Upon reading my article on pornography a friend living in the US posted this link which refers to an article by David Hart.

http://www.thenewatlantis.com/archive/6/hart.htm

This is a great article and a necessary addition to mine.

Sellick wrote:

"Pornography, if it is some kind of art, is bad art because it provides us with a distorted view of the world."

"But pornography is not important art, it does not reveal the human soul, it does not portray what is essentially human."

Don't give up your day job, Peter; with lines like that you'll fail Art History 101.

That art is a (frequently) distorted, rather than mimetic, representation of the world is surely the point; therein lies the essence of the creative process.

In a free society, art is no servant of your particular concept of "morality", nor of anyone else's! "Revelation of the human soul" is best left to religious iconography for the faithful; the imposition, by government, of the subjective ideas that you believe to constitute something called morality, on non-believers offends the separation of church and state that, thankfully, is embedded in our Constitution.

That's what liberal democracy's about.

If you don't like porn Peter Sellick stop buying it.

Five paragraphs, that must have been difficult. I think I'll simply have to ignore stuff like:
"Sexual activity is by its nature a promise of a future and is corrupted when that is not recognised."

Obviously addiction causes problems, so the issue is whether frequent or occasional use is damaging. And since Sells would like total censorship, all forms of pornography should be considered, which raises a definitional question. In the strict sense, parts of many M15 films would need to be removed. Sells confined himself to the primary usage group: men looking at porn that (increasingly) portrays women in a distorted manner. This ignores the use of pornography by women or gay porn, as well as porn that is tasteful and does not present a caricature of women or men.

"Pornography is a representation of just such a false world in which women possess no self, no soul, of their own."
There is truth to this but it is an exaggeration. Most porn is meant to cater to male fantasies and quick gratification, so it is no surprise that the women end up doing what the man wants, or that the focus isn't emotional connection or romance.

A lot of porn depicts women in an unreal manner or is misogynistic; the very nature of it is objectifying. Frequent use of this type can then have the affect of building unrealistic expectations, images and attitudes. However, occasional use or use by couples lacks these issues, and not everyone will be affected. I don't think people have a perfect ability to compartmentalise and distinguish between porn and reality, but some ability does exist. As a result I think a bigger problem arises with magazines like FHM, Ralph, etc. and oversexualisation in marketing; since these things connect distorted sexual images with normal life and promote objectification.

Pornography is unnecessary but many things are, including censorship, liberty is to be preferred. Only proportionate restrictions and regulations are justified.

I'm more concerned with the kind of publishing which is designed to make people feel bad about themselves. I've seen plenty of comment that suggests that much of the material in popular womens mags is designed to make women feel bad about their bodies (unless they buy the conveniently advertised products which will solve the problem).
Men's mags are starting to go down the same track. Have a snoop at the cover of a "Mens Health" mag.

I am not aware of any objective proof that the watching of porn is damaging. I can see how it could be damaging in conjunction with other distortions (say the guilt from watching it when your religion says its wrong). I do recall something published some months ago that suggests that men can reduce their risk of a type of prostrate cancer(I think) by coming at least 3 times a week - obvious health benefit.

The excessive use of idealised (buffed, airbrushed etc) bodies in the mainstream media is a much more serious issue for peoples emotional well being than anything porn can come up with. That stuff is killing teenagers and hurting adults trying to have real relationships.

R0bert

Sellick, wonderful article.

Why do i say this?

Because this article relates so closely to my life its not funny.

I am trying to get rid of my addiction to porn now, so i can lead a normal life again (but no, i dont look at gay porn).

I would also like to reaffirm that watching too much pornography does warp and twist your brain (i would know). Because, disgustingly enough you see nearly every woman as a "sex tool", and visualize her nude. This may sound crazy, but believe me it happens. I am actually afraid of even talking with any girl/woman for fear of what i might do to her (thus preventing me from having a normal relaxed conversation with a girl/woman).

I would like to add that all people who look at pornography are usually
1. Social Outcasts
2. Dateless
3. Wanting to suicide

I have been through all these stages over and over again, even the last stage. I have so much conflict for suicide because I know i would rot in hell if i destroy my body like that (I am a Christian). Note i am probably the only christian to experience this sort of addiction, so do not predjudice other christians for it.

If there is another article disscussing the same thought lines as this, I would be most grateful to get it