Timeless Wisdom - Men's Sexual Nature (Part 5): Pornography: What Is It and Why Men Use It - Part 1

You're invited to pull up a chair on Lisa Harper's back porch, where faith meets real life. Welcome to Back Porch Theology. Each episode helps you dive deeper into God's word and discover that the gospel isn't just good news for eternity, it's great news for everyday life. Because God is for you, and he's always been restoring our value and drawing us closer to him. With honest conversations, a few laughs, and guests ranging from close friends to brilliant theologians, Back Porch Theology is thoughtful, meaningful, and never stuffy. So grab some coffee or sweet tea and join Lisa Harper on Back Porch Theology. Subscribe now wherever you listen to podcasts.

Welcome to Timeless Wisdom with Dennis Prager. Hear thousands of hours of Dennis's lectures, courses, and classic radio programs. And to purchase Dennis Prager's Rational Bibles, go to DennisPrager.com. Session 1 was the problem of male sexuality and the ease of the visual stimulation, the ubiquity of the sexual drive in the male. I didn't say greater depth, just ubiquity of the omnipresence of it and so on. That it is a problem that society and men and women must address. That was last week. So now I'm going to talk to you tonight about just one aspect that causes people to think profoundly unclearly. The first two were tough, this is tougher. I have read almost nothing intelligent on this subject. It is so emotionally charged apparently, and I think I understand why, and I have a story to prove it that just happened last week which I commented on on the radio. And, hmm, I put in new batteries and it, well, let's hope it worked. Yes? What size batteries do you use? AA. Well, if it dies again, yeah, maybe I would want. Thanks. The subject is pornography. And let me begin by defining pornography so that we know what I'm talking about. This is my definition. If you find it wanting, please let me know. I can't imagine that you would. Literature or pictures whose purpose is to sexually arouse the reader or viewer. Is that fair? Anybody have a problem with it? I have one problem. Not a problem, but one added factor. Is it its sole purpose, or one of its purposes? For example, the sole purpose of a picture in Penthouse is to arouse sexually. That is its only purpose, right? Does a picture in Victoria's Secret catalog arouse men? Yes, it does. Heterosexual men, I'm speaking of, of course. Yes, it does. Is it pornography? Raise your hand if you think Victoria's Secret is pornographic. Forget my definition. Do you think it's pornographic by any definition? 3 people raised their hand. Have you ever seen— you've all seen Victoria's Secret? How many haven't seen Victoria's Secret? Fascinating. How did you avoid it? I don't understand. It is not avoidable. As I move, it comes with the moving van. They know I have moved before my mother does. I mean, I don't understand how— who missed it? I have 400 extra copies, just to let you know. I mean, this stuff, it comes every week, twice a week, right? I mean, you can't keep up with it. There's always a sale. There's a bra sale, a this sale. It's a riot. I mean, you know, and it's no— there's one— it's really— I'm convinced now why there's two. One for him and one for her. My wife likes it, I like it, everybody's happy. So, really, how many never saw it? There were— what is it? One, two— why, about 10 people. My God. Have you heard of it? Do you live in America? Do you live in America? Okay, it's all right. No problem. I'll get you on the list. Do you get any mail at all? I can't imagine if you're on any list you don't get on Victoria's Secret. I mean, it is just that common. Anyway, Victoria's Secret is theoretically a lingerie catalog. The pictures are extremely alluring. I mean, these are supermodels, they are virtually naked, they are in provocative poses, and well-photographed. You might have thought I was going to use another word after "well," but "photographed" was the word that came to mind. And it is extremely arousing stuff. That stuff, when I was a kid, would have been considered pornography. Today, 3 of you in this whole group voted to call it pornographic. 