Jamie_L

WJ -

I feel like you've built a simplified strawman and are using it to represent my views. This may be due to misunderstanding. Whatever the origin, your claim of inconsistency may be valid when looking at this strawman, but my actual outlook does not suffer from problems of logical inconsistancy. Maybe I can convince you of that, maybe I can't. But I feel comfortable that my views make perfect sense.

Fair enough.

No. I claim it is an objective truth that "humans have emotions." I claim that it is also an objective truth that humans form relationships based on their emotions.

I have no idea why this would be true. The existance of nonexistance of god(s) has no bearing on whether or not it is logical to conclude that humans have emotions.

A star has no meaning to a rock. A fish has no meaning to a comet. The root of the word meaning has to do with comprehension by a human mind. "Meaning" is by definition something humans assign to things. Again, what does the lack of some objective "meaning" apart from human consciousness have to do with feelings being real? In my opinion, nothing.

I must admit that now I'm totally stumped. What do my value judgements have to do with anything discussed so far? I'll stay away from the term "ethical relativist" for now, since I'm not 100% sure what you mean by it in this context (or how you derive some sense of my ethical relativism from things discussed so far).

If you read my posts carefully, you'll see that I've mostly made observations about the role sex DOES play, and not in what role it should play. Or course any guidance I have about what role it SHOULD play is subjective. Human judgement is by definition subjective.

You've made a giant leap here. Human interaction is governed by all manner of internal and external forces. There are entire threads dedicated to origins and purpose of morality. I don't want to start one of those threads in the middle of this one. When determining what is "ok to do", it is logical to consider many other things beyond what "feels good." In fact, what "feels good" is more related to what we want to do than what is "ok" to do. If it weren't for all the other factors, then anything would be "ok." It's all that other stuff that determines what's "ok" and what's not.

I don't advocate that with anybody, as described above.

Why do people do what they do? Because they want to be happy. Period. All the other reasons boil down to things that produce happiness for that person. How to be happy, now and over the long haul, is a complex process involving emotion and intellect. Your making a false dichotomy here.

What human being is not motivated by his/her feelings? Why is the Pope so religious? Because it makes him feel good. Why did Carl Sagan write books about the failings of superstition and supernaturalism? Because that made him feel good. Why are we having this silly arguement? Because it feels better than not responding to a post.

Your strange version of things may make my rationales seem convoluted and arbitrary, but they are not. I want to feel good - not just now but for the rest of my life. Maximizing my lifetime happiness involves emotion and logical thought. It involves a reasoned morality and emotional relationships.

Any advice I give them would be based on my observations and conclusions about all of the benefits and consequences of being a porn star. One benefit for my kids may be "it feels good" or "makes them happy". Fine. Put that into the analysis. I would compare and discuss all the other possible benefits and consequences (How long will it feel good? Will it feel bad later? Will it impact other long term goals? Etc., etc.). Then I would come to some conclusion - based on what, in my opinion, would maximize my kids' long term happiness. I would explain my conclusions to my kids, along with all of my rationales. How is this arbitrary or convoluted?

I don't feel picked on. Confused, maybe, but not picked on.

Not at all.

Jamie

luvluv

I still would like you folks imput on one part of my question:

Again, suppose one of your friends adult daughers was a porn star, and this fact was causing great emotional pain to your friend.

Would you watch your friends daughter in a porn film or would you mind letting your children watch her?

tronvillain

Of course, that has no bearing on porn in general, since most porn stars are not the sons or daughters of my friends. Whether I would watch her myself would really depend on the details of the situation, and what my children watched would be their own business.

Vorkosigan

I would not watch my friend's daughter in a porn movie if he felt strongly about it, but out of deference to his feelings and the importance I attach to them, not morality. I just don't see a moral issue here, Luv. Whether my children want to watch is up to them.

The porn industry is a lot like the football industry. I doubt football is a moral evil, but a great many people do a great many destructive things to themselves in order to get a shot at the NFL (but then some don't). Ever read one of those articles on retired NFL great _______, who can no longer move his legs or has a disintegrating back? Some things are just not worth it, but that is more a question of assessing risk, not some abstract and essentially indefinable moral question. On the grounds of risk, I would not like my daughter to enter the porn industry, but I would not stop her if she did (how could I??). I won't let my son play football, BTW, because (a) it's too destructive on the body and (b) the NFL let the Browns move, so I vowed not to bring my son up a serious football fan and never to buy any more NFL merchandise.

Vorkosigan

Jamie_L

Exactly. This is my feeling on my children viewing porn. I'd prefer them not to, based on my assessment of risk. I'd explain that to them. If they choose to take that risk, I'd also be talking to them and observing them to watch out for the downsides that they might not see coming. (No pun intended)

Jamie

himynameisPwn

Jamie_L, most of the less well-known companies may be risky working for, but what about Playboy? I doubt theirs too much risk there, based on a few interviews I've read.

I've come to the conclusion, Im just gonna let my son decide porn and masturbation for themselves, but obviously give them the talk about safe sex, and I won't object to them viewing porn if I happen to find them doing so.

MaxMainspring

Since I don't have children it would be hard to say for sure but to the extent that they would be in an exploitative environment I would not want them involved. That is a big qualifier because I think the reasons that it is often a area of exploitation is because it is forced underground owing to the prudishness of society in general and the religious right in particular. It is then under the control of those who are willing to live underground or under circumstances where they are looked down upon.

Such people tend to not be particularly refined and are often willing to be exploitative. This is probably why so much porn is so grossly crass and uninteresting.

But it needn't be, and most of the "harm" that occurs to those who are victimized is a result of the prudishness of others.

