The AntiChris

To justify your enjoyment of the "boxing experience" on the basis that the danger of brain damage is "less than a certainty" does seem to suggest that your concern for the exploited is highly selective.

You appear to present 3 main reasons why you have a problem with porn:

1. The shame associated with porn protagonists and their families.
2. The fact that the porn industry tends to attract the more vulnerable in society.
3. Porn protagonists can suffer psychological damage.

As has been pointed out to you already on this thread, for the most part, all these "problems" are caused by repressive attitudes to sex in general, and the stigmatisation of porn in particular.

What you do not seem to appreciate is that you have it in your power to do something about this state of affairs.

One thing you need to understand - porn is never going to be eliminated from human life. So, if your compassion for the exploited porn workers is truly genuine, you should be striving to change attitudes rather than perpetuating the very suffering you purport to care so much about.

Chris

Dark Jedi

You are being nicely picked apart on other points, so I will address this one:

The reports on poverty and single mothers are true, in context. What has also been found was that in poverty stricken regions (Ghettos, Barrios, etc) there was an extremely high occourance of drug use, prostitution for drugs, an extreme lack of birth control availiability, fertility education, and transient fathers that plant the seed and leave.

<rant> Simply put, the fact that the single parent is a woman had nothing to do with it. The fact that the woman can be abandoned to a pregnancy in a bad situation has much to do with it. Self-righteous Christers that spend their days preaching to these women how bad and sinful they are, rather than helping them find childcare and education to allow them to pull themselves out of a horrible life situation are far more dispicable than any judgements that they can hurl from their upper middle class homes.

When was the last time you offered to babysit so one of these mothers can attend a vocational class?</rant>

Sorry, touched a nerve there. I watched my sister slide in to this spiral, and be abandoned by many of our righteous family to rot in her 'sin'. That sin being only that she grew up poor and rejected the opressive ways of the church. Just as we (siblings) had helped her get on her feet and start making a living wage for her child, a drunk driver killed her.
Want to stomp on my other nerve, tell me drunk drivers are being unfairly picked on. Go ahead, I dare ya.

Pomp

sci,

I enjoyed his "the end of history and the last man," mainly because he explained Kant and Hegel to me, without forcing me to read Kant and Hegel.

Hahahahahahahaha!!!! I'm in the same boat!

Pomp

luvluv,

Thank you for an honest and direct reply.

I don't think that brain damage is necesarily a certainty when it comes to boxing, but the way Pompous worded the question leads me to believe he is going to demolish me with statistics if I deny it. In most of the fights I've ever seen, after the fight both boxers are on their feet shaking hands. I've never personally seen someone get hurt, but of course some folks have died in the ring over the years.

Any blow to the head of sufficient force damages or destroys brain cells, most types of which are not replaceable. It's not so much the possibility of death in the ring (although that is, of course, a concern) as it is the fact that getting hit in the head enough times damages the brain.

I didn't have any numbers at my fingertips, but I'd hate to dissappoint, so I went Googling. The first source that I discovered was <a href="http://www.salon.com/health/feature/1999/04/30/boxing/index1.html" target="_blank">this Salon article</a>. The most relevant portion:

Perhaps a bit lower than my use of the word "certain" indicates, but still a significant number.

...it is something I will have to start thinking about it. I may have to give it up.

That's very consistent of you, and demonstrates your integrity. Of course, I'd prefer you just became consistent by lightening up on porn, but I can't win them all.

Edited to close a tag.

[ June 14, 2002: Message edited by: Pompous Bastard ]</p>

Vorkosigan

Actually, I don't think it would be consistent of Luv to lighten up on porn. After all, boxers participate freely in their sport, as porn stars in theirs, and football players in theirs. If you want a deadly sport, try mountain climbing. Maybe the consistent position is to oppose all dabgerous actvoty like porn films or mountain climbing, or else use some sort of consent test.

