My brother's bible class was teaching him about "addiction"

[Chad32]

If we're going to say voluntarily doing something that's likely to cause bruising and such, we're going to have to ban sports. Saying that all harm is bad doesn't seem right to me. Hell, working out harms the body if you're doing it correctly.

[Esquilax]

Well of course there's a legal side - and most people do not like the idea that people are "voluntarily" filling up hospitals. So legally of course it makes sense that causing another person harm is always wrong.

I'm getting the feeling, from this, that you don't have a lot of experience with bdsm. That's fine, but I do need to point out that you're severely overstressing the case by imagining this as the kind of harm one goes to the hospital for. There are bruises, yes, but rarely more harsh than what you'd get from a punch on the arm. I'm not going to sit here and pretend no kink related injuries ever happen, but responsible kinksters understand the risks and account for them.

Within the context of the law, I think a case could be made that the line needs to be drawn a little tighter than "harm" in general. Is spanking okay? What about sex toys? I've seen a lot more emergency room trips for those things getting stuck in private places than I have bdsm hospitalizations, after all.

As Chad very rightly pointed out, we sometimes allow ourselves to undergo low impact harm for some other purpose all the time. In the case of bdsm, we take the pain because we're wired in a way that allows us to derive pleasure from it, or because of the endorphin rush, or the headspace one gets into during. Done correctly, it isn't harm that costs anyone anything; bruises heal, marks fade, and they don't impede your life or require outside medical treatment in the interim. Should there be laws preventing serious self inflicted injuries? Sure. But if one makes a cost/benefit analysis of kink, I doubt one could come to the conclusion that the costs are even really present, above and beyond the normal background risks that everyday life poses.

Now you missed my point - the type of activity depicted in Kink videos is legally grey at best, thus if it's legally grey in the first place it shouldn't be legally OK as acceptable pornography.

So where do you draw the line, and why? If a girl gets spanked in a porno, is that over the line? What if the guy uses an implement, and not his hand? How red does her ass need to get before it turns a shade of legal grey?

There are obvious signs of harm that are clear indicators, and there are other, more subtle variations. I would argue that Kink does rough movies, but in their work I've never seen more than redness of the skin. The irony here is that before Kink came along it used to be far worse; there were companies preceding them that were absolutely brutal, ones that really did ignore safewords and consent, shit that I'm glad went away. I go to Kink precisely because nobody breaks the skin, and I don't have to see black bruises the size of my hand.

[Dorian Gray]

I don't know how this got into a BDSM discussion, but dude - think about it: if masturbation caused a decrease in testosterone, then guys that just have a lot of sex would be hairless guys with man-boobs asking women out with falsetto voices. I mean, really.

As far as your brother learning about sexuality from the Bible, well....he's being indoctrinated to think that a lot of things are wrong and that there is an invisible being in the sky who is watching his every move, inducing guilt in his natural desire to think women are attractive.

This is not to say that porn addiction isn't real, but church certainly isn't the answer. There you will learn that every conundrum that can't be explained will go away if you pray about it. Ask god for help, and he will take away the very desire that he gave you in the first place, right? Personally, I always thought thought that prayer was the last resort for the truly damned.

Science can't offer a complete answer yet as to why people engage in activities that are detrimental to their lives. So Christians will still tell you that "Jesus saves." Hell, I used to drink myself into oblivion regularly and couldn't figure out why. I tried the Jesus pill, and found out that swallowing that delusion made me check my brain at the door, and didn't do a damn thing but turn me into a guilt-ridden, brainwashed, paranoid idiot.

[Chad32]

You can get addicted to anything. There being a chance of addiction doesn't mean something is bad. I'm pretty much addicted to food. Do I really need to eat about five times a day? No. Not that I can completely swear off food.

[Aractus]

[C4RM5]

Leave him to make his own decisions it is his life, he can chose whether to believe in atheistic views or not.

[Aractus]

I think there's an illusion people build when viewing porn, I'll talk about this more some other time.

They include:

1. They're consenting adults.
Reality: No, they're sex workers performing a scene involving a director who tells them what to do. Performers are expected to continue scenes that are unpleasant, repulsive, uncomfortable or physically painful. "Consenting adults" generally stop at these points, but sex workers continue because they're being paid to.

2. Porn is not a part of the sex industry.
Reality: Yes it is. Even ignoring the fact that around 85% of women in the USA's porn do sex-work off the set, being paid to perform sexual acts is the very definition of sex work. Thus the same arguments made about prostitution in general also apply to pornography - e.g. STI reduction. Prostitutes in Australia are required to use condoms by law when performing sex work. It's only really in third world countries where they are not.

3. STIs are under control in the porn industry because of testing.
Reality: No. Testing only allows them to act quickly when an HIV or other outbreak happens. Porn stars have much, much higher rates of every type of STI than the general population, including Chlamydia and genital warts.

4. Porn work is safe.
Reality: No, No, No! Every other industry requires employers have the appropriate insurances in place. Insurance then requires you have safe guards in place as well. If a nurse, for instance, contracts a disease he or she is entitled to worker's compensation and will get an immediate payout from the hospital or clinic's insurance company. Porn producers do not have insurance, so when someone gets an certain incurable STI's such as HIV they are banned from the industry - but not compensated and they are on their own. They also do NOT keep records that would allow them to easily identify when and where outbreaks occur - instead what happens is that every porn producer will deny there was any possibility that it happened on their set.

[Chad32]

This is why I tend to stick with animated porn.

[genkaus]

1. They're consenting adults.
Reality: No, they're sex workers performing a scene involving a director who tells them what to do. Performers are expected to continue scenes that are unpleasant, repulsive, uncomfortable or physically painful. "Consenting adults" generally stop at these points, but sex workers continue because they're being paid to.

By that logic, if your law firm asks you to represent a criminal - a task you find unpleasant, repulsive or uncomfortable and pays you to do that work - you are no longer a consenting adult and thus are being enslaved.

The rest are arguments for improving the employee standards of porn industry - not arguments against porn itself.

[Fidel_Castronaut]

Leave him to make his own decisions it is his life, he can chose whether to believe in atheistic views or not.

Stop talking shit.

Stop it! 'Atheistic views' .