Harumi

Luvluv,

When you saw that girl crying on TV, how do you know that she wasn't just being manipulative? Maybe she was fake crying. Or something. And now that there's proof that she CHOSE to go back, now you're just saying boo against her choice, and that somewhere deep down inside, the porn industry's manipulated her into coming back.

If she has problems, I don't think that sex little to do with it. If it does, it's only because of the stigma against it. Sex is a healthy thing, as long as it's done with consenting people. She consented. If she hid her discomfort, it's hardly the other person's fault for not knowing.

If I teased a person in good humor, and they laughed every time I did so, would I be blamed for hurting that person when they later tell me that they were hurt by it?

If she was hurt, she could always leave. But she didn't. She went back. And I think that that's the point everyone here is making.

If I'm not clear, or I have made a mistake or something, please correct me. I'm in the middle of school passing time right now, and in a hurry.

dangin

exactly, Diane asked leading questions throughout that interview. Instead of saying "How does this make you feel"? She said "This makes you feel bad, doesn't it" Put any person who thrives on, or needs, attention in that setting, and of course you are going to get what you want.

Belladonna is an attention seeker, if a man was there giving her attention for her sexuality she would have put her sexuality on display.

But a woman was there giving her attention for her injured little girl persona, so that is who came out.

luvluv, I am gaining a little respect for you because you don't seem to shove christianity down anyone's throats (though you bring it up as a soft sell whenever you can) and that at least is less objectionable than your fire and brimstone counter parts.

But, you still fail to see that a well rounded, mature approach to sexual responsibility is the best thing. Particularly because sex is natural. It is interesting, no fascinating. The offspring of millions of generations of beings that were evolutionarily selected because they were interested in engaging in sex are not going to stop being interested in sex no matter how hard you try to say that animal sexuality is not "natural". Because it couldn't be more obvious that it is.

No moral rules will control it, they merely cause confusion. They are counter productive. Arming the illinformed with all there is to know about sex, it's psychological side effects, and how to protect themself both mentally and physically is a solution that is vastly superior to moral training.

The proof lies in these threads. The people here advocating natural sex are well spoken, rational people. They aren't (as far as I can tell) emotional wrecks who are living with 17 illegitimate kids, and whopping therapy bills. They are people controlling their reproductive lives, and enjoying sex, despite the fact that your theory says we should all be emotional wrecks failing to find happiness because of our immoral, (or amoral) sexual proclivities.

Silent Acorns

1) I didn't attack you. I merely suspected that there was more going on than just exploitation. I asked. You answered. End of story, as far as I'm concerned.

2) There's nothing in the OP that restricts this to the issue of exploitation only.

And porn stars can't? Again, I'm only saying that ALL ELSE EQUAL I'd rather my (hypothetical) daughter be a healthy and happy porn actress than a healthy and happy minister. You seem intent to dragging this into a comparisson between the ideal minister and a junkie porno loser - but that's not what I was talking about.

I'm not going to turn this into a debate about what are and aren't justified beliefs, but suffice it to say that since I was talking about what I would prefer (not demand) for my daughter, and that as a weak atheist I am pretty damn sure that no one knows what a supernatual god is, I am justified in saying that I think that to become a minister is a waste.

I am NOT saying that it is a waste to do good things for the community. It is the act of "teaching the word" that I consider a waste. And it is "teaching the word" that is the primary function of a minister. This is the core of my position, that it is better to "spread the word of sex" than to "spread the word of God".


Well that's fine, but since I was talking about about an ALL ELSE EQUAL scenario, it is not legitimate to bring up the example of MLK. Would I prefer my daughter be like Belladonna rather than King? Of course not. But again, THAT'S NOT THE SCENARIO I WAS TALKING ABOUT.

The idea of suffering for the greater good is not unique to religious philosophies. Just because the most obvious examples of such beliefs were held in a religious context, it does not follow that it has to be so.

