You make references that pornography is not 'evolutionarily sound' - to you, something that does not directly lead to 'the betterment of humankind' (progress) is a problem.
I never got the whole "evolutionarily sound" argument, myself. If someone's going to say porn as a sexual device doesn't contribute to reproduction, then where does the line get drawn? What about homosexuality? What about post-menopausal women? What about people who are simply sterile for whatever reason? What about birth control being used by people who have no intention of having children? Are all of them bad? Are only some of them? It's not something you can often get proponents of "evolutionarily sound sex acts only kthx" to elaborate on.
To frame the argument in this context, I'd present some arguments that pornography IS evolutionarily sound - by evolutionarily sound, I mean productivity and progress.
Pretty much. In fact, everything I listed has some kind of social benefit, even if they aren't obvious, solely because of the psychological effects of sex and sexual openness (being honest about oneself as a sexual being is profoundly mentally healthier than attempting to repress one's sexuality).
Well, if you're going into porn for a sense of validation, it could be due to abuse,
Yes, it certainly could be, and we need to be cognizant of that fact.
or simply due to low self-esteem,
Which is another phrase meaning a history of abuse or neglect.
or even just because of relationship troubles meaning you just wanna get laid.
I think that's probably a rare reason but suppose anything is possible.
(The statement you quoted was saying that there are a bunch of reasons why someone would feel porn is a good way to validate themselves, not that there are reasons for someone to think porn is a good way to validate other people.)
Ok, well, let me just say this, I think it would be highly advisable to recommend counseling for anyone who was using porn acting to validate themselves.
Also, I want to emphasize, this is ignoring reasons such as wanting to show off, taking pride in your body, making a statement of some kind, or just plain feeling like it.
Sure, there's plenty of other potential reasons but I'll reserve a healthy dose of skepticism in each individual case.
And just like alcohol, any real problems with porn get much, much worse when you attempt prohibition.
Prohibition wouldn't make the problems worse, it would just add new problems on top of the old ones.
Just so we're clear, I'm essentially an anarchist so obviously I'm not arguing for any kind of prohibition. (Well, pedophiles need to be stopped with force if necessary, but that's for another discussion).
Quote from Banshee »
What a wonderful point - and I realize that your point has already been brought up in various ways (including by Stairc) - but what a wonderful point you've again made that pornography (like alcohol) is a symptom of the problem rather than the problem itself.
Not necessarily always, but often enough that we should not be treating the question, "do you want to act in porn?" like we treat the question, "do you like vanilla or chocolate?"
This is not a meaningless choice in taste, because it is often a symptom of problems and that is where the danger lies.
Which is another phrase meaning a history of abuse or neglect.
You can have low self-esteem without abuse/neglect. Could even be as simple as someone internalizing the feeling of being unattractive because they can't get into relationships, and turning to porn looking for the validation of feeling sexually desired for once. This isn't really "abuse" or "neglect" in the way you were using the words.
Not everything is about abuse. Some people just have different needs and priorities.
You can have low self-esteem without abuse/neglect.
That sounds rare. If you're the victim of a fire which leaves you with massive scarring and people ignorantly turn up their nose as you, then I could see how that would effect things. Besides that, I don't know.
I think the overwhelming majority of people have suffered abuse and neglect in their upbringing and virtually everyone needs counseling, but most people don't agree with that.
Not everything is about abuse. Some people just have different needs and priorities.
That sounds rare. If you're the victim of a fire which leaves you with massive scarring and people ignorantly turn up their nose as you, then I could see how that would effect things. Besides that, I don't know.
Or you could just have a certain personality that has a weakness for society's constant attacks on women's self-esteem. "Wear these clothes" or "buy these beauty products" or "get these cosmetic procedures" or whatever else, constantly. Also, women policing each other's presentations and forming hierarchies based on relative attractiveness (this is most prevalent in schools, which are very formative years). You get that from all angles, including having your parents back up these notions? ("You'll never meet a guy if you do/don't *" for instance.) That's gonna leave a psychological mark.
Or you could just have a certain personality that has a weakness for society's constant attacks on women's self-esteem. "Wear these clothes" or "buy these beauty products" or "get these cosmetic procedures" or whatever else, constantly. Also, women policing each other's presentations and forming hierarchies based on relative attractiveness (this is most prevalent in schools, which are very formative years). You get that from all angles, including having your parents back up these notions? ("You'll never meet a guy if you do/don't *" for instance.) That's gonna leave a psychological mark.
