Moral & functional arguments: 3 reasons why pornography prohibition is dangerous

Just like recreational drugs, pornography is a vile phenomenon of the human condition that has existed throughout history. Porn is a type of prostitution, a cheap outsourcing of sexual relief. Its undeniable damage to the individual is profound. Some also worry about pornography’s implication on the broader fabric of society. Whether we like it or not, it exists. So what do we do about it?

Some argue over its prohibition when what they really want is further restrictions and access limitations to protect children. It is good to keep pornography away from children, because children are not yet self-accountable. But some parents don’t feel accountable for not taking all steps available to them to protect their children from pornography. So they deludedly outsource their responsibilities to the state (statism boils down to lack of self-accountability). On the other hand, there are moralists and purists who believe that all ills should be violently suppressed - except the ill of violent oppression by an arbitrary centralised authority.

So should pornography be banned or not?

This is a case against porn prohibition from someone who believes that porn is both damaging and morally abhorrent. I believe the same about recreational drugs: they are horrible, but their prohibition is even worse. Yet I do understand the need to protect children from both drugs and porn. Adults? I don’t care. Just like drugs, if they find themselves in a position to seek porn, then the problem is not pornography; it’s something else entirely. If you have a craving for comfort junk food, then the problem is not the food; it’s whatever rendered you hopelessly needy for comfort food.

First, let’s acknowledge that there are restrictions on pornography already in place. These limit its distribution and access to it. However, the state is not a god (as much as it presumes to be), so a prohibition of something does not guarantee its annihilation. Sometimes even, a prohibition exacerbates the thing it seeks to prohibit. You only need to observe the alcohol prohibition era in the States to see how prohibition made things worse, and legalisation made things better.

So what’s the discussion around pornography prohibition?

Talking heads among conservative circles have been calling for a ban on pornography. Political pundit Candace Owens, for one, suggests that “It is a psychological weapon intended to weaken our men.” She isn’t wrong. Many high-level interest groups would seek to subvert a society through demoralisation tools like pornography. See Soviet defector Yuri Bezmenov’s breakdown of ideological subversion. Candace has a point gere.

But what is Candace expecting from a ban? We assume that the state is a god that can snap its fingers and entirely delete something just by willing it. A ban won’t erase pornography - it will just create a void for black markets, and then it will be impossible to at least restrict or limit. For example, pornography is banned in most Islamic countries. Yet it’s still there if you really want it. If you don’t believe me it’s because you’ve never lived in the Middle East.

Not that a black market under state restrictions is a free market - it is nothing like a free market. Due to the black market’s clandestine nature, it is almost impossible for vendors to get market feedback from competitive pressures. A black market is made of tiny monopolies due to lack of open communication - monopolies that would otherwise be healthily competing vendors in an open market. But I digress…

Yes, porn can be used as a weapon to subvert a society. But it is just a tool used against men that are already vulnerable to it. Susceptibility to porn is a symptom, not a cause. Shouldn’t we be focused on the root problem instead of dealing only with the symptom? If big pharma has taught us one thing, it’s that more often than not, treating only the symptom exacerbates the cause. For example, take a pain killer for your lower back pain and see your back worsen. Why? Because you mask the useful pain that communicates which moves to avoid - the moves that you keep making because you numbed the pain that communicates to you what not to do. In the porn case, prohibition leads to more and more government authoritarianism, which in my opinion, is the main problem with men’s lack of sense of purpose, meaning, and identity. See How school damaged your mental health [part 2], for example.

Take away men’s self-ownership and dignity through state authoritarianism, but don’t then pretend to be surprised when they lose their masculinity and purpose.

Here are 3 reasons why banning porn is a bad idea:

1. Victimless “crimes” carry the implication of arbitrary authoritarianism. Yes, I understand that your ideals are threatened in a society of coexisting and conflicting ideals, but if you set the precedent of regulating morality through the implied threat of violence of the state, it’s just a matter of time until your ideals are regulated also. You are fine with regulating morality when that morality happens to be yours, but you don’t like it when the same state authority promotes and imposes other sets of moral principles which you don’t share. Then you find yourself frustrated as to why this happens, when all you have to do is look into the mirror. Are you sure you want to grant to the state the power to regulate morality? What happens when it changes its mind about which moral framework best suits it? Are you finding it uncomfortable today when Western governments openly promote degeneracy to your children? Well, you have no one to blame but yourself for running to daddy government to help you when you felt powerless to uphold your own morality without external help. When you dance with the devil, you don’t get to pick the tune. Besides, if your conviction in your morals is as unwavering as you’d like to think, you wouldn’t feel threatened by antithetical moral frameworks on an even playing field without the state-referee on your side.

