Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I agree with much of your rationale for why I would find it counter-productive for one to make it their life's focus. But should we presuppose what another person's self-actualization ought to be (or not be)?
And even presupposing that any level of porn-engagement is counter-productive to some loose concept of self-actualization...at what point does something go from bad taste or even guilty pleasure to label it harmful?
Because there are lots of things I believe the world would be better off without but I see a very critical part of any moral system ought not preach to adults who wish to do something, with no demonstrable harm outside of the adults, that they are immoral. That isn't to say any individual needs to see something as moral, but we get back to a slippery slope of regulating beliefs and preferences. And I think lots of controversial topics have fallen under this concept such as same sex marriage (homosexuality in general), right to die (assisted suicide), and even religious freedoms. I can be offended by all 3 of those concepts, and can point to harms as I see them, yet have no justification to prevent the engagement of others in it.
And, not that you need this but for clarity's sake, I think we can safely say we're all talking about porn as "voluntary engagement in sexual activity for entertainment purposes, by consenting adults, and consumed by consenting adults". Not extrapolating porn to include sex traffickers, sex slaves, forced abductions, or any other acts which involve people without their explicit consent or of an age to consent.
I agree that if I were king of the world, illegalizing porn would not be high on my list of priorities, and quite possibly not on it at all. Not because I find it savory or likable or see no harm in it, but for the reasons you state. Also because, like the "war on drugs" it would probably be a failure. Not everything is really amenable to state control. It's not a battle I'd pick. And attempting to control it would probably have many of the same unintended consequences as the attempt to prohibit rather than tax and regulate recreational drugs. It would create a black market, be extremely difficult to control without impeding freedom of speech and expression, and would probably just make it more attractive to sex addicts by its very forbidden nature. And that's just for starters. It would surely have the same tendency to fill up jails, probably disproportionately with minorities and the poor, while preventing questionable amounts of smallish harms for the most part, at least relative to some of the huge harms one could expend resources on.
It would be way more important to have zero tolerance for non-consensual sex, human trafficking regardless of the motivation, things of that nature. And my first priority by far would be pedophilia, with a concentration of resources on preventing harms to younger children.
Maybe ... just maybe ... if American Christianity could raise even half the stink over income inequality between the "haves" and the "have-nots" as it did over same-sex marriage, all of our lives might be a little bit better right now. Instead, however, the squeaky wheel decided to screech over butt sex while teaching the world that greed is a virtue and naked avarice is righteous.
As usual, you hit the crux of the fixation and where moral discussions ought to be. Especially if we truly mean "your bedroom is your business".
Let me start by saying I am sorry for what happened to you. And while that has not happened to me, I am very aware of some of the fallout of such things as this happened to my wife, and others I know well enough to talk to about such things.
Thank you. I am equally sorry for your wife's experience.
Quote:
I'm regrettably obligated to say that I'm not convinced by the stated rationale of a child molester, for their horrible acts. And least of all the molester's explanation to his victim...which sounds like a clumsy attempt for him to think of something to blame his wrongdoing on. I understand that you may believe this and perhaps it makes sense to you...but the actual reasons for such acts are much deeper than being exposed to pornography. They are in no way a demonstrated causal relationship, as
The overwhelming opinion of professionals is that this falls into a few buckets. Here is the Child Molestation Prevention website's 4 key attributes and link below to additional explanation. Most any other source of data suggests the same core issues...mental disorders and previous abuse (of the abuser) being the top reasons.
Regardless of how it sounds to you, I know that pornography was a major contributor in this case. It was not an attempt on his part to blame anything or anyone other than himself. It was simply an acknowledgment of the facts.
I have read your article before. Thanks for posting.
It would be way more important to have zero tolerance for non-consensual sex,
Just saw someone post about the term "non-consensual sex" that I thought made a very good point:
'There is no such thing as "non-consensual sex".
It’s either sex (which must always be consensual) or it’s RAPE.
So stop calling it something else and tell it like it is. You either have consent, or it’s rape.'
Regardless of how it sounds to you, I know that pornography was a major contributor in this case. It was not an attempt on his part to blame anything or anyone other than himself. It was simply an acknowledgment of the facts.
I have read your article before. Thanks for posting.
Thanks for the link. I had not seen that before but I do think they have some decent data points to dig further into.
Btw...if you aren't comfortable discussing this topic, just let me know and I'll drop it. I'll completely understand if you don't wish to reply or address it as well. But consider the following as food for thought if you will.