We often see very intimate relations portrayed in very high quality movies and there is absolutely no evidence that engaging is such activity harms the participants.

But non-porno film making is a relatively high prestige undertaking and no stigma attaches as it does in porno. The harm comes not from anything inherently damaging in the act itself, but rather from all the fallout of the generally negative attitudes of others.

This argument against porno always reminds me of one of the standard ways that anti-drug people argue against relaxing the penalties for drugs. They say that it must be stopped because it can ruin your life and you ask exactly how ,and they say, it is obvious, it can get you sent to prison for a long time.

As someone else remarked, I wouldn't do it out of deference to the neighbor if it was hurtful to them. This is unless he is some kind of fanatical bluenose, then I wouldn't mind at all.

If it hurts the parents of the people involved it is for one, or both, of two reasons. Either they are prudish themselves or they fear that the activities of the relative brings them disgrace. In either case, if we all had a healthier attitude toward these questions, then this wouldn't be a probelm

And the standards of erotica would be raised considerably because more gifted practicioners would be willing to participate.

I would be quite happy to see a piece of unrestrained erotica directed by any of the great directors.

But they won't do it because it would damage their reputations. This needn't be the case but we are still suffering the hangover of a long history of religious sexual repression.

Wouldn't you have enjoyed it much more if it had been the craft of gifted filmmakers rather that the work sleazy operators who barely know which end of the camera to point at the subject.

luvluv

"Of course, that has no bearing on porn in general, since most porn stars are not the sons or daughters of my friends."

This is basically my point. Every girl in a porn film is SOMEBODY'S son or daughter. What is just a way to kill an afternoon for you is somebody's greatest pain.

And like somebody mentioned, a significant portion of the women in adult films are not healthy psychologically. I doubt you'd find very many practicing psychologists who would consider the decision to become a porn star to be a healthy expression of one's sexuality. Most would probably consider such a decision to be symptomatic of a pathology of some sort.

Do you think there is nothing wrong with viewing pornography even if the women in them were abused or anguished and are now acting out their pain?

I know you all are going to come out of your hat with your "they just like sex" talk (I hate that argument: who doesn't like sex?) but I truly believe the notion that there is no emotional involvement in the act of sex is something that laypeople just assume and has no basis in clinical psychology. It's tough talk, and it sounds modern, but it's baloney. If sex is just a physical activity, no different than playing baseball or basketball, why not have sex with your children or your parents? Why would you care if your husband or wife had sex with other people? It's a meaningless activity, right?

I know we'd all like to believe that all of these women are just very healthy women who just "like sex" but many of them are extremely messed up mentally and instead of helping them we are subsidizing their self-destruction. I know this is not the case for all of them, but we would be fooling ourselves if we decided this isn't the case for many if not most of them. You guys have concluded that sex has no value, but the women in these films may not have, and they may be in pain and guilt over their actions. I suppose if other people's feelings have no value save for how they can benefit you, then this is a defensible position. Otherwise, I don't see how you can excuse it.

We've been talking about this as if the only issue is whether or not "masterbation" or "sex" is bad, but I think by far the more significant moral question is whether or not it is okay to gratify yourself with the activities of someone who is acting out of pain an hurt; whether or not it is okay to, excuse my frankness, jerk off to someone psychologically killing their self.

[ June 07, 2002: Message edited by: luvluv ]</p>

luvluv

Maxmain, can we be adults for a minute?

We both know that women quite often act out emotional pain by sleeping around, and we both know that that activity, apart from the "prudishness" of others, is harmful to the woman. They were rejected by a father, and they sleep around to feel loved. They were sexually abused as children and they act out their pain and confusion through promiscuity. Women with these kind of stories make up a significant portion of the women in pornograpy. They are hurting THEMSELVES, and we when we patronize pornography are not offering them away out of their self-destructive behavior, we are encouraging and bankrolling it. Their emotional recovery might be an obstacle to our gratification, so we might actually oppose it in some cases.

Again, your notion (apparently) that there is no such thing as pathological (pathological as in symptomatic of a deeper problem) expressions of sexuality between consenting adults is a popular myth that probably would meet ridicule in a room full of trained therapists. I, sir, am no prude in this area. I grew up surronded by pornography and spent the better portion of my teens and early twenties watching it. I personally saw some incredibly hurtful, mean things done to women on these tapes that NO psychologically healthy woman would have subjected herself to. I do not object on the grounds of prudishness or a dislike of sex. I object on the grounds that many of these women are engaged in acts of self-destruction and are acting out their pain in pornography.

I can admit that it is possible that some of the women are psychologically healthy (or at least no worse off than most of us) and can remain emotionally unattached to the act. Can you folks admit that women like that are not the average women in film, and if fact a significant percentage of the women in porn are not psychologically healthy. Is it right to take advantage of that?

Viti

luvluv....am I typing a language you don't understand?

I personally know several porn stars, I also personally know a Playboy Centerfold a Penthouse Centerfold, and countless exotic dancers. They are no happier, sadder or more screwed up than any other people I know; they spend holidays with their folks, several are happily married, two have children (one has twins) and one is in the process of adopting. The most well known one led a strike to force the production company to follow safe sex practices...and it worked.

These are normal people who chose a profession you don't understand and that carries a social stigma. You have never spoken to any of these people, where do you get off psychoanalyzing them based on your narrow views?

I don't understand accountants, the ones I have met are all anal and fussy....does this mean only people with horrid emotional problems become accountants? Why don't YOU grow up and learn that not everyone (I dare say most people here at least) do not share your views.