This is an excellent example of the truth that freedom is not an end in itself, and must at times be sacrificed for the common good. Will there be potential risks and abuses with any legislation that seeks to curb pornography? Yes. Are those risks and abuses worthwhile if they even begin to curtail the harms currently being inflicted on our youth? Undoubtedly.
Samuel, I agree with your premise (porn is demonstrably bad on a personal and societal level) and much of your argument. I have come to the POV that the social internet - for all its benefits - is probably a net-negative for our world, to say nothing of our spiritual formation. But, a couple thoughts re: bolstering your case:
You write "I don’t think Christians can accept the libertarian argument for keeping online porn legal and widely accessible. Existing laws have failed. There has been a generational calamity..."
In this post, I don't believe you actually made the argument that there has been a "generational calamity." You have shown significant changes in sexual relationships by generation, but did not then actually articulate why those changes are calamitous. I'm pretty sure I would agree with you if you did, but you didn't. Thus, the "calamity" claim is an assertion, not an argument.
Also, if I were interested in defending the libertarian position regarding porn as protected speech, I would ask you to outline exactly which activities you'd like the government to outlaw and which you wouldn't, and what constitutional principal supports your line-drawing. I'm a pastor, and as anti-porn as it gets, but it's unclear to me that Christians throwing their weight behind federal/state governments further picking and choosing what to allow its adult citizens to do is going to work out well for the church in the long run. I'm unpersuaded that the church's desire to share its role as arbiter, communicator, and executor of moral law with the state promotes the ultimate purpose of the church (to lead people to the moral law-giver) rather than confuse people about its ultimate purpose and further weld together the gates to the Kingdom of God and the kingdom of political power.
In particular, your (largely correct) claim that "Existing laws have failed" leads some to say "Well then, more laws!" Whereas I think the more faithful response should be the people of God taking their own faith and their role as the people of God seriously. The church's energy being spent attempting to re-form society is less well spent, in my opinion, than working to form its own people in the way of Jesus.
Therefore, instead of your conclusion being, mostly: "Christians, get the government to stop this!" I think the stronger, better, more lasting and spiritually impactful conclusion would be: "Christians - parents! ministers! church! - stop this!" Millions of Christians who give in to their desire for porn use (and other sexual sins) are not ushered further along on the journey of sanctification by asking the government to make it less accessible.
To the extent that the approach of Christians taking their spiritual development seriously doesn't work on a societal level isn't really a jurisprudential problem when it comes to porn or any other vice, but a salvation and discipleship problem. It has always been thus, and will always be.
Absolutely spot on! Until we have adequate legal restrictions on pornography, minors should not have unsupervised access to the internet. The risks outweigh any rewards. No more smartphones or tablets. No more blind acceptance of school issued devices or online homework.
I certainly agree in theory, but I have concerns about the precedent of restricting expression I think is harmful, considering there’s speech other people might think is harmful that I think is very good (this Substack for example).
I think we should be skeptical of policy proposals that, if enacted by our political enemies according to their values, could be used to harm us.
Current efforts to limit Internet pornography are still couched in terms of protecting kids. While I applaud these mild attempts to shelter teenagers, this barely touches the problem. Even Mormon Utah is unwilling to simply say, "porn is damaging to the individual, the family, and society at large, so we're moving to make it much harder to access across the board." The adult video arcade in your pocket is bad for everyone, whether 13, 18, or 40 years old.
This would be a frontal assault not just on porn but on the Millian assumptions that undergird our post-Enlightenment societies. I would welcome that assault, but I am in the minority, and among our ruling class such a view is heretical. People like their sins. Epstein's airline was popular with our ruling class. And once you legitimize the promotion of virtue in one area, you open the door to promoting it elsewhere. Our elites can't risk that.
The Right wants its maximal economic liberty and the Left wants its maximal individual autonomy. We may get a few age-restrictions, but we won't address the underlying issue. We have neither the language nor incentives to defend virtue anymore.