I don't know whether this person's explanation was sincere or otherwise, but what I will ask is...do you suspect this person was a reasonably well-adjusted person who had no underlying mental disorders?
Because that is what we ask when somebody (sincerely or otherwise) uses religion as their justification for heinous acts. We don't blame Christianity because somebody read the bible and burned people alive (Salem Witch Trials), or Islam because people flew buildings into the WTC after reading the Quran (9/11, ISIS, etc.).
We even know that killers like Mark David Chapman said he read The Catcher in Rye and that motivated him to shoot John Lennon. We wouldn't suggest that Catcher in the Rye is harmful though.
Ted Bundy is another example. He actually tried to use the pornography excuse (in his case, insincerely) right before his execution by playing on the hot-button nature of the issue and trying to get sympathy from Christians. The man had much deeper psychological problems than simply watching pornography.
So I guess I would just caution that even if something is a "potential" trigger for harmful behavior, or sincerely attributed by the perpetrator, the evidence in psychology points to underlying disorders and a more likely timebomb waiting to be triggered by "something". And if we start labeling everything that could possibly be misconstrued as harmful...we will have a very slippery slope in my view.
Bully for you. You take care of your "assets" and you've perhaps even become emotionally attached to them. That doesn't mean you don't exploit them. And does it matter to you at all that the industry you're involved in promotes the objectification, exploitation and abuse of women in general?
You could say many different industries are only for the sake of the objectification of women.
Beauty Pagents, bodybuilding contests, cosmetics & perfume, clothing that does anything more than just shield from the elements (especially those high heeled shoes!), beauty parlors and tanning & nail salons, etc, etc, etc. Pretty much ANYTHING that would enhance or accentuate a womans "attractiveness".
I mean...why have ANY of that?
The same slam is made against all kinds of entertainment...sports, movies, shows & games that depict violence, various genres of music, lots of genres of dancing (not just burlesque), certain literature, etc, etc, etc.
And Religion is constantly charged with negative influence toward all kinds of things...especially sex, females, and eating certain foods. Never mind the attitude it influences toward people that hold a differing belief, or no belief at all.
For some reason people (especially the Religious) have all kinds of hangups and headtrips about genitalia, breasts, and intercourse. As if there is something intrinsically "bad" about those body parts or sexual interaction (among consenting adults, of course) of the various modes.
Bottom Line: There is ZERO objective immorality that can reasonably be placed on genitals, breasts, and sex between consenting adults.
ANY claims otherwise are just OPINION based upon hangups and headtrips...with no basis in fact. Repeated, louder, or more fervent claims don't change that.
Here's the REAL rub, and I have stated this before: I personally feel that pornography is debased and depraved, and I am not at all into it myself!
But I fully realize that is just my own subjective opinion, and has no objective moral basis whatsoever...so I am not seriously conflicted about it.
Thanks for the link. I had not seen that before but I do think they have some decent data points to dig further into.
Btw...if you aren't comfortable discussing this topic, just let me know and I'll drop it. I'll completely understand if you don't wish to reply or address it as well. But consider the following as food for thought if you will.
I don't know whether this person's explanation was sincere or otherwise, but what I will ask is...do you suspect this person was a reasonably well-adjusted person who had no underlying mental disorders?
<snipping for cohesion>
So I guess I would just caution that even if something is a "potential" trigger for harmful behavior, or sincerely attributed by the perpetrator, the evidence in psychology points to underlying disorders and a more likely timebomb waiting to be triggered by "something". And if we start labeling everything that could possibly be misconstrued as harmful...we will have a very slippery slope in my view.
Of course not. Anyone who harms someone else has got some underlying issues with how they are mentally or emotionally processing life, and can't be said to be well-adjusted, in my opinion. Then again, how many of us have not inflicted some harm on other human beings at various points in our lives? We've all got issues to one degree or another. At what point do they deserve to be labelled "disorders"?
We're complex critters, and there are most always a multitude of issues that contribute. There were many contributing factors in this person's case. Pornography was one of them, and a major one. It often is.
At any rate, I appreciate that you can see at least the potential validity of the points made in the link I posted.
For the record ... this is not about me wanting to outlaw pornography. I'm of the opinion, as Mystic I believe was alluding to, that you can't legislate people into having "agape" concern for the well-being of others. Nothing about the porn industry indicates that it comes from a place of contributing to the well-being of society as a whole, and when people seem to be trying to minimize the harm it certainly causes, I'm okay calling them on that. Especially when the one's most often doing the minimizing (men), in my experience, are the ones least likely to be victimized as a result.
