After serving at LDS Family services and being exposed to many caught in the grip of pornography I have felt some drive to learn more about the problem, the remedy, etc. As part of my research I came across a podcast from Candeo. One of the main individuals involved is Mark Kastleman, a recovered porn addict, and a Mormon. I have read some of his other articles and been to see his lectures. He is quite a valuable source on this issue.
In episode 11 of their podcast is mentioned something called the Demark Experiment. This was a study that was conducted and reviewed over the years to determine any correlation that might exist between pornography use and sex crimes. At first, the study concluded that free access to pornography and live sex shows decreased the amount of sex crimes. But it was only years later when the results were studied that the police reporting was wrong. In fact, the study showed that there was in increase in sex crimes where lower standards or regulations existed. These findings were replicated in all other parts of the world in which a similar study was conducted. In some parts in Australia there was a 6 fold increase in sex crimes where liberal policies were in place.
Some european countries have considered a ban on violent sex pornography, and other restrictions on live sex shows as a result of these findings. Even the United States has come to similar results with their own research. But, as of yet, no major changes have been made. But what is the role of the government, any government, with an issue like pornography? One could argue that pornography use is a personal or private matter and therefore does not involve the government, but the evidence seems to prove the contrary. The evidence also seems to support the idea that positive results can come from more restrictions on this issue. Positive, meaning fewer sex crimes.
As with many actions in society, this will probably not fix the issue completely. Crime will still happen, people will still rape, and pedophilia will continue. How does one sit in the face of proven results and not act?
Click here for additional article offering further research on this issue.
So government should intervene in contravention of the Constitution to ban pornography because it poses a risk to society, but should not intervene to provide health care because that would violate your political ideology? I'm not saying your wrong here, just that you're inconsistent.
ReplyDeleteI believe that after the government stops running an international empire, and frees itself from the stranglehold of corporate power, and properly regulates the financial markets, gets military spending under control, insures that quality health care and education is available to every American, gets us off the dependence on fossil fuels, and restores our basic individual rights, it should address the issue of pornography.
I have a comment for bothJames and Charles D,
ReplyDeleteIt is alright to look into having goverment provide for decency laws, especially with materials that are pervasive amongst criminal behavior like pornography.
It is alright to look into having government regulate financial markets and corporations and invest in energy research technology.
Regarldless of whether I would want those things, it is fine to have the exploration on the merits or follies of such government enterprise - so long as it is not the FEDERAL government. States - cool beans.
As far as international affairs, military affairs and rights, well those are federal government isues and to that extent we agree, even if I disagree about what do do policy wise on those subjects.
I can see, Charles, that on the surface this would seem to be a contradiction. Let me attempt to explain why I don't feel this to be the case. First, I am not against all government or government regulation. I fear that my loathing of national health care has given birth to the idea that I am against all regulation. I am not against all regulation and I am not against all government.
ReplyDeleteSecond, pornography results in broken families, encourages promiscuity that gives life to disease, unfavorable circumstances in the creation of life, and as the evidence is showing, it produces gross and serious crimes against society. Given these results I would place pornography in the same category as Cocaine or other illicit drugs that pose no benefit to society. As the science is now showing, pornography is equally chemically addictive with what are being classified as erototoxins.
When the right to perform an activity is grossly outweighed by the negatives that such an activity has on society, I believe that opens the door to some regulation. How this differs from National Health Care centers on this idea: Health care is not a crime nor does it directly cause a crime. Sure, the relatively few instances of those who do not pay their bills is a crime that can be handled on a local case by case basis is regrettable. But the case where someone doesn't pay their bill is a matter of civil law. For those that don't pay, there are current remedies under the law. This is a risk or downfall that is the nature of all business, and is also the risk of doing the business of health care.
With pornography, not to mention all the perverse variations of pornography such as pedophilia that is either directly performed or implied through attractive fantasy, there is a correlation to criminal acts that are the result.
Health care has a direct benefit to society, a larger benefit that greatly outweighs the faults that the system may currently possess. So to have the nation to a take over and completely change the system is a gross over reaction that could have negative effects; effects that counter the good the system is current producing for society.
Pornography does not benefit society. Period. It destroys families creating associative negative social repercussions, and as the evidence presented shows, there is an increase in violent sex crimes as a result.
Ultimately I believe this to be a moral issue as well. I am not willing to deny the fact that I have moral problem with pornography - I do not have a moral problem with people obtaining health care. Additionally, if health is the goal of national health care, then proof would show that national or socialized health care systems fail to provide top care at a reasonable cost to the citizens. In fact those systems provide substandard care at an increased, and mandatory rate. Canada and Greece being the most contemporary examples of socialized failure.
For these reasons I consider these two issues to be different in nature, different in societal impact, and are principally unrelated. Therefore I don't feel that I can apply the same principles or the same rationale.