Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

You are here: MacNN Forums > Community > MacNN Lounge > Political/War Lounge > Should There Be "Tame" Porn Sites For Teenagers?

Should There Be "Tame" Porn Sites For Teenagers? (Page 2)
Thread Tools
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Rockville, MD
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 24, 2012, 12:20 PM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
As I said above, you're taking something personal, private, and intimate, and then exploiting the shit out of it.

That's not an aspect of any feminism I'm familiar with.
As opposed to bra burning? Or from the other angle, as opposed to romance movies (or many other genre of drama)?

If Liv Tyler can do a performance that makes me feel like we're in love for just a brief moment, that should be just as intimate and just as exploitive as if Taylor Rain does a performance that makes me feel like we just had sex for just a brief moment. Both performers got paid; both were voluntary, and both were performing a character that was into the same thing as the audience (I think it's fair to assume). Performer and watcher are sharing the same emotion, just like in the "real" movies. That emotion is intimate, yes, but the "legitimate" film industry is no stranger to intimacy, and they still get paid. People are allowed to choose to be in love (in real life or through the silver screen (with a character)), so why aren't people allowed to choose to have sex (whether it be in real life or through the silver screen (with a character))?

I concede, there is a long history of porn not being what we would strictly call voluntary, and that is indeed exploitative. But isn't that because of the voluntary part, not because of the sex part? Why are the first women to direct porn and fully control their own careers including what they have to do in their roles, why aren't they as much feminists as the first women to direct "legitimate" cinema? They're not role models for other performers in their field? I don't think making money disqualifies you from being a role model; on the contrary it usually makes you more of one. I would agree that they're not feminists if they were somehow making it harder for other women to repeat their success, but I don't think that's what's happening.
     
subego  (op)
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Online
Reply With Quote
Dec 24, 2012, 12:44 PM
 
Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton View Post
As opposed to bra burning? Or from the other angle, as opposed to romance movies (or many other genre of drama)?
If Liv Tyler can do a performance that makes me feel like we're in love for just a brief moment, that should be just as intimate and just as exploitive as if Taylor Rain does a performance that makes me feel like we just had sex for just a brief moment. Both performers got paid; both were voluntary, and both were performing a character that was into the same thing as the audience (I think it's fair to assume). Performer and watcher are sharing the same emotion, just like in the "real" movies. That emotion is intimate, yes, but the "legitimate" film industry is no stranger to intimacy, and they still get paid. People are allowed to choose to be in love (in real life or through the silver screen (with a character)), so why aren't people allowed to choose to have sex (whether it be in real life or through the silver screen (with a character))?
I concede, there is a long history of porn not being what we would strictly call voluntary, and that is indeed exploitative. But isn't that because of the voluntary part, not because of the sex part? Why are the first women to direct porn and fully control their own careers including what they have to do in their roles, why aren't they as much feminists as the first women to direct "legitimate" cinema? They're not role models for other performers in their field? I don't think making money disqualifies you from being a role model; on the contrary it usually makes you more of one. I would agree that they're not feminists if they were somehow making it harder for other women to repeat their success, but I don't think that's what's happening.
I'm getting cross-talk here.

Are we discussing whether Liv Tyler in a movie is exploitive or feminist?
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Rockville, MD
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 24, 2012, 01:17 PM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton View Post
As opposed to bra burning? Or from the other angle, as opposed to romance movies (or many other genre of drama)?
If Liv Tyler can do a performance that makes me feel like we're in love for just a brief moment, that should be just as intimate and just as exploitive as if Taylor Rain does a performance that makes me feel like we just had sex for just a brief moment. Both performers got paid; both were voluntary, and both were performing a character that was into the same thing as the audience (I think it's fair to assume). Performer and watcher are sharing the same emotion, just like in the "real" movies. That emotion is intimate, yes, but the "legitimate" film industry is no stranger to intimacy, and they still get paid. People are allowed to choose to be in love (in real life or through the silver screen (with a character)), so why aren't people allowed to choose to have sex (whether it be in real life or through the silver screen (with a character))?
I concede, there is a long history of porn not being what we would strictly call voluntary, and that is indeed exploitative. But isn't that because of the voluntary part, not because of the sex part? Why are the first women to direct porn and fully control their own careers including what they have to do in their roles, why aren't they as much feminists as the first women to direct "legitimate" cinema? They're not role models for other performers in their field? I don't think making money disqualifies you from being a role model; on the contrary it usually makes you more of one. I would agree that they're not feminists if they were somehow making it harder for other women to repeat their success, but I don't think that's what's happening.
I'm getting cross-talk here.

Are we discussing whether Liv Tyler in a movie is exploitive or feminist?
Sure, I guess. It's just your standard "good for the goose" argument. You're accusing porn of doing things that other genres of movie-making do all the time.

