[uticus]

> While these apps claim to have helped many people overcome pornography addictions, experts who study sexual health are skeptical that the apps have a lasting positive effect. “I’ve never seen anyone who’s been on one of these apps feel better about themselves in the long term,” says Nicole Praus, a scientist at the University of California, Los Angeles, who studies the effects of pornography on the brain and the spread of disinformation on sexual health. “These people just end up feeling like there’s something wrong with them when the reality is that there likely isn’t.”

> "“It’s really not about pornography,” says Brit, a former user of Accountable2You who asked to only be identified by her first name, due to privacy concerns. “It’s about making you conform to what your pastor wants.”

> "In the quest to curb behavior churches deem immoral..."

Full transparency: Christian male here. The article seems to be addressing multiple topics - on the surface, the concerns around information leaking with "Covenant Eyes" and other programs. But also (based on this quote) an undercurrent: is pornography consumption actually unhealthy?

This adds confusion to a very clear topic.

Pornography comes from "porneia," a Greek word. In ancient Greek "porneia" was understood in the culture as "to buy." A porne or prostitute was often a slave, and often abused. Writings of Horace and Herodas show the cultural attitude of porneia was about treating people as things - to buy, to use, to abuse. In other words, very much accepted culturally. Based on this historical evidence, I conclude that, had WIRED existed in ancient Greece, an expert who studies "the spread of disinformation of sexual health" would have likely said the same thing about porneia consumers as they apparently do now: "there likely isn't something wrong with the owner." Imbibe in some porneia? Don't feel bad, there's nothing wrong with you.

A counterpoint is the letter to Galatians, which despite their failings I'm sure people in the churches mentioned in the article would know of. That letter, starting with the foundations of how God views people and the freedom Christ purchased, draws the conclusion that people should treat other people as people, not things. In fact, this is one of the points of the 19th verse, which says porneia (lit from Greek) is something Christians should realize isn't fitting for Christians. It is, in fact, unhealthy. If my Pastor wants me to "conform" to this (ref second and third quotes above), sign me up!

You may disagree that the letter to Galatians has authority or relevance to you personally, but it's impossible to disagree with the letter's outlook towards people - people as people, not things. In fact, that letter's outlook was radical, based on the cultural norms of that time.

If we don't disagree with the undercurrent espoused in this article - that porneia consumption is actually okay - then what foundation is left for saying it's wrong to treat people as things?

[sverona]

Slippery slope fallacy. (You mentioned something about murder in another comment --- same story.)

The reprehensible exploitation of sex workers does not make sex work inherently bad. I have friends who do sex work on the side. They sell their own porn. They explicitly want to be sexualized and, yes, objectified, and they'll tell you as much. Are they being exploited, and by whom?

[uticus]

> The reprehensible exploitation of sex workers does not make sex work inherently bad.

Yes, let's avoid slippery slopes, please make things clear. What defines "bad" or "good" here? How much money porneia makes for those profiteering from it? How much pleasure the consumers get? What the health expert of the day prescribes? All I can gather so far is that you have better reasons to say porneia production isn't bad because your friends willingly do it.

I'm glad you mentioned the producers of porneia, because my comment was focused on the consumers, and I keep forgetting about the harm that comes to people who profit from the industry.

[sverona]

> What defines "bad" or "good" here?

Bad = morally wrong, or "not okay" as you said. Specifically, you seem to be making the claim that all porn, even non-exploitative porn, is morally wrong in principle, the same way murder and rape are morally wrong (although less so.) This is what I'm challenging.

> and I keep forgetting about the harm that comes to people who profit from the industry.

What harm is that? (In order to sidestep obviously wrong things like human trafficking, let's use the example of the friends I mentioned who record themselves having consensual sex and disseminate the video.)

[uticus]

The friends are consensual, and they are simply inviting people to watch. It all sounds so welcoming, natural, wholesome, harmless.

Of course it seems that way. Any person worth their salt in the industry would be ashamed to admit it depended solely on being addictive, and missed out on the opportunities created by also saying it's basically harmless. A really good spin would be to say instead of being harmless, why, it's actually good for you!

The harm of inviting the (paying) world to watch as two people have consensual sex? Four, off top of my head:

1. The special bond from such intimacy is cheapened. Sex is wonderful - it doesn't just feel good, it involves another person that you have an opportunity to relate to in a unique way, and they to you. Properly used it involves dignity, selflessness, and deep relationship. I've heard others say similar things that cheapen it, like "it's just body parts touching each other." What a shame it's reduced to that.

2. The children that naturally come from this are treated as a negative aspect, instead of a blessing. What if a kid accidentally came from one of these videos, would you be able to tell him some day that your friends wanted to have him and it was totally worth it to stop the gravy train to do so once they found out? You, your friends, and I will not be around forever, but hopefully another generation will come after us - don't harm that generation by depriving them the foundation of knowing it is good that they are alive and the previous generation welcomed them.

3. What happens in the bedroom affects what happens in the house, and what happens in the house affects the culture. Stuff is connected - give me a culture that has honor in the bedrooms, because I know how well things will be going in the public sphere.

4. Lastly, there is a point that is crucial for Christians, but I think even non-Christians should be aware of it - it is harmful because instead of furthering the worship of God, it furthers a falsehood where the individual is worshiped instead. Let me speak of myself: just imagine what I would do if there were no God, and I were God for a day. It would not be a fun world for long, even for me. Can we really treat such thoughts as harmless, just inside our hearts and heads, having no bearing on each other and the world?

[sverona]

We have very different ideal worlds, it seems. Here are my takes on your points:

1. Very broadly speaking, trans people cannot procreate in the usual way --- our hormone treatments make us sterile. We primarily use sex and fetishism as vehicles for self-exploration and, yes, self-improvement. Our desires express fundamental parts of ourselves, and I posit that we find the same kind of soul joy that you derive from submission to what you call God in playing together --- the ecstasy of being subsumed in something larger than yourself. You have your spiritual practice; we have ours. This is not an exaggeration.

2. Again, we can't procreate. And even if my HRT didn't make me sterile, I'd have myself sterilized because I am terribly afraid of what my child would have to witness.

3. I question what "honor in the bedrooms" means. This goes back to your ideal world versus mine. With the greatest respect, this language has been used for centuries to exclude me and mine from a sphere of life that is crucial to our existence, so you'll excuse me if I don't hold it in high esteem.

4. This argument proves quite a lot --- essentially, as I read it, saying that any sensual or mental pleasure that does not come from submission to what you call God is harmful/sinful. You are welcome to believe this, but trying to live under such a burden crushed my soul. So, no thank you.

More broadly, your argument adds up to "porn is harmful because it goes against the Christian notions of family, matrimony, procreation." My people's culture --- and it is a culture all its own --- does not have those notions, not in the same form. Many of us were disowned. A good portion of us were sent to Procrustean "reparative" therapy to try to make us cis and straight --- which would destroy the person we really are. I don't have a study for you, but anecdotally I'd say 90% of the stories I've heard happened under the banner of what you call God.

It's a little easier to argue that Procrustes' table is good when you already fit on it.