This is an important conversation that goes beyond porn. I do not think that Christian theologies today have the capacity to understand what it means to be fully human in the wake of AI and trans-human technologies. Thanks for bringing this a conversation, If Christianity keeps going down the path of moralistic theologies (as it has for the last several hundred years), it will become more irrelevant that it already is in many contexts.
“This will be uncomfortable, because it will force Christians to make moral arguments that appear irredeemably at odds with the secular society.”
Honestly, this is true for way more than just anti-porn arguments. Our morality IS irredeemably at odds with the secular society — and it should be. While I wholeheartedly agree that the personal moral case needs to be made by each of us, it does stand that porn is damaging to both men and women. The Bible is clear that it’s wrong and dangerous, but I’ve also been doing a lot of research lately on the neuroscience behind porn addiction and it’s shocking just how dangerous it is. It literally breaks parts of our brains and takes years to recover. I think that is the new crossover argument that needs to be made in addition to the biblically moral arguments of sin and accountability.
While I agree with the main thrust of the argument, I have two pushbacks to offer, in the spirit of continuing the conversation and sharpening one another's thinking.
The first regards this statement: "The next era of pornography will almost certainly feature no humans at all, but lifelike computer-generated images that have no souls, no legal status, and no inhibitions." I think this will be partially true, but perhaps not nearly as much as you think. Why? Because there is a difference that the user will quickly discern between the real and the artificial, and just like the completely CGI-fabricated fight scenes in all the new Marvel movies feel so flat and weightless, so the novelty of the AI stuff will probably not satisfy the perverted minds and lusts of the users. There is a dark corner of the porn-addicted soul that not only wants to be titillated, but wants to know that this thing really happened.
The second is with respect to this part of the last paragraph: "When there’s no one to exploit, there is still God to offend. When there is no one to be trafficked, there is still God who sees." True enough about God being offended and God seeing, but the dynamic of sin in the human heart is always towards deeper involvement. So even if we grant that AI-porn will displace most of the Western human actors, the one-way ratchet of this sin-slavery will pull the user towards real-life experience of their dark fantasies, and this will sustain or even increase the tragic demand for trafficked humans to serve as victims.
So I agree with you that the church needs to articulate a strong and robust argument against porn that does not focus so much on the damage done to the people featured in it. This will be critically important when the so-called victimless porn becomes even more mainstream. But I am not so optimistic as you that all this will really lower the demand for content featuring real humans and real bodies, nor that this will result in any decrease in human trafficking for the purpose of sexual exploitation.
This is an important expansion of the post. Thank you, Phil for sharing it. The disembodied experience of porn - regardless of its form - will always lead to a degradation of the embodied life. A worse husband, a less attentive father, a fragmented soul. I was all of these things for a season. It creates a rupture in our relationships at all levels - with our Lord, with ourselves, and with our loved ones. We may no longer harm those we don’t know by consuming AI-porn (the “She’s someone’s daughter” mindset), but those we know will always experience the fallout from our consumption.
You're so right and I'm thankful that people like you are ahead in thinking about this.
We're going to have to be biblically sharp as we deal with this at its source (Matt 5:23). The truth is, while OnlyFans exists because of willing women—it decisively exists as a result of willing men.
Additionally, I do think there is still validity in saying that AI objectifies and degrades women. AI doesn't come from a vacuum in terms of subject matter. AI-generated images are still degrading real women in a real sense. These images are an amalgamation of real people from the data that trained these system to work. (This relates to a whole larger issue where artists, who have their work online, are struggling to combat "AI-theft" of their work.)
