Why is pornography considered a degrading thing?

The last time I?ve been to strip club was when by brother-in-law took me for my bachelor party. (And my wife-to-be was cool with it!) It was fun, especially since my bro-in-law treated for dances and drinks. But I never understood paying so much $$$ just to be teased. Why not spend a little more and go to the Bunny Ranch outside Carson City?

 

Well, sometimes the foreplay for the win!



Well, one time I went to a strip club years ago and a girl offered me a lap dance.

Lap dances go for 20 bucks. They take you to the back and give you a lap dance for a good amount of time

Well, after she gave me a lap dance... I gave her another 20 for another one.

After she was done with that one, she asked me if I wanted another lap dance... and I was so into it by now, I was like "oh yeah!",
so I gave her another 20 for a 3rd lap dance.

Now here is the kicker, after the 3rd one, she offered me a free lap dance for being such a good customer.

So she gave me a free lap dance... except this time, she reached down my pants and... trying to find a good, non offensive term to use... she masturbated me to "completion" as she gave me a killer lap dance.

That was incredibly awsome. That and the fact that she was just incredibly hot. And it was free

Never ever happened again when I've gone to the club... but hey, can't complain.

 

Yeah but judging from your stories you're some kind of stud/sex machine.

And the polite term is called "a happy ending."

 

lol

I'm far from a stud.

I just have a very kinky girlfriend

Which I'm not complaining about.

She know's I flirt around and all that. She knows. But so does she. And we're fine with that. The way we see it... as long as it does not involve love or emotional connection... who cares. It's who we are. The day I'll be strictly monogamous is the day I wed. Until then, I'm enjoying myself.

I mean, I'm not buff or ripped... I could use to gain some weight to be honest. I'm just average looking, not special or anything. But as cliche as it may sound, if a guy has confidence or can at least pretend to have confidence... any guy can get a girl or get laid or whatever. No matter what they look like or anything. It may sound cliche... but it's true. The one thing I've seen, is that women like confidence.

Ever wonder why sometimes you go to a club or a bar and you'll see this huge guy or some dorkish dude or whatever and they'll be with a really good looking girl? And you wonder how the hell he got he? It's cause the guy has confidence.

 

A table dance was a song danced on the floor, topless, standing roughly between the customer's knees. You were allowed to put your hands on his shoulders and lean close to him, or put your hands on his knees if you were crouched down in front of him, but this was theoretically the only contact between dancer and customer allowed. You could usually get away with putting one knee up on his thigh, or your foot upon his shoulder (if you were flexy enough) and leaning in a lot closer than the Liquor Control Board mandated 6 inches.

oh, well, that makes more sense. pretty much all of the clubs i've gone to are totally nude as far as the girls on the stage go, and lapdances where the girls are fully clothed but grind against you are $20 per song. i think that changes the economics of the whole thing.

and as son_of_the_tear's story , "happy endings" are not uncommon, though usually only after you've paid for multiple dances or paid a little extra.

but, as c_s points out, strip clubs are super-expensive. i don't even go inside unless i'm willing to drop a few hundred, and, yeah, most of the time i wonder why i didn't just get a callgirl instead.

 

heh

Fair question. I can never justify paying for sex. Not because I see anything wrong with an escort service...

But I can get it for free... so meh.

Yeah, I hear happy endings are not uncommon.

But I was just suprised because I didn't pay anything extra or offer any money. I paid 60 bucks worth of lap dances and she through in that 4th one as a nice lil surprise.

I hardly go to strip clubs either. For one, I don't have that type of change. When i go to one, it's a special occasion where me and the guys go and I usually set aside some extra cash for it.

But I also hardly do lap dances for the same reasons... money.

And I never sit stage side, cause I could not afford that.

I would usually just go there for drinks, at a table, and look at the ladies.

 

Your anecdote, sott, highlights exactly where the confusion probably came in regarding my experiences. I just wanted to show off and make some money, not be a glorified prostitute..even if it would have paid more.

