God made porn to bring two people closer together in cyberspace and [to be] enjoyed...in a way that is completely awesome and good. Taken out of that context, porn loses it's original wholesomeness... I agree!!! Nice article! Frankly, I wish the leather event had been better advertised, because I had no idea. Now I see that they had all sorts of great kinky stuff, such as "what color is your hanky?" and free t-shirts. I would have loved to go, as leather is really the best way to get yourself out of your winter blues. Granted, I have my critiques of leather "tools", however I resent the CCC's false notion that Jenna Jameson does not want me. What do they know? She wants me! She *told* me! Eric O., Student Penn

Having organized both the leather events, I will fully admit that I was nervous about backlash and didn't want to publish it too widely. The tremendous positive response that was received has encouraged the LGBT Center and me to consider more instructive leather/kink programming. Phil Cochetti, Student - QPenn Cochair HIll House cochetti@sas.upenn.edu

Melody, I do not understand your focus on addiction as a possible consequence of watching porn. The Christian stance against porn, as stated at the CCC event, is not primarily that porn encourages sexual addiction, but mainly that it encourages sexual relations outside of marriage, period. So in case you missed the point, I'll repeat it for you. According to the Holy Bible, sexual relations outside of a heterosexual marriage is wrong. Addiction or no addiction, the act itself is a sin. CCC did not present a "diversity" of viewpoints on this subject because as far as we Christians are concerned, there is only one correct view. And what other viewpoint did you expect to hear at a Christian meeting??? A Penn Christian, Non-CCC Member, Undergrad Student, Class of 2005

Oh my, the deafening silence of no adulatory parental and sibling posts. tee hee Well if you go off to college and don't twinge the parental units even a little you're just not getting the full on away from home college experience. IMHO- written as one who had his father not speak to him for the entire duration of his freshman Christmas break- let's just say it involved at a minimum facial hair and it was the sixties...... so I can certainly see how knowing how to properly choose a dog collar may be thought overly edgy. Lin

In preface to this comment, I went to the PornNation event. Yet, I still am not clear on how the porn leads to adultery or even sex. I understand that many Christians are opposed to extra-marital and pre-marital sexual intercourse. However, I see a logical gap in the chain of watching porn to extra-marital affairs. Even with the intermediary step of "objectifying people because of porn", this objectification of people in and of itself does not lead someone to have an extra-marital affair. Addiction or not, porn is not the cause of extra-marital relations. If anything, I think the sexual release pornography would discourage pre-marital or extra-marital sexual play. Phil Cochetti cochetti@sas.upenn.edu

I guess the CCCers never read Song of Songs (or Song of Solomon) in the Hebrew Scriptures...cuz that is a very sexualized story...and what's even funnier is the fact that the two individuals had a HIGHLY sexual relationship but were not married... and please, CCC folks - don't scream "but he called her bride" because the gentleman also called the young lady "damsel"...the term "bride" in antiquity did not necessarily carry the meaning of "betrothal"...he also calls her his "sister" and a "dove"... What else? In Song of Songs 1:6 the young woman says that her brothers are angry with her and are punishing her by making her the keeper of the family vineyards. Why are they angry? Because she's failed to keep her own vineyard, a figurative symbol for her own sexual virtue. If she were married, why would her brothers punish her for not 'keeping her garden'? In Song of Songs 8:8-10 the brothers voice their intentions to protect their little sister until the day time when she is promised to another and in response she declares that she has already found favor in the eyes of her beloved. Why would the brother's be asserting their determination to protect their sister's virtue until she's spoken for if she is already spoken for in marriage? there goes the whole "marriage before sex" idea - right out the window...oh yeah...i forgot...you never even reference Song of Songs...it's too sexual... just dat philly bul illy illy philly

I think the most important point here is not whether porn/leather/kink is right or wrong, but that one should not decide what is "normal" for others. If I choose to watch porn in my own home, it does not harm anyone else, and as such should not be restricted from me. If I choose to engage in premarital sex as a result of my porn watching, that's my choice and still does not affect anyone else, other than my partner in the act, who is making an identical choice. If Christians believe so wholeheartedly against these choices, then they won't be watching porn and they won't be my sexual partners. We go on living our lives separately, in the way that we each want to. If you don't believe in premarital sex, don't do it! But at the same time, let me make the choices that I believe in. It's that simple. I don't have the right to tell anyone else how to live their life, and it works in the reverse. I don't understand why that's so hard for Christian Conservatives to understand. Penn Alum, also from Cherry Hill, NJ Penn Alum