The AI move also is a move away from "embodiment", that we are our bodies, a move that puts the discussion more in line with that of the Greek Fathers, where sex/passion is rejected for how it interferes with our relationship or union with God. It seems then that Reformed Christians might address this along two avenues: the first, being the necessity of embodiment, that this is how we are created, a move that echoes rejection of any/all screen mediated reality. A second move, is to learn from those Fathers, that when we place the action in our minds, as AI does, we need to be attentive to how our mental framing gets corrupted. Further, that as porn becomes our social imaginary, it in turn objectifies others, where we see them as manifestations of this porn-fueled dream. To see my neighbor, I must shed my dream, so oddly, an apophatic spirituality with a Reformed view.
In our zeal to eliminate everything Catholic, we Protestants have thrown out the saints with the bathwater and are now reaping the results. The Church Fathers aren't Catholic; Protestants must rediscover this.
Augustine's Confessions are a wonderful introduction to the idea that the problem of sin is not about what it does to others but about what it does to you. (Why is he so obsessed with the pears? Because it reveals a deep evil within himself.) Either Augustine and Aquinas are right (there is a divine natural law) or Neitzsche is (God is dead, jungle law prevails.)
It appears we are nearing the end of our Nietzschean turn. The crisis of moral reasoning inaugurated by Bacon and Decartes and embraced by Nietzsche has reached its illogical endpoint. Witness the number of "re-enchantment" books and articles recently. However, it matters greatly "what" or "who" we become (re)enchanted with. There are principalities and powers (both temporal and otherwise -- think Return of the Gods or the Lord of the Spirits) that would be happy to have our allegiance. There's only one who deserves it.
What is fascinating to me about this moment in history is not how "new" this discussion is, but how old it is. We have now circled all the way back to the competing worldviews of the New Testament era with Neo-platonism and early forms of Gnosticism running rampant and threatening some key doctrines of the church. Some would argue they even threatened the continuation of Christian orthodoxy.
As the previous comments have stated, the porn problem is just one symptom of a deeper issue the church needs to speak into. Whether it be porn, AI, transgenderism, euthanasia, abortion, etc. These issues are all symptoms of a trend toward separating embodiment from reality. We are witnessing the great, great grandchild of Neo-Platonism and Gnosticism. And the NT is ripe with arguments to combat this false view of reality. One can see John arguing against these ideas in 1 John or the Apostle Paul in Colossians.
Unfortunately, I see two problems within the broader evangelical world. Though they have also affected much of the narrower reformed world. First, is that many do not see the core worldview/philosophical issues at play and/or are busy fighting the symptoms. The second, and more concerning problem, is that many have bought into the same dualistic worldview that under-girds the issues we are fighting against and don't even realize it. Platonic/Gnostic ideas run rampant in evangelicalism. We need a return to a robust biblical view of reality. A view that is holistic, embodied, supernatural, with a strong creator/creature distinction. A worldview that understands God's created order as good and with sin as the cancer that has infected all of His creation.
A number of authors and ministries have tried to address this for years now, but unfortunately their work has not gained the type of traction needed to really make a large scale difference across the evangelical spectrum.
First, I should state that it is more accurate to use lower-case "platonic" and "gnostic." These formal ideologies are not what is running rampant. It's more that their philosophical underpinnings are. Those underpinnings being an unbiblical dualism. Without taking the time to expound on what I mean by that, I will just give some examples of where I see them in evangelicalism.
- Many Christians' understanding of "heaven" and our eternal state (ask people what it is going to be like when they get to heaven)
- The sacred/secular divide in evangelicalism
- How "Christian" ministry positions are viewed as superior to "ordinary" jobs
- Christian bookstores with their "Christian" paintings, "Christian" toys, and "Christian" breath mints (anyone remember "Testamints?")
- The lack of creation care throughout much of evangelicalism
- The content and lyrics of many popular Christian songs and hymns ("heaven is our home...", "like a bird from prison bars has flown, I'll fly away...")
- A general devaluing of the arts in broader evangelicalism
There is a quick list off the top of my head.
