Why is pornography considered a degrading thing?

"Yes, but why would you give teh kid a lollypop if you didn't want them to have it? Wouldn't it be easier to just give it to them after dinner?"

The whole point of giving the kid the lollypop before dinner is to test his obedience to you and his own reasoning. You tell him what to do or what not to do, as well as telling him what his punishment is if he doesn't comply and what his reward is if he does. That's all the info he needs. The rest is up to his resillience to temptation. You get tempted enough the eat the lollypop, you get grounded. You don't give in to temptation and don't eat it, you get a lifetime supply of Wonka bars after dinner.

"Actually your argument is further flawed in that He didn't actually say anything."

I'm taking Christianity, Islam, and Judism as references in this one, since they are considered to be similar in a lot of ways and are the dominant religions in society these days. Each of these religions condemns premarital sex as far as I know.

"All the advice in the world is never goign to really help the child make a decision becasue the only way to know the truth is to ask the man who gave it to him in hte first place. No matter how much the friends claim to know what the man will do when he returns they really do not know, do they?"

The man gives the child all he needs to know, don't eat it. If he gives it to anyone else to eat it, he's not disobeying anybody. If he decides to share it he'd be a smart kid, especially if he shares it with that kid that has low blood sugar, for which he gets compassion points from the man when he gets back and instead of eating spinach for dinner, he gets to order pizza or something.

The kids that are telling him to eat it represent society, and the constant nudge to go out and have sex. From appeling to your senses through TV, magazines, Lara Croft, and PORN, to fear of social rejection by knowing others are doing it and you're not, society has always had a huge impact on how to satisfy your sexual desires.

 

The whole point of giving the kid the lollypop before dinner is to test his obedience to you and his own reasoning.

Again you are basing your opinion of God as some sort of proctor teasing his creations. If you beleive in an all loving God would he not love his children regardless if they passed some idiotic test that MAN has created?

"Actually your argument is further flawed in that He didn't actually say anything." <-- ME
I'm taking Christianity, Islam, and Judism as references in this one, since they are considered to be similar in a lot of ways and are the dominant religions in society these days. Each of these religions condemns premarital sex as far as I know.

These are religions saying things, NOT GOD! Please show me some where where some one actually heard God say "dont eat the lollipop until after dinner" Which brings another point up, some religions, if that is what you are harping on, let a male take many females as wives. In Gods opinion it is ok then to be a biagamist rather than have a bit of candy now and again? Also pulling a Brittany Spears must also be A-OK with the big guy. Get married, do it like rabbits for a long weekend, and then get a quicky divorce on Monday?

The man gives the child all he needs to know, don't eat it. If he gives it to anyone else to eat it, he's not disobeying anybody. If he decides to share it he'd be a smart kid, especially if he shares it with that kid that has low blood sugar, for which he gets compassion points from the man when he gets back and instead of eating spinach for dinner, he gets to order pizza or something.

How do you KNOW what the man is going to do? Through all of this you seem to constantly take the part of the man (God) and tell the rest of us sinners what He will do or what He will say. How can you presume to know God's reactions? Is that not blasphemous on some levels?

Perhaps the candy is poisoned, and, in doing the right thing as you claimed above, he ends up killing the friend with diabetes. I am so surprised the man in red has not been mentioned yet in this thread. A test sounds more like satans thing than Gods.

The kids that are telling him to eat it represent society, and the constant nudge to go out and have sex. From appeling to your senses through TV, magazines, Lara Croft, and PORN, to fear of social rejection by knowing others are doing it and you're not, society has always had a huge impact on how to satisfy your sexual desires.

Are you finished digging your hole now? The children in my analogy represent both society and the impact that you disagree with on the child. HOWEVER, they also represent YOU, the religious self rightous who constantly push and pull on the child attempting to make them do what they think is right, NOT NECESSARILY WHAT THE MAN ACTUALLY WANTS OR DOES NOT WANT. Everyone claims to know the man but in reality all they know are what they have heard from their older brothers and sisters who heard it from thier brothers and sisters and so on and so on. The message has gotten so watered down with personal opinions that the poor child really has no idea what the man intended in the first place with the candy.

