Not naturally heterosexual? Without a preponderance of that persuasion then genes would have had greater difficulty in achieving survival to the next generation - which is what they are built for...since that is the essence of life under the theory.
There is an undeniable trait in human biology that predisposes certain people to homosexuality (about 10% of people, to be precise). It is completely natural and normal. No, it is not the case that humans are necessarily naturally heterosexual.
Also, the existence of homosexuality
in no way jeopardises the existence of heterosexual relationships that lead to children. Population growth is
plenty high enough to cope with some people not reproducing.
I think we humans find monogamy a challenge - but if we want to improve our societies then that is going to be extremely important. Again, it's a hugely complex subject beyond the thread's remit.
I absolutely deny that. If you don't want to discuss it here (I happen to think it wouldn't be too far off-topic) feel free to start a new thread about it. I'll see you there. But see below.
Sounds somewhat like the slavery story.
I'm afraid I'm not following you along this train of thought. What "slavery story"?
I did.
"Do the things that make you feel good. You get to decide whatever this means for you."
Yes? And? What are your thoughts on the philosophy of Optimistic Nihilism?
I have answered. The fact that you don't accept the arguments doesn't change that.
You have answered nothing.
What is the
direct harm that adults suffer from watching porn?
"It's bad for monogamous relationships!"
- Monogamy is demonstrably not necessary for a successful and stable relationship. The many, many people in happy ethical non-monogamous relationships all over the world, including me, demonstrates that.
- A relationship is an agreement based on trust. It is not sex, or porn, but the betrayal of trust that ends relationships.
- The cultural emphasis on monogamy has led to millions of unsuccessful relationships and broken homes when people are unable to meet that very high bar. This is harmful to children.
- Children are not harmed by the knowledge of the existence of sex.
- It is therefore my conclusion that the assumption of monogamy causes more direct harm to children than porn does.
- Marriage is not necessary for raising happy and healthy children. Monogamy is not necessary for raising happy and healthy children. Trust is necessary for raising happy and healthy children, and this requires honest and open communication between partners.
"It fosters slavery and sex trafficking!"
- Slavery and sex trafficking are already highly illegal, and perpetrators suffer severe penalties when they are caught.
- The preponderance of self-shot and amateur porn, and for that matter professionally-produced porn that meets legal requirements, demonstrates that most porn is not made via coercion or force.
"On average children first see porn at age 13!"
- So what?
- Prior to puberty, children have little interest in sex or sexuality.
- This "fact" appears to come from a single source of questionable veracity.
- Children are motivated by shame and guilt to lie when questioned by an authority figure about something they think they might have done wrong.
- This has nothing whatsoever to do with whether it is harmful or not.
"Porn wallpapers the internet!"
- No it doesn't.
- This has nothing whatsoever to do with whether it is harmful or not.
Conclusion:
@Poem, your opposition to porn has nothing to do with harm to children, or harm to adults for that matter, but rather to do with your personal distaste for it. You (and others - you're not the only one) are casting around for any way to justify what, essentially, boils down to the
yuck factor. I for one am extremely opposed to my laws being based on that.
www.theguardian.com
