[raleur]

Originally Posted by subego 

Just to be clear, in the post you quoted I was talking exclusively about homemade porn distributed without consent.

Yes, I understand that, but my point was that consent doesn't seem to make a difference: if the images were stolen, then there are laws to cover that. Otherwise, it's the participant's responsibility to make sure that it doesn't get recorded and/or distributed.

Consider an (admittedly imperfect) analogy: if you have sex with someone you know has an STD, and end up being infected, whose responsibility is it? Likewise, if you take off your clothes in the presence of a camera- or even if you simply know one might be present, whose responsibility is it if those images become public?

Originally Posted by subego 

Maybe I misunderstand, but isn't "they should have known better" some pretty hardcore victim blaming?

It could be- that's why I asked about "vulgarization." What I'm trying to understand is what you mean by "victims": as long as the act is consensual, it's not clear that there are any victims, but only people who did not adequately consider the consequences.

[subego]

I'm assuming, and this is perhaps incorrect, in many cases there's a discussion about keeping it private (a verbal contract) which is later violated.

Unlike most of the things we've discussed, this is a cut and dried immoral act.

[raleur]

Which? The violation of the verbal contract? If so, sure, I agree.

But what does that have to do with vulgarization?

[subego]

Going under an assumption most of the homemade porn you see is of the "broken contract" variety, I think by consuming it you're complicit to some extent.

That [term]s you. Vulgarize may not be the correct fit for [term], but I'd say [term] is by no stretch a good thing.

[raleur]

OK, thanks, that clears it up.

But it does raise another question: how do you (as a viewer) know? I mean, if the "broken contract" variety is in someway harmful to the viewer, what about a video that isn't, but is made to look like it?

I don't know if such a thing exists, but I've heard that some celebrities could have "leaked" sex tapes in order to get attention (or for whatever reason one might deceive). I assume- let me know if I'm wrong- that someone viewing such a tape wouldn't be complicit in anything- but how could the viewer know this, and is there any practical difference between watching the two?

[subego]

I'd say the viewer generally pretends it isn't "broken contract" porn, and that's what's damaging the viewer. The (I would assume) small group of people who actually enjoy the "broken contract" aspect is a whole different can of worms.

As for how the viewer knows, obviously they don't. My guess is it's enough you should always consider it such unless there's obvious evidence to contrary in the piece in question.

[Uncle Skeleton]

I guess there are two ways to live life: assume the worst or assume the best. I generally break towards the latter, because I would rather enjoy life than suffer through it.

[subego]

I'm in the assume the best camp myself, up until I get into the higher probabilities of that assumption being incorrect.

[raleur]

Ok, I think I've lost your train of thought. Can you restate your main argument?

Here's where I stopped following:

Originally Posted by subego 

I'd say the viewer generally pretends it isn't "broken contract" porn, and that's what's damaging the viewer.

Are you arguing that the damage to the viewer comes from pretending that it's not porn of the "broken contract" variety? Or from a de facto complicity in breaking the contract? I think the latter, but I'm not sure.

More importantly, this seems to be a small subset of all the types of pornography (but this is a guess on my part). Is it the only type you take issue with? I'm asking because earlier you appeared to have a more general argument about vulgarization, but that seems not to fall under the "broken contract" argument- which is why I'm not following your argument here.

[besson3c]

What happened to my post asking Shaddim about whether he has won any olympic medals?

I feel like I'm being censored yet again. Ponies and rainbows.

[subego]

Originally Posted by raleur 

Ok, I think I've lost your train of thought. Can you restate your main argument?

Here's where I stopped following:

Are you arguing that the damage to the viewer comes from pretending that it's not porn of the "broken contract" variety? Or from a de facto complicity in breaking the contract? I think the latter, but I'm not sure.

More importantly, this seems to be a small subset of all the types of pornography (but this is a guess on my part). Is it the only type you take issue with? I'm asking because earlier you appeared to have a more general argument about vulgarization, but that seems not to fall under the "broken contract" argument- which is why I'm not following your argument here.

It comes from the complicity. The pretending is the way one ignores that complicity.

My argument about regular porn follows the same shape. I believe there's a high likelihood of some nastiness going on in what you're watching. Not as extreme as a broken contract, and admittedly, something less objectively determinable, but there nonetheless. If you consume it, you're complicit.

I hope I'm not frustrating people too much by my need to have this teased out of me. I honestly felt I had this down more solidly.

[raleur]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

What happened to my post asking Shaddim about whether he has won any olympic medals?

I feel like I'm being censored yet again. Ponies and rainbows.

Some sort of cosmic justice? That is, it seems fitting that a post that lists many things that aren't real, and supposes even more things that don't exist, probably should not exist, either.

[raleur]

Originally Posted by subego 

It comes from the complicity. The pretending is the way one ignores that complicity.

My argument about regular porn follows the same shape. I believe there's a high likelihood of some nastiness going on in what you're watching. Not as extreme as a broken contract, and admittedly, something less objectively determinable, but there nonetheless. If you consume it, you're complicit.

Thanks for clearing that up, it's starting to come together now. I'm not sure, but there may be a problem between the complicity argument and the weight you give to the broken contract, but it hasn't taken shape yet. I'll have to get back to you on it.

Originally Posted by subego 

I hope I'm not frustrating people too much by my need to have this teased out of me. I honestly felt I had this down more solidly.

Others don't seem to have a problem following it, I'm just confusing myself by trying to piece together your overarching viewpoint. It's an interesting argument, and I want to see where it goes.