Vorkosigan

Pomp

My thought was that since he apparently approves of boxing, which is, at the very least, as dangerous as pornography, he could become consistent in one of two ways: either he can begin to disapprove of boxing (and various other dangerous sports/occupations), or else he can stop using this particular line of reasoning to justify his objections to porn. He may, of course, have other valid reasons to disapprove of porn, but the angle that he has been working the hardest in this thread is that it is emotionally damaging to the women who appear in it.

luvluv

"luvluv, that statement is misleading. I think the issue of being a good parent is more complex than simply providing two bodies and pronouncing it ideal. Children who grow up in two-parent households can also have a multitude of problems. Children with only one parent can be given sufficient love and encouragement to do well in the world. Each case is different."

I always find it amusing how in these hypotheticals the two-parent families are miserable antagonistic and the people who head up single families are all-capable saints. Is it not possible that the head of a single-parent home can be abusive, and that the members of a two parent house-hold could be very capable and loving parents? I'd certainly agree that every single parent household is not headed by some poverty-stricken immoral woman, but at the same time every two-parent household is not a miserable, unhappy situation. In any case, I obvioulsy do not advocate mentally unstable or abusive parental figures. If one of the parents are abusive or incompetent in their capacity, then as a last resort I certainly would like them out of the picture. I also think that most of the time parents divorce it is not true that one of the parents is unfit to be a parent, but simply can't get along with his or her spouse. The majority of the time I think kids would be better off with two stable and competent parents as opposed to one. Anyone disagree?

"This problem would be better solved by remedying the inequities in education and earning power, don't you think? Then they would not be at the mercy of a good/bad spouse to ensure their material comfort."

I think the problem would be best solved by not having kids if you can't afford them. At the risk of being chastised, what inequities in education? I was under the impression that there were more women enrolled in college than men? Is this the inequity that you speak of? In many cases it is not a matter of income inequities. Almost no one can raise a child effectively on a single income, whether that is the income of a man or a woman.

"But if we returned to "the good old days," we would see a return to some of the following:

*women unable to earn even a modest living wage
*women unable to have credit in their own name
*advertisements specifying men for jobs that women could do just as well
*women having to have produce a marriage license and permission from the husband to obtain birth control

Personally, luvluv, I would see this as a problem."

I would see those things as a problem too. I don't know where you got the impression that I or Fukiyama were advocating them. I'm not actually propsing a return to the good old days. I'm simply hoping for and advocating a renewal of the recognition of the importance of marriage, the nuclear family, and the respecting of sex as an act to be shared only by committed, adult partners. That would entail none of those things you mentioned.

"You are, of course, entitled to your opinion. But as someone who has benefitted enormously from the changes you regard with horror, I strongly disagree."

Could you list, numerically, the benefits you have derived from the sexual revolution?

"As long as they are willing to listen to these gloom and doom pronouncements, and feel suitably ashamed?"

They aren't gloom and doom pronouncements, they are stastical documentations of trends. Choices have consequences, and if the consequences of certain choices are bad, should everyone be silent so that no one feels ashamed? It would seem to me that it would be a good thing if people who are about to fall off a cliff be notified of the fact. It is evident on the average that single parent families do not do as good of a job raising kids as two parent families. Is it a doomsday pronouncement to tell you that? If you had cancer, would I have to be a pessimist to tell you so? I'd rather deal with unpleasant realities than stick my head in the sand.

"I fail to see how staying together (if the union is unhappy) will guarantee a happy home and healthy atmosphere for children, however tidy it may appear statistically."

Well, part of the problem is that in many instances there was never a union in the first place except for the physical one. Of course it won't guarantee a happy home for our children. I don't remember saying anything like that. What I did say was on the average a two-parent household will do a better job of raising children than a single parent household. And again, why is the hypothetical two-parent household always unhappy?