40 years ago, well, I was a kid 30 years ago, 35 years ago, when I was 15, it would have been regarded as pornography. It would have come in a paper bag. Women in thong bottoms, virtually entirely revealing bras, and so on. Is that pornography? Well, it's a very interesting question, and I don't use, by the way, I don't use the word pornography is used as a pejorative, as an inherently negative phrase, as you will understand tonight. I do not see it that way. But I also believe in intellectual honesty. Of course one of the purposes of that magazine is to arouse men. Of course it is. And men know that. Men are aroused when they see it, and there are some of us who might argue it's more arousing than sheer nudity in its in the provocative nature of the photos, and yet a tiny bit of clothing to leave some element to the imagination. So this is how I have resolved this question: to the extent that the subject approaches soul, in other words, the subject, that which is being viewed or read, approaches soul as its purpose, it is closer to pure pornography. If the issue is sexual arousal without it having to have as its sole purpose or even primary purpose sexual arousal, such as women's underwear ads, bra ads, and then they are— if the issue is sexual arousal, then they are porn. If the issue was to sell bras, then they're not. But it's very complex. There was a movie— what happened? I have a mental block. Something happened to Sarah? What is the name? Something About Mary. That's my— my son goes crazy that I can't remember that name. Something About Mary, an extremely funny film for adults only, but very funny. And there is a scene with the guy getting ready. He was told by a friend that the way not to be too excited on a date and jump on the woman is to masturbate prior to the date. So he is— so you get a You get this picture of him in his bathroom, and what is he using as his stimulation material? A Los Angeles Times bra ad. I found that scene to be hilarious. Why? Because truth cracks me up. He was not using Playboy or Penthouse or rougher stuff. He was using the daily paper. Listen, of course it's sexually arousing. How could it not be? The fact that it wants to sell a bra to a woman, that that's why Robinson's May, May Robinson's, whichever the order is, puts it in there to sell to women bras, or maybe men who want to buy their woman a bra in the hope that she'll look like the model in the picture, but that is one factor. That means that the purpose is not solely pornographic, but its effect is. Get it? I mean, a collection of the most titillating bra ads would make a very sexual book. With no prices and no department store names, you could sell that as basically a softcore book of pornography. There is no difference to the male looking at it that it says $8.99 or 2 for $15 hardly changes the fact that he sees a woman scantily clad. That's what the male sees. He doesn't care what the purpose was. The purpose could be to sell tires, and often is. You get, right, women in bikinis next to tires. He's looking at the woman in the bikini. He may also check out the tire, 'cause some men are also into cars. But the fact is that, of course, that's what his eye checks out. Is that pornographic? So that is why I am saying it's a very difficult issue. There are levels of pornography, clearly, but this is— I said on my radio show once that Playboy— wow, that really sings a song— that Playboy is pornography. And I was called up by people at Playboy, profoundly offended. I said, I don't— I, I said, I subscribe. Don't be— I said it on the air. I said my father subscribed. I'm a subscriber, the son of a subscriber. Okay, subscriber, Ben subscriber. All right, this episode of Timeless Wisdom will continue right after this. What's better than receiving rent on the first?

Not having to ask for it. Stop wasting your time and let software handle rent collection for you. It's easy, free, and you don't have to be the bad guy.