2. Porn has its function in society, just like prostitution. Throughout history, a large portion of men have always been outcasts, undesirables, incapable of pair-bonding, or in modern terms, involuntary celibates (incels). All women compete for the top men, and they don’t mind sharing them - better share a man or be alone than be with a loser. So… Would you feel safer in a world where damaged males found it difficult to get relief? Would you feel safe living among incels without an outlet for their condition? Back in the day, incels would become mercenaries in foreign legions and free us from their presence in functional societies. Now we’re stuck with them in corporate environments, comicons and universities. Japan, a country with some of the lowest sex crime rate in the world, is notorious for its wide pornography availability and normalisation. Is this the reason why so few sex crimes occur in Japan? There is a good case to be made for this, especially seeing how restriction leads to perversion - see Catholic priests, or sex-obsessed sex offenders from cultures where sex is a religious taboo. Prohibit something and you bottle it up - it will get pressurised and twisted.

3. Prohibition leads to black markets with distorted supply and demand, which drives prices unrealistically high, with lower quality. This means that any sick pervert will find a gap in supply, and so feel incentivised to produce porn using coercion. This is because there is little open competition, so anyone can become a producer (much like with drugs today). Just like alcohol and drug prohibition, black market production means that no health standards are maintained, since black markets are neither state-regulated markets nor free open competitive markets. At least now porn production can have some assurances that only adult actors perform, and that they take regular health checks. Plus we can limit its distribution, if it’s legal. How many of those checks do you think would take place under a prohibition, when the mere production is a crime anyway? Prohibition guarantees that only the criminals will take charge, and that the law-abiding vendors will stay out of business. Just like with drug prohibition, street drug quality is dangerously bad, which is the main reason behind drug-related deaths. It is mostly the impurities in a drug that kill, not so much the drug itself.

Having said that, pornography is indeed a problem. It is easily accessible online - just like before the internet, pornographic material was available in every kiosk and newsstand on every street. Yes, it’s much worse now with the internet, with disgusting sexual acts and high-definition video damaging viewers on a neurological level. But again, it is the parent’s job to restrict and monitor access. It’s now easier than ever to control your child’s device, especially a handheld device. Yes, children will have contact with other children at school, children whose parents aren’t as careful. But the problem here is state-enforced schooling, not pornography. Children get exposed to all kinds of nastiness in school, not just porn. They get exposed to bullying, foul language and abusive behaviours, firecrackers, illegal weapons, and street drugs. Your child’s exposure (in school) to pornography, bullying and association with damaged kids is just the symptom. The problem is the state forcing you to take your child to school and waste its childhood force-learning arbitrary useless nonsense, and associate with teachers and kids he never had a say in choosing. Instead of campaigning against porn, how about being pro homeschooling and against state involvement in education?

For the moralists and purists who seek a moral utopia without any temptation I say this: Your version of a perfect moral framework will never be shared by anyone fully. No individual moral framework can ever be shared by everyone. Plus, your morality means little if it exists in a naive bubble of ignorance - if it cannot be tested against temptation and antithetical morals. Even Jesus Christ had to be tempted to give meaning to his conscious denial of temptation. Monks hiding away from temptation exert little effort to adhere to their supposed morality. Similarly, a woman’s chastity means nothing when the alternative means violence against her. True morality is being allowed to be immoral, and choosing to be moral anyway.

For anyone struggling to get over pornography addiction, it would be more beneficial for him to have the option but still refuse it. Denying him the option (assuming he won’t resort to black markets) will only leave him with an emotional gap and thus drive him to alternative addictions, perhaps this time more twisted and damaging to those around him.

I’ll say it again:

Pornography is a symptom, not a cause.

Treating the symptom before addressing the cause may even exacerbate the cause, because it masks its ill effects.

Plus there is nothing stopping us from creating a demand for better technological solutions that can protect children from access to online filth. But the true solution is keeping your children close to you: do anything in your power to homeschool, and to use individual tutors that only you get to choose. Don’t abandon your children to any group or institution, and then presume to blame those groups and functions when they damage your child. The problem was always you for abandoning them at the mercy of others. Be an engaging parents. Get involved. Be there for your children. Take responsibility for them.

So, what is the cause of pornography demand? I make a good case for some of the causes here (see points 9 and 11).

Individuals define the group - by definition. When the group forcefully attempts to define individuals, we get communism, cultism, totalitarianism. Nothing subverts the human psyche more than coercive oppression. Subverted minds seek an outlet - some in pornography.

Useful links

YourBrainOnPorn.com

‘The origins of war in child abuse’ by Lloyd DeMause

‘Bradshaw: On the Family’ by John Bradshaw

Please share.

It takes a lot of time and energy to write these articles. I only ask that you share this piece with one person at least, considering you liked it of course. Someone you know needs to read this. Do them a favour or troll them by sharing.

I prefer that you follow me on Substack than to subscribe. But if you want to stay in touch, subscribe below for free. I won’t flood your inbox. Much of what I publish doesn’t go through email.

Subscribed

I cherish your feedback. Criticise me, if you wish - even in a disrespectful manner - but at least respect yourself enough to present logical arguments.

If you don’t already argue with strangers on Substack, then what are you even doing with your life? Download the Substack app. It’s got way more engagement than Twitter (X):

Available for iOS and Android

Get the app

Love me? Send me a message. Hate me? Send me two.