 

The kids that are telling him to eat it represent society, and the constant nudge to go out and have sex. From appeling to your senses through TV, magazines, Lara Croft, and PORN, to fear of social rejection by knowing others are doing it and you're not, society has always had a huge impact on how to satisfy your sexual desires.

Hate to break it to you, but most people don't care if you've had sex or not.

How exactly does porn pressure you to have sex? After watching porn, i never think "Oh, man...I need to go have sex. I feel socially rejected." It never happens. Porn has NOTHING to do with this

 

I have nothiung against pornography, in theory.

I do have a problem with the pornography industry, and thus i suppose against pornography itself.

Viewing visual depictions of nudity or sexual intercoase is fine--it stimulates and arouses us and satisfies our natural curiosity and craving for such things. The problem is that when humans are entered into the equation, things go horribly wrong.

It truely is sickening and saddening to see the level of exploitation that goes on in the production of the industry. Much more than people realize, i think, or more people would object to it. Abuse and exploitation of women who are forced by desperation to resort to such lowely things is not cool. Theres just so much of it in so many different ways and aspects that i dont even know where to begin. Its unfortunate that the few respectable pornography productions have been spoiled by all the low-lifes who have taken advantage of the industry for their own gains.

 

women who are forced by desperation to resort to such lowely things is not cool

The help wanted sign at the corner gas station is still up. There are very few, if not any, desperate situations that I can think of that Porn would be the ONLY answer to.

 

No of course not. It is not like anyone--be it porn actresses, strippers, prostitues, or even drug abusers--is physically forcing any of these people. But the system is designed in such a way that it is easy for people to fall victim to it. It is still a free country, and yes, it is a shame that people would rather degrade themselves in these ways rather than seek alternatives. But the fact is that a system of victimization is set up. Yes, you can always say "its their choice"--and of course, it is, and they must take responsibility for themselves--but the fact is that it doesnt have to be. A woman can make more in a few hours being abused in a porn shoot than she can in an entire week working at a gas station. That is where people get sucked in. But the situation is more complex than just that. Just as you can "solve" the homeless problem by telling them to "get a job", its not that simple. There are sociological problems in place which result in people being homeless in the first place and the same thing applies to pornography. And i suppose you can always say "they need to straighten up and clean up their lives because they are their own person" but that to me is not a very humanitarian way to look at the world. Like i said, not all of pornorgraphy is an exploitive and degraded sesspool of human misery, but most of it is definitly not "harmless" as many believe.

 

*Does a little dance*


Bye bye now.

 

Mr Madison; you were rude, arrogant, petty, and haughty. So it's hardly our failings which hurt you, is it sir?

I now quote from one Mr. T (born Laurence Tureaud); "I pity the fool, thug, or soul who tries to take over the world and then goes home cryin' to his mama."

E_S

 

*scratches head*

James, except I never mocked nor insulted you...

I just said I disagree and stated my reasons why I disagree and then after you replied to me, I said I still stand with what I said and stated my reasons why I still stand where I do. Which were all valid reasons... for me. Because in the end, it's a personal matter. I have no problem with porn and I don't consider it immoral or moral. It's just what it is.

What? Did you expect me to agree with you? To prove me wrong?

You failed on all counts. This is not something you can just prove someone wrong in, because your moral prespective is obviously not the same as mine.

 

I must agree with at least one claim made by James_Madison as far as moral philosophy goes; one cannot claim that any type of pornography, or anything else, is wrong without first having committed to an objectivist moral stance. Otherwise, one is merely striking out with one's own subjective feelings on the matter. His argument was made in a scholarly manner. Additionally, none of the rebuttals I have read on the past 3 pages have had enough substance to refute him (her?). However, that must take a backseat to FIDo's assessment that the actual point of this thread has not been satisfactorily addressed.

 

But often times, one's subjective feelings have to do with one's moral prespective. Not all the time, as there are people who know that something they do is wrong on a moral level, but do it anyway.

In my case, I see nothing wrong on a moral level to watch porn and subjective feelings about it, are that I like looking at porn as a release.

So I don't know what type of refute you;re looking for cause this is not something that is as simple as that.

