luvluv

Gurder:

You asked. I answered.

I did not say she was a pimp, but that she was reflecting a pimp's attitude.

(Parentheses added).

Well, I've changed my mind. If she is offended by being associated with pimps, she should be. But it is her position that made that possible. I don't think it is innacurate to state that, if LadyShea is truly as indifferent to the well-being of these young ladies as she appeared to be in some of her previous statements, then she definitely has that much in common with a common street pimp. If that is a problem to her, she can always modify or extend her statments to make the distinction clear.

There is this distinction, of course, that Lady Shea would never actually try to exploit a young girl (or boy) in that situation. But her comments seem to suggest that there is nothing wrong with someone who would, and that seems to me to be hardly distinguishable from the attitude of a pimp as regards the young lady's well being.

I wouldn't dispute that. But it is obvious that there are girls in these films who ARE messed up and overly vulnerable. I acknolwedged in my stance that not all the girls were like that, and the core of my argument was that since it is impossible to tell which ones are emotionally healthy and which ones aren't, it cannot be moral to participate in consuming pornography at all.

Well, I saw her say that she was against child pornography, but I did not see her saying she was against prostitution. I don't see what the difference is, as far as the girls' well-being is concerned, and that is what we were discussing. Would she approve of pornography is the girls were of age and it were legalized, even if it involved the same manipulation and financial coercion that is often the case presently?

Gurdur

So you are not a person of your word ?
I see.

So she doesn't actually have the attitude of a real pimp, but you would simply like to abuse her anyway.

How interesting, as phraseology. Despite having "reformed" from pornography, you still seem to display a patronizing attitude towards the young women in question. I'm also interested in why you leave out young teenage males, who are just as much at risk.

Can you actually make an argument without the personal abuse ?
Somehow I don't think so.

christ-on-a-stick

Ai chihuahua!!!!

So much I want to respond to... I am heading out for the night (I think) so my thoughts on your posts, luvluv, will probably have to wait for the morrow - but as Arnold said, I'll be back.

Viti

You are basing your assumption on a few people out of thousands as well. As I stated, I know people in every industry, from all walks of life who are emotional wrecks, came from abusive homes etc...they still didn't get involved with porn.

And I am not against prostitution...again if its a safe CHOICE. Here in Nevada we have legal brothels where the women receive health care, the customers are diligently screened, taxes are paid, and there is a safe environment

luvluv

Gurdur:

I am, generally speaking. I simply reconsidered. I think it is a positive contribution to this discussion if some of us are insulted about what and who our attitudes about the young women in pornography puts us in alliance with.

I did not call her a pimp. I said that an attitude such as the one she displayed is the attitude of a pimp, and that this attitude is the bedrock of pimping. Is it abusive to say that? I happen to think it is pretty obviously true. I don't think that this actually is Lady Shea's attitude, and if by affiliating here with a pimp I can make her see that she cannot really in good conscious support her previous statements, I think I am doing good. So I am willing to risk offending her.

I mentioned males, and I tried for to make genderless references as much as I could. But the special we are debating made it pretty evident that the porn producers are more adamant about pursuing new FEMALE talent, and that it is desperate women more so than men that they covet. It is kind of common sense, I would think, being that pornography viewers are mostly male, that a higher premium would be placed on new women performers over male performers.

Well, most of my argument did not involve any personal insults, and I believe I have made a very conservative and coherent statement which followed closely upon Shea's own statements. I've tried to make very clear that I don't think Lady Shea would ever pimp, and that at bottom, her statements above aren't even an accurate reflection of how she probably really feels. That was the whole point of making the association.

Gurdur

So you're only a person of your word when it suits you.
How enlightening.
Buit then you agreed that she didn't actually have or show the real attitude of a real pimp, but you kept up with the personal abuse.
Or, IOW, you're too whatever to take it back. You're digging a hole for yourself as fast as possible.

But you won't take them back even when you said you would.
Uh huh.

luvluv

Okay, Gurdur. We get that you think I am a terrible person.

Can we move on with the conversation now?

beastmaster

luvluv,

What are you proposing be done? It doesn't sound like the harms you are describing are beyond solution. Are there legal remedies that can reasonably assure that porn talent have a sufficient amount of protection from undue pressure?

If you were satisifed that there were effective legal protections for talent in place, would your concerns be solved? Would it be safe to beat off to porn again? Or do you have other deep-seeded issues with porn?

So far, it seems that your only proposal is that we each individually stop viewing porn. But I'm not convinced that throwing out my porn is going to do any good for anybody.

Drop in the ocean.

The Other Michael

Arguments are to be attacked, not people.

luvluv, you've made personal attacks against Lady Shea. From what I've seen she made it clear that she was referring to consensual, not forced, participation in the sex industry as a job choice. You then proceeded to strawman her and accuse her of things she didn't advocate, as well as lumping her in with a group of people that it doesn't appear she she qualifies as a member.

Also, your "apology" rings false to me. If you honestly can't see where you've made an insult to her and issue a sincere apology, I think it might be best if you abandoned this thread until such time as you are able to post within the forum rules.

Michael
MF&P Moderator, First Class

luvluv

beastmaster:

Personally, I would still think pornography was wrong. I believe that there are certain things about a person that should not be sold, and their sexuality is one of them. I also have religious objections to it as well. But none of those reasons resonate with me with any greater force than the simple consideration of the well-being of the people involved. And I was specifically trying to make a case which did not rely on or even mention a deity (I thought you guys would appreciate that, but apparently not).

I frankly don't think it is impossible to repeatedly use your body for any purpose and have it not affect your soul (or your mental well-being, if that's too religious for you). If you are hugged and touched in affirming ways a lot, you tend to feel loved. If you are handled roughly, as if you weren't important, then that would make you feel unloved or worthless. This is true just with common, everyday interactions. What tasks we put our physical selves to affects our emotional selves. One of my proffessors had a saying which went "The body is the part of the soul that you can touch, the soul is the part of the body you can't touch." I cannot believe that this is true of just everyday touching and human physical contact, but not true of the most intimate contact of which human beings are capable. I do not see how someone could sell their body for money, and have sex with scores of people to whom they are emotionally indifferent, cannot have a corrupting influence on the mental state of a person. I think that the alchemy of our age is the notion that what you do with your body need not affect your mind. That's as big a fairy tale as there is going.

And I'm not necessarily saying that participating in pornography will make you an emotional basketcase, it can just as likely make you into a selfish a-hole who doesn't care who is hurt by his/her actions. I think, frankly, that this is what happens to a lot of the men in porn and I think this is just as damaging and immoral (particularly upon the theistic view). I don't see how you can have sex with thousands of women, at least a hundred or two of which were pressured into the position as a result of desperate situations, without becoming a selfish bastard.

Well, I'm not asking as a crusade to end pornography as we know it. I think the cat is out of the bag on that one. I'm simply asking if you think it is moral to use the visual images of these women, a certain percentage of which you can be assured will be in a bad situation, to gratify yourself. I am not going to advocate for the abolition of pornography. Frankly, until our society gets it's head on straight were sexuality in general is concerned, I don't think any ban on porn is going to do much good. So I am more of a conscientious objector to pornography, than an abolitionist. I'd just like to see the case made for the moral propriety of masterbating using the images of people who are in the process of destroying themselves emotionally.