Well that may be your opinion, but if you're honest you'll admit that you don't have the first clue what he would have done with his life if he wasn't religious.

How many times do I have to say it! I was talking about the case of ALL ELSE EQUAL! Not the case of the best minister against a typical porn star. I said several times that THE ISSUE OF CHOSEN PROFESSION IS TRIVIAL RELATIVE TO THE WORKS OF KING.

ALL ELSE EQUAL means the two live the exact same life except that they have different professions. In this case one exibits sex while the other exibits god.

I chose sex over god.

Michaelson

Jesus, I finally made it! Probably too late, but I've now read every post.

I have a few points I'd like to make regarding the issues raised.

1) As an atheist, I would like to offer the opinion that luvluv has been incredibly hard done by in this thread. It is unbelievable that holding religious views could be used time and time again to discredit his arguments, despite the fact that most of his remarks have been at very least thought provoking to anyone entering the argument with a somewhat open mind. Early on, luvluv suggested someone, I think it was LadyShea, was taking the like of a pimp. I don't think I'm exaggerating here when I say that every single registered user of this board and then some entered into the argument to proclaim how utterly offensive such a remark was.

Yet later on, when visciousmemories says of luvluv: Apparently such an offensive and unsubstatiated claim on the other side of the coin counts as a valid argument or some shit.

Luvluv may well have been informed by the good book in forming his opinions, but this doesn't instantly discredit his opinions. You're hard stretched finding someone in this thread willing to engage in the argument.

2) I felt like hugging Jamie_L when I read this: Anyone denying the basic fact that human psychology is complex is just being stupid. Arguing that it is sexist to assert the possibility that abused porno actresses might stay in the industry despite the destructive effects (particularly considering her website seems to imply she's pretty happy) makes my mind boggle. So, LadyShea, I would have to say that this comment stunned me for its stupidity.

3) luvluv: On what grounds do you claim that the majority of people involved in the porn industry are being exploited. And I don't mean damage done to the soul, here. Where's the proof that the majority, or even a sizeable portion of porno actresses, are coerced, abused etc.?

I ask, because people are getting around your argument through denial. They're telling you that it isn't the case, and you're responding that it is, based on one case study. Show some numbers or something. No one here seems to deny that it is morally objectionable to masturbate ('u' not 'e') to pictures of abused women, so show that women are abused. You can't just blindly assert the main premise for your argument.

I actually have quite a bit of sympathy for your position. I used to look at porn quite a bit. My own computer upstairs meant easy access so I went for it. Since being alerted to the possibility of abuse in the industry (I never even considered it when I was younger) I have stopped looking at internet porn, though, for exactly the reasons you mention.

The difference between me and the pro-porn posters on this thread, I think, is that the idea that the porn industry is poorly regulated and actors regularly encounter abuse, to me, seems quite reasonable. I wouldn't know if it's true or not, and I'm not bothered enough to try to find out. Intuitively, though, it seems a reasonable claim to me. But considering that the internet offers bare minimum controls on such content, the possibility that I'm spilling my load thinking about a girl with a gun to her head who is essentially being raped repulses me, and as a result I don't do it.

As Dangin says: Sex is absolutely an integral part of us. No doubt about it. And it is probably one of the most powerful instincts we have. In fact, I would go so far as to say that it even clouds our judgement occasionally. And when you have a world populated with people absolutely obsessed with it, isn't that all the more reason to try to ensure that industries involved in the marketing of sex are morally responsible.

Fundies who try to deny their children any sexual experiense at all are surely doing no good, but let's not leap the other way and say that their should be maximum exposure to sex and all things sexual should be embraced.

Anyway, I realise that this has been a full on rant, poorly written, and with no final point. But having read the whole thread in one sitting, I just wanted to get a few things off my chest. With any luck there'll be something I can respond to with a tad more clarity tomorow.

viscousmemories

I'm really no longer following this thread as closely as I had previously, mostly because I'm a slow reader and I don't really have time to read page after page of the same obfuscation of the argument over and over again. So forgive me if this is incomplete, inaccurate, or redundant.