 

I have not been responding to Madison's post because I have been ignoring them for the most part. I do agree with a bit of the basis of his opinion, however his logical argements really went no where other than to point out a fault in the wording of the thread itself.

If to consider something degrading you are giving an opinion on the matter. If one needs to look at something subjectively, with out any personal opinion, it is impossible to assign it a valuative quality. If, as I beleive he claimed, one needs to use ones own subjective morals to evaluate it. I then have to refute the fact that morals are not subjective in nature as well, thus leaving no way to answer the question. Therefore it is impossible to look at the question posed in the thread and create an argument based on a non-subjective ideal.

 

Objective morality is nothing more than two words thrown together. The ideas behind it is hollow. There is no understanding of it and it only works through the unknowable magic of something divine.

Take a moral, something like porn is bad. Why is it bad? Well it is taking sex out of its proper context. Why is that wrong? Eventually this line of questioning will get to either 'God says so,' or 'It just is.' The first option (God says so) is the hollow and un-understandable possibility I said above (and the other is obviously worthless).

Why does God say so? If there is no reason then they are subjective to His will. It is nothing more than a pointless test. If there is a reason, then why is it objective? It is only relevant to that reason and therefore subjective. Also (And this is hard to put into words) then there is something that God is obeying (even if it is something He constructed like logic).

Anyone claiming objective morality must first explain what a moral is (because the word is being used in such a way that it still has some sort of meaning in a Godless context), and then explain what it means for one to be objective/absolute.

 

So you are claiming that morals are simply God's will working through us? They can not be subjective, as I have claimed from the start, but not because they take our personal opinion into account but rather becasue they are some how pre-set by a Creator.

If this is the case, then how does one account for morals in an atheist? Does God's will apply to then even if they do not beleive? Does God's will superceed ours? If so then why does he allow pornography to exisist? or anything that goes against his will for that matter.

I realize this is probably being steered more towards the free will thread but if we can not agree upon a useable definition to define the parameters of the post we should start a new one on the topic.

Also I beleive the first post in this thread said soemthing along the lines of "you can not just say becasue God says so".

 

Who exactly would claim porn is moral? Anyone?

Thought not.

E_S

 

ok, so lets sort of get on our feet again, are we talking about pornography from a religous standpoint or an ethical one?

both together dont mix, bacause sex is human nature, its ethical to have sex, so by placeing it on a camera for others to watch make it unethical? how so? watching what we "do" should in theory be not an issue.

Religeon has the problem with pornography as it can exploit people. what about the legitamite people in the porn business, their in it to earn a living just like someone will work in an office, and dont doubt that they make not bad cash from it, i do accept that people will turn to pornography through desperation for cash and it may be seen as exploitation, but surely prostitutuion is worse than simple pornography. Controled videos are surely much more ethical and moral than let any avarage joe picking up a prostitute.

on many accounts i'm heavily into the mindset that if people want to do it, then let them do it (unless of course it contradicts law), if someone wants to pick up a prostitude, a prostitude will cash in on it. if someone wants a porn video, someone will cash in on it. none of these directly affects me from day to day, it is on those who commit the acts heads.(obviously this all boils down to what people see as ethical of course)

i'm sure some of this doesnt make sense, its been a hard morning for me

Cheers

 

Actually when you think about it, Porn is Prostitution. Prostitution is performing sexual acts for money. In this case the John is just another actor and they are not paying for it themselves, the producer is. While this is not so stereo-typical in nature, the actors in Pornongraphy are also prostitues by this definition as well.

Some may even argue that Porn is moral on the grounds that it brings sex into the forefront. Many people from varous alternative lifestyles and many from the God fearing one man and one woman philosophy would like sex to be more of a public topic and less taboo. From their moral standards it may be only a venue to push this open mindedness.

From a Judeo-Christian belief system, Adam and Eve did not notice they were naked until they sinned. They had already been charged with multiplying and populating the earth, only now they had modesty. Woudln't it make sense then that once man has conquored sin sex and sexuality would not be a "wrong". So the afterlife may in fact be an orgy? And in order to make earth as much like paradise...

