diminished, hurt, enslaved, addicted, etc. I oppose those exceptions with vigor.
But that leaves room for much expression that I would not classify as ‘pornography’, though nude people would certainly be involved.
I think the question is much more nuanced than the article articulated.
Thanks. That clears things up for me.
Didn’t Jesus condemn lusting after someone one is not married to?
Perhaps the non-denominational site Got Questions, can help Dave get a clearer picture?
Let me quote a bit, about the money and statistics involved:
While not fully up-to-date, Pornhub’s 2017 Year in Review has shown the website catered to some 28.5 billion visitors. In terms of SEO count, that’s 81 million unique visitors per day. They further boasted of 24.7 billion searches in the year, which they say translates to about 50,000 searches per minute, or 800 searches per second. If that’s not easy enough to compute – they break it down a bit more practically for readers. Incidentally, that’s the same number of burgers that McDonalds sells every second.
In one year, the hours of porn uploaded to the site translated into 68 years if watched non-stop. The staggering amount of data being used to stream the website’s data was 118 GB per second – something the article boasts is enough to fill the storage of all the world’s iPhones. Put another way: in just five minutes, Pornhub’s servers transmits more data than the entire contents of the New York Public Library’s 50 million books.
While the data is limited – it doesn’t compare any statistical data of underage users – it does clearly show the majority of users are those aged 18-34 (61%). And if you think this is just a young male’s problem – you are surely mistaken. The average proportion of women world-wide is approximately 26%, showing a steady increase from year to year in every country (save Russia). Given the rapidly increasing figures, it shouldn’t be terribly long before men and women are on equal footing. Remember, these figures are from just one porn website.
Then we can take the results of Barna’s 2016 study, which shows people do not define pornography in clear-cut terms. Rather, they define porn on the basis of the function it serves; if it is meant for arousal, its porn. Thus, most would define pornography outside of the bounds of things meant for entertainment purposes, even if the sexual depictions were graphic in nature. Keeping this in mind, the poll revealed 21% of youth pastors and 14% of pastors admit they currently struggle with pornography. Furthermore, teens and young adults overwhelmingly speak of pornography in neutral, accepting, or encouraging ways. Only 1 in 20 young adults, and 1 in 10 teens, believed viewing pornography was morally wrong.
Even more recently, we find Gallup’s study revealing the current social acceptance of pornography has grown 7% from last year, with 43% of people believing it is morally acceptable. While the isolated statistics are fascinating in and of themselves in showing the steady growth of acceptance in nearly every category, the alarming trend for religious individuals has also seen an increase. 22% of those holding that religion is very important to them believe pornography is morally acceptable, followed by 50% for those who say religion is moderately important, and 76% percent of those who say religion is not very important to them at all.
Thanks for your thoughfulness, RKOZ.
Thank you, Dave. Though sometimes I get, a lot of static - with that title!
Please cover your eyes, over any cuss words folks might yell!
I’ll lay off it, if you like, though RKOZ is a lot better than RFKOZ!
It’s cool. Dave. I like the title, minus any cuss words! It makes me feel important!
Perhaps you can answer qaz’s original question?
Definitely he did, and very clearly.
Then I don’t understand how your position could be anything other than anti-porn.
How could I answer this on a Forum? There are distinctions to be made, choices to be defended, definitions to agree on, authorities to be questioned - it’s a big job.
So I don’t think I’ll be going there, because the amount of questioning and re-questioning by all parties involved will just drag on and on. And, perhaps, on.
I would suggest a way forward would be to lose the word ‘porn’; once that word enters the discussion, it’s game over; there is so much baggage attached to the word, and it resonates in different people in different ways, that intelligent discussion is near impossible.
For me, any activity, naked or not, that involves humiliation, de-humanization, dissipation of one’s moral wholeness, slavery, lust, intentional arousal to sell a product or to cause addiction, etc etc - is out of the discussion entirely.
But that leaves an entire realm of imagery and actions to still discuss. As well as the word ‘lust’.
DaveB, unless the people in porn are unattractive, how can there porn that doesn’t elicit lust?
FWIW, many of the writings from and writings about the American revolutionary period depict very fond verbiage used about other men’s wives and single maidens, especially in party gala situations. While I realize this is not dealing with porn, in a puritan time some of these descriptions of how someone else’s wife or a single girl moved them (or husband/ man) is quite revealing… Some things never change, just a leash put on it.
Dave, it could be a difference between truly being impressed and lust maybe? How much time do you have to pursue someone’s wife/ husband before it is considered lust?
Well… Jesus understood what was in man because he was one so perhaps the injunction against lust (in whatever context really) was due to the power of it in that lust so easily leads to behaviour that has toxic consequences, e.g., Eve—fruit, David—Bathsheba, Judas— spondulas, etc.
If you mean ‘elicit a sexual response’, then I agree. If otoh a ‘sexual response’ is wrong in and of itself, then we’re all in trouble. But I don’t think there is any justification in saying that. We’re built a certain way.
David no doubt felt that response when watching Bathsheba bathe, I have no doubt she was a babe. When did that become lust? When his desire turned into covetousness? When desire in his heart led to murder, etc?
True, and I tend to agree with you, but this lust is a universal way of certain (or maybe of all) people, and if man is progressing, maybe at some point we can understand that.
I would say in the US we are seeing it in the #we to movement. (not sure I did that right)
Can any married folks here honestly say they weren’t “turned on” by their wives prior to marriage?