Get started at TurboTenant.com. Now back to more of Dennis Prager's timeless wisdom. But I don't fool myself, and I don't want you guys at the Playboy Mansion to fool yourself. Of course it's pornography. Is it softer than Jugs? Yeah. Or than Gallery, or what is Flynn's one, Hustler? Yes. But, so let's acknowledge there are levels. And by the way, the levels are fascinating to understand what the power and the meaning of sex. And the level, one level was pubic hair. Pubic hair was a very major moment when Playboy began to allow pubic hair in but in its early decades it didn't allow it. Female genitalia is really the dividing point between hard and soft porn, whether that is shown or not. And pubic hair is not genitalia, so it's almost gradations. I'm being specific because that's what life is about. At any rate, those are the gradations. Then you have variations on a theme, and I'll talk about that later. Now you understand at least what I am talking about. That's pornography. I— let me say something. I was thinking about this course and my approach to it, and I think I know what I'm doing. This sounds funny. I actually, in retrospect, am understanding better what I'm doing than I did before I started this. I am— this is the way I put it to someone today— defanging a monster. The monster is male sexuality. I am trying to defang it. I am trying to say the reason for so much convoluted thinking, so much anger, hostility, worry, fear, is because it is a It is almost a monster. But it isn't necessarily a malignant or malevolent monster. It might be a benign monster. You get very scared when you see Frankenstein, but maybe Frankenstein is a nice guy. Maybe male sexuality isn't necessarily a bad guy. Maybe it is a monster. Something that we can't fully control. A fire, if you will, as one religious friend many years ago put it. It is just this fire that has to be controlled. But fire can heat. Fire isn't necessarily a monster either. When I was a child, my older brother saw that I was very afraid of monster movies. And so he suggested that I watch them until I stopped being afraid of them. And as hard as it was, I took his advice and started watching a lot of monster movies and horror movies until eventually they had zero impact. In fact, I would laugh. I'd check the makeup. In other words, I was jaded, if you will, with regard to monsters. I want us to look at male sexuality in the eye, stare at it, and say, "Hey, wait a minute." maybe it's not so frightening. And the most, or not the most, the most frightening, obviously, is rape, but that's a totally separate arena, and I'm not touching on that now. But in normal life, the most frightening aspect is pornography. Nothing could be uglier than calling someone a pornographer. The very word is is never used without judgment being made. And women feel this about men, many men, especially religious men, feel this about pornography. It's a vile thing, it's ugly, it's dangerous, and so on. So, if I— I can talk about it tonight much better in the light of the first two sessions. Next week, we'll talk about applying values to all of this and where they fit in. It's not an easy subject. In order to ascertain what our attitude to pornography should be, indeed to male sexuality in general, but specifically pornography, I think we need to ask this question: which is rarely asked. In fact, I feel in this even more than I did in the happiness classes I gave, that I'm treading new territory. I feel like an explorer going on a mission that people haven't gone on before. What is our aim with regard to men? And there are two choices, essentially, that people make. One is we want to produce a man who doesn't lust except after his wife. That is one aim. That is the aim of traditional religion. That is the aim of tradition, period. That is the aim of women, generally speaking. Remember I told you about that woman on the date? Told me when I asked her what type of man she wants to you marry? And she said, "Oh, I want a man who's extremely virile, highly charged, sexual, manly guy, and who only lusts after me." And I wished her good luck, just as I did— just as I wished the man who wanted to marry the Playboy bunny who studies Torah. Did I tell you about him? This was my favorite guy I ever met. It's a 35-year-old Orthodox Jewish bachelor. I was about 20, and I said, "How come you're not married?" Because he had told me how lonely he is. He doesn't have sex because of religious reasons. He wants a wife. He wants children. He wants a Jewish home. He wants a religious life. He's unhappy. So why aren't you married? "I haven't met the right woman." Why not? "Why aren't you married?" "Because I haven't met the right woman." And I said, "What would the What kind of white woman be? And he said, "To tell you the truth, I want a Playboy bunny who studies Torah." And that guy has as much luck, I believe, as this woman does. They both have this bizarre idea. This is very important, though. I don't want to create men who never lust for anybody but their wife. That is a saintly ideal that I don't hold for the real world. In heaven, that's the way men are. Not on earth. I'll tell you what I want to create. A man who leads an upright life, an