Based on what you posted, it's exploitive when you take something personal, private and intimate, and then make a movie about it so the audience can mentally share that experience with the character in the movie. How does that not also apply to the whole romance, drama and horror genres of film? I am working on the premise that sex is not more intimate or personal than love, anguish or fear. Do you disagree with that premise?
Therefore, if a movie depicts love, anguish or fear with the intention of the audience sharing that emotion (rather than simply "watching" it to kill time), then it should be no worse, all other things being equal, if a movie depicts sexual arousal with the intention of the audience sharing that emotion.
For this reason, I think society's disapproval should be reserved for the porn that's not strictly voluntary, not just any that shows something personal private or intimate. I can admit that it hasn't been too long since that distinction was probably moot. But not anymore, IMO.
     
subego  (op)
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Online
Reply With Quote
Dec 24, 2012, 01:35 PM
 
Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton View Post
Sure, I guess. It's just your standard "good for the goose" argument. You're accusing porn of doing things that other genres of movie-making do all the time.
Based on what you posted, it's exploitive when you take something personal, private and intimate, and then make a movie about it so the audience can mentally share that experience with the character in the movie. How does that not also apply to the whole romance, drama and horror genres of film? I am working on the premise that sex is not more intimate or personal than love, anguish or fear. Do you disagree with that premise?
Therefore, if a movie depicts love, anguish or fear with the intention of the audience sharing that emotion (rather than simply "watching" it to kill time), then it should be no worse, all other things being equal, if a movie depicts sexual arousal with the intention of the audience sharing that emotion.
For this reason, I think society's disapproval should be reserved for the porn that's not strictly voluntary, not just any that shows something personal private or intimate. I can admit that it hasn't been too long since that distinction was probably moot. But not anymore, IMO.
I don't really think it's good for either goose or gander.

In general, I think pretending as a full-time profession isn't good for one's mental health. This goes for Liv pretending as hard as she can she's in love, or Taylor pretending being penetrated in front of an audience is intimate.


Mamas don't let your babies grow up to be actors.
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Rockville, MD
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 24, 2012, 02:08 PM
 
What do you base that on?
     
subego  (op)
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Online
Reply With Quote
Dec 24, 2012, 02:13 PM
 
Among other things, correlation between actors and batshit.
     
Dedicated MacNNer
Join Date: Oct 2012
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 24, 2012, 04:16 PM
 
Originally Posted by besson3c View Post
Besides, it is pretty hard to wrap one's head around porn being a form of feminism when the movies are pretty much about getting guys off (both as far as the outcome in real life as well as the actual action in the sex scenes). How is that equality?
Historically speaking, there was a "pro-sex" movement in feminism about 20 years ago. The feminists of the '60s and '70s tended to view sex as a means of repression, but in the late '80s and early '90s a new group hit the scene, and argued that women should "take back" sex. They wrote a lot about exploring feminine sexuality, women asserting themselves sexually, that sort of thing. While many of them would applaud a porn "actress" for taking charge of her career and making money on her own terms, none of them would argue that the porn industry is good for women in general.

Part of the problem is that there's a very common misconception at work- people tend to conflate economic freedom with the real thing, or even reduce all social life to economics. That's how you get ridiculous arguments like "if she agrees to it, then there's no harm done."
     
Dedicated MacNNer
Join Date: Oct 2012
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 24, 2012, 05:28 PM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
I don't really think it's good for either goose or gander.
In general, I think pretending as a full-time profession isn't good for one's mental health. This goes for Liv pretending as hard as she can she's in love, or Taylor pretending being penetrated in front of an audience is intimate.
Mamas don't let your babies grow up to be actors.
You might have a point there- the few actors I know tend to be a bit off, but that seems to be prerequisite among creative types. I think a few actually cultivate the image- you know, suffering artist and all.

But to get back to the main issue: in my opinion porn isn't really a problem, it's more of a symptom. If a guy watches porn in order to relieve his natural urges, that's not a problem in itself. The problem happens when he starts thinking that's the right way to interact with women- and it seems to me he gets those ideas elsewhere, long before he sees his first adult video.
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: 46 & 2
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 24, 2012, 06:51 PM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post

As I said above, you're taking something personal, private, and intimate, and then exploiting the shit out of it.
That's not an aspect of any feminism I'm familiar with.
Right? Sexual freedom of expression isn't a part of feminism? Honestly, you're coming off a little Evangelical here, several of the more liberal members on this forum are, for that matter. It's sex, some people think it's sacred, others believe it's good exercise and the more the merrier, an ordinary bodily function. Doesn't matter a lick to me either way, it's their bodies and they aren't my partners. They want to sell sex, more power to them.
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
- Thomas Paine
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: 46 & 2
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 24, 2012, 06:54 PM
 
Originally Posted by raleur View Post
No, it's not feminism, it's capitalism. Certainly, it has a feminist appeal, if you look at it from the perspective of "women taking control of their own career" perspective, but that's not what makes something feminist. You seem to have conflated making a profit with respect and equality- a common error, but an error nonetheless.
As for the problems, we've mentioned those above- namely, the degradation and abuse that porn so often cater to, if not propagate. Who makes money from it doesn't matter in the least: there have always been people willing to be humiliated or abused for a few pieces of silver.
You have a narrow view of feminism, and not all sexually liberated women would agree with you. One person's "degradation and abuse" is another person's idea of a good time. "Sweet Dreams" and such, I stopped judging the sexual preferences of others a long time ago.
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
- Thomas Paine
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: 46 & 2
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 24, 2012, 06:56 PM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
I'm 99% sure you're talking about someone else, and since that person sounds shitty, I'm really not appreciating the comparison.
You've already been talking about them in a negative light in this thread, inferring that they're "personal, private, and intimate, and then exploiting the shit out of it". That's hardly a neutral position.




(People wanted to see my more liberal side? Well, here it is.)
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
- Thomas Paine
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 24, 2012, 07:14 PM
 
Originally Posted by Shaddim View Post

Right? Sexual freedom of expression isn't a part of feminism? Honestly, you're coming off a little Evangelical here, several of the more liberal members on this forum are, for that matter. It's sex, some people think it's sacred, others believe it's good exercise and the more the merrier, an ordinary bodily function. Doesn't matter a lick to me either way, it's their bodies and they aren't my partners. They want to sell sex, more power to them.
I don't have any moral problems with anything said here, I'm just disputing this as being feminism, I'm with raleur (apparently my sock-puppet), I think it's more an expression of capitalism.