Numerous authors and Christian leaders have addressed this issue over the decades but their warnings and exhortations have not taken root. Below is a list of some helpful books addressing the issue either explicitly or implicitly:
- Being Human: The Nature of Spiritual Experience; Jerram Barrs & Ranald Macaulay
- Heaven Is a Place on Earth: Why Everything You Do Matters to God; Dr. Michael Wittmer
- Surprised by Hope; N.T. Wright
- Creation Regained; Al Wolters
- Heaven; Randy Alcorn (the appendix has a chapter titled Christoplatonism that deals specifically with this issue)
- Love Thy Body; Nancy Pearcey (a book on how this issue applies directly to our bodies and the current issues plaguing our culture)
- Remember Creation: God's World of Wonder and Delight; Scott Hozee
- Ordinary: Sustainable Faith In a Radical, Restless World; Michael Horton
Additionally, teachings from Francis Schaeffer and L'Abri Fellowship have sought for decades to recover a biblical worldview.
Only to nitpick a bit, but while I agree with you in the underdeveloped theology of the body is quite rampant, I would also stress the difference between Christian Platonism (think Augustine, Aquinas, or modernly, CS Lewis) vs the influence of neo-platonism. Christian Platonism works towards a protection of the transcendent objectivity of God, Neo-Platonism pushes it into Idealism.
This is the question that Dr. Wittmer addressed in the beginning of "Heaven Is a Place On Earth." Where lies the great divide? He would argue, and I would agree, that we tend to make the divide too big between spiritual/physical rather than creator/created. There is a divide between spiritual and physical, but an overemphasis on this is where we start to veer into Neo-Platonic tendencies. I think you can achieve the transcendent objectivity of God with Platonic ideas. Though there is overlap and why there is much to glean from that philosophy. We just need to be clear where the differences are.
I love Lewis and have benefited significantly from his writings, but I think he gets a little too cozy with platonic ideas in this regard in a few places. I think G.K. Chesterton is one of the best I've read who handles the spiritual/physical reality of creation.
I have come to question the idea that Christians will spend eternity in heaven. The Bible speaks of a new heaven and a new earth after Christ returns. Otherwise I am not sure of the problem you reference about the Christian understanding of heaven. Am I on the right track? I have long been bothered by the word “Christian” being attached to commercial products. I remember being annoyed by the artwork, coffee mugs, etc. I would see on display at Christian bookstores. I have heard of some of the books you mentioned but many are new to me. I have also begun to explore the work of Francis Schaeffer. Thanks for the reply.
You bet. For books, I would start with "Heaven Is a Place on Earth" and "Being Human." They both a do a great job laying the groundwork. Plus they are very accessible.
When I read discussions of this sort I lament the dismal quality of my education in Western thinkers. The Intro to Philosophy class I took in college was pathetic. I anticipated reading and discussing the writings of ancient to modern philosophers. Instead, the text was written by the professor and he spent a fair amount of class time ridiculing belief in God, making sure to use the lower case “g” on the blackboard. Hence, I have no idea what “neo-platonic” thought is. I tried to fill in what I have missed by listening to Spencer Klavan’s podcast, Young Heretics. I learned a lot but think I would benefit from a deeper dive into the writings themselves. I have Will Durant’s The Story of Philosophy on by bookshelf, but so many books cry for my attention that I haven’t gotten to it.
The other big question is -- and I have not figured out an elegant way to put this -- "What good thing is not happening because of this?" In the case of porn (of any kind): women and men are not trusting each other, they are not marrying, they are not having sex, and above all they are not having children. Or to go back to the OG "who does this harm?" question: children who never come into being, the wives (and some husbands) who are being neglected, the lonely folks who aren't getting together -- they are being harmed.
However it's generated, this smut is deeply damaging to society, families, and individuals. And for that reason alone it's terrible for women. It makes men stupid, self-centered, and weak. Finally, it's ugly and deeply offensive to God and his plan for human sexuality. The fact that the goddess Supreme Court ever decided this obscenity was "speech" shows how little the Supreme Court can be taken seriously. It's poison and should be avoided at all costs.