Perhaps Porn can be moral in the effect that it does give jobs and a way to support a family to those whose only talents involve being blessed with enlarged sexual organs. Instead of relying on unemploymet they take the moral ground and support themselves?

Yeh these are all a stretch but I am bouncing all over this morning!

 

Very good point, i suppose you could link pornography with prostitution, but we have to be fair here, pornography only uses certain people who are sexualy checked for infection often, and its done in a controled (i use that loosely ) enviroment, were as prostitution is far from controled.

we may just have to rest on the fact that pornography is now a part of everyday life. which brings me back to my mindset, if people dont like it, they dont have to watch it. its a v simple concept. then again some people would fight for it not to exist at all just because they dont like it, where the now inevitable states the porn industry is here to stay despite the arguments around it.

Cheers

 

Actually your not totally right on the prostitution front. Here in the lovely state of Nevada prostitution is legal, well in most counties anyways. I read an interesting article about the "chicken ranch" just outside of Pahrump a week or so ago. This is definitley a controlled environment, and the workers are checked for infection, and there is even a quarantine period before a new hire can go to work. It really puts an interesting almost mechanical skew on things. Maybe that is why I was drawing the parallel.

 

I have been watching this HBO docu-series called The Cat House lately, about a ranch in Nevada. Very interesting stuff and you get a good grasp on the girls and what they feel about their work.

E-S, no one has said here porn is moral thus far.

And I'm not gonna say it's moral.

BUT... in my view, it's not immoral either.

It's not moral or immoral. It just is.

 

No, I realise that s_o_t_t, and that was my point. Why are people arguing against the morality of teh pr0n? I don't see you or anyone else claiming a moral defence, and Christ knows it'd be hard to pull off (lol! a pun!) if you tried.

What I don't get is why people waste time labelling porn as immoral in this thread? Surely, as I said earlier and to defeaning silence, they should consider making the "degrading" argument because a woman cops a faceful of semen from a room full of guys, not because they think it makes baby Jesus cry.

What ever happened to the freedom to be yourself at home, though?

E_S

 

Prostitution takes many guises bruno_fett.

 

I know you have E_S, just pointing it out so you don't get frustrated with the people here.

Although... what if I said everytime I orgasm I feel the divine and thus closer to G-d... thus it's moral!





But I agree. Whether it is degrading toward women should be the real debate here. And that is a perfect example, about having a group of guys doing that to a girl. See, I don't even like that. Not because it's degrading... just cause it's gross and way too much penis for my liking

But this is where personal prespective enters into play. That scenerio, with 20 million guys ejaculating on a woman's face... I do find degrading. Now, if it's just one guy... I don't. So go figure.

Although, playing devil's advocate (and I won't get into detail), me and my gf have... done that what you described. On her idea, not mine... cause I would never ever suggest that to a girl out of fear for my life. Obviously she didn't find it degrading and found it a turn on. See, unlike most guys... it didn't do anything for me and told her never again. It gives me the gross out factor.

But another point I would like to add... let me turn the tables here a bit on sex. In a legit porn production (not illegal, not exploitive) a woman has a lot of power and control. Most female porn stars get to have final say who they have sex with, what they will do, not do... what there partner can and cannot do, etc, etc.

A male porn star... very rare does he get that type of power and control. And on top of that, they get paid much less than a woman.

So, playing devil's advocate, if I wanted to talk degradation and exploitation... I would argue that it's the men that get that bad end of the stick, not the women.

 

Prostitution takes many guises bruno_fett.

Agreed, prostitution is alive and well on various levels in our society today. In my personal opinion prostitution goes beyond sexual favors, but involves giving up something intangible that is exclusively and inherantly yours for the purpose of monetary gain. Of course this is just my opinion right or wrong.

Question; is it degrading to have 20 men squirt their loads in the face of a woman who enjoys, and wants it? Or is it only degrading if it is not soemthing that the woman particularly finds exciteable. Making degrading a very subjective call as well.

 

Oh it is a subjective call.

Because from what I've seen, there is nothing a woman hates more when other people, especially women, say they are degrading themselves when doing something they like.

For example, there are strippers who love it yet others wish to impose on them that they are degrading themselves.

So it is a subjective call.