I'm being anal and semantic though, so I'll shaddup.
     
Professional Poster
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Maryland
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 24, 2012, 07:40 PM
 
All the ladies I've been with have been more into the entirety of the experience vs any particular part, i.e. the feelings, closeness, intimacy, etc - whereas guys are...well more focused on one aspect.

Video content does not do a very good job of conveying intimacy or closeness - which is why you see porn focused on a more easily accessible market. Its also why you see women's mags such as cosmo filled with sex tips and quizzes.
     
Dedicated MacNNer
Join Date: Oct 2012
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 24, 2012, 07:42 PM
 
Originally Posted by besson3c View Post
I don't have any moral problems with anything said here, I'm just disputing this as being feminism, I'm with raleur (apparently my sock-puppet), I think it's more an expression of capitalism.

I'm being anal and semantic though, so I'll shaddup.
As your sock-puppet, I am obliged to point out that It's not feminism, even when not viewed from my narrow, evangelical view.

It's not anal and semantic, either- as I noted above, it's a common mistake to conflate moral values with economic values, and Shaddim's argument is a fine example of this error.
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: 46 & 2
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 24, 2012, 08:22 PM
 
It's also a very common mistake to believe that others share your values or have your opinions regarding ethics. Many of the women in that industry I've spoken with aren't in porn solely for the money, which is in conflict with some of the more narrow views offered here.

"They're into it only for the cash", "they're being used and exploited", "It's a personal and intimate act". Seriously folks, you don't believe that's insulting? You think these women aren't strong, with all the stones being launched at them on a daily basis?
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
- Thomas Paine
     
Dedicated MacNNer
Join Date: Oct 2012
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 24, 2012, 11:17 PM
 
Nobody said they weren't strong. Your error is in mistaking a woman's personal empowerment with "feminism." It is not, it's simply economic empowerment- in this case to the detriment of others.

Seriously folks, does anyone feel persuaded by the argument that people shouldn't pass judgment because "it's insulting?" Yes, instead of pointing out that they degrade themselves for money, let's feel sorry for the hurt feelings of women who get rich from screwing.

And it's not only an error to argue from authority, but just plain dumb to do it when it can't be proven. What you may or may not have heard from people you can't prove you've spoken to means nothing to a bunch of anonymous people on the internet.
     
subego  (op)
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Online
Reply With Quote
Dec 25, 2012, 02:35 AM
 
Originally Posted by Shaddim View Post
You've already been talking about them in a negative light in this thread, inferring that they're "personal, private, and intimate, and then exploiting the shit out of it". That's hardly a neutral position.
(People wanted to see my more liberal side? Well, here it is.)
That?

That was me lacking neutrality towards you, or more precisely, your statement.

I think your definition of feminism is incorrect. I let this piss me off (which I fully admit is a 10 kinds of stupid response, mea culpa), so I decided you would feel my venom as the start of the "reeducation" process.

Again, sorry (no snark).


What feminism is, and further, what would qualify as feminist porn, are each their own (not insignificant) discussions. A small aspect of this discussion would focus on the worst (inherent) aspects of what it means to be a sex worker.

That's what that statement was about. In that context, I think it's accurate and stand by it, but it's vitally important for me to clarify I wasn't trying to make a moral judgement about being a sex worker. That pisses me off too. Far more than disparate definitions of feminism.


Does it seem your assessment of my opinion of people in the sex industry may be rooted in this sort miscommunication? I honestly want to know if it isn't. You described me as someone who would piss myself off. I'd rather fix that.
     
subego  (op)
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Online
Reply With Quote
Dec 25, 2012, 03:31 AM
 
Originally Posted by Shaddim View Post
Right? Sexual freedom of expression isn't a part of feminism? Honestly, you're coming off a little Evangelical here, several of the more liberal members on this forum are, for that matter. It's sex, some people think it's sacred, others believe it's good exercise and the more the merrier, an ordinary bodily function. Doesn't matter a lick to me either way, it's their bodies and they aren't my partners. They want to sell sex, more power to them.
Maternal is closer than evangelical.

Let's use an analogy with something near and dear to your heart: three-ways.

Do I have a moral issue with three-ways? Good lord no. Same with four-ways and ten-ways. Throw in a goat and a dead body while you're at it. I'm serious. You have to really push it before I'm going to pass moral judgement on you. Like, the goat would have to be unwilling or something.

Back to three-ways.

If someone who was in a relationship asked my advice for whether they should have a three-way, I'd tell them absolutely not. Why? Because it's going to complicate the **** out of something which is already too complicated. You have a three-way, expect your relationship to crash and burn in a most spectacular fashion.

Now, for some people, you may even know a person like this, that would be shitty advice. They can handle it, and it could lead to the most awesome ever, and I'm not talking about sex.

Let's look at how many people fit the first definition and have a three-way anyways, and people who fit the second definition and have one.

What's the ratio? 20:1? 100:1?


Why would this be any different for the sex industry? How many people is the sex industry "just right" for versus how many people are in the industry?
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Rockville, MD
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 25, 2012, 09:01 AM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
Why would this be any different for the sex industry? How many people is the sex industry "just right" for versus how many people are in the industry?
How different is that from any particular industry though? I know we like to think that one should pick a career they love so that going to work is more about feeling complete than about earning a paycheck, but I don't think that fantasy gets realized for most people. How many industries break that 100:1 ratio (or whatever it is)? Honest question -- I don't know what answer I would give, but I would be eager to hear others'.
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Rockville, MD
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 25, 2012, 09:11 AM
 
Originally Posted by raleur View Post
Part of the problem is that there's a very common misconception at work- people tend to conflate economic freedom with the real thing, or even reduce all social life to economics. That's how you get ridiculous arguments like "if she agrees to it, then there's no harm done."
What's ridiculous about that argument?