honorable man, a man who is responsible, good, and faithful to his wife and his family, a man who treats women as befits the treatment of fellow human beings created in God's image. That's what I want to produce, but not a man who doesn't lust after other women. That is a level that I don't aspire to. I have enough challenges in life to get to the other things that I just said to you. They're pretty, pretty tough without adding that saintly ideal. Indeed, there's even a higher ideal than that. The current Pope, John Paul II, whom I deeply respect, I think he is a great man, and I use that word rarely, he said that a man should not lust after his own wife. Lust is wrong, period. When my wife heard that, she eloquently disagreed. And when my wife eloquently disagreed, disagrees, then they're wrong, let me tell you. It's the end of that issue. And I eloquently disagree too. The day I stop lusting after my wife will be a very sad day in the Prager home, I'll tell you. Oh no, that is— I don't— to me, it's not only not to aspire to it, the opposite. One doesn't want to aspire to that. It's interesting though, here and here, some here I know will disagree, many Christians in this audience, and, uh, there— I'll never forget when I did Religion on the Line, 10 years, every Sunday night for 10 years, 500 shows. That's a lot. 2 hours each, no ads. That's equivalent to 6 hours. It's a joke. It was a joke. Just ads take up a lot of time. Uh, 2 hours, no ads, and different clergy each week, and I would pick a different topic each week. And I don't know, I came up with about 400, maybe 1 out of 5 I repeated. One that I repeated about 2 or 3 times only in the course of the 10 years was: your view of lust, your religion's view of lust. And every time it was very similar. The Catholic priest and the Protestant minister, whether liberal or conservative, would speak out against lust. Lust is sinful. And the rabbi would, whether Orthodox or Reform for that matter, would have a much more nuanced view of lust. It's not a mitzvah to lust, but it's not a big sin either. You remember the famous story in Playboy magazine, Jimmy Carter when he was a kid candidate for president acknowledged that he lusted after other women than his wife, and there was a big "ooh" in the Christian world. This is a born-again Christian acknowledging that he lusts. Jews yawned. Christians were taken aback in some way, and this is all a generalization, of course, and Jews tended to yawn. Because the truth is, there's no law against lusting lusting in my Bible. There isn't. There's a law against coveting, but coveting and lusting are not the same thing at all. You can't covet your neighbor's donkey, and very few men lust after donkeys. You can't covet your neighbor's house, and I've never heard of house lust, if we're talking of lust as a sexual thing. Lust is a very complex thing in the moral Do you want a man to spend his day lusting? Of course not. You don't want anybody to spend their day, male or female, doing something that can hardly lead to a productive life. But that lust will arise is as inevitable as hunger will arise. And you deal with it as a grown-up and you move on. That's what I mean by defanging the monster. This is not a monster, lust. It's a monster if we regard it as a monster. It's there, now what do I do? Okay? That's, to me, the adult, mature question that people should ask. So, in assessing pornography or anything else, I first have to ask the question of, um, of what is our aim? Before we judge something, we need to have a goalpost, right? How do I know how many yards make a touchdown if I don't know what a touchdown is? I— oh, 100 yards! Now I know what I have to measure each carry of the football by. Now I know how I measure lust, how I measure masturbation, how I measure pornography, because pornography and masturbation obviously are intimately linked, generally speaking. Not always, but generally they go together. And masturbation is an issue to many religious people. Not to me. And I must say, you know, I've never done this, I really should dedicate this course to my father, who is going to be 81 this summer. My father did a very rare thing. He juggled a religious life, he has been an Orthodox Jew, a president of an Orthodox synagogue, been Orthodox his whole life, and, as I told you, subscribed to Playboy. I learned as a child that the two are not mutually exclusive: being decent, being upright, being monogamous, and being lustful. And it was a good model, I think. Others will certainly disagree, but I think that that was a good model that was offered to me. When it came to masturbation, my father said to me when I was in nearing puberty. Dennis, I don't know if you're masturbating or not. I'm not going to ask you. I don't want to embarrass you if you feel embarrassed by it. Just let me tell you my view. I think it is morally equivalent to urinating. And that was the end of the discussion. We, uh, we never discussed the issue again. That's quite a statement. This episode of Timeless Wisdom will continue right after this. One bad tenant, one late rent cycle— that's all it takes for your year to spiral.

TurboTenant helps you prevent rental nightmares before they happen.