It seems some tried to argue against violent video games, especially first-person shooters and that debate has largely been lost. I think for the same reason, the "It's not hurting anybody (else)." We've failed to focus on how we are forming ourselves through technology.
Except when a person watches and gets the idea that a 3-some or objectification they see on the screen is how they should approach someone in real life and you have a problem. Sheila Wray Gregoire surveyed 20,000 women before writing The Great Sex Rescue and found a noticeable percentage of women who had this issue in their marriage.
I saw an article in a London newspaper a couple of years ago, in which young English women were complaining that their boyfriends wanted to commit violence against them during sex, e.g. slapping them. The young men obviously got this idea from violent porn; some of the young women mentioned explicitly that their boyfriends watched such porn.
Replace the current violent porn with AI-generated porn; does this problem then go away? I don't see how the problem would change at all.
Great article. I agree with the main points. But the question "Whom does this harm?" will still have the same answer: It will harm men and women and their relationships. One of our problems today is focusing only on the direct harm to women in porn, and not all of the indirect harms to both men and women.
Good post, and very accurately put. I'd go further than just Christians, though Christians are obviously the target audience here, policy makers are completely ill-equipped to handle this.
I'm reminded of an article I read last year about porn-focused AI image-generators and just how granular they can get and how 'good' the users are at prompting them to deliver exactly what they want. Despite seeing porn as disgusting it's not difficult to see the intoxicating appeal of this for someone who's already a user; it's near instantaneous delivery of an almost bespoke product. We aren't dealing with the "Silicone Valley" of the 80s, 90s, 00s, & 10s here, we aren't even dealing with the OnlyFans of the Pandemic Era, this is a Digital Godzilla, and I'm not sure what weapons can lay siege to it.
This is an important conversation that goes beyond porn. I do not think that Christian theologies today have the capacity to understand what it means to be fully human in the wake of AI and trans-human technologies. Thanks for bringing this a conversation, If Christianity keeps going down the path of moralistic theologies (as it has for the last several hundred years), it will become more irrelevant that it already is in many contexts.
“This will be uncomfortable, because it will force Christians to make moral arguments that appear irredeemably at odds with the secular society.”
Honestly, this is true for way more than just anti-porn arguments. Our morality IS irredeemably at odds with the secular society — and it should be. While I wholeheartedly agree that the personal moral case needs to be made by each of us, it does stand that porn is damaging to both men and women. The Bible is clear that it’s wrong and dangerous, but I’ve also been doing a lot of research lately on the neuroscience behind porn addiction and it’s shocking just how dangerous it is. It literally breaks parts of our brains and takes years to recover. I think that is the new crossover argument that needs to be made in addition to the biblically moral arguments of sin and accountability.
While I agree with the main thrust of the argument, I have two pushbacks to offer, in the spirit of continuing the conversation and sharpening one another's thinking.
The first regards this statement: "The next era of pornography will almost certainly feature no humans at all, but lifelike computer-generated images that have no souls, no legal status, and no inhibitions." I think this will be partially true, but perhaps not nearly as much as you think. Why? Because there is a difference that the user will quickly discern between the real and the artificial, and just like the completely CGI-fabricated fight scenes in all the new Marvel movies feel so flat and weightless, so the novelty of the AI stuff will probably not satisfy the perverted minds and lusts of the users. There is a dark corner of the porn-addicted soul that not only wants to be titillated, but wants to know that this thing really happened.
The second is with respect to this part of the last paragraph: "When there’s no one to exploit, there is still God to offend. When there is no one to be trafficked, there is still God who sees." True enough about God being offended and God seeing, but the dynamic of sin in the human heart is always towards deeper involvement. So even if we grant that AI-porn will displace most of the Western human actors, the one-way ratchet of this sin-slavery will pull the user towards real-life experience of their dark fantasies, and this will sustain or even increase the tragic demand for trafficked humans to serve as victims.