Even granting that there are unhappy marriages, surely, in years past (or as you term them the good old days), there must have been unhappy marriages that stayed together for the sake of children or for the sake of social conformity. I dare say that the children of such arrangements demonstrated much less pathology than the children of today. I think children are much more capable of enduring the bad marriage of their parents than a good divorce. (Again, I am not referring to instances of abuse, simply cases of spousal incompatibility) I'd be willing to research that point.

"If you force or coerce them to couple with someone when they do not wish to, that is sufficiently like enslavement to alarm me. Have you actually thought this through?"

Please refer me to the place in my argument where I advocated forcing or coercing anyone to couple with someone they did not wish to.

"I agree. It is a bit of an uphill struggle to convince some people that women must be prepared and able to earn a good living. But we will persevere."

Nobody said that you shouldn't be able to earn a good living, I was just pointing out some unintended social consequences that occur when you do. Many of these consequences are bad. It's called a trade-off. Adults have to make those sometimes.

The doomsday pronouncements you perceive I am making are just suggestions that we may have to make some tough choices. It is evident that the single-parent family is not working, so there may be a day when we as a society might need to make the choice between families and the economic independance of women, or at least recognize that the two propositions occasionally come at the expense of the other. If we recognize statistically over time that this is the case, that the economic independance of women is detrimental to the institution of the family, then we may have to make a choice as to which to preserve. I know how sexist that sounds, but really what else can we do? Pretend that single-parent households are as good as two-parent households when they clearly do not, simply to spare feelings?

"I will say, there *IS* evidence that any stable couple will do a good job of parenting; children raised by gay couples do not show statistical variations. So... I think one thing we should do is make adoption a bit easier for the fairly large pool of couples who are physically unlikely to spawn, but who would love to raise children in a loving home."

I totally agree seebs. I would definitely prefer to see that everyone who wanted to adopt be able to adopt.

"The reports on poverty and single mothers are true, in context. What has also been found was that in poverty stricken regions (Ghettos, Barrios, etc) there was an extremely high occourance of drug use, prostitution for drugs, an extreme lack of birth control availiability, fertility education, and transient fathers that plant the seed and leave."

Yes but even in those areas, two-parent households are more succesful than single parent households. And while I was not born in the ghetto, I had the good fortune to grow up near one (my family lived in the middle-class meat filling of a ghetto sandwich: projects on either side of our neighborhood) and I can just say that the lack of birth control availability does not hold water from my personal experience. In my neighborhood there were multiple corner stores in walking distance. This is doubly true for big cities like New York and Chicago, where there is a store selling condomns on every corner and yet where the illegitimacy rate is high. I can't speak much for barrios, but I have spent my share of time in ghettos and in more suburban areas, and I think I can safely say there isn't much of a birth control availablity gap. Drug use actually occurs in middle class homes in as great a rate as it does in poor homes, and for many of the pathologies that are associated with single-parent homes I'm not sure drugs are much of a factor. Unless the parent his/herself is a drug addict, I don't know how the prevalence of drugs in their community is making them poor.

"When was the last time you offered to babysit so one of these mothers can attend a vocational class?"

I baby sit for single parents all the time, but they are all relatives. And I don't personally happen to have the time to babysit, but I do give a lot more money than I can spare to churches and social institutions that provide day care in my community. The churches are really doing an outstanding job locally. Given the welfare reform laws, a lot of women couldn't make it without the cheap childcare.

Pompous:

It's not so difficult to have integrity over the internet. I would however, disagree with you that boxing is as dangerous as porn. I've gotten over physical beatings, but if I were to prostitute myself out to men, I doubt I would get over the experience quite so soon. Given the choice between a physical beating and molestation, I'd take the physical beating. Certainly, every act of pornography does not amount to a molestation, but if these girls really are engaging in pornography to act out deeper demons, then the damage done to them is far greater and far more difficult to cure than the damage done to the boxers.