Originally Posted by raleur View Post
Nobody said they weren't strong. Your error is in mistaking a woman's personal empowerment with "feminism." It is not, it's simply economic empowerment- in this case to the detriment of others.
What detriment?


Seriously folks, does anyone feel persuaded by the argument that people shouldn't pass judgment because "it's insulting?"
That wasn't the argument, the argument is that it's hypocritical.


Yes, instead of pointing out that they degrade themselves for money, ...
I dispute the premise that porn acting is "degrading oneself for money" by definition. Can you support it?


And it's not only an error to argue from authority, but just plain dumb to do it when it can't be proven.
An excellent thing to keep in mind for yourself. I look forward to your proofs.
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Rockville, MD
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 25, 2012, 09:11 AM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
Among other things, correlation between actors and batshit.
Is that why stage acting was considered obscene in the Shakespeare era? I wonder why we changed our minds about that since then...
     
Dedicated MacNNer
Join Date: Oct 2012
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 25, 2012, 10:07 AM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
That's what that statement was about. In that context, I think it's accurate and stand by it, but it's vitally important for me to clarify I wasn't trying to make a moral judgement about being a sex worker. That pisses me off too. Far more than disparate definitions of feminism.
Sub, I'm not sure I follow what you mean by "moral" here. Earlier posts indicate a concern with degradation and abuse- that certainly sounds like a moral critique. Do you see it otherwise?

Second, it looks like you want to draw a distinction between performing in these films for profit (which you don't want to judge "morally") and the results of those films (which you've said is a concern). Have you changed your mind on the second? Or are you saying that there's no connection between performing in porn and what happens when others watch it?
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: 46 & 2
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 25, 2012, 10:47 AM
 
Originally Posted by raleur View Post
Nobody said they weren't strong. Your error is in mistaking a woman's personal empowerment with "feminism." It is not, it's simply economic empowerment- in this case to the detriment of others.
Seriously folks, does anyone feel persuaded by the argument that people shouldn't pass judgment because "it's insulting?" Yes, instead of pointing out that they degrade themselves for money, let's feel sorry for the hurt feelings of women who get rich from screwing.
And it's not only an error to argue from authority, but just plain dumb to do it when it can't be proven. What you may or may not have heard from people you can't prove you've spoken to means nothing to a bunch of anonymous people on the internet.
So, you're separating economic advancement and freedom from feminism (one of the core Feminist agendas)? That doesn't work. It's all part of the changing role of women in society, and a part of a valid choice in vocation. The Adult industry, as a business, has changed dramatically over the last decade, with much more female involvement in the "front office". That's a good thing, and a sign of more equality.
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
- Thomas Paine
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 25, 2012, 11:00 AM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post

Maternal is closer than evangelical.
Let's use an analogy with something near and dear to your heart: three-ways.
Do I have a moral issue with three-ways? Good lord no. Same with four-ways and ten-ways. Throw in a goat and a dead body while you're at it. I'm serious. You have to really push it before I'm going to pass moral judgement on you. Like, the goat would have to be unwilling or something.
Back to three-ways.
If someone who was in a relationship asked my advice for whether they should have a three-way, I'd tell them absolutely not. Why? Because it's going to complicate the **** out of something which is already too complicated. You have a three-way, expect your relationship to crash and burn in a most spectacular fashion.
Now, for some people, you may even know a person like this, that would be shitty advice. They can handle it, and it could lead to the most awesome ever, and I'm not talking about sex.
Let's look at how many people fit the first definition and have a three-way anyways, and people who fit the second definition and have one.
What's the ratio? 20:1? 100:1?
Why would this be any different for the sex industry? How many people is the sex industry "just right" for versus how many people are in the industry?
But how would you know if the goat was unwilling? Some of them are really adept at playing hard-to-get.
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 25, 2012, 11:03 AM
 
My favorite part about this thread is that we are keeping this discussion going over Christmas. It seems demented somehow, I love it!
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: 46 & 2
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 25, 2012, 11:19 AM
 
"Degradation" and "intimacy" are very personal things, and the definition can change from person to person.

I'm "duogamous", so are my partners, and we've not experienced a whiff of jealousy in 6+ years. The start was rocky at times but with communication and understanding came enlightenment, in that area. Our concepts of love and intimacy changed, and will continue to change, as we grow and rediscover each other. Through it all we've maintained our spiritual and emotional connections, and they tie directly with our sexual identities and roles, but that's not the same with everyone (and I wouldn't want it to be). Diversity in love, sex, and life is the key to development as a species, and I not only respect that broad approach to those subjects, I encourage it. To my knowledge, 7 groups have tried plural partnerships after seeing our example, so far 2 have achieved similar success. In part this is because we offer advice and casual counselling to help their relationships grow. Is that as successful as traditional 2-person unions? No, but given the complexity involved, I think it's extraordinary.