With trusted screening, customizable leases, automated rent collection, and timely maintenance tracking, you can stay ahead of every issue. Get started for free at TurboTenant.com. Now back to more of Dennis Prager's timeless wisdom. I carried on the— this venerated Prager tradition of taking this attitude when I became a camp counselor at an Orthodox day camp. One summer I was the counselor of 13-year-old boys, who are monsters, as it happens. And I think I was given the task solely because I was the tallest and largest and strongest Jew they had ever seen in camp. And I could take care of 13-year-old boys. That was the general belief. I had 8 boys. They were known as the 8th wonder of the world. That's how difficult they were. And I liked the challenge. Anyway, the first night of camp, I had this age group a couple of years running, I would give them a birds and bees talk. And all of these kids went to yeshivas. This was again Orthodox Jews, the way I was raised. And I told them what I thought about masturbation. And the effects were very powerful. And I don't mean this in a funny way, that the bed stool started shaking every night. I mean it in a very serious way. The boys would come over to me, not knowing that any other boy had, to tell me how fraught with guilt they were, because their rabbis had taught them that this was a grievous sin to masturbate. Indeed, there is one Jewish text that compares it to murder, as if one can kill sperm. I guess you can kill sperm, but sperm aren't people. And one boy, in fact, who had the added burden of being the child of Holocaust survivors, was unbelievably wracked with guilt and did it frequently. I mean, he had serious psychological problems. He was not a danger to society. He was only a danger to his own happiness. And he wrote to me, I'll never forget, constantly. I went to England that year. I was a junior in college. And he wrote to me about his struggles with this issue. He just couldn't stop writing to me about this. There was somebody he could talk to. The bigger sin in my book was what the rabbis told him, not what the boys did. I never quite understood who was hurt by masturbation. It has never— I've never to this day understood who the victim is. If it's chronic, and you can't stop it, of course it's an issue. But that's true for asparagus eating. If you can't stop eating asparagus, you have problems. If you have to eat asparagus 6 times a day and think about asparagus all day, you've got serious problems. But I will not condemn asparagus on that ground. And that's the way it ought to be regarded, because I want to defang a monster. Now, I don't agree that you bring masturbation curricula into public schools. That was a stupid idea. That's a goofy idea. That is not for teachers. For teachers to talk to students about. It's a private issue for parent and child, or therapist and child, or clergy and child. And if the parents don't, I'm not going to have schools as substitute parents taking over their role. That's none of society's job to do. If kids want to deal with it and pick up a book on the subject, that's fine, as I did certainly. But of course I had my father's statement to end all guilt that I might have over the issue. And therefore it ceased to be this overwhelming dark cloud in my life. It was there, and yet— and there were more important things in life. And there are more important things than sex, period. There are. There's a lot to life. But if it's filled with sinful statements, and it becomes— it could take your life over. Of course there are areas of sexual sin but I don't regard masturbation as one of them, and there's no biblical basis whatsoever for it. None. I want to make this as categorical as I can. It is, it is an utter and total distortion of the text in Genesis, which is the only text that even hints of what's called onanism, named after Onan, a brother who was supposed to have conjugal relations with his brother's widow. In ancient times, if you were not married, you took over your brother's widow after he died so that you could carry on his name and make a family. He, Onan, didn't do this. Instead, he had coitus interruptus. He began sexual relations and withdrew and secreted his— ejaculated his sperm outside of the woman. That's not masturbating, that's coitus interruptus. His sin was that he didn't fulfill the Levirate Law, as it's called, of building a family for his brother and starting intercourse with the woman and stopping. That's not masturbation. It has nothing to do with it. And to take from that a ban on masturbation is dishonest to the Bible. The biblical text. There is nothing in the Bible that I know of, certainly the Hebrew Bible, that hints at it being forbidden. It's silent on the issue. It's more concerned with deeper subjects. This is not an invitation for people to spend their lives doing it, but saying something isn't a sin doesn't mean that one should do it all day. Obviously, there are other issues involved, but they are other issues. So let's defang the issue of masturbation. And I have to talk about that, because you can't talk about pornography if you don't talk about masturbation. Alright, now to pornography. So we've defined it, we've asked what sort of man do we want to make in light of the truths, that I believe they are, of male sexuality that we've we have talked about. To deal with pornography, I have decided to do it from the back door, and that is to deal with objections to it and then let it just exist. I'm not going to make the case for it. There isn't a big case to be made for it. We're not a great world for having all these magazines on the newsstands. We're also not a terrible world. I would— I dare say there is nobody, not the most religious person in this room, of any religion, who would rather live in any of the societies that ban pornography than in this society. There is a direct, absolute correlation between the banning of pornography and other human freedoms. You can't pick and choose the freedoms that you want to allow. Freedom comes with some things that you're not thrilled about. And if this is the worst society produces, we've got a pretty damn good society. It's not the worst we produce. We produce murder and rape and child molestation. So here are the arguments against it. This episode of Timeless Wisdom will continue right after this.

