Morally obliged not to be degraded?

I think people need to have their head examined who object to another's personal choice. What is the world's oldest profession? Prostitution. Men want sex, with no strings attached. Women want cash.

I strongly suggest to anyone, if you don't like pornography, don't rent the video!! It is a guy thing. They like it, even though the tell their wives they don't because women are too insecure in their own relationship. Don't impose your beliefs on others who do see this as free choice, on both parts as a legal problem.

I think women are being stupid denying their husband some sexual fantasy. They are not cheating at all. Men love this stuff. They are visually oriented creatures that women don't have to identify with or understand, just accept men as they really are.

I think the Puritan view on sexuality is childish, at best. I see a crime with no victim at all, just an exchange of mutual interest. I seriously doubt there is a gun to any woman's head to make porno films, just cash, which she wants.

Did you know that the word 'sex' was, by far, the highest look up on the net? Women want cash. Men want sex. Tell me what is wrong with that?

I think I'll be better able to answer to your satisfaction if you more precisely define:
If this means; turns men into freaky sex maniacs, or makes all women look like whores; or any other "effect" that is open to opinion, then the ripples are too far away.

Directly splashed: forced participation or viewing (front cover, broadcast tv etc), underage participants etc.

Blaming the film maker or actors for the behavior of the viewer is simply unacceptable.

Joe, kidnapping is an actual thing that happens outside the control of the person. Degredation is an imagined thing that happens inside the mind of a single person. You can't compare them.

O'BILL: Let me give you an example of what I'm talking about. It's the kind of argument I've seen made by some so-called "radical feminists" specifically with regard to pornography.

Pornography dehumanizes all women, in that it treats them as objects (a Kantian would say that it unacceptably treats women as means rather than as ends). Furthermore, insofar as pornography treats women as objects, it treats men as "objectifiers." Thus, pornography is harmful to everyone, since it degrades everyone equally. And this means that there are social ramifications of pornography that reach far beyond the participants and the consumers. As such, it is not simply a matter of individual choice or being in the direct "path" of pornography.

To give an analogy: we condemn criminal behavior not solely because it harms the immediate victims of crime. Rather, we recognize that criminality, in and of itself, has an impact on society as a whole. Burglars, for instance, not only cause direct economic loss to the victims, but they force you to lock your doors at night. We have buttons on our back pockets because of pickpockets. We write out sums on checks in both words and numbers because of forgers. Indeed, it is society that prosecutes criminals, because their crimes are deemed to affect everyone. So to suggest that the direct victims of crime are the only ones affected by crime ignores reality. To the extent that you are affected by crime, you are one of its victims.

If the "splash" of pornography is too distant to affect those who are neither participants nor consumers, then you have to explain how the effects of pornography are different from those of crime (and the difference can't simply be that one is legal and the other isn't -- after all, we're dealing with a moral issue, so the proper focus is on the widespread effects on morality).

Joe, (re this and other thread).

I agree with your last post except for the universality implied in your definition of "pornography".

By stressing "action" or even "interaction" associated concepts such as "consistency" need to be interpreted in terms of "stability of relationships", not correspondence between thoughts and actions.
In other words I am arguing for the value judgements "right" and "wrong" to be assessed not from "sentiments" but from physical and mental "well being" (system stability). It follows that we could only talk about "degredation of humanity" if it could be shown that pornography (say) universally detracted from such well being., but since "pornography" as opposed to "criminality" is to a much larger extent in the eye of the beholder, universality seems to be elusive.

The idea that "humanity" is somehow more than "objects" is also problematic from a straight "logical stance". I think this is a good example of how "logic" obscures the status of the axioms from which it proceeds ( but we've been into that.... )

As I said in the other thread, we need to be able to make a determination of what is degrading with a degree of objectivity.
If someone says they're against all pornography, I would ask why, if they said sex is degrading, then we know that this person is immature, but if they specifically point out that certain behaviours are absurd to any sane individual, then they have a case, especially if you agree with them.

There might not be that much wrong with ingesting male semen, but there's gotta be something seriously wrong with any form of beastiality and the pretense that it's fine and that the partcipants don't have underlying abnormal psychological drives that are the precursor to these activities.

No you set a little rhetorical trap

"...simply because it is the choice to be depicted in a degrading fashion" .

If I argued that there is a choice not to be depicted in a degrading fashion, or that degrading and pornography must be linked before the actions can be ranked I would be accepting your thesis, which is the point at issue. As for how actions are ranked that is very much a culturally determined activity, and it is variable.

