Lily philips and the disgrace of pornography

[Ken]

The exact same benefits we get from making it illegal for 17 year olds.

Ok. So What would be a few specific, non-generic examples?

Protecting people from the harm of the exploitation that goes on in the pornography industry, to give one example.

Note that I have a presupposition that pornography is harmful. (I hope I won't need to debate this here.) As a society, we have generally decided that sometimes something is so harmful (such as cigarettes or beer) that we don't allow "consenting adults" to partake of it. I think pornography should be one of those things.

We allow consenting adults to buy cigarettes and beer.

We also allow consenting adults to own all manner of deadly weapons whose only real purpose is to kill people. Firearms kill far more people and destroy far more families than pornography does.

We also allow people to drive motorcycles. Which are death machines on our modern highways.

[R7ehr]

It’s not a pragmatic goal. It is, rather, an observation that blatantly immoral things should be illegal. An example is murder. Murder should be illegal. I don’t have some “goal” by saying this, or some effect on society I want to see. I am just flatly saying it should be illegal.

I think I understand that, am not meaning to put you on the defensive with my question. Here's the thing: blatantly immoral things are already immoral, I'm pretty sure that's not in dispute here - but making them illegal DOES imply an action by society with an intended effect. So let me rephrase it then: If we accept your premise that blatantly immoral things should be illegal and it could be made so, what specific results would you expect to see as a result of that criminalization of those things?

I’ll put it this way: currently, it’s illegal to produce and distribute and sell pornography involving 17 year olds. I think that’s a very good thing and positive benefits for everyone involved, and essentially almost no downside.

I would like to see the same positive benefits extended to 18 year olds.

Same here.

[JohnH]

We allow consenting adults to buy cigarettes and beer.

No, we don't. 18, 19, and 20 year olds aren't allowed to.

[Ken]

We allow consenting adults to buy cigarettes and beer.

No, we don't. 18, 19, and 20 year olds aren't allowed to.

So you want to raise the age to buy porn to 21?

You think that is going to slow down the internet?

[JohnH]

So you want to raise the age to buy porn to 21?

You think that is going to slow down the internet?

We're having a discussion about why I feel it should be illegal. I think we already have a consensus that having 17 year olds involved in pornography should be illegal, as it already is. I am putting forth that it should be likewise illegal for 18/19/20 year olds, just like beer and cigarettes.

I don't think "buying" is particularly relevant.

[Heirbyadoption]

So you want to raise the age to buy porn to 21? You think that is going to slow down the internet?

We're having a discussion about why I feel it should be illegal. I think we already have a consensus that having 17 year olds involved in pornography should be illegal, as it already is. I am putting forth that it should be likewise illegal for 18/19/20 year olds, just like beer and cigarettes.
I don't think "buying" is particularly relevant.

Thank you for answering my question, John. I appreciate it. Lest there be any confusion, I wholeheartedly agree regarding the negative impact of pornography (on youth and adults alike), especially with its current ease of access. I would not object were the government to limit its access further. And certainly we have a holy calling to speak out against it and to live contrary to it. And yes, Romans 13 is clear that the government is ordained to restrain evil, but having said that, theocratic rule has been tried repeatedly throughout history, and barring the miracle of having it run wholly by god fearing men, it either drives the sin underground or makes it more appealing by virtue of its limited access. The greater issue is the conversion of men and women to repent and follow Jesus Christ as Lord. Hence the impetus behind my first question or two in this thread - do you think that having the unregenerate entity of civil government to legally criminalize sins (theoretically removing temptations at least from immediate access) will decrease the desire of unregenerate men and women and youth to pursue those sins?

[JohnH]

do you think that having the unregenerate entity of civil government to legally criminalize sins (theoretically removing temptations at least from immediate access) will decrease the desire of unregenerate men and women and youth to pursue those sins?

Yes. For example, I think the government should make it illegal for people to produce pornography of 17 year olds. Or younger.

And no, I don't think it's inconsistent for a Christian to think that child pornography should be illegal. Is it a sin? Yes. Should it be criminal? Yes. Should the government strictly enforce it? Yes.

[Ken]

do you think that having the unregenerate entity of civil government to legally criminalize sins (theoretically removing temptations at least from immediate access) will decrease the desire of unregenerate men and women and youth to pursue those sins?

Yes. For example, I think the government should make it illegal for people to produce pornography of 17 year olds. Or younger.

And no, I don't think it's inconsistent for a Christian to think that child pornography should be illegal. Is it a sin? Yes. Should it be criminal? Yes. Should the government strictly enforce it? Yes.

That is already illegal. 17 year-olds are prohibited from working in the porn industry in every state. Federal law requires all porn producers to maintain verifiable age records of all of their models and actors and be able to present them for inspection at any time to insure that they are all over 18. And it is illegal to create the appearance of child porn by using adult actors that look underage.

The problem, I think, with trying to regulate porn is that the definitions are somewhat slippery. I think legally the definition of porn is imagery or video that shows nudity or sex acts. However there is an immense amount of sexy material out there that does not legally meet the definition of porn but that is plenty stimulating for juveniles (or adults) from swim suit models in microscopic swim suits to Victoria's Secret type stuff. It is endless and honestly much of it is sexier and higher quality than actual porn since it is commercial stuff with higher paid and better more attractive models. Same thing for video content. Kids can find endless "racy" content on YouTube from clips of R-rated movies to online ads.

So if we are trying to "protect" kids from sexually arousing material it is a fools errand. Banning porn isn't going to accomplish that. Madison Avenue and Hollywood will keep pumping it out and kids will keep finding easy ways to find arousing material. Because frankly, "sex sells". Back in the day it was the lingerie section of the Sears Catalog. Today it is a couple of clicks way on any phone. Even one with content restricted browsing.

So I dunno. It seems like the current status quo is more or less what Americans want and the courts have agreed is reasonable. Namely age restrictions on porn access and participation in the porn industry. And then more or less expecting parents to help their kid navigate the world like we do with cigarettes, alcohol, pot, firearms, motorcycles and motor vehicles, and everything else potentially dangerous and life-threatening.

[Heirbyadoption]

do you think that having the unregenerate entity of civil government to legally criminalize sins (theoretically removing temptations at least from immediate access) will decrease the desire of unregenerate men and women and youth to pursue those sins?

Yes. For example, I think the government should make it illegal for people to produce pornography of 17 year olds. Or younger.

And no, I don't think it's inconsistent for a Christian to think that child pornography should be illegal. Is it a sin? Yes. Should it be criminal? Yes. Should the government strictly enforce it? Yes.

I understand your position, I think. Certainly, you have the right to think it should be illegal. Again, I'm absolutely opposed to pornography and all the negative effects it has, but if your "yes" was an affirmation that you think that criminalizing porn will effectively decrease the sinful desires and pursuits of unregenerate men, on that I would fundamentally disagree, based on the Word, personal experience, and repeated history. There's a reason we have a New Covenant and not the laws and punishments of the Old Covenant...

I guess it really comes down to what one expects to accomplish by making it illegal. If it's actually about my personal preferences and comfort level and I just don't want myself or my family have to face open immorality in all its ugliness, it will work for awhile. But if hearts are not converted and convicted to battle against sin, all the criminalization in the world will fail to address the real problem, which the criminalization of immorality cannot address. If nothing else, we should have learned this from the history of the Catholic Church over 1600 years!

[JohnH]

[snip]

Ken, my concern is more for the exploitation and abuse that performers in pornography undergo than some kind of quest to make it illegal to acquire and consume pornography.