Porn

There is a sweeping claim that porn is inappropriate. Neither for production nor for consumption. On the other hand, there is a great demand for this product and apparently the producers and consumers of porn, aware of the criticism they face, actually choose porn.
The debate is which position is more morally correct, the one that requires porn or the one that denies it. Or would you say that ”each case on its own”?

I still don't understand the question. I asked what the sides were, and I meant of course what the positive side was?

This is a very simple question that doesn't require much debate. What's more, you've encountered it many times in your adult life.
People love porn: you, me, my grandmother, etc. That's why they consume it (and a small portion of them also produce it). That's the positive side.
On the other hand, others come along and tell them that porn is a faggot. That's the negative side.

Now the dilemma: to consume/produce or not?

I see we speak different languages so I'll stop here.

Your responses sometimes deserve special investigation. An entire scientific branch can be created just on them. And that's only with reference to your ”hafza”. We'll leave the “hagabra” aside. Science won't be able to answer them.

I digress from my original question and ask a new question to the readers:

Is there anyone besides me who really doesn't understand what my original question was (regarding porn)?

I'm really curious to know and am willing to test myself on this point.

I will help the members formulate a position, by concisely and schematically formulating the question:
There are many who want to do X.
There is a moral problem in doing X.
What do you think about the moral dilemma of whether to do X?
Reason, explain, open and prove.
Good luck.

So I'll help you help them:

There is a debate about whether X (porn in this case) is “beneficial” or harmful, that is, whether it is morally wrong.
The proponents of the opposite will say that it is wrong and therefore even if a person has a tendency/desire/will to consume or produce porn, he must overcome it.
The proponents of the opposite will say that even if there is a moral price for porn, the moral right of the consumer (and perhaps also the producer) is still greater than the relative harm to values such as the image of women, etc.

Obviously, if you create a straw man who believes that the conflict is between a moral position and the tendency of the instinct and nothing more, then there is really no moral dilemma here. I assume that your ”misunderstanding” here was based on this gibberish. Apparently you are arguing against me that I did not pose a real moral dilemma (between two different and opposing values).

If this is indeed the root of your entanglement, perhaps you didn't read what I wrote well:

“The dilemma is which position is more morally correct, the one that requires porn or the one that denies it.”

Mikhi, I'm telling you honestly and precisely out of my respect for you and most of your words. Sometimes you're petty. In a real way.

Doron, are you sure you're serious? Even after I tried my best to help, it's not working. It's clear that you understood my point and for some reason you're repeating the same nonsense again. How do you think there's a moral dilemma between instinct and value? Unless you believe there's value in consuming porn, but you didn't write that. I asked you again and again and again what the other side of the dilemma is (after all, a dilemma is supposed to have two sides).
It's clear that a person has the right to consume porn. Who here talked about rights? You talked and are talking about a moral dilemma. And I keep asking what the two sides of the dilemma are. Simply delusional.

I have another dilemma: Reuven loves money very much. But stealing involves moral problems. What do you think about the moral dilemma of whether stealing is permissible or forbidden? Explain, detail, open and prove.

Doron – In the way you phrased it, Rabbi Michi is absolutely right. “My right” is not an argument in favor of saying that it is morally right or wrong to actively do a certain action. It is at most an argument for why it is impossible to prohibit it by law (although that too is questionable) because there is a conflict between morality and freedom of occupation. But the dilemma you raised is whether it is right to consume or take pictures, not whether it should be prohibited by law. And in this context, the argument of my right is meaningless (some people bring other arguments, but that doesn't matter right now).

On the same weight as yours, I will say that there is a moral dilemma about whether it is *right* to peek at women in the shower. Because there is a conflict between the value of my desire to peek at whomever I want, and the value of a woman's right. And my desire to peek gives a positive score to explain why it is *right* morally. There is no moral conflict or dilemma in your case or in this case. Here there is only someone's desire versus a moral consideration, and Rabbi Mikhi is right that you did not bring any argument why it is morally positive to consume other than that someone wants to do it. And the fact that you want something does not give it a positive moral charge. Similarly, even if there is no harm to others, the argument of rights is irrelevant in the context of a proper one. For example, the fact that you like to eat pizza does not make it a morally proper thing, eating pizza is neutral (and we will ignore health considerations for now). Therefore, someone's desire does not make something morally proper. There is a conflict here between your desire and morality. That's it. Decide what you do with it.

To justify why there is a moral dilemma, you will have to provide positive arguments for why you *should* watch porn. After you bring them, it will be possible to discuss the advantages and disadvantages. There are such arguments, by the way (say: that it reduces the desire of sexual perverts to rape in the street) but it seems to me that they are irrelevant in the case of a sane person.

Rabbi, from a purely moral perspective,
Is it possible to say that given a very great desire and a very small prohibition, there is justification for violating the prohibition.
For example, his honor consuming milk, as I believe, during his third meal is a moral problem.