So I agree with you that the church needs to articulate a strong and robust argument against porn that does not focus so much on the damage done to the people featured in it. This will be critically important when the so-called victimless porn becomes even more mainstream. But I am not so optimistic as you that all this will really lower the demand for content featuring real humans and real bodies, nor that this will result in any decrease in human trafficking for the purpose of sexual exploitation.
May the Lord have mercy on us in these days.
This is an important expansion of the post. Thank you, Phil for sharing it. The disembodied experience of porn - regardless of its form - will always lead to a degradation of the embodied life. A worse husband, a less attentive father, a fragmented soul. I was all of these things for a season. It creates a rupture in our relationships at all levels - with our Lord, with ourselves, and with our loved ones. We may no longer harm those we don’t know by consuming AI-porn (the “She’s someone’s daughter” mindset), but those we know will always experience the fallout from our consumption.
You're so right and I'm thankful that people like you are ahead in thinking about this.
We're going to have to be biblically sharp as we deal with this at its source (Matt 5:23). The truth is, while OnlyFans exists because of willing women—it decisively exists as a result of willing men.
Additionally, I do think there is still validity in saying that AI objectifies and degrades women. AI doesn't come from a vacuum in terms of subject matter. AI-generated images are still degrading real women in a real sense. These images are an amalgamation of real people from the data that trained these system to work. (This relates to a whole larger issue where artists, who have their work online, are struggling to combat "AI-theft" of their work.)
The AI move also is a move away from "embodiment", that we are our bodies, a move that puts the discussion more in line with that of the Greek Fathers, where sex/passion is rejected for how it interferes with our relationship or union with God. It seems then that Reformed Christians might address this along two avenues: the first, being the necessity of embodiment, that this is how we are created, a move that echoes rejection of any/all screen mediated reality. A second move, is to learn from those Fathers, that when we place the action in our minds, as AI does, we need to be attentive to how our mental framing gets corrupted. Further, that as porn becomes our social imaginary, it in turn objectifies others, where we see them as manifestations of this porn-fueled dream. To see my neighbor, I must shed my dream, so oddly, an apophatic spirituality with a Reformed view.
In our zeal to eliminate everything Catholic, we Protestants have thrown out the saints with the bathwater and are now reaping the results. The Church Fathers aren't Catholic; Protestants must rediscover this.
Augustine's Confessions are a wonderful introduction to the idea that the problem of sin is not about what it does to others but about what it does to you. (Why is he so obsessed with the pears? Because it reveals a deep evil within himself.) Either Augustine and Aquinas are right (there is a divine natural law) or Neitzsche is (God is dead, jungle law prevails.)
It appears we are nearing the end of our Nietzschean turn. The crisis of moral reasoning inaugurated by Bacon and Decartes and embraced by Nietzsche has reached its illogical endpoint. Witness the number of "re-enchantment" books and articles recently. However, it matters greatly "what" or "who" we become (re)enchanted with. There are principalities and powers (both temporal and otherwise -- think Return of the Gods or the Lord of the Spirits) that would be happy to have our allegiance. There's only one who deserves it.
To piggy back on the two previous comments:
What is fascinating to me about this moment in history is not how "new" this discussion is, but how old it is. We have now circled all the way back to the competing worldviews of the New Testament era with Neo-platonism and early forms of Gnosticism running rampant and threatening some key doctrines of the church. Some would argue they even threatened the continuation of Christian orthodoxy.
As the previous comments have stated, the porn problem is just one symptom of a deeper issue the church needs to speak into. Whether it be porn, AI, transgenderism, euthanasia, abortion, etc. These issues are all symptoms of a trend toward separating embodiment from reality. We are witnessing the great, great grandchild of Neo-Platonism and Gnosticism. And the NT is ripe with arguments to combat this false view of reality. One can see John arguing against these ideas in 1 John or the Apostle Paul in Colossians.
