Your kidding, right? You read these articles that talked about the connection of child pornography and child prostitution, of sexual offenders and their use of pornography, and you see absolutely no relevance?
No, because child molesters also use candy and toys and games as well. We've been through this in another thread. And let's not mix up child porn with adult porn. If a person is using a child for both porn and prostitution it isn't because of porn and prostitution: it's because that person is doing something wrong.
Let me put what I think you are saying another way: If a person is robbing banks and mugging people to get money then that means that there is a connection to thieving and money therefore money is wrong. I mean, most people use it, but some people use it to break the law or break the law to get it, so money has no redeeming value.
Your read about an article about Pompeii and the pornography in the brothel, but the conditions and the low amount of return (two loaves of bread) for women who were initially enslaved and then later could find no other means of income, and this has no effect on you?
Appealing to emotion. If someone is enslaved now a days for something like that, how is that pornography's fault? If someone enslaves a women and uses her for pornography that is the fault of the enslaver, not because pornography exists. The enslaver could use her and sell her for many many other reasons. The slavery would still be happening.
The objection was to my comment that porn has no socially redeemable value. An example given was it has harmful effects on children, and this raised objections. Yet when asked if anyone would show pornography to their own kids, not one person said they would.
But there was a post where a person shows it to his wife and it DOES have a redeeming value there.
The problem with your logic is that it seems to say "if you can't show it to children, it has no redeeming value". That's utter bull. "Redeeming value" is different for different people for different reasons. I would not give my child a bottle of expensive champagne, but does that mean it has no redeeming value?
With good reason, child molesters do try to seduce kids with pornography. As one person stated in the thread, art is meant to evoke an emotional response, and in the case of porn it is meant to evoke arousal.
Child molesters use ANYTHING to seduce kids. A lot of them use nothing but force. That fact that a molester would use it is moot.
Nobody in their right mind with a shred of decency wants to make their own kid get turned on with them there beside them. We all know it happens, teens get curious and want to look in private, but not in front of their parents. But to try to evoke that? Yeah, there's some problems there, that's pretty weird. To what end?
Your making no sense. I don't arouse my child because I don't want to have sex with him. I don't show him porn because he's not ready for it.
That is why I said it has no socially redeemable value. I'm not out to fight against porn. Whatever floats your boat, but you do it in private, and if your teen does it, they do it in private. You don't pack up the kids to go to the museum of pornography, you know that theater with the sticky floors and people who don't get out too much.
But one can pack up their spouse and go to such a place and have a good time. There is no redeeming value in that?
Does it make people happy? Sure it does. But it ain't for everybody, it's not a socially viewable thing. Sure, there are clubs devoted to it where people socially view it and engage in it and all of that. But you don't take your kids there, hopefully.
Anyways, is it art? Well, I answered that. I guess it is, in the absolute sense of the word, but it is a negative art. It'll get you off, and that's great, but it's not going to make for a great family event where your kids expand their minds from human accomplishments of the largest gang bang or the furthest ejaculation.
But you still have your porn and I'm not taking that away from you.
That doesn't mean porn has "no redeeming value". It only means it's not appropriate in all instances. Your argument seems to be "if you can't share this with your child, it has not redeeming value." Or "if child molesters use it, it has no redeeming value". Both are ridiculous stand points. Porn has redeeming value, it just isn't appropriate for all instances.