Which is a history of abuse...
If your parents reject you for who you are*, that is abuse. The subtle nature of it doesn't lessen the significance. As a child we grow up dependent on our parents or caretakers for nourishment. Thus the child learns to manipulate the parents or caretakers for survival. Rejection equals death. Consciously we recognize at a certain age that our parents are no longer needed to ensure our survival, but a piece of us unconsciously remains enslaved to seeking their approval, and rejection in early adulthood is a kind of psychological death.
*= barring you are raping and killing people, etc.
And only one of the many things I listed, none of which are mutually inclusive with each other. Unless you really want to say that pretty much any negative experience is "abuse."
And only one of the many things I listed, none of which are mutually inclusive with each other. Unless you really want to say that pretty much any negative experience is "abuse."
I'm certain that the example I listed is abuse. It doesn't matter whether it happens to 1 person or 1 billion, you judge the act the same way.
Not sure why you even need to be convinced of that fact. You would figure you would understand how painful it is for someone to come out of the closet, as it were.
You listed a single example of abuse. I listed a great many other things that don't qualify as abuse, which you simply shove away because you're obsessed with pushing some kind of "abuse" argument that's frankly deaf to what anyone but you is saying.
This really seems to be an area where the opposition is doing themselves a disservice and confusing the issue.
I don't find depicting sexual activity, as a rule, to be immoral. I think that's actually a very hard line to take, and not many people would.
So if it's not the type of content that's objectionable, what leads so many people to be disturbed by it, or made uncomfortable? I think it's pretty clear that the more coherent objection is to the messages being carried along within the medium. Promiscuity rather than stable relationships, objectification of other persons, wanton pleasure-seeking. Those values aren't the ideal models for a stable society, with empathy and respect for others.
Are they any more harmful than other forms of entertainment media that are equally morally vacuous? Probably not.
Can those types of values nevertheless infiltrate your way of looking at the world and behaving with sufficient exposure? Potentially. I think there's a cultural difference between say, video game violence, and the acceptability of acting on sexual fantasies in the privacy of your home. While violence is far more readily accessible, its considered far more reprehensible to act on those types of violent fantasies. I think we're far more likely to internalize and potentially act upon the value judgments made relating to sex, than we are to go on a killing spree.
Immoral to watch porn? Not by my lights - not in and of itself. But are its value judgments destructive and harmful, and capable of affecting society negatively? Yes, I think that's quite true, even if you accept contemporary notions of sexual liberty and dispensing with religious taboo. The value judgments in porn go beyond liberty or immorality, to amorality.
I'm kind of confused by this as well. How does your stance here, not contradict your stance in the "rape" threads, Teia?
My first thought was "because it doesn't."
My second thought was that, on the whole, porn and rape don't inherently go together. Yes, you get cases where women are pressured into porn and so forth, and you get cases where women feel it's a method of self-validation, and you get cases where women do it because of any number of positive reasons. It's like anything else in life that's potentially but not inherently harmful: If it's not done under duress, then why judge someone for doing it?
Also for the whole ljoss thing: I have to admit, I was getting a bit annoyed at how no matter what I said he found some way to wring abuse as a factor out of my post and focus solely on that.
The value judgments in porn go beyond liberty or immorality, to amorality.
It reminded me somewhat of the following statement at the end of my op in this thread. Probably because they're only 3 posts with the word "amoral" in them. One is from my op in this thread and the other is from yours two posts up. (The third being one of mine I won't quote because it was part of a warning for trolling.)
The ignorance and arrogance of this thread is mindboggling. It usually doesn't require a philisophical debate to solve the riddle of why porography is bad - except that the op removed all the obvious reasons why it is bad. What you're really doing here is fishing for moral justification. You won't find it here or anywhere. But you will find and have already found plenty of amoral justification.
Of course this was interpreted as to mean immoral. Probably because I compared it to moral justification. And the point was lost and forgotten and led to a mess later on.
What's scary to me is that people actually think that they can dichotomize and compartmentalize their sexuality or at least the moral nature of their sexuality, whatever it may be. And that said nature won't bleed into other aspects of their lives, affecting their motives and decisions in other, nonsexual arenas. We are gestalt beings no matter how good we are at partitioning our thoughts, feelings, and actions. We who laud porn have done nothing more than embrace our primal instincts. Often in the guise of evolutionary advancement. Which I find cliché.