Unfortunately, I see two problems within the broader evangelical world. Though they have also affected much of the narrower reformed world. First, is that many do not see the core worldview/philosophical issues at play and/or are busy fighting the symptoms. The second, and more concerning problem, is that many have bought into the same dualistic worldview that under-girds the issues we are fighting against and don't even realize it. Platonic/Gnostic ideas run rampant in evangelicalism. We need a return to a robust biblical view of reality. A view that is holistic, embodied, supernatural, with a strong creator/creature distinction. A worldview that understands God's created order as good and with sin as the cancer that has infected all of His creation.
A number of authors and ministries have tried to address this for years now, but unfortunately their work has not gained the type of traction needed to really make a large scale difference across the evangelical spectrum.
“Platonic/Gnostic ideas run rampant in evangelicalism.” Can you elaborate or give examples of how these ideas are found in evangelicalism?
I would love to. Thanks for asking.
First, I should state that it is more accurate to use lower-case "platonic" and "gnostic." These formal ideologies are not what is running rampant. It's more that their philosophical underpinnings are. Those underpinnings being an unbiblical dualism. Without taking the time to expound on what I mean by that, I will just give some examples of where I see them in evangelicalism.
- Many Christians' understanding of "heaven" and our eternal state (ask people what it is going to be like when they get to heaven)
- The sacred/secular divide in evangelicalism
- How "Christian" ministry positions are viewed as superior to "ordinary" jobs
- Christian bookstores with their "Christian" paintings, "Christian" toys, and "Christian" breath mints (anyone remember "Testamints?")
- The lack of creation care throughout much of evangelicalism
- The content and lyrics of many popular Christian songs and hymns ("heaven is our home...", "like a bird from prison bars has flown, I'll fly away...")
- A general devaluing of the arts in broader evangelicalism
There is a quick list off the top of my head.
Numerous authors and Christian leaders have addressed this issue over the decades but their warnings and exhortations have not taken root. Below is a list of some helpful books addressing the issue either explicitly or implicitly:
- Being Human: The Nature of Spiritual Experience; Jerram Barrs & Ranald Macaulay
- Heaven Is a Place on Earth: Why Everything You Do Matters to God; Dr. Michael Wittmer
- Surprised by Hope; N.T. Wright
- Creation Regained; Al Wolters
- Heaven; Randy Alcorn (the appendix has a chapter titled Christoplatonism that deals specifically with this issue)
- Love Thy Body; Nancy Pearcey (a book on how this issue applies directly to our bodies and the current issues plaguing our culture)
- Remember Creation: God's World of Wonder and Delight; Scott Hozee
- Ordinary: Sustainable Faith In a Radical, Restless World; Michael Horton
Additionally, teachings from Francis Schaeffer and L'Abri Fellowship have sought for decades to recover a biblical worldview.
Only to nitpick a bit, but while I agree with you in the underdeveloped theology of the body is quite rampant, I would also stress the difference between Christian Platonism (think Augustine, Aquinas, or modernly, CS Lewis) vs the influence of neo-platonism. Christian Platonism works towards a protection of the transcendent objectivity of God, Neo-Platonism pushes it into Idealism.
This is the question that Dr. Wittmer addressed in the beginning of "Heaven Is a Place On Earth." Where lies the great divide? He would argue, and I would agree, that we tend to make the divide too big between spiritual/physical rather than creator/created. There is a divide between spiritual and physical, but an overemphasis on this is where we start to veer into Neo-Platonic tendencies. I think you can achieve the transcendent objectivity of God with Platonic ideas. Though there is overlap and why there is much to glean from that philosophy. We just need to be clear where the differences are.
I love Lewis and have benefited significantly from his writings, but I think he gets a little too cozy with platonic ideas in this regard in a few places. I think G.K. Chesterton is one of the best I've read who handles the spiritual/physical reality of creation.