The CCC position about porn is in line with their position about sex with animals: if marriage and sexuality were ever judged an entirely private and religious matter there goes "marriage" 'cause I guess they all figure sex with a sheep is just that much better then with their wives?? Or gay marriage, for a group that professes to find homosexual love repulsive they sure seem completely confident that it's only law that keeps every Christian couple from leaving their marriage and taking up with people of the same gender. Maybe it's not the rest of us but who they marry? Just could be. Just sayin because my personal experience is way at variance to what it appears Rick Santorum finds better than his marriage, Senator, when the livestock starts looking good it's time to do a reboot on the home front. Don't blame the innocent sheep: they can't help those big eyes.... ralf

I would like to agree with the Penn Alum from Cherry Hill NJ. I think Mel's trying to say "who defines normal?" and that people, especially consenting adults should feel comfortable to make choices for themselves. Great article Mel. Robyn, Mel's mom

I am a girl who loves to get kinky but loathes, loathes, loathes porn. In general, I think people should think about sex less than they do (waste of TIME, baby) and do it better when they get the chance. Rachel

According to the Holy Bible, sexual relations outside of a heterosexual marriage is wrong. I don't at all doubt this statement, but I've always heard people say that the New Testament forbids such relations. My (uninformed) impression, however, was always that this doctrine was developed only afterwards, in the late antique to Medieval period, in the patristic tradition. I'm wondering if you or anyone else has a specific passage or passages to refer me to in the New Testament for a specific discussion of marital sexual relations. I am not very familiar with the NT, but am interested in reading on my own what it has to say on this material. A. Friend

The problem with the CCC's stance on pornography is that they claim -- as they do with most of their drivel -- to be setting the standard for "normalcy." This suggests that they have (a) moral superiority and are (b) the moral majority. On the first point, pornography probably does a lot more good than bad, even for the institution of heterosexual marriage, by providing a relatively safe outlet for sexual energy. Imagine if your stereotypical man couldn't access images of other people doing the nasty in the comfort of his desktop or with a flip of a mag page...he might easily go outside the home (or outside his relationships) to find release. And spouses rarely always want sex at the same time in the same places, so one can understand that eliminating pornography altogether would add a lot of stress to relationships. "i'm tired...leave me alone" would fly even less well than it already does. Now on to the premise that the CCC represents a majority view. First, there is obviously a huge demand for pornography. The thousands of websites catering to every desire under the sun could hardly pay for their own bandwidth if they didn't have hundreds, thousands, and millions of people logging in day after day. Second, pretty much every guy i know (gay, straight, bi, whatever) likes porn and so do most of the women...and we're talking about people from the more conservative side of the tracks too (registered republicans, Southern Baptists). If pressed, I bet even our president would admit to wanking it to an issue of playboy a couple (hundred) times. So until I see polling data where people overwhelmingly come out against pornography, I can't concieve of why the CCC (arrogant and conceited as even they may be) thinks that they have the morality market cornered on this issue. Melody Joy Kramer has it right. If you don't like pornography, don't watch it, buy it, read it, websurf for it. And if you have a problem with your significant other looking at it in his/her free time, then by all means try to stop them. And if you're concerned that it's "everywhere" and unavoidable, then consider this: pornography is brown-bagged and put in the back of the mag racks (up high), scrambled on television, and it is easy to block pornographic sites online. So your problem must be that you're just too lazy to go through the few and simple motions necessary to actually deal with your personal hang-up, or you're actively looking for the porn to get all "worked up" over and just feel guilty about it. Normal? The CCC's position doesn't even come close. justin, student university of pennsylvania

I. Self-reasons 1. Freedom is a fundamental human desire/need 2. Porn, along with other substance (drugs for ex.), fosters addiction 3. Addiction enslaves and controls thought pattern, behavior & life of an individual (as addict of any type can testify) 4. Porn therefore restricts, rather than enhance, personal freedom by enslaving the individual 5. One of the inherent promises in the Christian Gospel is one of freedom 6. The Gospel therefore offers a recourse to a life motivated, driven & enslaved by the individual's many desires (more and more money, bigger and bigger house), but one which in the end proves empty and meaningless (as all thoughtful thinkers from all traditions across all times have concluded) 7. The Gospel therefore is certainly no "law" (or worse "scare tactics" as the author says) condemning or restricting certain behavior; on the contrary it simply offers an infinitely better alternative: Freedom (including the freedom to ACTUALLY love all people, men and WOMEN alike) II. Other- Reason Porn are portrayed fantasies that will cause distortion on views of women, objectifying/demeaning them, and lead to more serious consequences, some more subtle (can genuine love exist in human relationships when women are objectified), some more obvious (divorce, rape, etc) Alex- a Christian's perspective enchiang@wharton.upenn.edu