I never danced in any state other than Arizona (and after knowing what I know now, I'm glad!), and my boyfriend at the time had only been familiar with the strip club scene in northern Philadelphia. In those clubs, the stage was located behind the bar. The girl would put her own money in a jukebox and dance for 15 minutes or so, then come down onto the floor with her clothes back on and walk around to collect her tips. There was no DJ, no table dancing and sure as hell no lap dancing. It was strictly a voyeuristic experience.

When we moved to AZ and the first club he went to had table dancing, so he didn?t want me to dance there.?until he found out ALL of them had table dancing. But they were as I described earlier ? absolutely prudish compared to what you can get elsewhere.

The kind of dances you?re describing can be had in AZ ? they have what they call ?private room dancing?, and these places are not strip clubs. Strip clubs did not have separate rooms you could take a customer to ? you got your dance right there where everyone could keep an eye on the proceedings. (The non-alcohol nude clubs might be different, but I don't know as I never worked in one.) The private room places are little establishments where there are several girls hanging around in the lobby, waiting for customers to arrive and select one of them for a show. You can get different types of shows, depending on how much money you want to spend: lingere, topless, nude, two girls, 'lotion shows', 'feather shows', etc. The rooms are furnished with a chair, a lamp and a box of tissues. There is a peep hole where, presumably, another girl will keep an eye on the proceedings to make sure nothing happens to the girl. There were no bouncers or any men of any kind on the premises except for the customers, so I don't know what they were expected to do if there was trouble. Hmm..

They also mislead the girls they hire as to what is actually expected of them. I know, because I tried it before going to the strip clubs. These guys might ask for a ?nude dance?, but they don?t mean they want to watch you from across the room shaking your booty. I was glad I wore glasses at the time and took them off?I really didn?t want to see what the customer was doing with those tissues and I refused to come closer and talk about my sexual proclivities as he kept asking me to do.

In short, it was gross and scary, and I lasted only two days and made only $50.00 from two dances. BORING!! After that I went to Teasers, where I could get some exercise, where the tables didn?t come furnished with tissues, and where everyone understood that the expectations were ?look but don?t touch? and give the girl a damn dollar, ya cheapskate!?

 

I have asked this question a little bit before but if it ever did generate any serious discussion I missed it. From a religious point of view, why are sexual sins, above all others, pleasurable? I do not mean something like a psycho who enjoys killing; I mean that homosexuality, pre-marital sex, porn, and others are inherently pleasurable. It is possible to not enjoy it, but there are (so I have heard) cases in the Bible where the fact that the act was pleasurable made it a sin.

One of the thoughts I had as to why it is is because it is a perversion of God's gift. That some of the good remains even though it has been dirtied by fallen humans. The problem with that argument is that morals are no longer absolutely good and evil; there is a little of both in the act of a sexual sin. So I really do not buy that argument.

Basically I feel this question needs some thought put into it and we need to see where it goes. Maybe this can be some sort of proof that moral absolutes are not real. Maybe there is a clear and complete answer that I just have not seen or heard.

 

I believe that it has some basis in that sex is suppose to be for procreation only. So homosexuality and masturbation would be "spilling the seed" and agaisnt Gods will that sex is for making babies. However where exactly God says this I don't know. Perhaps its just an assumption some homosexual in his shame came up with. If sex is so bad why did He make it feel so good, and please dont start that damn "its a test" theory thing again!

 

Does it actually mention that sex is sinful in the Bible? I haven't read it so I don't really know.

What about the 7 deadly sins (which didn't come from the Bible) many of them are pleasurable. Gluttony, sloth and avarice can all be descibed as pleasurable to an extent.

I think it's just the religious fun police at it again.

 

Bruno_Fett

That is basically what I said; that sex was given to us from God and somewhere along the way (the fall) it was perverted such that masturbation, homosexuality, pre-marital sex, porn and all that stuff was possible.

Loopster

Not sex in and of itself, but it clearly states that there are sins that are sexual in nature (like the list above).