It can be said, although I prefer the argument that it is forgiven rather than that it is permitted.

I am ashamed and embarrassed. Upon further reflection, I see that my wording really came out sloppy.

Although I suspect that Shmiki understood well from the start that I was aiming for a clash between two different values (for example, the autonomy of the porn consumer to choose for himself what to do with his own life) and the harm to the image of women, etc.

And now, after expiating my sins (I already feel much better), I return to the question:
What do you think prevails in the case of porn consumption (I left the question of its production for now): the autonomy of the porn consumer to live according to his own will in his own life or the social and educational damage caused by the belittling of women (and perhaps men as well)? That is assuming that the damage is real.

Where the repentant stand…
But one of the stages of the repentance is that he undertakes to never commit this sin again. Here you immediately repeat your sin, that is, again negligently formulate the question. What does it mean to be superior? From the perspective of the porn consumer himself, there is a moral prohibition to use but he has the (legal) right to violate the prohibition. Therefore, there is no moral dilemma here. It is like the ”dilemma” whether to insult someone because I feel like it (and I have the legal right to do so). Or do you mean to ask whether it should be prohibited by law? If the harm is clear, then yes. I say this in light of the data you presented (his rights versus harming others). There are of course other considerations that were not raised here (such as those written by M).

Rabbi, how can it be said that this is forgiven and not that it is permitted, if value is something “infinite” and seemingly always decisive in the debate against instinct?…

You answer the question yourself and end with a question mark. Strange. Excused means it is indeed wrong but you can understand why it happened. Extenuating circumstances.

Doron, it seems to me that there is a side to be raised in the group that is in favor of porn, that the characters who play there choose it, and some of them out of the thought that it is not a cheap profession (I know that this is basically a regret, but I have already heard people who support it for this reason). Just as a carpenter sells his body to make wood, so too their bodies are sold for certain photo shoots.

Now, one could say that if the ’actresses’ there choose to participate in this madness of their own free will, I have no right to tell her that it is not appropriate. In any case, it becomes appropriate for her, and perhaps for me as well. (Enough of coming from the law to be condemned).

I think what I wrote is nonsense, but perhaps it is a positive side to present the side that believes that porn is not immoral.

Forgive me, most esteemed, for the sake of your Torah, did you perhaps think that consuming that thing you are talking about is a real halakhic prohibition (and even several prohibitions)!??? Is the only consideration that motivates us our morality??? G-d Himself forbade us from following our hearts and eyes, and God forbid, is not the commandment of the Creator of the world an argument or at least a consideration that is worth raising? Unless you disagree with the claim that: There is a Creator of the world, and/or that: He commanded us that it is forbidden, and if so, that is another discussion, but if not, then this is just a theoretical discussion about whether in a situation like this (there was no commandment, it was permitted, etc.), so and so, and I don't see exactly who it matters to, except for someone who does not believe in the things mentioned above, and then there are much more important questions that he should ask the Rabbi.

The questioner here (Doron) truly does not believe in the things mentioned above and made it clear that his question is moral and not halakhic.

Yosef, if you look, I didn't ask this question, and I joined in the middle because the discussion here didn't seem like a halakhic discussion to me…
Then what's the problem with clarifying from the moral side (which I didn't really speak to either), and even if we assume it's permissible from that perspective.
It would still be forbidden from a halakhic perspective………

The question was only from a moral perspective. The opinion of the halakhah is irrelevant.
Basically, I think that porn is legitimate from the consumers' perspective and probably also from the producers' perspective. Obviously, from this assumption, my conclusion is that it should not be prevented by legislation. Not to mention the great joy that would disappear from our lives if laws against porn were enacted…
Furthermore, I would not argue that one should be “forgiving” to porn consumers - many of whom are reading these words right now - because forgiveness is shown towards someone who does something bad and has extenuating circumstances. In my view, consumers (and in many cases also the producers) do nothing “bad”.
While there is probably a kernel of truth in the claim (mainly feminist) that porn devalues people, and especially women, many other things do so as well, and we will not give them up. The value of human autonomy outweighs the lack of respect for the “human” (as presented by opponents).

I hope I have not created an expectation among those interested in the subject to receive links or recommendations from me to various sites.

Doron, this is not a ‘kernel of truth’, porn cheapens everything.. There are many studies on this.
People whose sexual thoughts are misguided because of this sexual consciousness-indoctrination.

There is a very serious side to saying that it is immoral, you are quite minimizing it, and I hope by mistake.
It means from your words that the light side is that people want to make money, and they are aware of the consequences, and yet they do not care. (To the same extent, the heads of criminal organizations are also aware of the consequences, and they do not care).

In my opinion, we should really discuss the merits of the matter, the sides that say it is not immoral, against the sides that it is immoral, and decide.