Michaelson, I assume that since you spent the time reading this entire thread before commenting, you likely noticed that numerous people have confronted luvluv on the very issues you brought up, and luvluv has repeatedly and quite adeptly, I must say, evaded the question. Do you think that now, because you have shown your loyalty to him, he will concede and provide us with the statistical evidence to back his claim? I don't. I think he will continue (as someone so aptly phrased it) "moving the goalpost" and using whatever tricks of semantics he can to further his cause. This is my opinion, not an argument.

Similarly, the quote you attributed to me (correctly, I confess) was my opinion. I was not arguing that luvluv's stance was illogical, idiotic, or otherwise indefensible. I was simply saying that in my experience, people with an agenda (say, eliminating pornography, for example) will often employ verbal trickery to prevent any scrutiny of their argument from bringing up obvious flaws, such as the fact that he has not once responded to anyones demands for further evidence of exploitation.

Oh, and when you said, "No one here seems to deny that it is morally objectionable to masturbate ('u' not 'e') to pictures of abused women, so show that women are abused." You were mistaken. I know that at least two of us, if not more, commented that a picture of an abused woman and a man alone in his room with his penis in his hand is not immoral. If the person masturbating to the image in no way contributed to the production of the image, what would be immoral about it? Are we required to know the life story of every woman who poses naked for a camera before we're morally allowed to jerk off to her image? That seems a bit ludicrous to me.

Michaelson

I actually remembered when I wrote what I did about whether or not it was immoral to jack off over pictures of abused women that at least one person had said they would have no problem. Most didn't however. Anyway, there's no way I'm going to start arguing about morality on a philosophy bulletin board. I don't think I'm qualified. Suffice to say I find the notion of jacking off to the image of a girl essentially being raped absolutely repulsive, whether or not it is apparent on screen. I would find it repulsive, whether or not I was feeding the industry by viewing it, as well. You don't even have to say that. But I ask you whether or not you'd be at ease with the idea of paying money, or in some way having a positive effect on the popularity of an image, through viewing it, that presented an abused girl?

As for luvluv's agenda... It doesn't seem to make sense to me that someone with the agenda of eliminating pornography would begin by discussing it on an internet bulletin board. I don't think he is pushing an agenda anymore than you guys are pushing the opposite agenda. And you're all using silly techniques to avoid certain issues. luvluv had to ask whether or not you'd be happy masturbating to the image of an abused girl about a dozen times before anyone offered a response. Everyone was too busy christian bashing (something which I'm usually at ease with, I just don't have any misconceptions that it's a legitimate substitute for argument).

For starters, I have no loyalty in this argument. As I said, The view I hold is based on an intuitively accepted premise, that the pornography industry is not the most respectable industry around, and that it is likely that in certain cases unconscionable means are used to get girls (and probably guys as well) to do things they wouldn't otherwise have done. Particularly when it comes to internet porn this idea concerns me greatly, and so I don't view it any more. I don't know if I'm right, though. I could be completely wrong. When it comes to the issue of porn I am firmly on the fence. I just think there's a good argument here to be had, if luvluv presents some numbers. Enough people hold his opinion that there has to be something to come up with...

livius drusus

Barney Gumble dealt with the industry respectability issue quite deftly on pg 9 of this thread and has so far received no satisfactory response that I have seen. I will therefore repeat:

luvluv

I appreciate the comments, Michaelson.

I don't have hard numbers, and as I said on other discussions like this one, I don't really think there is anyway such numbers could be gathered. If the porn stars don't volunteer the information, no one will ever know it. But, with you, I really think it is simply common sense. Given what we know about human psychology and human sexuality, I think we can safely distinguish healthy practices from ones which suggest some form of pathology. I think it's simply common knowledge that, generally speaking, gargantuan promiscuity generally signifies a problem. In my opinion, the conclusion that these people are, to some extent, emotionally damaged is the natural conclusion that an intelligent, compassionate person would come to unless it was a conclusion they wanted to avoid. In all honesty, I think anyone who thinks the notion requires statistical proof is in denial.