This goes back to the sex industry. It is a more complex type of relationship, and I say relationship because those folks tend to be polyamorous in their own ways, working with the same partners over and over and sharing friendships with them. Often there is love, just not in the conventional sense, and like plural unions jealousy is the enemy. Is it ideal? What's ideal? Love is the Law, and it is where you find it. Love exists when you discover your will and strength, because others will be drawn to it. Your Will connects with your society/community and forms a bond, that bond becomes the Law, which is....? Love, of course. This all isn't standard or normal, but it is a way, and for more and more it will be a part of their future as the world becomes smaller and more complicated.
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
- Thomas Paine
     
Dedicated MacNNer
Join Date: Oct 2012
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 25, 2012, 11:50 AM
 
Originally Posted by Shaddim View Post
So, you're separating economic advancement and freedom from feminism (one of the core Feminist agendas)? That doesn't work. It's all part of the changing role of women in society, and a part of a valid choice in vocation.
Nonsense. As I noted earlier, it is a grievous, but common, error to say that all "economic advancement and freedom" equates to feminist goals. That is certainly not true when one's economic advancement comes at the cost of one's dignity (and yes, those women have lost their dignity regardless of how much money they make, how much power they have, or how empowered they feel) or when it promotes the attitudes of degradation and abuse that we have been discussing. Yes, feminists promote economic advancement and personal freedom, but not at the cost of personal dignity or worse, at the expense of others.

Since you seem to have trouble with such nuances, perhaps some more extreme hypotheticals will help:

Is there nothing wrong with a twelve-year-old who agrees willingly, and is paid a fair wage, to perform sex acts?

If a person willingly enters into a contract to become someone else's personal property, is the owner correct in humiliating that person, or killing that person?

Call them reductio ad absurdum if you wish, but the difference is a matter only of degree: I'm trying to find out if you claim any non-economic or contract-based value in a human life, because it is more than an error, it's a pathological defect to claim that one's personal moral responsibility can be met through economic transactions.
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: 46 & 2
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 25, 2012, 12:23 PM
 
Again, judgement of lifestyle, claiming that one person knows what is "dignified" for another. Hubris. Give each person space, let them decide, and then allow them to explore.

Is there nothing wrong with a twelve-year-old who agrees willingly, and is paid a fair wage, to perform sex acts?
Adults are adults, children aren't adults.

If a person willingly enters into a contract to become someone else's personal property, is the owner correct in humiliating that person, or killing that person?
Humiliation? Some people thrive on and enjoy it. It's not my place to judge them. We know a couple where the guy wears a collar and a leash, sometimes he's scolded and disciplined with a crop in public. That's their choice. If he one day decides to take off the collar and walk away, so be it. If she doesn't want to control him any longer and provide what he desires, then he can look for a new master. Killing? Does the person want to die? Seems to be a place where a qualified mental health professional can help. There is the greater Law that serves as community contract, and each person chooses how to fulfill it while trying not to interfere with the liberties of others, and then there's the lesser law of the land for commerce and governance. A good citizen and neighbor works to embrace both.

Call them reductio ad absurdum if you wish, but the difference is a matter only of degree: I'm trying to find out if you claim any non-economic or contract-based value in a human life, because it is more than an error, it's a pathological defect to claim that one's personal moral responsibility can be met through economic transactions.
So, as a cherry on top, I'm defective? Have you reached that part of the conversation already, only a couple pages in? A person places their own value on their life, not me. It can be worth all the riches in Brunei or a candy bar wrapper. It's up to the individual adult to determine their self-worth, or if they even have a price. My place is to not interfere once they've made a decision.
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
- Thomas Paine
     
Dedicated MacNNer
Join Date: Oct 2012
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 25, 2012, 12:45 PM
 
Originally Posted by Shaddim View Post
Again, judgement of lifestyle, claiming that one person knows what is "dignified" for another. Hubris. Give each person space, let them decide, and then allow them to explore.
Selfish, irresponsible nonsense masquerading as reasonableness. Also known as Libertarianism.
Originally Posted by Shaddim View Post
Adults are adults, children aren't adults.
Wait, I thought people needed to explore in order to decide for themselves. Why can't children? Are you saying children can't make free personal choices?
Originally Posted by Shaddim View Post
Humiliation? Some people thrive on and enjoy it. It's not my place to judge them. We know a couple where the guy wears a collar and a leash, sometimes he's scolded and disciplined with a crop in public. That's their choice. If he one day decides to take off the collar and walk away, so be it. If she doesn't want to control him any longer and provide what he desires, then he can look for a new master.
Ok, so we've established that you believe that people have no essential value other than their ability to choose for themselves.
Originally Posted by Shaddim View Post
Killing? Does the person want to die?
Why does their desire do live or die matter? They freely chose to enter the contract, did they not, so they must also accept the consequences of that choice, right?
Originally Posted by Shaddim View Post
There is the greater Law that serves as community contract, and each person chooses how to fulfill it while trying not to interfere with the liberties of others, and then there's the lesser law of the land for commerce and governance. A good citizen and neighbor works to embrace both.
Oh, now I think I get it: the most important thing is free personal choice, which apparently embraces all other goods. Or is it that things are good precisely because we choose them?
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Rockville, MD
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 25, 2012, 12:58 PM
 
Children aren't biologically capable to give informed consent. If consent isn't informed, it isn't really consent, that goes for adults as well.
     
subego  (op)
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Online
Reply With Quote
Dec 25, 2012, 01:06 PM
 
Originally Posted by raleur View Post
Sub, I'm not sure I follow what you mean by "moral" here. Earlier posts indicate a concern with degradation and abuse- that certainly sounds like a moral critique. Do you see it otherwise?
Second, it looks like you want to draw a distinction between performing in these films for profit (which you don't want to judge "morally") and the results of those films (which you've said is a concern). Have you changed your mind on the second? Or are you saying that there's no connection between performing in porn and what happens when others watch it?
I was hoping my three-way analogy would squirt some illumination on this.

