Loren Pechtel

Originally posted by luvluv
Now, given the volume of pornography that someone with a daily porn habit will consume, a person is nearly GUARANTEED STATISITCALLY to have seen hundreds of abused women over a lifetime of watching porn (let's say 20 years, though some obviously have been at it much longer). This is especially true with the advent of the internet. Is this a reasonable, conservative estimate?

So my moral argument simply stems from very reasonable and conservative estimates about the amount of women in pornography who are victims of abuse (I even spotted you an unreasonably low number) and the amount of porn that someone with a daily habit of pornography will go through.

It's virtually certain that in the near future you are going to handle drug money. Since it's obviously tainted money (this can be confirmed by drug test--large bills that aren't new very likely will test positive for cocaine) then you shouldn't use it.

I then POSED THE MORAL QUESTION as to whether or not a person can justify patronizing an industry when you are basically statisitcally guaranteed to have seen the work of hundreds of abused women.

And other industries are immune from abused workers? Ever eat in a small restaurant? An awful lot of the workers in such places are undocumented and making below minimum wage. Gonna quit eating out?

2) If you knew that a man or woman in a particular porn scene was a victim of abuse, would you have a problem buying and using the scene?

*IF* those involved in the production/distribution were the abusers then the scene should not be bought because the abuse should not be rewarded.
Otherwise, I don't think it matters. Worry about stopping abuse, not whether a tape is tainted.

3) Since you don't know that any given man or woman in any given scene wasn't abused, and given that your sexual needs can be satisfied by means other than pornography, what is the moral justification for financing an industry which will manipulate, degrade, and exploit a certian percentage of people every year?

You are committing the falllacy of assuming the null case is perfect. The reality is that it isn't. If those women hadn't produced that stuff many would be in much worse financial shape--and that brings it's own harm. You need to compare the harm of any course of action with the harm of not taking the course of action. You also need to separate inherent harm with harm caused by the attitude that she's just a slut/whore and doesn't deserve as much protection from the law.

The "self-worth" that you smuggled into the statement would be the determinative factor. There is no way that a sense of ownership of one's body and a valuing of the pleasure of sex ALONE could lead the young girl away from sleeping with the boy.

I at least see it as implicit in the attitude she was referring to. She just spelled it out for you this time. I don't see that she changed her position.

How would these values keep you from sleeping with your best friends spouse? Or your adult children, if you thought they were hot and you were both willing? Or your brothers and sisters under the same circumstances? If sex with any of these people would be pleasurable, why wouldn't you go there?

Best friends spouse: Adultry causes harm. Therefore this is wrong unless everyone involved is consenting.

Adult children: I have no problem here so long as adequate precautions are taken against pregnancy. Likewise brother/sister. Incest has two big danger signs: Genetic risk and power imbalance risk (any relationship involving great differences in power must be looked at very carefully and should be assumed wrong unless the more powerful one bends over backwards to ensure it's ok and even then might not be). If both of these issues are adequately addressed I have no problems with incest.

What is the problem with adultery, if sex is only valuable because it is pleasurable?

Breach of trust.

Indeed, what is the point of committed sexuality at all, if the only value of sex is that it is pleasurable?

Who said that's the *ONLY* value to it? What she's saying is that pleasure can be a sufficient reason.

Why does sex enter into marriage vows or into the arrangements of committed partners at all? Is this tendency, too, a by-product of religion?

Actually it's a result of inadequate contraception. In the old days fidelity was the only way to know that your children were yours.

I would not say the "only acceptable sex" I would say that sex within the bonds of a committed relationship is the greatest expression of human sexuality, and to depart from these bounds lessens sex as a human endeavor (to make it real heavy sounding).

Sex within a committed relationship is certainly the best form of it. However, this does not mean that accepting sex in other contexts harms the sex of a committed relationship.

Michaelson

Good points, Loren.

However... Do you really think there's no problem with watching rape, snuff or kiddie porn tapes for your own sexual gratification, provided the distributers aren't receiving any profit as a result? Scenarios your stance would allow for.

I think it's disrespectful to those abused on the tape. The knowledge that those tapes are out there and being viewed by people getting off watching them, to most victims in these situations, would be a wholly distressing concept.

Once on tape and distributed, the victim has no control over the people who view the tape whatsoever. Given that the notion of people finding sexual gratification in their abuse is no doubt one of the factors which causes distress, the issue of pornography is distinct from the case of workers being paid bellow minimum wage. For most people abused in their line of work, the abuse is not paraded about for other people's entertainment.