Sophia Gilbert is a figure to track in all this, both for her recent book,"Girl on Girl: How Pop Culture Turned a Generation of Women Against Themselves" (Penguin, 2025) and a sort of summary in the May Atlantic ("What Porrn Taught a Generation of Women"). Another highly useful recent contribution would be Christine Emba's piece in the New York Times ("The Delusion of Porn's Harmlessness", May 19, 2025). Emba would be the better place to start both because of her own faith, and also for her critical look at Gilbert.
Both of these highlight what the damage of the pervasiveness of porn has meant, how it influences how we understand sex and its possibilities, as well as how porn puts a wedge between men and women. For Evangelicals the the challenge of porn is how it elevates men or a patriarchal framing, a structuring that seems to rhyme with complementarian approaches, but is of course something of an ethical and spiritual Trojan horse.
I think you are overestimating the effect of the internet and underestimating other factors. I grew up in the 1960's and 1970's before the advent of the internet. Pornography was readily available, from the nude female posters in workshops and male environments, to magazines like "Playboy" and the "red-light districts" with young women openly selling their charms . However, there was a very strong legal and social condemnation of sex out of marriage, of adultery, abortion, and same sex liaisons.
It is that social control that has broken down, not the "advent of the internet".
There are other more insidious factors at play too. Male human sperm viability has fallen world wide and, as a molluscan pathologist, I now regularly find hermaphrodite oysters where in the 1970's they were very rare. All of the female hormones in the "pill", together with all other medicines (antidepressants and the like) are excreted into the waterways (by the ton if you do the math) and are proven to be affecting animals and probably us. We eat far more products like soy that contain phytoestrogens - Is it any wonder that feminizing of males is occurring?
The answer is not censorship - that never worked. It requires us to rediscover Gods moral code and to clean up our behaviour and the pollution of His creation - not from naturally occurring chemicals, but the ones that we, in our sin, have created that the environment was never designed to accommodate or break down.
I really think you're underestimating the prevalence and intensity of porn. A nontrivial number of 7 year olds have seen porn, more than half of all preteens have seen porn, and the fastest growing category of porn is anime porn aimed at preteens.
Its difficult to get objective data on changes in prevalence of pornography over time, especially pre-internet. It is obvious from fresco's in Roman towns that pornography was rife and available on wall and floor murals 2000 years ago. The question is not whether it is "more available" but whether more people are seeking it out and being exposed to it.
Self reporting is fraught with errors. Wright (2011) used the 1973-2010 General Social Survey(GSS) dataset which asked the question "Have you seen an x-rated movie in the last year (yes/no)". He found that in the 1970s GSSs, 26% of participants said they viewed pornography. The percentage rose to 30% in the 1980s, 32% in the 1990s, and 34% in the 2000s, age of viewers was relatively stable. The data available suggest that there has been a slight increase in numbers viewing porn (0.5% a year) but a much greater change in behaviours - which may be confounded by societal changes, not just viewing availability. Basically does use of pornography drive behaviour or behaviour drive pornography use?
Wright, P. J. (2011). U.S. Males and Pornography, 1973–2010: Consumption, Predictors, Correlates. The Journal of Sex Research, 50(1), 60–71. https://doi.org/10.1080/00224499.2011.628132
1) It's not difficult at all to get objective data on changes in prevalence of pornography over time. One simply has to look around. Or are we obeying the Party now? "The Party told you to ignore the evidence of your eyes and ears. It was their final, most essential command."
2) If, as you say, "self reporting is fraught with errors", what makes P. J. Wright's collection of self-reported data not "fraught with errors"? After all, the GSS is nothing more than a collection of self reported data.
Ah, like from a libertarian viewpoint or whatnot. Unfortunate. I wonder if that viewpoint is extended consistently throughout the worldview with other “personal freedoms” like reproductive health.
Incredible read. Good work. Let's get after it.
This is an excellent example of the truth that freedom is not an end in itself, and must at times be sacrificed for the common good. Will there be potential risks and abuses with any legislation that seeks to curb pornography? Yes. Are those risks and abuses worthwhile if they even begin to curtail the harms currently being inflicted on our youth? Undoubtedly.
