The assertion that pornography must be wrong because no decent father would ever want his daughter to be involved with it has been around a long time; it probably qualifies as a cliché. That, of course, has no bearing on whether or not it is true. Neither does its familiarity mean it can’t be an effective argument against smut.
John Stonestreet relates the story of one man, a British pornographer, whose entire perspective on the dirty-picture industry was turned upside down when it finally hit him that the women he’d been dehumanizing on the pages of his rag had been “somebody’s daughter… had once had their [diapers] changed, had once been taught to take their first steps and had once been full of childlike hope”. Boom.
Writing at Patheos.com, Timothy Dalrymple tells perhaps a familiar story for many: “I first saw pornography by flashlight in an underground fort I had built with my brother and friends,” he said.
When he first looked at those pictures at nine years old, Dalrymple says they were “seared into his mind.” And the way he viewed women was deeply changed.
He explains, “It was not the last time I would see pornography, or naked women when I shouldn’t…Whether they’re photos in magazines, images on the internet, scenes in movies, or stolen glances, their imprint sinks deep into the male mind, it shapes its patterns of thought, and remains there for years, even decades. You cannot unsee them …”
But Dalrymple says all of that changed when he became the father of a little girl […]