One bad tenant, one late rent cycle.

That's all it takes for your year to spiral.

TurboTenant helps you prevent rental nightmares before they happen.

With trusted screening, customizable leases, automated rent collection, and timely maintenance tracking, you can stay ahead of every issue. Get started for free at TurboTenant.com. Now back to more of Dennis Prager's timeless wisdom. So here are the arguments against it. Number one, it debases women by portraying them as sex objects. That's a large part of the feminist argument. To be fair to feminists, though, feminists are divided between anti- and pro-pornography, or anti- and neutral on pornography. Some are pro. As difficult as it is for me to commend the head of the ACLU, intellectual honesty is more important to me than an emotional victory. Nadine Strossen, the head of the ACLU, has written an important book, actually on behalf of pornography—defending, not on behalf so much as defending. It's called Defending Pornography by this woman, Nadine Strossen. Anyway, the feminist argument, which has caught on to weak-willed men—and I say weak-willed because they know that it's not true, because they're men. So, but they don't want to ever contravene what powerful females say. Powerful females intimidate a lot of males. It debases women by portraying them as sex objects, is the argument. Now let's be honest, is a woman in a porno picture a sex object? Of course. Men are not viewing the picture in order to understand the way the elbow is formed or to watching porno films for the Shakespearean dialogue in them. Of course the women are sex objects. So what? My best answer is, so what? But here are 4 answers. Number 1: If it debases women by portraying them as sex objects, then men, as a collective entity, are debased, because men are sex objects in gay pornography. Indeed, men are sex objects in heterosexual pornography, where they are used in heterosexual porno films. The men are just as much sex objects as the women are. A normal human being, however, has a fantasy life. In the fantasy life, women, for the male, can be sex objects. So what? For the healthy male, that is— there is no— and this, a lot of women may find this fascinating, and I understand that you would find it almost unbelievable, but the two don't conflict at all. To be able to see women on the one hand as sex objects and on the other as fully human that you now make a business deal with, the two don't— they're not exclusive. Any more than they're exclusive if a man is making love to a woman And there is a sex objectification part of it. It's not just lovemaking. There is a sex objectification element as well there, even to the woman that he loves. It's also lovemaking, but it's also pure sex. Sometimes it's pure sex, sometimes it's love, sometimes it's a mixture, and it's fine. And so what? If a man wants his wife to put on a sexy lingerie, he is objectifying her in some way. Of course he is. If it's just pure love, what does she need a bikini for? Or a French maid's outfit? Or whatever is in vogue. Check out Victoria's Secret. I mean, obviously, of course there's an objectification involved, but so what? "So what" are two of the most powerful words in English. It helps defuse so much tension in life. People make, "Oh, that's terrible, he sees women as—" No, he doesn't see women as a sex object. He sees that woman as a sex object. Does he see his mother as a sex object? His sister? His partner at work? His law partner? The prosecutor he's debating? Yeah, maybe when she crosses her legs he does, but then he debates her. Believe it or not, men can do two things at the same time. It's very rare. Very, very rare. We could chew gum and drive, those are two things, and we could see pretty legs and talk to a woman at the same time about Chinese espionage in America. Okay? Believe it or not, it's doable. And I suspect that women are thinking two things as well a lot of the time that they are seeing a man. Not necessarily what are his legs like, but what is he like? Or what's his wife like? Of course! Who isn't thinking two things at once when they see people? Maybe the other thing you think is, "I want to get out of here!" But people are still thinking two things at once. Are men, as a rule, as a collective entity, debased by gay pornography? And do I, Dennis Prager, male, feel that I am personally debased because there are men who see men as pure sex objects? The idea is ludicrous to me. Ludicrous. So what? Are gay