Pornography Okay with Scout Oath/Law?

[tortdog]

Too bad we can't do this anonymously, but a question arose in a discussion that I would assume would be unanimous among scouters.

 

Which answer do you most agree with:

 

(A) Viewing hardcore* pornography violates the Scout Oath/Law

 

(B) Viewing softcore* pornography violates the Scout Oath/Law

 

© Viewing any form of pornography conforms with the Scout Oath/Law

 

(D) Both A and B.

 

*To avoid the discussion turning into a philosophical discussion on "what is pornography", please use the following definitions:

 

Softcore: materials that feature nudity and sexually suggestive scenes.

 

Hardcore: materials that contains close-ups of aroused genitalia and sexual activities including penetration.

 

http://www.answers.com/topic/pornography(This message has been edited by tortdog)

[NJCubScouter]

Well, I don't know if you will get a unanimous answer, and from me you may not get an answer at all, at least not until you answer a few questions of mine...

 

The main question is: What are you defining as pornography? (And don't try, "I know it when I see it," Justice Potter Stewart already used that to "define" what is "obscene," which is something different than pornography, starting with the fact that "obscene" material is not protected by the First Amendment, while material that is "merely" pornographic, is.)

 

Is "Playboy" magazine pornographic?

 

Is "Maxim" magazine pornographic?

 

And since neither you nor I have, of course, ever viewed either of those magazines nor any material that could ever be remotely considered pornographic, let me add these questions:

 

Is a photograph of a woman without any clothes on, with no effort made to "hide" anything, pornography?

 

Is a "tasteful" photo of a woman without any clothes on, pornography?

 

Is a photo of a woman with very little clothing on, such as lingerie, pornography?

 

(I apologize for the sexist nature of these questions, but if someone else wants to ask about "Playgirl," or photos of unclothed men, they may of course do so.)

[evmori]

C

 

NJ,

Don't over think it! It's an easy question based on the definitions given by tortdog.

 

Ed Mori

Troop 1

1 Peter 4:10

[tortdog]

D for me.

 

I edited my post because of NJ's question. I also modified "C" to make sure people understand that if you select it you are saying pornography is okay with the Scout Law/Oath.

[Hunt]

This question is too complicated for a yes/no answer. First, by your definition, the Venus de Milo is softcore pornography, and a manual designed to teach people how to overcome sexual disfunction might be hardcore pornography.

The answer is that an action is not "morally straight" when it violates the relevant standard of morality. In most cases, I think this should be the moral standard of the individual, as established by his conscience and his upbringing. Thus, if you think it's immoral to look at the Sports Illustrated Swimsuit Issue, then it's not morally straight for you to do so.

But that's the easy part. We also have communal standards of what is moral, and if somebody deviates too far from the communal standard, we exclude that person from the community. I think probably everybody in this conversation will think that looking at extreme hardcore pornography for prurient purposes is immoral and contrary to "morally straight."

The problem is drawing the line between what we should all agree is immoral, sufficient to judge another person as unfit, and what we recognize may be due to different, but socially acceptable, ideas of morality. With respect to pornography, I personally cannot draw that line with any precision.

[Vicki]

I'm saddened because no matter where I turn, I'm faced with this sort of thing.

 

But I admit there are days when I despair of our society and just want to jump in a hole and pull it in after me.

 

"Movin' to Montana soon, gonna be a dental floss tycoon"...courtesy of Frank Zappa.

 

Vicki

[NJCubScouter]

Ed says:

 

NJ,

Don't over think it! It's an easy question based on the definitions given by tortdog.

 

Um, yeah, except the definitions were not in tortdog's post when I asked my questions. He edited them into his first post later, in response to my questions. Personally, tortdog, I do not think that is a very "polite" use of the editing function since it gives the reader the impression that I did not read your post, when in fact I was responding to a different post than the one that now appears at the top of the thread. (You did acknowledge the editing in the next post, but I don't think that completely fixes the problem.) You (Tortdog) could have answered my questions in another post, not changed the first one.

 

Now, in response to version 2.0 of the first post, first of all I do not agree that any depiction that "features nudity" would be pornographic, but using your assumption that it does, no, I do not think that looking at what you define as "softcore pornography" necessarily violates the Scout Oath or Law.

[CA_Scouter]

I personally resent the sensationalist tone of the subject line. Its meant only to provoke, not to provide meaningful debate on a subject relevant to Scouting.

 

Yes, I can see people want to split hairs on this issue, as they've included definitions and explanations and many shades of gray, but its still just splitting hairs to me...

 

 

[tortdog]

Sorry that you see the fix as a slight, NJ. People will look at the first post, not the third to figure out what the question being asked is. I explained why you had responded as you had, and directly addressed your concern.

 

BTW, I've asked this same question to three scouters in my office and all IMMEDIATELY responded that in their opinion any form of pornography is definitely contrary to the Scout Oath/Law.(This message has been edited by tortdog)

[Rooster7]

D

 

By the way, pornography doesn't need to be defined in any detail. Men, and boys for that matter, know it when they see it. Furthermore - there's no doubt in my mind, every man and boy knows that it's wrong. And YES - I consider Maxim and other magazines like it to be pornographic. They cater to our base humanistic desires.

[tortdog]

The tally so far:

 

A - 1

B - 0

C - 1

D - 2

 

BTW, I am not going to pass this as a "judgment" on someone's viewpoint. I have my own, as does each person no doubt, but I'm just curious to see where scouters lie.

 

I'd also be curious to see how scouters compare with America as a whole.

[NJCubScouter]

Rooster says:

 

And YES - I consider Maxim and other magazines like it to be pornographic. They cater to our base humanistic desires.

 

I wouldn't know. I only read it for the articles.

 

But seriously, Rooster, how far do you take this? The COVER of these magazines is pornographic by your definition as well, isn't it? So are you required to stay out of the magazine aisle when you go to the store, for fear that otherwise you might see a picture of a woman in a skimpy bikini on the cover of a magazine? Or do you just cover your eyes as you walk further down the aisle to where you know they keep the Sporting News?

 

And what are our "base humanistic desires?" Is that just sex? I suppose I could argue that overindulgence in food or wine falls into the same category, and there certainly are magazines that cater to that. (Cater, get it?)

[Trevorum]

I assume you're referring to the "morally straight" part of the Oath and the "Clean" part of the Law.

 

To take this thought process one more logical step, what about the "physically strong" part of the Oath? We've talked about this elsewhere. Does purposefully inhaling carcinogenic smoke violate the "physically strong" part of the Oath? How about drinking a known bio-toxin (alcohol)? Doesn't that violate the Scout Oath?

 

How about vountarily subjecting oneself to daily hours of mind-numbing garbage on TV? Doesn't that violate the "mentally awake" part?

 

The point is that this slope is exceedingly slippery - as we have discussed ad nasueum in the "What would you do?" thread...

[evmori]

TYPO TYPO TYPO!

 

I meant D!

 

Sorry!

[Backpacker]

I for one consider this thread ridiculously absurd, for it serves no real purpose or leads to any meaningful discussion. Tortdog what the heck is your point?

 

Rooster, you are consistent as ever, you definitely are a man on a mission, good for you.