bonduca

Please reread my quote. I said nothing of the sort.
Certainly. And the reverse can also be true.
Yet there are many that are. It is the quality of the parent or parents that is the most important factor, not the mere number.
Do you disapprove of this?
While that would be the ideal approach, it is not your decision. One can hardly force a woman to terminate her pregnancy due to financial considerations.
At what colleges, in what fields, at what salary levels?
The income of men is generally higher than that of women. As for raising a child on a single income, that is exactly what happens with one stay-at-home parent. Are you advocating that both parents work full-time?
Marriage is still important to the majority of people in this society. So is the nuclear family. As for the sex act, frankly, that is none of your business.
Numerically? Now you are being absurd.
I am a sexually active woman with access to birth control. I do not need to marry or live with a man to have a fulfilling sex life. The lifestyle I practice is acceptable enough to society that I do not have to hide it or suffer persecution because of it. Those are all the benefits I care to share with you on this board. I assure you that those alone are substantial.
I have already expressed my dissatisfaction with the quality of your “statistical documentation.”
I have known several single mothers. They are dedicated parents who do an excellent job of raising their children. Whether they are alone because they prefer it that way, or because they have not met a suitable partner, as long as they are adequate parents, it is neither the concern of you nor Mr. Fukuyama.
Given the horrors I have seen perpetrated by many two-parent families, I find your insistence on this fact to be somewhat naïve. No doubt two loving, kind, ideal partners would be an optimal environment for child-rearing. However, it is not required that the environment be nothing less than ideal. It does not follow that one kind, loving, supportive parent cannot raise a healthy child. The important factor is whether or not the child has that loving and supportive caretaker.
I suspect it is not realities we are dealing with, but your own personal prejudices against sexual activity or motherhood outside marriage.
And you disapprove of this, because you think sex belongs solely within the boundaries of marriage?
I never said it was. However, it is not a guarantee of a healthy environment, either. Why are you so against the hypothetical single-parent family?

You would guess wrongly. I can name a dozen examples that I know of personally, both through volunteer work and my own personal acquaintance.
[QUOTE}I think children are much more capable of enduring the bad marriage of their parents than a good divorce.[/QUOTE]
And I firmly believe that staying in a bad relationship creates a poisonous atmosphere that harms everyone involved, including the children.
Simple spousal incompatibility can express itself through many behaviors which can create severely stressed and neurotic children.
See your remarks concerning remaining in a marriage gone bad, for example.
Adults have to make those decisions for themselves, every time.
Again, each adult makes life choices for themselves. Can you grasp that?
We? Actually, “we” do not appear to be involved in this decision at all. So what do you propose, luvluv? Refusing to let women work?

Indeed?
How about getting over it? Women may or may not work. They may or may not have sex. They may or may not bear children. They may or may not marry. You cannot control them. Perhaps that is what bothers you, and not concern for the downfall of society?

[ June 16, 2002: Message edited by: bonduca ]</p>

The Other Michael

Hi livius drusus,

From someone in the same situation (though with genders reversed), "hear hear"!

Hi luvluv,

This seems a rather wild statement to make. Surely there are some households in which a single mother makes an income more than adequate to support her children (I know of at least one that comes immediately to mind). Perhaps you meant to say "not all single-parent households are households in which the mother earns enough . . .".

Would it seem likely that a competent single-parent could do a better job than two incompetent parents? And that two competent parents could do better than the single competent parent?

And haven't there been studies (the "it takes a village to raise a child" thing) that show that increasing the number of competent and caring adults in a childs life beyond just the immediate parents increases their chances of being more stable and well adjusted? And if so, wouldn't you then want to advocate group (more than 2 participants) marraiges (of competent parents) to better serve the children?

Really? You'd rather take the risk of permenant brain damage (there is a reason the term "punch drunk" exists) versus the risk (that is dependent, I'd think, upon the mental/emotional resilience of the molestee) in being sexually molested?

And how do you make the jump from consensual sex in the porn industry to molestation, which to me at least implies lack of consent from the molestee?

cheers,
Michael

luvluv

[ June 17, 2002: Message edited by: luvluv ]</p>