Teia Rabishu, I assume that you would be above any judgment that I or anyone else would make about you, but I want to state clearly that my comments here are merely observations and that I do not hold you in critical judgment. Now, on to the judgment observation. You seem to think that pornography liberated you sexually during your formative years. I think it's more likely that pornography molded you sexually during your formative years and you having been integral to the process are incapable of discerning the difference. It is more likely that your current sexual identity and perspective is the result of exposure to pornography rather than your ability to see through illusions of gender, the ethos of being attracted to "forbidden fruit", and the phenomenon of being turned on by nonnormative stimuli. Many individuals possess one or more of these qualities, but they do not necessarily determine one's sexual proclivity or activity. But when those elements exist in a pliant and immature mind and they are validated and continually reinforced from the truly uninteractive, unresponsive, unrealistic source which is pornography, they can indeed become the controlling elements of one's life. It can even become your religion, and from the way you've been preaching, I would hazard to guess that it has.
What do you think in which culture we live in? Is it Theonomous culture Where theo means god and nomous means law which leads to absolute morality or Heteronomous culture where hetero means different and nomous means law where a group of person dictate or its Autonomous culture where auto means own of self and nomous means law which means self created law? Many people chooses Third one autonomous culture. If each and every people have autonomy to do what they desire and want than why there is law in each country? And also in autonomous culture, every one should respect each individual law but it seems impossible because when a person mae law than another person may not prefer that. so autonomous culture can be just imagined where all people having same thoughts but it is not in this world in present and in past also wasn't. So, In which culture do we live, There is no chances of autonomous culture and also there is no chances of heteronomous culture so at last what is left is theonomous culture where there is absoulute morality and that is given. Its violated the law of the theonomous culture, Don't you thin so?
I never got the whole "evolutionarily sound" argument, myself. If someone's going to say porn as a sexual device doesn't contribute to reproduction, then where does the line get drawn? What about homosexuality? What about post-menopausal women? What about people who are simply sterile for whatever reason? What about birth control being used by people who have no intention of having children? Are all of them bad? Are only some of them? It's not something you can often get proponents of "evolutionarily sound sex acts only kthx" to elaborate on.
Pretty much. In fact, everything I listed has some kind of social benefit, even if they aren't obvious, solely because of the psychological effects of sex and sexual openness (being honest about oneself as a sexual being is profoundly mentally healthier than attempting to repress one's sexuality).
Yes, it certainly could be, and we need to be cognizant of that fact.
Which is another phrase meaning a history of abuse or neglect.
I think that's probably a rare reason but suppose anything is possible.
Ok, well, let me just say this, I think it would be highly advisable to recommend counseling for anyone who was using porn acting to validate themselves.
Sure, there's plenty of other potential reasons but I'll reserve a healthy dose of skepticism in each individual case.
Prohibition wouldn't make the problems worse, it would just add new problems on top of the old ones.
Just so we're clear, I'm essentially an anarchist so obviously I'm not arguing for any kind of prohibition. (Well, pedophiles need to be stopped with force if necessary, but that's for another discussion).
Not necessarily always, but often enough that we should not be treating the question, "do you want to act in porn?" like we treat the question, "do you like vanilla or chocolate?"
This is not a meaningless choice in taste, because it is often a symptom of problems and that is where the danger lies.
You can have low self-esteem without abuse/neglect. Could even be as simple as someone internalizing the feeling of being unattractive because they can't get into relationships, and turning to porn looking for the validation of feeling sexually desired for once. This isn't really "abuse" or "neglect" in the way you were using the words.
Not everything is about abuse. Some people just have different needs and priorities.
That sounds rare. If you're the victim of a fire which leaves you with massive scarring and people ignorantly turn up their nose as you, then I could see how that would effect things. Besides that, I don't know.
I think the overwhelming majority of people have suffered abuse and neglect in their upbringing and virtually everyone needs counseling, but most people don't agree with that.
Yes, true.