I make no moral judgements of people who have a three-way, but it's something I'd never recommend to someone in a serious relationship because of the likelihood it would destroy it.

I make no moral judgements of people who decide to be sex workers, but I'd never recommend it because for most people, it's going to scramble their mental health. Probably more if the material is really degrading. Even more if the question becomes "do I want to do this, or do I have to pay my rent?"

I do have an issue with degrading porn becoming the norm? Yes. Is that a moral issue? I dunno. Maybe? It is in the sense a lot of it would be produced by people who I'd likely consider to be pigs, but it isn't in the sense that what makes you a pig is being a pig, not that you film degrading porn. There are people who produce degrading porn who aren't pigs*, so I'm not going to make a moral judgement of someone just because they produce degrading porn.

I feel like I only half-answered your questions here, so I'll be glad to clarify as much as I can.


*In some heavy bondage stuff, they'll have a part at the end where the players will come out and say "hey, we were totally into this, and we're totally into each other". What's startling about it is there's often genuine affection displayed, which is way more then you get in most porn, tame or otherwise.
     
subego  (op)
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Online
Reply With Quote
Dec 25, 2012, 01:08 PM
 
Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton View Post
Is that why stage acting was considered obscene in the Shakespeare era? I wonder why we changed our minds about that since then...
Obscene?
     
subego  (op)
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Online
Reply With Quote
Dec 25, 2012, 01:10 PM
 
Originally Posted by besson3c View Post
But how would you know if the goat was unwilling?
When they bite you.
     
subego  (op)
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Online
Reply With Quote
Dec 25, 2012, 01:11 PM
 
Originally Posted by besson3c View Post
My favorite part about this thread is that we are keeping this discussion going over Christmas. It seems demented somehow, I love it!
Merry XXXmas.
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Rockville, MD
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 25, 2012, 01:29 PM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton View Post
Is that why stage acting was considered obscene in the Shakespeare era? I wonder why we changed our minds about that since then...
Obscene?
Sorry I misremembered, "immoral." ...the Protestant authorities banned the performance of all plays within the city limits of London. A sweeping assault against the alleged immoralities of the theatre crushed whatever remained in England of the dramatic tradition.
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: 46 & 2
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 25, 2012, 01:32 PM
 
Originally Posted by raleur View Post
Selfish, irresponsible nonsense masquerading as reasonableness. Also known as Libertarianism.
That's probably because I am libertarian. "Selfish and irresponsible" are your opinions, you're entitled to them. They don't hurt me, so good for you.

Wait, I thought people needed to explore in order to decide for themselves. Why can't children? Are you saying children can't make free personal choices?
Children are children, they need to grow and develop before their consent can be considered "informed".

Ok, so we've established that you believe that people have no essential value other than their ability to choose for themselves.
You've established that it exists in your own head, or saying it because you're irritated with me, whatever. Anyway, they can choose to have value or not, makes no real difference to me. I'll choose to assume that they have self-worth, until they prove otherwise. If they don't, I typically leave them be. I'll lend a hand to a person in despair, but won't waste my time if it's self-indulgent wallowing. I can't assign value to a person without any, that's not my place.

Why does their desire do live or die matter? They freely chose to enter the contract, did they not, so they must also accept the consequences of that choice, right?
Again, they want to walk away or decide to do otherwise, good for them. As long as they aren't harming me or mine, they can do as they will.

Oh, now I think I get it: the most important thing is free personal choice, which apparently embraces all other goods. Or is it that things are good precisely because we choose them?
The most important thing is community, and a person's will working within it. Ideally, there's harmony, and I'll accommodate a person's wishes, if I'm able. If not, then I'll tell them I can't and they need to "move on". If they can't or won't move on, then together we go into conflict resolution, and there are various degrees of that.
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
- Thomas Paine
     
subego  (op)
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Online
Reply With Quote
Dec 25, 2012, 01:32 PM
 
     
Dedicated MacNNer
Join Date: Oct 2012
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 25, 2012, 01:48 PM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
I was hoping my three-way analogy would squirt some illumination on this.
Thanks, I see your ideas more clearly now, but I still have questions.

Originally Posted by subego View Post
I make no moral judgements of people who have a three-way, but it's something I'd never recommend to someone in a serious relationship because of the likelihood it would destroy it.
In one sense, it's fine to make a distinction between people themselves and the acts they commit. But it sounds like you believe that relationships have some sort of value in and of themselves, and that's the standard you're using to decide whether the act is good or bad. This doesn't necessarily mean that the people themselves are good or bad people (although there is a relationship), but that they make mistakes, or use poor judgment, or whatever else causes them to do the wrong (harmful to the relationship) thing. Or do relationships have no value outside of whatever the confederates decide?


Originally Posted by subego View Post
I do have an issue with degrading porn becoming the norm? Yes. Is that a moral issue? I dunno. Maybe? It is in the sense a lot of it would be produced by people who I'd likely consider to be pigs, but it isn't in the sense that what makes you a pig is being a pig, not that you film degrading porn. There are people who produce degrading porn who aren't pigs*, so I'm not going to make a moral judgement of someone just because they produce degrading porn.
This doesn't really make sense in light of your earlier statements about education- is the issue only that making porn is bad for the mental health of some of the actors and actresses, or that it vulgarizes society (i.e. people) by making degradation and abuse seem acceptable? Have you changed your mind?


