A recent debate on the subject at the Oxford Union ended up carrying for the affirmative the motion that porn is beneficial in society.
Arguments used to help carry the motion included porn acting as a "safety valve" for relieving sexual tension and thus reducing the likelihood of sex crimes; porn being valuable in sex therapy; porn spicing up millions of couples' sex lives, and porn providing rich fantasy lives for the partnerless or those in "a dull relationship," among other considerations.
"[P]orn is used to educate and help people accept sexual activities better," according to an Oxford abstract of the debate arguments. "Most men know that cocks vary a lot in size and shape and so don't worry about being weird, but women often worry, especially nervous that they played with themselves and made the labia become weird shapes. By looking at photos of all the various kinds of vulva, women learn to relax about themselves."
Debaters also referred to a clergyman, Rev. Chad Varah, founder of the Samaritans, who spoke of a magazine survey of London West End film houses at midday, where surveyors found four times the viewers in "uncomfortable seats" in small adult theaters than in "plush cinemas showing big movies." The conclusion: a resounding "People love porn!"
The affirmative also carried the day, the Oxford abstract suggested, thanks in part to an old standard argument often thought to be a negative: "People love to be shocked. Seeing something shocking challenges everyday standards, helps people put things into perspective, makes life less grey, and is cathartic – bringing all your repressed emotions to the surface and thus refreshing you."
As to why banning porn would hurt society, the debaters concluded a ban would be an insult to people ("If we can see pictures of everything else, why not sex?"), the authorities get to see it but the people don't, and banning means no freedom of choice.