Alex: Are you kidding me? This is the least cogent argument I've ever read on this bulletin board. I guess I would expect as much from someone who believes so strongly in a bunch of medieval superstitions. There's obviously not a lot of sense there to begin with. madalyn murray o'hare, Professional Atheist Hell

we think this is awesome. thank you. no specific arguments, because frankly, all the ones we've read against us defeat themselves without our efforts. so: just plain support. arielle and jessica, 2 HOTT 4 U

http://www.asc.upenn.edu/usr/chunter/porn_effects.html Bear in mind that it is in violation of the Bible's teachings against sodomy to have your head up your ass. Emily B, student Penn

I am responding to all of you. Well, most of you. I am Catholic, and I am not a member of CCC, and I did not even attend their event, "Porn Nation". But let me tell you what Catholics believe, in the hope that you will stop mocking Christian prudery. Looking at porn is wrong in and of itself, not because it "causes" another other social ill. It is wrong because looking at porn is lustful, and lust is wrong. Christ said, "You have heard that it was said, `You shall not commit adultery.' But I say to you that every one who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart" (Matt. 5:27-28). St. Paul said, "Shun immorality. Every other sin which a man commits is outside the body; but the immoral man sins against his own body. Do you not know that your body is a temple of the Holy Spirit within you, which you have from God? You are not your own; you were bought with a price. So glorify God in your body" (1 Cor. 6:18-20). In other words, Christian sexual morality is about PURITY. (More info: http://www.pureloveclub.com/chastity/index.php?id=7&entryid;=127 ) If you don't believe that, fine. Nobody's saying that you have to follow Christian moral principles. As I understand it, the CCC event was merely encouraging Christians to follow Christian moral principles, rather than conforming themselves to this culture. just dat philly bul: Song of Songs is an allegory for Christ's love for the Church. You have to take the Holy Scriptures in context; and, for Christians, part of that context is to look at the Hebrew Scriptures in light of the New Testament. Song of Songs is certainly not about how great extramarital affairs are, because they are expressly forbidden in other places in the Bible. If the Bible is really the Revelation of God, then it is not possible that an act so absolutely condemned by God throughout the Bible would be celebrated in one particular part. "For I the LORD do not change" (Malachi 3:6). Therefore, you have misinterpreted. Penn Alum, Robyn, justin: You all appeal to that corageous moral principle, "live and let live". And that's fine. As I said, I do not know that anyone asked that non-Christians abide by Christian moral principles. You are assuming that. ralf: Your comment is invincibly incomprehensible. A. Friend: First of all, the "late antique to Medieval period" is not the same as "the patristic tradition". The "Patristic Era" refers to the period of the great Church Fathers (hence "patristic") after the death of the apostles (sometime in the late first century AD) up to about the death of St. Augustine (430 AD). Then begins the Medieval period. For New Testament passages, try these: Hebrews 13:4, 2 Timothy 2:22, Matthew 5:27-32, 1 Thessalonians 4:2-8, 1 Corinthians 6:9-20. Two caveats, though: (1) there are plenty of relevant passages in the Hebrew Scriptures as well. (2) You and I may read the same passage and come away with completely different things. This is because we probably disagree about what, essentially, the Bible *is*. If you do not believe it is the Word of God, there is no sense in our arguing over correct interpretation. Alex: That makes sense, but I take issue with #7. The Gospels do indeed set out new "laws condemning or restricting certain behavior". But they are laws that are for our own good, for our freedom. For example, I can pretend I know how to play the piano, refusing to take lessons or learn the rules, but enjoy my "freedom" to bang on the keys. But will I make music? Probably not. Indeed, I need rules, practice, and hard work in order to play real music. It is THROUGH these helpful rules that I become *truly free* to play beautiful music, or to play whatever I want. Similarly, THROUGH God's laws, we become *truly free* to fulfill our own deepest longings, our purpose in life, and God's plan for our eternal happiness. Madalyn: The argument is perfectly cogent. Read what I said above. You would "expect" a poorly constructed argument from a Christian "who believes so strongly in a bunch of medieval superstitions"? Well, you are a bigot, and an idiot. By the way, Christianity is not a product of the Medieval era. It was born in antiquity; in ancient Rome. Get your bigoted insults right next time. just bein Frank

What/where was the praise from Dan Savage? Just curious. Roger

Too much time spent on the anal anti porn people and not enough time spent on the leather people doing anal. Cardex

Melody, you outdo yourself. Congratulations on the great article and the praise from DAN SAVAGE!!! Topher Brown, Student Penn browncs@sas.upenn.edu

@ Frank good stuff---well written! Awesome perspective.