Originally Posted by subego View Post
*In some heavy bondage stuff, they'll have a part at the end where the players will come out and say "hey, we were totally into this, and we're totally into each other". What's startling about it is there's often genuine affection displayed, which is way more then you get in most porn, tame or otherwise.
I don't doubt that this could happen- there are plenty of reasons people might do this that have nothing to do with degradation or abuse. But we're talking about making those images publicly available, where others are able to take them out of context, or worse, as suggestions that it is acceptable to treat people in this way.
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Rockville, MD
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 25, 2012, 02:09 PM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
You said it made them that way. It is perfectly logical to believe that something that makes people crazy (or in any way harms them, really) is immoral. Like drugs, whether I subscribe to that logic or not, it is certainly widely believed.

Also I don't want to let it be missed, you did point out that it was not your only reason, or even your primary reason, so I was also trying to be inclusive of your other reasons, even if you don't want to reveal them, you could still potentially answer that question without revealing them.
     
Dedicated MacNNer
Join Date: Oct 2012
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 25, 2012, 02:15 PM
 
Originally Posted by Shaddim View Post
I can't assign value to a person without any, that's not my place.
So, who does assign that value? Or is that, too, solely a matter of choice?

Originally Posted by Shaddim View Post
Again, they want to walk away or decide to do otherwise, good for them. As long as they aren't harming me or mine, they can do as they will.
While you have answered that you have no problem with someone owning another person, you seem to have avoided the second part of the question: is it acceptable for their owner to kill them?


Originally Posted by Shaddim View Post
The most important thing is community, and a person's will working within it.
Great principle. But, to return to the question, are things valuable precisely because we choose them, or do they have value in themselves? Or do you not understand the question?

Also, please define "harming you or yours": while it's clear that "judging people" seems to be a really bad thing, because, you know, it hurts the feelings of whores, does that also include things like air pollution or a vulgar culture? In a different thread, you claim that media coverage of the slaughter of innocent people causes more violence: if that's the case, then your argument that reduces everything to "a person's working within the community" has a few minor problems. Are we to take it that you believe that something so vague as public media might harm "you and yours"?
     
subego  (op)
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Online
Reply With Quote
Dec 25, 2012, 02:34 PM
 
Originally Posted by raleur View Post
while it's clear that "judging people" seems to be a really bad thing, because, you know, it hurts the feelings of whores
Jeez...
     
Dedicated MacNNer
Join Date: Oct 2012
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 25, 2012, 03:11 PM
 
Yeah, i got carried away by how incredibly stupid the argument was. Sorry.
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: 46 & 2
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 25, 2012, 04:03 PM
 
Originally Posted by raleur View Post
So, who does assign that value? Or is that, too, solely a matter of choice?
Only a person can determine their own worth.

While you have answered that you have no problem with someone owning another person, you seem to have avoided the second part of the question: is it acceptable for their owner to kill them?
So, you're going to ignore the part about either person being able to walk away whenever they want? Why are you purposely leaving that out? I wonder... If someone wants to take their own life, that's their choice, but no one should take the life of another, unless it's self-defense or assisted suicide. War is tricky, but often falls into the self-preservation category.

Great principle. But, to return to the question, are things valuable precisely because we choose them, or do they have value in themselves? Or do you not understand the question?
Also, please define "harming you or yours": while it's clear that "judging people" seems to be a really bad thing, because, you know, it hurts the feelings of whores, does that also include things like air pollution or a vulgar culture?
Well, you got angry there, you took a demeaning tone and decided to throw insults. I feel bad for you.

In a different thread, you claim that media coverage of the slaughter of innocent people causes more violence: if that's the case, then your argument that reduces everything to "a person's working within the community" has a few minor problems. Are we to take it that you believe that something so vague as public media might harm "you and yours"?
No, I said the extensive coverage (going ape shit) causes people to want to copycat, so they can get attention. That falls under community and it should be addressed. I've not been harmed by the media, neither has my family, but people in that town have and they asked the press to go away. As a nation we suffer because nuts will want to trade their life and freedom for infamy. We need to realize that it falls into the same area as screaming "FIRE" in a crowded theater when there isn't one. Not all speech and journalism is, or should be, protected.
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
- Thomas Paine
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Rockville, MD
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 25, 2012, 04:20 PM
 
Originally Posted by Shaddim View Post
No, I said the extensive coverage (going ape shit) causes people to want to copycat, so they can get attention. That falls under community and it should be addressed. I've not been harmed by the media, neither has my family, but people in that town have and they asked the press to go away. As a nation we suffer because nuts will want to trade their life and freedom for infamy. We need to realize that it falls into the same area as screaming "FIRE" in a crowded theater when there isn't one. Not all speech and journalism is, or should be, protected.
You also said in the other thread that the censorship should be voluntary. Are you escalating beyond that now?
     
Dedicated MacNNer
Join Date: Oct 2012
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 25, 2012, 04:59 PM
 
Originally Posted by Shaddim View Post
Only a person can determine their own worth.
Except for children, of course, because as you mentioned, they are unable to make rational determinations. So where does their value. if they have any, come from?
Originally Posted by Shaddim View Post
So, you're going to ignore the part about either person being able to walk away whenever they want? Why are you purposely leaving that out? I wonder... If someone wants to take their own life, that's their choice, but no one should take the life of another, unless it's self-defense or assisted suicide. War is tricky, but often falls into the self-preservation category.
No, my friend, it's you who forgot the part about giving that right up when they entered into the contract to become someone's property. They don't have the right to walk away unless their owner gives it to them. Or are you now going to say that they have some kind of right that isn't dependent on the exercise of their own free will?

Originally Posted by Shaddim View Post
Well, you got angry there, you took a demeaning tone and decided to throw insults. I feel bad for you.
I ask if you do not understand the question not in order to insult you, but because you seem to be going out of your way to avoid it. Gosh, I'm sorry you took it that way!