I've gone down that route on this forum in a general sense before, which was why I thought the opportunity to attack the problem on a specific level, dealing with one girl, would make the issue more approachable. I can't prove that it is the majority of women, but I cannot really bring myself to believe that the percentage is so low that your average porn viewer won't be presented with dozens and dozens of them over a lifetime of viewing pornography. I think if you are inclined to care about people in these positions the conclusion just comes naturally, and if you're inclined to prioritize your sexual appetites you will rationalize the conclusion away.


viscousmemories:


Yep. In fact, I'm so tricky, I'll REPEATEDLY STATE that I don't want pornography eliminated or abolished.

What would constitute evidence of abuse for you? If the pornographers themselves admit to purposely pursuing emotionally distraught, unassertive girls that they can easy manipulate, would that help? What kind of proof are you looking for?

There is almost no way to look at it without financing the abuse of this woman and other women in the future.

And let's take this further. Let's say you are a pedophile. Is a picture of an abused child and a man alone in his room with his penis in his hand immoral?

livius:

I didn't understand this when it was first brought up and I don't understand it now. My position is that pornography is inherently harmful. At it's highest form, in it's purest office, it is damaging the people who participate in it. Christianity is not inherently destructive. If by the church you mean the Catholic church then you need to explain yourself further. If an atheist molested a child would that invalidate atheism as a positive moral agent?

But fine, if you want to be consistent, ABANDON BOTH. You're probably halfway there already. I've mentioned previously that I'm not a regular church goer myself and don't have a lot positive to say about organized religion.

livius drusus

You keep asserting this but haven't even come closing to making a cogent argument to support such a broad assertion. You dismiss Lauri's personal experience of the pornography industry which directly contradicts your claim of intrinsic damage as well as LadyShea's positive and liberating experience as an exotic dancer contrasting with her abusive and demeaning experiences in the clothed and Mormonized retail jewelry industry. Your common sense, luvluv, is clearly giving you an incomplete picture, to say the very least. I can't speak for Barney Gumble however, from my perspective I would say the misogynist, hierarchical, dictatorial and anti-sexual structure of the Catholic church is indeed responsible for the rampant abuse of children and the coverups that go with it. IMO, such a contrived structure, protected from all external oversight and predicated on unquestioning obedience to authority is far more likely to be disfunctional than any modern industry, including pornography. As far as I'm aware, atheism is not a moral agent of any sort. Again, I have seen no evidence that pornography is intrinsically dangerous. Promiscuous sex does not violate any standards of mine. Blind obedience, entrenched male chauvinism, pathological secrecy and money hoarding, otoh, certainly do.

Loren Pechtel

Originally posted by luvluv
common sense. Given what we know about human psychology and human sexuality, I think we can safely distinguish healthy practices from ones which suggest some form of pathology. I think it's simply common knowledge that, generally speaking, gargantuan promiscuity generally signifies a problem. In my opinion, the conclusion that these people are, to some extent, emotionally damaged is the natural conclusion that an intelligent, compassionate person would come to unless it was a conclusion they wanted to avoid. In all honesty, I think anyone who thinks the notion requires statistical proof is in denial.

I don't see that this follows. I think a requirement to be a porn actress in most cases (after all, you could be a porn actress only with your normal partner--look at all the amateur movies) would be that you are not bothered by having sex with many people, but that does not mean that you wish to be that promiscious, either--you could be simply neutral about it.

I didn't understand this when it was first brought up and I don't understand it now. My position is that pornography is inherently harmful.

Point to the harm!

Christianity is not inherently destructive. If by the church you mean the Catholic church then you need to explain yourself further.

You'll find plenty of us on here that will disagree with this.