Or you could just have a certain personality that has a weakness for society's constant attacks on women's self-esteem. "Wear these clothes" or "buy these beauty products" or "get these cosmetic procedures" or whatever else, constantly. Also, women policing each other's presentations and forming hierarchies based on relative attractiveness (this is most prevalent in schools, which are very formative years). You get that from all angles, including having your parents back up these notions? ("You'll never meet a guy if you do/don't *" for instance.) That's gonna leave a psychological mark.
Which is a history of abuse...
If your parents reject you for who you are*, that is abuse. The subtle nature of it doesn't lessen the significance. As a child we grow up dependent on our parents or caretakers for nourishment. Thus the child learns to manipulate the parents or caretakers for survival. Rejection equals death. Consciously we recognize at a certain age that our parents are no longer needed to ensure our survival, but a piece of us unconsciously remains enslaved to seeking their approval, and rejection in early adulthood is a kind of psychological death.
*= barring you are raping and killing people, etc.
And only one of the many things I listed, none of which are mutually inclusive with each other. Unless you really want to say that pretty much any negative experience is "abuse."
I'm certain that the example I listed is abuse. It doesn't matter whether it happens to 1 person or 1 billion, you judge the act the same way.
Not sure why you even need to be convinced of that fact. You would figure you would understand how painful it is for someone to come out of the closet, as it were.
I'm kind of confused by this as well. How does your stance here, not contradict your stance in the "rape" threads, Teia?
I don't find depicting sexual activity, as a rule, to be immoral. I think that's actually a very hard line to take, and not many people would.
So if it's not the type of content that's objectionable, what leads so many people to be disturbed by it, or made uncomfortable? I think it's pretty clear that the more coherent objection is to the messages being carried along within the medium. Promiscuity rather than stable relationships, objectification of other persons, wanton pleasure-seeking. Those values aren't the ideal models for a stable society, with empathy and respect for others.
Are they any more harmful than other forms of entertainment media that are equally morally vacuous? Probably not.
Can those types of values nevertheless infiltrate your way of looking at the world and behaving with sufficient exposure? Potentially. I think there's a cultural difference between say, video game violence, and the acceptability of acting on sexual fantasies in the privacy of your home. While violence is far more readily accessible, its considered far more reprehensible to act on those types of violent fantasies. I think we're far more likely to internalize and potentially act upon the value judgments made relating to sex, than we are to go on a killing spree.
Immoral to watch porn? Not by my lights - not in and of itself. But are its value judgments destructive and harmful, and capable of affecting society negatively? Yes, I think that's quite true, even if you accept contemporary notions of sexual liberty and dispensing with religious taboo. The value judgments in porn go beyond liberty or immorality, to amorality.
My first thought was "because it doesn't."
My second thought was that, on the whole, porn and rape don't inherently go together. Yes, you get cases where women are pressured into porn and so forth, and you get cases where women feel it's a method of self-validation, and you get cases where women do it because of any number of positive reasons. It's like anything else in life that's potentially but not inherently harmful: If it's not done under duress, then why judge someone for doing it?
Also for the whole ljoss thing: I have to admit, I was getting a bit annoyed at how no matter what I said he found some way to wring abuse as a factor out of my post and focus solely on that.
And I completely agree with your statement at the end of your post:
It reminded me somewhat of the following statement at the end of my op in this thread. Probably because they're only 3 posts with the word "amoral" in them. One is from my op in this thread and the other is from yours two posts up. (The third being one of mine I won't quote because it was part of a warning for trolling.)
Of course this was interpreted as to mean immoral. Probably because I compared it to moral justification. And the point was lost and forgotten and led to a mess later on.
What's scary to me is that people actually think that they can dichotomize and compartmentalize their sexuality or at least the moral nature of their sexuality, whatever it may be. And that said nature won't bleed into other aspects of their lives, affecting their motives and decisions in other, nonsexual arenas. We are gestalt beings no matter how good we are at partitioning our thoughts, feelings, and actions. We who laud porn have done nothing more than embrace our primal instincts. Often in the guise of evolutionary advancement. Which I find cliché.
EDIT for Teia:
Remaking Magic - A Podcast for those that love MTG and Game Design
The Dungeon Master's Guide - A Podcast for those that love RPGs and Game Design
Sig-Heroes of the Plane
TerribleBad at Magic since 1998.A Vorthos Guide to Magic Story | Twitter | Tumblr
[Primer] Krenko | Azor | Kess | Zacama | Kumena | Sram | The Ur-Dragon | Edgar Markov | Daretti | Marath