Anyway, are things valuable precisely because we choose them, or do they have value in themselves?

Originally Posted by Shaddim View Post
I've not been harmed by the media, neither has my family, but people in that town have.
We need to realize that it falls into the same area as screaming "FIRE" in a crowded theater when there isn't one. Not all speech and journalism is, or should be, protected.
I must be misreading you, because it look an awful lot like you're claiming that simple images or words, when they are broadcast to a community at large, are harmful and must be addressed by laws that censor them. Why can't the people in that town just turn off the TV?
     
Dedicated MacNNer
Join Date: Oct 2012
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 25, 2012, 05:10 PM
 
Originally Posted by Shaddim View Post
No, I said the extensive coverage (going ape shit) causes people to want to copycat, so they can get attention. That falls under community and it should be addressed. I've not been harmed by the media, neither has my family, but people in that town have and they asked the press to go away. As a nation we suffer because nuts will want to trade their life and freedom for infamy. We need to realize that it falls into the same area as screaming "FIRE" in a crowded theater when there isn't one. Not all speech and journalism is, or should be, protected.
Oh, and while we're at it, could you please explain more precisely how the media harmed the people in Newtown? Is it because the media caused someone to slaughter their children?
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: 46 & 2
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 25, 2012, 09:54 PM
 
Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton View Post
You also said in the other thread that the censorship should be voluntary. Are you escalating beyond that now?
Not sure, I'm willing to see if the press will just do it themselves, but fearing they won't. Reporting the tragedy is fine, but they take it all too far, harassing the grieving families, destroying the towns, going into great detail to pull out all the info on the shooter. It's all just over the top and attracts imitation.
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
- Thomas Paine
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: 46 & 2
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 25, 2012, 09:58 PM
 
Originally Posted by raleur View Post
Oh, and while we're at it, could you please explain more precisely how the media harmed the people in Newtown? Is it because the media caused someone to slaughter their children?
You didn't see the harassment and property damage from the media horde, apparently. All of them were asked many times to leave after the first couple days, but the crews ignored it.
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
- Thomas Paine
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: 46 & 2
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 25, 2012, 10:00 PM
 
Originally Posted by raleur View Post
Except for children, of course, because as you mentioned, they are unable to make rational determinations. So where does their value. if they have any, come from?
No, my friend, it's you who forgot the part about giving that right up when they entered into the contract to become someone's property. They don't have the right to walk away unless their owner gives it to them. Or are you now going to say that they have some kind of right that isn't dependent on the exercise of their own free will?
I ask if you do not understand the question not in order to insult you, but because you seem to be going out of your way to avoid it. Gosh, I'm sorry you took it that way!
Anyway, are things valuable precisely because we choose them, or do they have value in themselves?
I must be misreading you, because it look an awful lot like you're claiming that simple images or words, when they are broadcast to a community at large, are harmful and must be addressed by laws that censor them. Why can't the people in that town just turn off the TV?
You're too upset and abusive to speak with, at least on this subject.
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
- Thomas Paine
     
subego  (op)
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Online
Reply With Quote
Dec 26, 2012, 03:56 AM
 
Originally Posted by raleur View Post
Thanks, I see your ideas more clearly now, but I still have questions.
In one sense, it's fine to make a distinction between people themselves and the acts they commit. But it sounds like you believe that relationships have some sort of value in and of themselves, and that's the standard you're using to decide whether the act is good or bad. This doesn't necessarily mean that the people themselves are good or bad people (although there is a relationship), but that they make mistakes, or use poor judgment, or whatever else causes them to do the wrong (harmful to the relationship) thing. Or do relationships have no value outside of whatever the confederates decide?
This doesn't really make sense in light of your earlier statements about education- is the issue only that making porn is bad for the mental health of some of the actors and actresses, or that it vulgarizes society (i.e. people) by making degradation and abuse seem acceptable? Have you changed your mind?
I don't doubt that this could happen- there are plenty of reasons people might do this that have nothing to do with degradation or abuse. But we're talking about making those images publicly available, where others are able to take them out of context, or worse, as suggestions that it is acceptable to treat people in this way.
These are interesting questions. I feel my answers are combinations of the options you offer.

I'd say the value of a relationship is primarily determined by the participants, but since you have a bunch of people in the aggregate who see relationships as having value, it begins to gain its own intrinsic value.

WRT mental health, here's my general thesis:

1) For the majority of people, sex work isn't good for their mental health.

2) #1 adds an inherent level of nastiness to the whole affair. That specific aspect of the sex industry means that the industry is vulgarizing society to some extent. It seems unavoidable to me.

3) #2 is the only generalized problem I have with the sex industry, any other issues are contextual, and are likely going to focus on some objective measure of the participants' willingness (which I feel safe doing because this is meant as a theoretical construct, not an applied one).

4) Because of our society's puritanical origins, much time and energy has been improperly spent moralizing against the sex industry.

5) The counter-response to #4, beginning with the sexual revolution, has been "**** off, porn (and by extension, sex work in general) is awesome".

6) #5 has caused us to lose sight of #1 and #2.

The way this ties into education is knowing it tends to influence your consumption habits. It doesn't make them consume less (I offer myself as example), but I'm pretty sure it alters what gets consumed (I again offer myself as example).
     
 
Thread Tools
Forum Links
Forum Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On
Top
Privacy Policy
All times are GMT -4. The time now is 12:54 PM.
All contents of these forums © 1995-2015 MacNN. All rights reserved.
Branding + Design: www.gesamtbild.com
vBulletin v.3.8.8 © 2000-2015, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd., Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO 3.3.2