Look, despite things getting out of hand at points, I really would like to be charitable here. I really would. But you continue to insist on referring to porn as a monolith, and you continue to mischaracterize mine and Amber's positions.

You are claiming a position that elevates your personal pleasure over the good of all other individuals and society as a whole.

No, I'm not. It's not a choice between my personal pleasure and "the good of society as a whole" because there is no evidence of causation between The Monolith Porn and anything bad.

Violent porn? Child porn? Sure. But those aren't problematic because they're pornography, but because they're violent or involving people incapable of consent. Give me one good reason that a run-of-the-mill Vivid Video with Jenna Jameson and other consenting adults hurts anybody. Just one.

The analogy breaks down, because the danger of speeding is such that one driver's reckless driving very clearly (and, as importantly, very DIRECTLY) endangers the physical security of other people. Since the state's job includes (if anything) protecting us from being physically harmed by others, then it's OK for it to prevent reckless driving (although I've seen a few recent studies that show great increases in driver safety when road rules are removed, rather than enforced).

Porn doesn't pose that kind of threat; at least, it hasn't been shown to pose it. Most of the arguments against it are that it's obscene and/or has detrimental effects on the ethical character of those who view it. Even if true, that's not a sufficient justification for brining the force of law against it. The better analogy, then, is the one in which alcoholics try to get alcohol outlawed. Sure, it has contributed to the alcoholics' problems, but it's not fair to those of us who can drink moderately to deny us the pleasure of a good drink.

Your contention, Amber, that someone in this thread has painted you as universally bad doesn't seem to be borne out by the exchange I read.

Not speaking for Amber, as she is fully capable of doing that on her own.

For me, this gets back to porn-as-monolith and porn-as-disease, both of which are concepts that are oversimplistic and offensive to me. In this thread, as I pointed out earlier, Expat referred to porn in terms of immunity and exposure, both of which are terms associated with disease. If that's not clear enough for you, in the last thread Will referred to porn viewing as being like using crystal meth.

When The Monolith Porn is referred to in those terms, judgment is being passed about me, Amber and many of our friends. So, we get hostile and defensive, and will demand that those passing judgment defend their statements. And I expect that we will continue to do so.

And, because I don't think I was very clear about this in my last comment, sure, watching porn could be bad for some people. And those people shouldn't watch. But they also shouldn't ruin it for the rest of us just because they can't handle it.

It's impossible to have a constructive conversation so long as everyone insists on referring to porn as a gigantic ubiquitous monolith. We've been through this over and over and over again.

Could a photoshoot that depicts someone being forced to do something against their will be a destructive influence? Sure it could. But that doesn't mean that all pornography could be. I don't believe for one second that a picture of two (or more) people engaging in a consensual sex act has the potential to be a destructive force inherently.

The destructive behavior people display ("porn addiction," as it's incorrectly called) is the symptom of deeper problems (lack of communication in a relationship, lack of sexual fulfillment in the relationship, lack of self-confidence, a shaming complex brought on by people who are scared of sex), not the problem itself.

Whatever dude. Whenever you are incapable of explaining your position, you accuse people of dogmatism/flaming/etc. Not. My. Problem.