As for the seven sins (does anyone else remember the game Afterlife? It is like sim city but you build heaven and hell; it is a great game), well as you said they are not Christian in nature. But still, if there are other sins that are inherently pleasurable for everyone involved (like most sexual sins are) then my question about how it affects absolute morality still stands.

 

Nothing is a sin simply because it's fun, nor does the supposed Biblical ban on masturbation have any substantive scriptural evidence.

Here's a satisfactory answer to the original question posed by this thread:

Pornography is considered degrading by either a large majority or a very vocal minority that has used history to its advantage to seize the moral high ground and impose their beliefs on everyone. Pornography is also partially considered degrading because involvement in the industry can occasionally result in cataclysmic occurrences for its participants, such as the contraction of STDs.

 

How is the risk of catching an STD degrading? It's a professional risk that can be minimised. Is being a coal miner a degrading profession because there's a risk that they could contract a dust borne lung disease?

 

It isn't; that's just how some people see it, though I'd personally rather not catch an STD myself.

 

I have asked this question a little bit before but if it ever did generate any serious discussion I missed it. From a religious point of view, why are sexual sins, above all others, pleasurable?

because your religious beliefs evolved to fill a societal need to regulate sexual pleasure.

How is the risk of catching an STD degrading? It's a professional risk that can be minimised. Is being a coal miner a degrading profession because there's a risk that they could contract a dust borne lung disease?

well said.

It isn't; that's just how some people see it, though I'd personally rather not catch an STD myself.

me neither, but then i'm sure firefighters would rather not suffer from smoke inhalation, soldiers would rather not be shot, data entry people would rather not get carpal tunnel, etc. however, when these things inevitably happen to people in various professions, we don't get all moralistic on them and talk about how they brought it on themselves by working in the professions they chose.

 

Some people do. What their motivations are, I have no clue, and frankly I don't want to because it hurts my brain trying to think on their decidedly inferior level.

 

All things considered, I think boobies on tv would be a good thing,maby even a beaver shot every now-and -then.

 

Mmmm, beaver. Beavers are good. Especially shaved ones.

 

There is plenty of Beaver on TV already, you just have to have cable and get Animal Planet as part of the basic package (no pun intended).

 

I thought I might bump this thread. I don't thing there's anything wrong with porn at all. If it makes people feel happy, I have no problem with it.

As for the people in the porn themselves, as long as they're not being forced against their will to be in it (which they aren't), I'm fine with it. If you don't like the idea of getting naked in front a camera for money, don't do it! But if someone else feels completely fine with doing it, don't tell them that they should do it. It's certainly not harmful to anyone. Being on TV, that's different. It seems the people who are against it here want to force their morals on others, which obviously shouldn't be done. I have the same views on prostitution as this issue.

 

Loopster:

A surprising portion of the Old Testament is devoted to it, actually.

The bans on premarital sex (fornication), adultery and homosexuality are very explicit and concrete. Modern liberal apologists for Christianity who suggest that such prohibitions are the work of puritanical or fundamentalist readings of the Bible and that these subjects are open to interpretation have either never read it, are functionally illiterate or are willfully dishonest. If anything, modern fundamentalists like Pat Robertson, Jerry Falwell and Franklin Graham are risking the hellfire and brimstone of Sodom by being too soft.

Pornography and masturbation, on the other hand (ahem), are very much interpretative, and the vast majority of western Christians and probably a substantial majority of theologians believe these traditional Christian interpretation in the latter case was wrong.

Masturbation has been discouraged on the argument that it is fornication, on the argument that it is sodomy and on the argument that it is specifically forbidden by God here:

Genesis 38:7-10 And Er, Judah's firstborn, was wicked in the sight of the LORD; and the LORD slew him. And Judah said unto Onan, Go in unto thy brother's wife, and marry her, and raise up seed to thy brother. And Onan knew that the seed should not be his; and it came to pass, when he went in unto his brother's wife, that he spilled it on the ground, lest that he should give seed to his brother. And the thing which he did displeased the LORD: wherefore he slew him also.