To me the answer is quite simple. Given the assumption that human beings have a 'universal morality', and given the hypothetical example of porn as being not only 'degrading' but 'harmful to all', then yes, the actors would have to quit their profession based on the dictates of the argument posted.

In the real world however, I do not believe there is such thing as 'universal morality', so it's pretty much a free-for-all.

The difference is in where does one person's right to choose begin enfringing on anothers.

Rap music promotes violence and mistreatment of women.= degrading

Gangster flicks unfairly portray Italians as violent, heartless killers= degrading

Viagra commercials stereotype man as simple creatures who will jump up and down in the street, if only they could get wood= degrading.

The absurd ratio of inshape beautiful people on tv, movies, and in magazines make the rest of us feel ugly and fat.= degrading. While there may be fragments of truth in these statements; they are insufficient cause to infringe on other's rights to choose.

Your taste may tell you that Pornography is a worse abuser... You say tomato, I say tomato. Maybe I think a television show that depicts virtually all female lawyers as model-gorgeous women is even more degrading, because of it's increased distance from reality? Maybe in my world, law is such a serious topic that artificially hyping ratings with hot chicks should be considered criminal! That would be MY problem.

Pornography objectifies women? Which media outlet doesn't? Is Rudi Baktiar the best newswoman there's ever been? (I happen to think so).
How well does Anna Kournikova really play tennis? Is it fair that she gets the commercials?

Now we know statistically speaking that you are more likely to be killed in or by a "red" car than a brown one. That doesn't mean Ford should be morally obligated to stop making red cars.

My point is, Joe; if you start regulating based on the effect of ripples, I can ill imagine anything that wouldn't qualify for regulation.

By the way... can anyone lend me a copy of "A night in Paris"? :wink:

Joe, how is a woman in a porn video an object, while a woman in a non-porn video is not? What's the difference (despite the fact that porn has little or no plot)? Are strippers objects? Are men in porn videos objects? You have to elaborate here.

I only did a skim read of the posts. Let's get real here! Does anyone think that women are not able to degrade a man? We can and do every day, for our own advantage. I have a few female friends that we get lots of laughs at who do and so do I, as long as it is of free will and no one is being harmed.

Women use more privacy only because we are not biological stimulated, as men are. We are not turned on by a video. Guys, here is a newsflash! Women are far more critical of sexual performance than any man ever dreamed of being. Yeah, we also discuss this stuff, with close friends, but don't ever tell our men about this.

Men and women, please tell me if this scenario is false. A man comes home from work unhappy. He is stressed out. He had a bad day. A woman pours him a glass of wine. He likes this idea of being served, for a grand change. He likes the fact that someone, a woman, is listening to him, only, with no personal opinion or judgement calls. Who wants to hear that after a bad day? No one! After he is done, you put you hands in the right places. Women tell men that we will make it all better. We have sex with them. Surprise!! They actually do feel a whole lot better! Sex is a stress relief for men and the fact that you listened and served them one stupid glass of wine, makes them feel good. Suddenly, you are the perfect woman, right?

Now, how hard is that? It isn't hard at all. Men adore women for this kind of attention, which women easily can take full advantage of. Who is the victim, again??

Women do victimize men with this simple behavior. We can go on spending sprees. We can get our way on important things, only because a man only wants to feel loved, understood, and accepted, which many women take advantage of, which is not right. It is right to do with a partner you really love and support. Men do appreciate such a simple gesture. Am I right guys? Am I also right saying this should only be done in a loving relationship and not for manipulation? I am.

Women don't want to be manipulated either, but men do this to us repeatedly. A porno film has little to no impact on society. Give that one up as far as blame for a man's view towards a woman. It is far from that. It is female manipulation of past as reasoning why men think we are all whores. I think men are too, without make up and low cut dress, whores with to many notches on their belt for me to respect them. I know for a fact that men have manipulated me in grand form. I don't believe it is right to be anything but honest, which our society is void of. PC is the social law, which makes me want to vomit. Men and women don't trust each other anymore and we decide to live alone because we don't want to be burned again. I sure don't!!

If you think these women in a porno really care about anything but cash, you are very wrong. Stop defending them. They are getting exactly what they want, cash. In reality, they are exploiting a man's natural sexuality for money. Tell me who is victim? I can't find one yet!!

I say that either sex can easily be sexually degraded. We all know men have a higher sex drive than a woman and are very visually stimulated, which women are not. Does anyone think women are completely ignorant of this and don't take advantage, for financial gain or amusement? You are all crazy if you think women can't do the same!! We do!

