Resolved: The U.S. should abolish all forms of pornography

Definitions. I accept the definitions offered by Pro. However, the definitions beg questions that Pro did not answer. How exactly is pornography to be abolished? How is the "primary purpose" of something to be determined to be sexual? 1. The only apparent method for attempting to abolish something is to make it illegal. But child pornography is already illegal, as it ought to be, yet Pro cites abolishing child pornography as a major justification for the resolution. If the major objective has already been accomplished insofar as it is possible to accomplish it, then that justification for the resolution disappears. 2. The only apparent way to determine whether or not something is pornographic is to have a censorship board determine what is permissible and what is not. How about putting a seventeen foot statue of a naked man in a public space? That is the case with Michelangelo's statue of David http://en.wikipedia.org...(Michelangelo) Pro contends that even the softest form of pornography must be abolished. So would a board of censorship zealots given the charge to ban even the mildest forms allow it? No work of art or science could withstand assault so legitimate cultural assets would be hidden. 3. If we assume for purposes of the debate that something could be done to abolish child pornography beyond making it illegal, then there would be no significant effect on the incidence of child molestation. According to the Child Molestation Research and Prevention Institute http://www.childmolestationprevention.org... the four causes of child molesting are: 1. They are children or teenagers who are sexually curious or experimenting. 2. They have a medical or mental problem that needs treatment. 3. They are opportunists, who lack feelings for others and who have an antisocial personality disorder. 4. They have an ongoing sex drive directed toward children. There is no mention of pornography as a cause. Causes 2, 3, and 4 are disorders in the child molester that would be unaffected by access to child pornography. One might argue that pornography piques sexual curiosity, but sexual curiosity is to a large part also innate. This is discussed in 7 below. 4. Pro gives no source for either study he cites. Therefore their scientific validity and Pro's interpretation of the results cannot be examined. I challenge Pro to produce reference citations for the studies; otherwise they should be discounted. 5. Correlation does not prove causality. Perhaps car thieves are often in possession of car magazines. That would not prove that car magazines cause car theft. It would be more likely that their interest in thievery provoked interest in the magazines to determine relative car prices. I have no doubt that child molesters possess child pornography. that, however, is a result of their mental state, not a cause of it. According to expert testimony elicited by the British Government http://www.iwf.org.uk... "There is evidence to suggest that child pornography can be used in an attempt to legitimise their sexual activities with children and to "groom" or encourage compliance from their victims. However, we are not currently aware of any evidence to support a direct causal link between access to child pornography and the commission of sexual offences against children." 6. Pro argues that even soft forms of pornography must be banned, because that inevitably leads to ever-increasing desires. The logic is that if men see a woman's ankle soon they will want to see knees, and thereafter all is lost in an ocean of depravity. Clearly, according to Pro's argument, the only remedy is beekeeper suits. We can observe empirically if this works, by examining the mores of strictly repressive Muslim societies that have abolished pornography. The effect is the opposite of what Pro supposes: "... Islamist terror can be thought of in part, at least, as a response to sexual rage, frustration, and the humiliation of being connected to a "degraded mother." Thus the men in the culture must constantly assert their masculinity, defend their masculine "honor", and strike out in rage against any who "shame" them. ... This is apparent in the sexual mutilation of terror victims who are perceived as "inferior" by the Islamists, and on a par with women of their own culture. It is also seen in the Freudian symbolism of the barbaric act of beheading; as well as in the ubiquitous rape of non-Muslim women around the world." http://drsanity.blogspot.com... 7. Pro argues that exposure to pornography can prompt children to act out sexually. I agree. However, that is an argument to keep pornography from children, not to ban it from adults. Children see adults drinking alcohol, lighting fires, and driving cars, and indeed children are sometimes inspired to want to experiment with those adult activities. That is a valid reason to regulate children's access to those adult things. However, we do not abolish alcohol, matches, and automobiles as a consequence. The correct approach is for adults to reinforce responsible behavior and to behave responsibly themselves as an example. I will give one illustration: In Japan beer is old in vending machines that are placed unwatched on public streets. Japanese adults like to drink -- a whole lot. Yet children do not get beer from the machines even though they could. The culture successfully communicates the message that drinking is an adult activity, and children conform. That is the general solution, not attempts at abolishing all things that are inappropriate for children. It is not the objects that confuse children about what is right and wrong, it is adult behaviors that shape society. Further, it is the parents job to determine at what age their offspring are mature enough to see what level of sexual material, not the governments job. I don't think Playboy is going to do any harm to an average sixteen year old boy. However, I would not presume to make such judgments for other parents. The upbringing should be left to the parents, and the state should facilitate control by thae parents, but not make the decisions at that level. 8. Pro claims "Another study shows that male subjects that were exposed up to as little as six weeks worth of violent pornography began to question rape or not even see it as a crime anymore and saw that it was ok to go out and have sex with any one you met as seen in a pornographic movie." Again, Pro is challenged to produce the study. Let us supposed that male subjects were exposed continually for six weeks to videos of dangerous stunt driving. After being so inundated, would it be likely that they would be somewhat more disposed to driving recklessly? I think so. If so, would that be a good reason to ban driving? I think not. Violent pornography is an extremely narrow sub-genre that nearly everyone finds revolting. Even insofar as it is legal, it only feeds people who have mental problems. Removing it would not repair the individual's basic problem. In any case, making violent pornography illegal does not imply that all pornography should be illegal. 9. Men like to see pictures of naked girls. At least outside of San Francisco they do. In a society that provides a sensible social context, it is harmless. Repressive societies, such as Pro suggests, are a complete mess. (Of course at my age all the real excitement is in the financial pages.)