Porn!

mike65

Right now your reading what do you think about this new, nay latest campiagn to stop us getting stiff or having filthy thoughts...

from indo

IIRSH people are so used to pornography that we have become desensitised to it and accept it as the norm, it was claimed at the start of a campaign against it yesterday.

The Freedom from Pornography Campaign was launched to challenge the increased availability and proliferation of pornography in Ireland.

It also aims to promote an understanding of the harm that pornography does to society and to lobby government on the issue.

Some of the groups in the coalition behind the campaign include the National Women's Council of Ireland, the Rape Crisis Network Ireland, Women's Aid and the National Domestic Violence Intervention Agency.

Speaking at the launch in the Equality Authority offices, Dr Joanna McMinn, director of the National Women's Council of Ireland, said that pornography was degrading and harmful to women and was a form of violence against them.

"The Council has a clear position on pornography as a violation of human rights, a form of sexual exploitation, and it degrades women.

"It provides a climate of sexual hostility and encourages the notion that a woman's worth depends on her sexual appeal to men."

She argued that pornography represented men in often abusive or violent positions of power and control over women. "Pornography plays a key role in reinforcing unequal power relationships between men and women. It's sexism made sexy."

Niamh Wilson, who is a member of the coalition behind the campaign, said that the impossibility of avoiding pornography in Ireland was leading to its normalisation and that the coalition was deeply concerned about the links to violence against women and the distortion of sexuality as a result of pornography.

She said the depiction of women as sexual objects and the marketing of them as sexual commodities contributed to the level of sexual violence against women. It also put pressure on men to objectify, degrade and violate women.

"The campaign aims to expose the lie that pornography does not harm," she said. "We hope, at the very least, to challenge those who use pornography to think about the consequences of the demand for, the making of and the use of pornography and to accept the responsibility that we all hold in ensuring that sexual expression does not violate the human rights of any person," she said.

"The impossibility of avoiding avoid pornography in Ireland, leading to its normalisation - where the viewer is so desensitised that the unacceptable appears acceptable - is a key concern. The links to violence against women and the distortion of sexuality as a result of pornography is also deeply concerning to the coalition."

"The Freedom from Pornography Campaign asserts that we cannot afford to wait. The evidence is compelling, the damage is beyond measure and the time to say 'no more' is now," said Ms Wilson.

Facinating that in the space of 10 years we're all supposed to have become normalised to something that was banned with a capital B for so long.

My own gut instinct when confronted by this sort of thing is to presume campiagners are of the "all men are rapists"/Andrea Dworkin school.

Mike.

Zombrex

Sigh

Bit like the "Videogames caused my sweet little Timmy to hacksaw off his best friends head with a blunt workshop knife and dance around in his blood. Videogames should be banned!" style of bandwagoning :rolleyes:

I am sure rapests read porn .. i am sure sexually violent people read porn ... does porn turn a normal mentally healthy person into a rapest or someone who is violent to women? I seriously doubt it

Zaph

They had a couple of people from the campaign on the Last Word yesterday evening, along with Ron Jeremy. By the sounds of them I'd have to concur with Mike that they do sound like they're from the "all men are rapists" school of thought. Ron Jeremy pointed out to them that he'd made over 2000 films and none of them contained violence towards women, but they just didn't want to listen to what he had to say. He offered them a film scenario where a couple had a romantic evening followed by sex and asked where the violence was in that, but rather than answer properly they just repeated their mantra that porn perpetuates violence against women. When Matt Cooper asked them how many men are part of their campaign they had to concede that there were none, although that didn't mean men weren't welcome. I think they'll be waiting a while for any to join unless they are prepared to listen to the other side's argument.

Complete and utter muppets.

"The Council has a clear position on pornography as a violation of human rights, a form of sexual exploitation, and it degrades women.

Right. Which why so many women see it as a viable income and many are perfectly happy starring in those roles. Is it degrading for men to be in Female porn? No. Why? double standards, and moaning for the sake of it.

It also put pressure on men to objectify, degrade and violate women.

Anyone else think there's a bit of longing in this statement from her? :rolleyes: Ain't roleplaying a bitch?

simu

This is the kind of thing that alientates women from these groups that are supposed to be "helping" them. While it's possible that some exploitation takes place in the porn industry, it's stupid to label all porn as demeaning because of this. Many women enjoy watching and/or making porn!

Sleepy

Most women that I know well own some kind of porn, whether it be something as tame as a Mills & Boon / Jilly Cooper Novel or something more more racy like the Black Books series or hardcore DVD's.

The Council has a clear position on pornography as a violation of human rights, a form of sexual exploitation, and it degrades women.

"It provides a climate of sexual hostility and encourages the notion that a woman's worth depends on her sexual appeal to men."

Does anyone else get the impression that the woman who wrote this is as rough as sandpaper and just jealous of the girls who appear in porn because they're better looking?

simu

Sleepy wrote:

Does anyone else get the impression that the woman who wrote this is as rough as sandpaper and just jealous of the girls who appear in porn because they're better looking?

Yup. You could argue just as easily that porn encourages the notion that a man's worth depends on the size of his penis or whatever.

po0k

Say no to porn.

Say "Yes I'll have some more of that please" to Erotica.
It's art. But with boobies and willies flopping about.

