The concept of pornography begins with religion and its concept of sin. In the West, prior to the intrusion of The Christian church, sexual representations were "erotica," which is purely a descriptive term. Once the church got involved, erotica became "pornography" (literally, graphics of whores). "Pornography" (the word) isn't a descriptive term, it's a negatively judgmental term.

I think if more atheists understood that pornography as something bad is an invention of religious folk, and not something which is necessarily wrong or bad, tolerance of it in the atheist community might result. This isn't to say that some sorts of porn are necessarily good, such as pedophile porn, but we need to understand that erotica isn't new, and that it's a natural expression of natural interests and tendencies.

What's unnatural is the attitude that there is something inherently wrong with it.

Views: 778

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

It has been well proven that everybody has its natural needs, but the difference between religous and not is the guilt.

I always wondered, “If pornography and all pornographic material were to completely vanish today, who would be the first to reintroduce it? Would it be a male or female?  The religious or the non religious?  Or would it be anyone who has Bi-Polar disorder? (lol  ... joke)

The thing we do know about sex is that it causes violence and war … This is where the bible is going with it.

The writers of the bible saw this going on in their own communities in their own time and it is still happening now.


We've been drawing explicit images and made other erotic art from the paleolithic age - which is to say as long as we've had the capability to do so. There's a lot of boobs and quite a few dicks from 10.000 bce. 

As for "sex causing violence" I find it to be thoroughly debunked. The last couple of decades have seen violence plummet and sex and erotica explode. Restraining sex seems to be causing violence, which is to say the inverse of your argument.  


"I find it to be thoroughly debunked."

Hi Arcus

Who "debunked "it?

Reason was provided post period. If sex caused violence, why aren't we killing eachother at pre-civilization rates (~30-50%) with today's easy access to porn?

I'm actually not making a positive claim here, and don't have to offer proof, but I nonetheless did.


Who debunked it?

Nixon formed a blue ribbon Presidential Commission thinking it a way to prove porn harmful. Read their conclusions here.

Thank you Unseen, i had never seen that before, very interesting.
Judith vd R.

It was a pleasure.

You presented a theory. The theory doesn't have empirical evidence. The theory thus falls as empiri>theory. 

I just debunked it for you. For the data material, ref. Pinker on violence and the Internet on porn. 

The thing we do know about sex is that it causes violence and war … This is where the bible is going with it.

Sex doesn't kill people. People kill people. 

More to the point, sex makes more people than it kills, doesn't it? HOW does sex cause violence? Jealousy causes violence. Irrational passion causes violence. The urge to own and control causes violence. Sex may be INVOLVED in those, but I'm not ready to jump at sex being the cause itself. Ditto for erotica.

Who would invent erotica? Males are more visual. Everyone knows that.


Obvously Richard Dawkins documentary "Sex, Death and the Meaning of Life" didnt reach enough of its target audience.





© 2018   Created by Rebel.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service