Samuel, I agree with your premise (porn is demonstrably bad on a personal and societal level) and much of your argument. I have come to the POV that the social internet - for all its benefits - is probably a net-negative for our world, to say nothing of our spiritual formation. But, a couple thoughts re: bolstering your case:
You write "I don’t think Christians can accept the libertarian argument for keeping online porn legal and widely accessible. Existing laws have failed. There has been a generational calamity..."
In this post, I don't believe you actually made the argument that there has been a "generational calamity." You have shown significant changes in sexual relationships by generation, but did not then actually articulate why those changes are calamitous. I'm pretty sure I would agree with you if you did, but you didn't. Thus, the "calamity" claim is an assertion, not an argument.
Also, if I were interested in defending the libertarian position regarding porn as protected speech, I would ask you to outline exactly which activities you'd like the government to outlaw and which you wouldn't, and what constitutional principal supports your line-drawing. I'm a pastor, and as anti-porn as it gets, but it's unclear to me that Christians throwing their weight behind federal/state governments further picking and choosing what to allow its adult citizens to do is going to work out well for the church in the long run. I'm unpersuaded that the church's desire to share its role as arbiter, communicator, and executor of moral law with the state promotes the ultimate purpose of the church (to lead people to the moral law-giver) rather than confuse people about its ultimate purpose and further weld together the gates to the Kingdom of God and the kingdom of political power.
In particular, your (largely correct) claim that "Existing laws have failed" leads some to say "Well then, more laws!" Whereas I think the more faithful response should be the people of God taking their own faith and their role as the people of God seriously. The church's energy being spent attempting to re-form society is less well spent, in my opinion, than working to form its own people in the way of Jesus.
Therefore, instead of your conclusion being, mostly: "Christians, get the government to stop this!" I think the stronger, better, more lasting and spiritually impactful conclusion would be: "Christians - parents! ministers! church! - stop this!" Millions of Christians who give in to their desire for porn use (and other sexual sins) are not ushered further along on the journey of sanctification by asking the government to make it less accessible.
To the extent that the approach of Christians taking their spiritual development seriously doesn't work on a societal level isn't really a jurisprudential problem when it comes to porn or any other vice, but a salvation and discipleship problem. It has always been thus, and will always be.
Absolutely spot on! Until we have adequate legal restrictions on pornography, minors should not have unsupervised access to the internet. The risks outweigh any rewards. No more smartphones or tablets. No more blind acceptance of school issued devices or online homework.
I certainly agree in theory, but I have concerns about the precedent of restricting expression I think is harmful, considering there’s speech other people might think is harmful that I think is very good (this Substack for example).
I think we should be skeptical of policy proposals that, if enacted by our political enemies according to their values, could be used to harm us.
It’s honestly disturbing to me how much pornography is either defended or casually overlooked in Christian culture.
I’ve heard it all.
‘Well, we all sin.”
“You can’t expect people to be perfect.”
“Better than than cheating on their wives.”
Like, what?!
Current efforts to limit Internet pornography are still couched in terms of protecting kids. While I applaud these mild attempts to shelter teenagers, this barely touches the problem. Even Mormon Utah is unwilling to simply say, "porn is damaging to the individual, the family, and society at large, so we're moving to make it much harder to access across the board." The adult video arcade in your pocket is bad for everyone, whether 13, 18, or 40 years old.
This would be a frontal assault not just on porn but on the Millian assumptions that undergird our post-Enlightenment societies. I would welcome that assault, but I am in the minority, and among our ruling class such a view is heretical. People like their sins. Epstein's airline was popular with our ruling class. And once you legitimize the promotion of virtue in one area, you open the door to promoting it elsewhere. Our elites can't risk that.
The Right wants its maximal economic liberty and the Left wants its maximal individual autonomy. We may get a few age-restrictions, but we won't address the underlying issue. We have neither the language nor incentives to defend virtue anymore.
Sophia Gilbert is a figure to track in all this, both for her recent book,"Girl on Girl: How Pop Culture Turned a Generation of Women Against Themselves" (Penguin, 2025) and a sort of summary in the May Atlantic ("What Porrn Taught a Generation of Women"). Another highly useful recent contribution would be Christine Emba's piece in the New York Times ("The Delusion of Porn's Harmlessness", May 19, 2025). Emba would be the better place to start both because of her own faith, and also for her critical look at Gilbert.