I have come to question the idea that Christians will spend eternity in heaven. The Bible speaks of a new heaven and a new earth after Christ returns. Otherwise I am not sure of the problem you reference about the Christian understanding of heaven. Am I on the right track? I have long been bothered by the word “Christian” being attached to commercial products. I remember being annoyed by the artwork, coffee mugs, etc. I would see on display at Christian bookstores. I have heard of some of the books you mentioned but many are new to me. I have also begun to explore the work of Francis Schaeffer. Thanks for the reply.
You bet. For books, I would start with "Heaven Is a Place on Earth" and "Being Human." They both a do a great job laying the groundwork. Plus they are very accessible.
When I read discussions of this sort I lament the dismal quality of my education in Western thinkers. The Intro to Philosophy class I took in college was pathetic. I anticipated reading and discussing the writings of ancient to modern philosophers. Instead, the text was written by the professor and he spent a fair amount of class time ridiculing belief in God, making sure to use the lower case “g” on the blackboard. Hence, I have no idea what “neo-platonic” thought is. I tried to fill in what I have missed by listening to Spencer Klavan’s podcast, Young Heretics. I learned a lot but think I would benefit from a deeper dive into the writings themselves. I have Will Durant’s The Story of Philosophy on by bookshelf, but so many books cry for my attention that I haven’t gotten to it.
The other big question is -- and I have not figured out an elegant way to put this -- "What good thing is not happening because of this?" In the case of porn (of any kind): women and men are not trusting each other, they are not marrying, they are not having sex, and above all they are not having children. Or to go back to the OG "who does this harm?" question: children who never come into being, the wives (and some husbands) who are being neglected, the lonely folks who aren't getting together -- they are being harmed.
However it's generated, this smut is deeply damaging to society, families, and individuals. And for that reason alone it's terrible for women. It makes men stupid, self-centered, and weak. Finally, it's ugly and deeply offensive to God and his plan for human sexuality. The fact that the goddess Supreme Court ever decided this obscenity was "speech" shows how little the Supreme Court can be taken seriously. It's poison and should be avoided at all costs.
This whole essay is very, very good. I had not actually considered this angle of the future of porn. Thanks for writing.
Very well argued - and right
It seems some tried to argue against violent video games, especially first-person shooters and that debate has largely been lost. I think for the same reason, the "It's not hurting anybody (else)." We've failed to focus on how we are forming ourselves through technology.
Except when a person watches and gets the idea that a 3-some or objectification they see on the screen is how they should approach someone in real life and you have a problem. Sheila Wray Gregoire surveyed 20,000 women before writing The Great Sex Rescue and found a noticeable percentage of women who had this issue in their marriage.
Pornography harms any person using it; men, women, children, whether AI or not.
I saw an article in a London newspaper a couple of years ago, in which young English women were complaining that their boyfriends wanted to commit violence against them during sex, e.g. slapping them. The young men obviously got this idea from violent porn; some of the young women mentioned explicitly that their boyfriends watched such porn.
Replace the current violent porn with AI-generated porn; does this problem then go away? I don't see how the problem would change at all.
Great article. I agree with the main points. But the question "Whom does this harm?" will still have the same answer: It will harm men and women and their relationships. One of our problems today is focusing only on the direct harm to women in porn, and not all of the indirect harms to both men and women.
Good post, and very accurately put. I'd go further than just Christians, though Christians are obviously the target audience here, policy makers are completely ill-equipped to handle this.
I'm reminded of an article I read last year about porn-focused AI image-generators and just how granular they can get and how 'good' the users are at prompting them to deliver exactly what they want. Despite seeing porn as disgusting it's not difficult to see the intoxicating appeal of this for someone who's already a user; it's near instantaneous delivery of an almost bespoke product. We aren't dealing with the "Silicone Valley" of the 80s, 90s, 00s, & 10s here, we aren't even dealing with the OnlyFans of the Pandemic Era, this is a Digital Godzilla, and I'm not sure what weapons can lay siege to it.