It's a pretty flimsy argument, even for a fundamentalist.

Pornography has a much broader basis. There are verses throughout the Bible used to condemn it, specifically from Romans, Proverbs, Phillipians and Jeremiah. And there's a pointed mention in Genesis of porneia, meaning sexual immorality. But the most potent comes from the Book of Matthew, Chapter 5 Verse 28:

"But I say unto thee, one who has even looked upon a woman with lust in his eye has aready committed adultery with her in his heart."

The teachings of Christ being pivotal to Christian doctrine, it's a pretty clear prohibition of pornography, and the early Christians quite forcefully condemned the ubiquitous erotica of the Romans.

Hope that clears it up.

(Incidentally, the opinions here are those of the Bible and do not necessarily reflect the poster's, nor, perhaps, the management's )

 

Fair question. I can never justify paying for sex. Not because I see anything wrong with an escort service...

But I can get it for free... so meh.

I do so love when people make this statement. But I'm not picking on anyone in particular, just on the statement itself. Because everyone DOES pay for sex, in one way or another. If you have a girlfriend, you are paying for sex. Perhaps not in the same way you would pay a prostitute, but you're paying just the same. You buy them dinner, and go to a movie, or buy them jewelry, and none of that stuff is free. No one gets it for free. If you go into a bar, you buy some chick drinks all night long in the hopes of not going back home alone, and when you do go home with someone, well, you have just paid for sex, because those drinks weren't free.

Marriage is no different when you get right down to it. Now, I'm not saying that the only reason people ever get married is for sex, but you are paying, and sex is one of the things you are getting in return. Therefore, you are once again paying for sex. There is no way around it. I'm not suggesting everyone ditch their wives and go find a hooker, but we have to realize that we all pay, in one way or another.

Not that people have been saying hookers are bad, although I'm sure the religious right are pulling their hair out over these statements. I just have to chime in with my own $.02 whenever I see of hear that comment.

 

Jedi-Monkey:

It depends on the relationship. If a woman (or man, for that matter) is with somebody because they're picking up the check, yes, it's the same as walking the street.

If you buy a woman dinner or she's buys you a watch, it can be any number of things. A genuine, affectionate gift or part of the ritual. I don't think a three dollar martini is the reason a woman goes home with me. Particularly not when she's a lawyer or an investment banker. It's just part of the game you play, to set the stage. And I can tell you for damn sure, if a woman buys me a drink that's not why I go to bed with her. It's like breaking the ice. No more, no less.

And some people buy each other things out of a genuine desire to... Buy each other things. You get your daughter a bike, does that mean you're hoping she'll sleep with you? And let's say that your wife of fifteen years, the mother of your children with whom you're desperately in love, buys you a Lexus. You think she's doing it so she can get you into the sack for the nine thousandth time? Or to keep you? Nah.

I heard this argument a lot in my college days, that we're all prostitutes (specifically that all women are prostitutes, usually from my more embittered or homely friends) or johns. It strikes me as a cynical, almost nihilistic assumption that completely misses the point-buying something for someone you're interested in, something cheap and meaningess like a drink, or buying a gift for someone you love doesn't make her a prostitute. A prostitute does it for the money.

I just don't buy it.

 

Pornography glorifies and normalizes rape.

Pornography degrades women by equating them to be only sex objects.

Pornography causes mistrust and dissatisfaction in relationships by creating an unmeetable expectation for the man and a dissatisfaction with one's self for the woman.

Pornography is addictive, and just as one needs more and more of a drug to get high, porn addicts must go from soft porn to hardcore porn to things like child pornography, beastiality, and rape porn to get the same effect. Any addictive substance causes dependency upon the users and there must always be an escalation to reach the same high.

Pornography and drugs both release endorphines in the brain, and because the brain is lazy it isn't going to make it's own when you are giving it tons for free and there will also be less need for so many receptors.

 

Yes, those are all true. So says you.