I think this deserves another topic for women to post on. "How can you sexually degrade a man and actually convince him?" Yes, women can and do. We know how to use a camcorder, but who wants to look at their friend having sex with a guy, as a woman? None of us! I can't say the same for men. They see it as conquest.

Like women aren't expert manipulatiors, which we are famous for. Men are expert power pushers along with manipulation skills equal to any woman. I think we all know what that means! Just because a woman is physically weaker, does not mean we are unarmed and weaponless. We aren't. Men force us to act as we do to defend ourselves in relationships. We, as a society, need to get past this nonsense and fear of the opposite sex.

Intelligent women, in a marriage or committed relationship, should indulge in watching a porno with their man. No, we don't get turned on by it, but they do. A relationship should be of mutual exchange. A man wants a whore in the bedroom and a presentable partner. Am I wrong guys? Sexuality should be mutual.

Sometimes you might watch some gross porno with your man. Sometimes your man will be your sex slave and satisfy you. This is exactly how it should be, mutual enjoyment and taking pleasure with each other accepting new ideas to enhance your sexuality, which both can enjoy. Don't we all want our spouses or significant other happy with our sexual relationship? We should not be so rigid, with exception of abusive situations, not to experiment with them.

Pleasure in life is not too often. We often deny ourselves an natural pleasure, sex. We shouldn't because someone said that a porno is off limits. It isn't, as long as it is among consenting adults who make a fair deal for what they want.

This may be a shocking thing for most women, as it was for me. All women don't care about their sexuality or hold it in regard for relationship only. There are women, called prostitutes, that laugh at us because our man goes to them for money over something we will not give them. Sorry to say, but women should be more open about their own sexual desires to a loved man, in a serious relationship or marriage. Tell men what you want. Give them what they want. You will find your relationship fun and much happier, if you do.

I'm not sure how you could disagree with my definition of "pornography" since I never offered a definition of it, either in this or the other thread.


I'm not quite sure I understand you when you use the term "stability of relationships," but then I'm on pretty familiar ground when I don't understand what you're saying.


This sounds like a type of utilitarianism.


I'll take your word for it.

No, Acquiunk, there was no "trap" of any kind. I set up a hypothetical. Your initial task, then, was to respond to the hypothetical as it was framed. Others seem to have grasped that basic point; Cavfancier, e.g., did a very good job of sticking to the hypothetical that I posed. You, however, objected to one of the premises of my hypothetical. At that point, you're no longer addressing the situation that I initially posed; instead, you're addressing the hypothetical that you wanted to be asked. Unfortunately, I am not interested in your hypothetical, so you'll forgive me if I direct my attention to those who are stick with the main premises of this discussion.

Only if you were alone in feeling that way. But, as I posited in my initial post, what if everyone thought pornography was degrading?


Calm down, Bill. You're starting to get confused.


I never said anything about "regulation." Remember, the focus here is on moral choices. If there is any regulation going on, it is strictly self-regulation.

I knew, the moment that I submitted my detailed response to O'BILL, that someone would think that I was offering my opinion on pornography. And despite my caveat that the views I put forth were consistent with those I had heard from radical feminists, I am now being asked to explain those positions as if they were my own.

Well, rufio, to the extent that I understand your question, and insofar as I can adequately elaborate upon a position that I do not personally espouse, let me say: women are objectified in pornography in a manner that is unlike the depiction of women in other forms of entertainment because women are treated like objects in pornography -- not simply in the depiction itself, but also in the manner in which porn is used by the consumer as little more than a masturbatory aid.

As for the differences between men and women as depicted in pornography, porn is more likely to harm women because women are more likely to be treated as objects in the real world. As soon as women and men occupy the same social status they will be equally degraded by porn.

Not to change the subject, but if objectifying the body of others is somehow to do them violation, what about the way we objectify ourselves? Don't be frightened, but I'm invoking the issue of dualism again--or the subject-object split. We approach the world as consisting only of objects, good and bad, desireable and undesireable, useful and useless, and we even see our"selves" as subjective things, even, at the extreme, as marketable objects. Is there any harm in that? Are we in any way degrading ourselves by objectifying ourselves?

If they chose to act in a moral fashion.

Given that this was a hypothetical argument, one must assume that they would choose to act in a moral fashion, as we are assuming that morality is universal. The example does not provide room for 'choice'.

Okay Joe, I got you now. The answer is no.

My oppologies, Joe.

That said, do we really take ANY movies in on more than a sensational level, if not a sexual one? (You don't have to respond to that.)