men incapable of seeing men as anything but sex objects? Of course not. Of course they could see men as men. So why does it only apply to women? Because of the monster that male sexuality is to many women. And I understand that. I began this course that way. I understand it. I'm trying to defang that monster. Number 2: Women are sometimes regarded as sex objects without pornography. You don't need pornography for men to sometimes see women as sex objects. Right? It's pre-porn, after porn, and aside from porn. Number 3, I would argue, frankly, that very often the male consumer may be more debased than the woman in the picture. When I've seen men— we used to, prior to video, when I saw men come out of X-rated cinemas, believe me, these men are not walking out thinking, "Ah, I am the superior sex. I am great." I just played with myself in the movie theater. Are you kidding? Did you ever see men come out of an X-rated movie theater? Their heads are down, covered, they got a coat over here. The last thing they want is for any human on earth to see them. The women are debased. If anybody's debased, it's the poor schlep. It's him, poor guy. Because he didn't have a real woman, he went to a movie. I've only felt for the guys in these issues, believe me. You know, people, "Oh, the woman and the—" She's getting paid! She couldn't care less about the schlepper who paid $7.50 to see her naked. I mean, that's the fact. And number 4, maybe no one is debased. Maybe, maybe no, neither sex. What, to the tape recorder? Oh, we got plenty of time, it's 35 minutes. The, uh, maybe neither sex is debased. I'm not saying it's also beautiful. I'm not making an argument, "Ah, pornography is holy, uplifting, and wonderful." No. I just want to defang it from the monstrous characteristics many offer it. Also, it depends on what type of pornography. I'll tell you, I think there is some debasing. That is inherently debasing. An example is bestiality. That, I think, no matter how well-paid the actress may be, there is something, to me, debasing in having a human with an animal in a sexual encounter. It may be amazing to you that this exists, but believe me, it exists. I read you off some of those lists 2 weeks ago, that on a typical website in the porn world on the internet. Second argument against pornography: leads to violence. I find this extraordinary. It is an assertion— I might as well say dominoes leads to diarrhea. To me, it is as logical. It is a non sequitur. Looking at pictures of naked women causes a man to kill or rape is a stupid idea. I can't stand dishonesty, whether it's from the right or the left. This one tends to come, as it happens, from both, ironically. The feminist left and the traditional right. Are you kidding? Is that true? Violence— I'll prove to you If you are open to hearing, I will prove to you how it is not true. Listen to this. This is from a study done in nations with the most amount of pornography. They first did it in American states that had obscenity laws and then didn't have obscenity laws. When they had obscenity laws and suppressed pornography, did rape go down, and violence, or any sex crime? They found that there was no correlation whatsoever. Then they went abroad for the same thing. And here I read to you: These findings are consistent with data from several other kinds of studies, including cross-cultural investigations. Puchinski, 1991, examined the rate of reported rape from 19 1964 to 1984 in Denmark, Sweden, and West Germany, the only 3 countries to have legalized pornography. All 3 countries experienced a considerable increase in hardcore, hardcore pictorial pornography, including the aggressive variety: bondage, sadomasochism, whipping, okay? After legalization. However, no country reported a marked increase of incidents of rape. Any increase appears to have been due, even if partially, to better reporting methods. Government commissions in Denmark, England, Israel, Norway, Sweden, and West Germany have found no connection between the availability of pornography in their countries and the incidence of sex crimes. A comment on this. This. One of the things I've learned in 17 years of radio is there is no activist in the world, right or left, who believes truth is more important than his particular idealism. None. I believe that there is zero. Whatever it is you most believe in, truth is second to that passion. To those who hate pornography, truth is secondary. Just as on the left you will have it in whole