Plus the level of abuse in a restaurant where the staff are being paid below minimum wage is in no way comparable to the types of abuse which are tied up with the pornography industry.

luvluv

Lady Shea:

Yeah, I'll buy that. But you said a confident women would never fall in love with an a-hole. Heck, I've often wondered if they ever fell in love with anything BUT a-holes.

1) I don't get it. Why would a guy who just has sex with you want you to leave your husband? What is it about sex that makes him think that way? I mean, I might threaten to kill your husband if you don't come away with me after watching you help me with my logic puzzles. If I may ask, what makes this a consideration when it comes to sex when it is not a consideration with other pleasurable activities?

2) So, as long as the guy you want to have sex with is not crazy, it's cool? Like if your husbands closest male relative wanted to sleep with you, and you were horny and knew the guy was a good lay and knew he wasn't a psycho, then you could sleep with him without it being a problem?

Sure, but a hug is an expression of love. Can you hug anybody else but your husband? What is the big deal about sex that it gets all these prohibitions and other expressions of love and pleasurable activities don't?

Loren:

I think we've already addressed all of your points earlier in the thread.

Bree

So in other words, all of us confident women are automatically married to assholes?

Loren Pechtel

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Michaelson
Do you really think there's no problem with watching rape, snuff or kiddie porn tapes for your own sexual gratification, provided the distributers aren't receiving any profit as a result? Scenarios your stance would allow for.

Bad examples--in all those cases the distributor knows something is wrong.

I think it's disrespectful to those abused on the tape. The knowledge that those tapes are out there and being viewed by people getting off watching them, to most victims in these situations, would be a wholly distressing concept.

There's a lot of discussion of snuff tapes but it's always a matter of a friend of a friend. I've seen no reputable report of anyone actually seeing one. Even the latest thing in the news that I recall was a website being busted that had them in the catalog, but even then nobody claimed to actually have a copy.
In fact, in a discussion a couple of years ago someone had said they were all over the place based on a search on google. I tried the same search and started digging through the links until I got tired of it (the original poster hadn't actually followed the links, just noted more than 1k of results). None were real. Ironically, some were from our own discussion of it! Only one was even related to snuff tapes and it made it very clear that what they sold was faked.

Once on tape and distributed, the victim has no control over the people who view the tape whatsoever. Given that the notion of people finding sexual gratification in their abuse is no doubt one of the factors which causes distress, the issue of pornography is distinct from the case of workers being paid bellow minimum wage. For most people abused in their line of work, the abuse is not paraded about for other people's entertainment.

Any tape in which the people can be identified and they did not agree, or their agreement was coerced, should not be distributed, period.

Plus the level of abuse in a restaurant where the staff are being paid below minimum wage is in no way comparable to the types of abuse which are tied up with the pornography industry.

Wanna keep your job? Sleep with me!

Michaelson

First, why does that make the difference? Your argument was that it's not worth worrying about whether or not the girl you're watching was abused, we should concentrate on stopping the abuse.

Second, how can you assume porno producers don't know anything's wrong?

Third, I doubt there are many if any snuff videos out there myself. I was just using it as an example.

Viti

luvluv...you're trying to get us (or just me) to say sex is extra special. Why don't you just be straightforward about it instead of trying to lead me? It's an insult to my intelligence.

Sex is special and a great way to express love...all I have been trying to tell you is that it doesn't ALWAYS have to be about expressing love. That's it.

Loren Pechtel

If the distributor knows something is wrong with the tape then they shouldn't be making money off of it--they shouldn't be distributing it.

I don't assume they don't know in other cases, I'm saying that in absence of evidence they do know you shouldn't assume them guilty.

Michaelson

That makes no sense. Why do I have to rely on evidence of whether or not the distributers 'know' of the abuse, rather than evidence of whether or not abuse occured?

In terms of whether it's acceptable to watch an abused girl in a porn video, whether or not the distributer 'knows', or has been prosecuted or whatever is inconsequential. You are still masturbating over pictures of a girl doing things against her will, sometimes specifically against her will and sometimes against her will in terms of being coereced into it by a manipulative producer. You're still masturbating over a girl who is likely distressed at the idea that people are out there masturbating over her.

Who cares what the distributer knows, or should know or whatever? The only thing that matters is the way he (or she) acted and what you know. If you know that the girl's been abused, or know that there's a good chance that the girl's been abused, then you should think twice before watching.

luvluv

bree:

Yes. That's exactly what I was saying.

Lady Shea:

Would I ever do a thing like that?

GOTCHA!