Why does it seem like you guys want to gloss this over, when it is the women you love who are put at risk? I just don't get it.
You could say many different industries are only for the sake of the objectification of women.
Beauty Pagents, bodybuilding contests, cosmetics & perfume, clothing that does anything more than just shield from the elements (especially those high heeled shoes!), beauty parlors and tanning & nail salons, etc, etc, etc. Pretty much ANYTHING that would enhance or accentuate a womans "attractiveness".
I mean...why have ANY of that?
The same slam is made against all kinds of entertainment...sports, movies, shows & games that depict violence, various genres of music, lots of genres of dancing (not just burlesque), certain literature, etc, etc, etc.
And Religion is constantly charged with negative influence toward all kinds of things...especially sex, females, and eating certain foods. Never mind the attitude it influences toward people that hold a differing belief, or no belief at all.
For some reason people (especially the Religious) have all kinds of hangups and headtrips about genitalia, breasts, and intercourse. As if there is something intrinsically "bad" about those body parts or sexual interaction (among consenting adults, of course) of the various modes.
Bottom Line: There is ZERO objective immorality that can reasonably be placed on genitals, breasts, and sex between consenting adults.
ANY claims otherwise are just OPINION based upon hangups and headtrips...with no basis in fact. Repeated, louder, or more fervent claims don't change that.
Here's the REAL rub, and I have stated this before: I personally feel that pornography is debased and depraved, and I am not at all into it myself!
But I fully realize that is just my own subjective opinion, and has no objective moral basis whatsoever...so I am not seriously conflicted about it.
First, I'm not religious.
Second, didn't anyone ever tell you that when someone points out that something you are doing is harmful, shifting the focus to other things which are also harmful doesn't change anything or absolve you?
Fine, you have no objective morality. You don't care about the impact what you do has on other people. You speak to my point exactly: you produce pornography because you have nothing but your own self-interest at heart, and could care less about the harm you do to society at large.
Your harm was inflicted by that particular person and not pornography, Pleroo.You are correct that it is far more than no harm and that is why we cannot attribute morality or immorality to specific behaviors. It is entirely dependent on the state of mind involved and its impact on all involved. The days of simplistic one-size-fits-all situation and behaviors is over. It is always more complex than that and there should not be any automatic assumption of immorality based only on apparent behavior. Each of us knows in our heart of hearts when we are being less than loving or concerned with the well-being of others involved. When that happens we ARE being immoral no matter WHAT the specifics are. We have to take the emphasis off specific behaviors and focus on the real moral compass, what is in our hearts and minds.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pleroo
Sorry, I think that's absolutely BS. It harmed me indirectly. It harmed the young man directly.
I know the molestation harmed you but I doubt that pornography played any significant role in your molester's decision to molest you. Clearly you trust this man and his so-called explanation and I refuse to try to change your mind about it. You are in a better position to judge that. But I am always skeptical of such excuses for bad behavior that mimic the "Satan made me do it!" meme.
Quote:
If you think that the people producing porn have the best interests of everyone (or anyone) concerned at heart, all I have to say is ...
I also refuse to defend pornography because I personally find it distasteful. My only point is that morality or immorality does not reside in ANY externalities. It is always and entirely in our state of mind toward God and each other.
I know the molestation harmed you but I doubt that pornography played any significant role in your molester's decision to molest you. Clearly you trust this man and his so-called explanation and I refuse to try to change your mind about it. You are in a better position to judge that. But I am always skeptical of such excuses for bad behavior that mimic the "Satan made me do it!" meme.
I also refuse to defend pornography because I personally find it distasteful. My only point is that morality or immorality does not reside in ANY externalities. It is always and entirely in our state of mind toward God and each other.
Yes, I absolutely am in a better position to judge. He never said "satan made him do it". He never said porn made him do it. It was a major. contributing. factor.
You doubt that porn could have played a significant role, but there are plenty of things out there that tell you a different story. No one is saying that EXCUSES the offenders. You guys aren't dumb. You KNOW it plays a role and is harmful. You KNOW it contributes to a view of women that puts women at risk, marginalizes them, objectifies them, degrades them and contributes to SOME men victimizing women. But you don't want to say anything other than, "it's distasteful".
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