hosts of areas, people will just not tell you the truth because they so believe with such passion in what they want to show. For a while it was, "We will show poverty causes crime." It was a big deal. And so things would be made up, there would be distorted statistics and data, whatever it is to prove their anger validated. One can view masturbation and pornography in ways that one wants, but please never lie about the issue of pornography leading to violence. That's the statistics, but let me give you the logic why it doesn't. Why would sex— first, let's say, why would sexually arousing material lead to violence? I mean, think about it. What is— are they always interconnected? In other words, men who never engage in that are likely to be kind? The most rapine army in modern history was the Soviet Army. There was no pornography under communism. Nothing. It was utterly prudish, communist Soviet Union. Correct? Zero. When I went into the Soviet Union in 1968, in 1980, whatever it was, I went 3 times to the Soviet Union. They didn't almost care anything, but they took Playboy away if you had it. I didn't bring it in knowing that they didn't want it. They wouldn't allow it. But they searched for it, maybe because the guards wanted to read it. But whatever it is, that was a very big deal. None of this decadence from the West. Meantime, their army was the most raping army in 20th century history that we know of. Okay? So please, you may think it's ugly, you may think whatever you like, but it doesn't lead to violence. This notion, "Well, rapists all had collections of porn." So what? Rapists all had collections of soda. So what? Good men have collections of porn, too. What about violent porn? Seeing women in bondage, and sadomasochism, and so on. Does that lead to sexual violence? Well, does watching men killed lead to violence? Probably does in some unstable minds. I would acknowledge that. For the truly unstable, value-free, If you are free, it may well have an effect. That's correct. If you are immersed, as kids are today, in violence, and you are unstable, and have no conscience, I do believe that an immersion in violence— not sexual violence, most of the violence people watch is not sexual, it's just shoot, shoot, shoot, shoot, shoot, beep, beep, beep, beep, kick, kick, kick. But except for that handful, it has no more effect than watching men get shot in a movie will make the average moviegoer go and shoot a man. Watching a woman in an S&M film. But here's my ultimate proof that it's irrelevant, even the sexual violent porn. A lot of women here won't know this, a lot of men here may not know this. There is almost as much bondage, sadomasochistic pornography about women doing to men the same things that the men are doing to women. Half the men, probably, like seeing themselves whipped by women, or seeing another man whipped by women, as much as there are men liking to watch a woman being whipped by a man, or by another woman. So, does that cause men to whip men? Watching this stuff? No, of course not. It's absurd. So why is whipping men has no effect on men whipping men, whipping women, oh, then they're all going to go and commit rape. Sexual violent pornography is directed against men, and of course gay pornography is certainly, it's filled with bondage of men. Filled with it. A lot of men like to tie up their sexual object— male, female, both, uh, or what have you. Thus far in my studies, I have not seen bondage bestiality. That is the only one I've not seen— a dog tied up. I'm sorry to be so gross, but that has not come about yet. So it must be strictly vis-à-vis people. This has been Timeless Wisdom with Dennis Prager. Visit DennisPrager.com for thousands of hours of Dennis's lectures, courses, and classic radio programs, and to purchase Dennis Prager's Rational Bibles.

You're invited to pull up a chair on Lisa Harper's back porch where faith meets real life. Welcome to Back Porch Theology. Each episode helps you dive deeper into God's word and discover that the gospel isn't just good news for eternity, it's great news for everyday life. Because God is for you, and he's always been restoring our value and drawing us closer to him with honest conversations, a few laughs, and guests ranging from close friends to brilliant theologians. Back Porch Theology is thoughtful, meaningful, and never stuffy. So grab some coffee or sweet tea and join Lisa Harper on Back Porch Theology. Subscribe now wherever you listen to podcasts.