Both of these highlight what the damage of the pervasiveness of porn has meant, how it influences how we understand sex and its possibilities, as well as how porn puts a wedge between men and women. For Evangelicals the the challenge of porn is how it elevates men or a patriarchal framing, a structuring that seems to rhyme with complementarian approaches, but is of course something of an ethical and spiritual Trojan horse.
This is true and important. I think that the most powerful thing that all parents can do right now to protect their kids/teens is to delay smartphones through high school, like the advice given by Dear Christian Parent. https://dearchristianparent.substack.com/p/10-reasons-i-believe-saying-no-to
Amen
Nah. It'll just turn into a backdoor for digital ID; meanwhile kids will go to places like 4chan and continue seeing porn.
We should be stopping the people who produce and sell porn.
I think you are overestimating the effect of the internet and underestimating other factors. I grew up in the 1960's and 1970's before the advent of the internet. Pornography was readily available, from the nude female posters in workshops and male environments, to magazines like "Playboy" and the "red-light districts" with young women openly selling their charms . However, there was a very strong legal and social condemnation of sex out of marriage, of adultery, abortion, and same sex liaisons.
It is that social control that has broken down, not the "advent of the internet".
There are other more insidious factors at play too. Male human sperm viability has fallen world wide and, as a molluscan pathologist, I now regularly find hermaphrodite oysters where in the 1970's they were very rare. All of the female hormones in the "pill", together with all other medicines (antidepressants and the like) are excreted into the waterways (by the ton if you do the math) and are proven to be affecting animals and probably us. We eat far more products like soy that contain phytoestrogens - Is it any wonder that feminizing of males is occurring?
The answer is not censorship - that never worked. It requires us to rediscover Gods moral code and to clean up our behaviour and the pollution of His creation - not from naturally occurring chemicals, but the ones that we, in our sin, have created that the environment was never designed to accommodate or break down.
I really think you're underestimating the prevalence and intensity of porn. A nontrivial number of 7 year olds have seen porn, more than half of all preteens have seen porn, and the fastest growing category of porn is anime porn aimed at preteens.
Its difficult to get objective data on changes in prevalence of pornography over time, especially pre-internet. It is obvious from fresco's in Roman towns that pornography was rife and available on wall and floor murals 2000 years ago. The question is not whether it is "more available" but whether more people are seeking it out and being exposed to it.
Self reporting is fraught with errors. Wright (2011) used the 1973-2010 General Social Survey(GSS) dataset which asked the question "Have you seen an x-rated movie in the last year (yes/no)". He found that in the 1970s GSSs, 26% of participants said they viewed pornography. The percentage rose to 30% in the 1980s, 32% in the 1990s, and 34% in the 2000s, age of viewers was relatively stable. The data available suggest that there has been a slight increase in numbers viewing porn (0.5% a year) but a much greater change in behaviours - which may be confounded by societal changes, not just viewing availability. Basically does use of pornography drive behaviour or behaviour drive pornography use?
Wright, P. J. (2011). U.S. Males and Pornography, 1973–2010: Consumption, Predictors, Correlates. The Journal of Sex Research, 50(1), 60–71. https://doi.org/10.1080/00224499.2011.628132
1) It's not difficult at all to get objective data on changes in prevalence of pornography over time. One simply has to look around. Or are we obeying the Party now? "The Party told you to ignore the evidence of your eyes and ears. It was their final, most essential command."
2) If, as you say, "self reporting is fraught with errors", what makes P. J. Wright's collection of self-reported data not "fraught with errors"? After all, the GSS is nothing more than a collection of self reported data.
Amen!
Fantastic read. I am sharing your article far and wide. Keep up the great work!
Excellent. Thank you!
What Christians are arguing pro-porn?
I've seen nobody defending the *existence* of porn. But I've seen plenty defending the *legal availability* of it.
Ah, like from a libertarian viewpoint or whatnot. Unfortunate. I wonder if that viewpoint is extended consistently throughout the worldview with other “personal freedoms” like reproductive health.