Mercury_Tilt

This post has been deleted.

Nasty_Girl

Rape, Sex abuse and Objectivication and Demeaning all happened before porn came to Ireland

Perhaps you wish them to do other things with their lives?

And yet you'd get a similiar reaction with a number of other jobs like toilet cleaner, Bin-man, etc. It doesn't really mean that much.

A.S.H.

To quote the Late Great Bill Hicks

"My final point about alchohol, about drugs, about Pornography...What business is it of your's what I do, read, buy, see or take into my body as long as I don't harm another human being whilst on this planet? And for those of you having a little moral dilemna on how to answer this, I'll answer for you. NONE OF YOUR F*CKING BUSINESS Take that to the bank, cash it and take it on a vacation outta my f*cking life."


"Supreme Court says pornography is anything without artistic merit that causes sexual thoughts, that's their definition, essentially. No artistic merit, causes sexual thoughts. Hmm... Sounds like...every commercial on television, doesn't it? You know, when I see those two twins on that Doublemint commercial? I'm not thinking of gum. I am thinking of chewing, so maybe that's the connection they're trying to make. "


"To me pornography is spending all your money and not educating the people of America and spending it on weapons."

End Quotes

and now to paraphrase Him "the thing that these people are missing is that before there was Playboy, Penthouse or any of these things we were having sexual thoughts, how do I know this. Well we are here. If people weren't having sexual thoughts we wouldn't be here"

End stealing others thoughts

The fact of the matter is that these whiny little fascists are now working on other way's to control every aspect of our lives, eventually there will be no porn, no beer, no violence on T.V., no cigarettes, no meat, no (insert something you will miss but is considerd "wrong") and Once we have nothing left there will be an Violence up the HooHa (not sure where that is but I'm fairly sure it aint comfortable {so maybe the back of a volkswagen}) Porn does not harm people nor does it make us look at women and think of them in a sexual manner. What makes us look at women in a sexual manner is called genetics, it's how the species survives and continues. I don't believe there is fox porn (actually somewhere there probably is) but Foxes have sex nonetheless.

apologies for any bad spelling or grammer. Don't point it out please.

As to whether I would be happy with my sister doing porn. Probably not but I would prefer it to her being in marketing and yet that is what she does, and I still talk to her when we meet

simu

Mercury_Tilt wrote:

This post has been deleted.

If it makes them happy, if they're above 18 and they take precautions against STDs, why not?

Moriarty

Mercury_Tilt wrote:

This post has been deleted.

Killing has never been less acceptable in western civilisation than it is now. If you think otherwise, you're ignoring or simply don't know about constant wholesale slaughter that has been carried out throughout history.

Zombrex

simu wrote:

If it makes them happy, if they're above 18 and they take precautions against STDs, why not?

Exactly,

I personally believe that people should be protected from themselves against hard drugs, the ability to self harm (ie Guards should stop suicides), and dis-information (ie McDonalds should be allowed say a Big Mac is good for you)

But porn, when the people doing it are consenting adults, is not harmful when shown to other adults. And if it does trigger volience in some people it is not the fault of the porn. Catcher in the Rye caused someone to shoot Regan, you hardly say literature causes violence.

Some porn does objectify women, a lot of it objectifies men as well. It is all part of the fantasy. You don't watch porn to see two fully rounded, well developed characters discuss theatre while doing it. You watch it to watch sex. Both the man and the woman are there for one reason and one reason only, for sex. It is also true that most porn caters for male fantasy. I don't think many women like a man blowing their load on there face. But a lot of men don't like sex in the bum, doesn't mean gay porn should be banned because some do.

One thing that needs to be changed is the fact that there is absolutly no protection for sex film workers in California, and as such STDs are rampant and they just had a major out break of HIV. I have to admit it is kinda weird to watch porn thinking if I actually did sleep with that woman I probably would have herpes now :eek: The reason is none of the elected officals want to take charge and say health and safty needs to be brought fully into the Adult industry, like it is in Nevada (afaik not a since Nevada prositute has ever got HIV on the job).

neuro-praxis

People used to say that pornography was "degrading to women", which has now become something of an old cliché. The response seems to be (and I'm hearing it from Simu here, also a woman) that if a woman does not feel degraded, then what she is doing is not degrading. If she enjoys watching or starring in pornography, then, in that case, there is nothing wrong with it.

So, does this mean that if she does not enjoy it, that then there is in fact something wrong with it?

I would like to prospose the notion that some actions lower the dignity or worth of the person who performs them; i.e., degrades them. Whether or not the agent feels degraded (according to the definition of the word) becomes irrelevant.

As such, I feel that pornography is something that lowers the dignity of the men and women involved. There's no denying that watching pornography is enjoyable, but that's not what's up for debate. The debate is about whether or not it's a healthy and positive part of life.

And...unpopular as this opinion is, I don't think pornography is healthy and positive. At all.

It's addictive, it's a skewed version of sexuality and it's a very dubious way to make your money. Glad my mom's not a porn star.

It's addictive, it's a skewed version of sexuality and it's a very dubious way to make your money.

Exactly.

Thing is that we're living in somewhat of a sexual liberation. Never before has sex been alowed in such a fashion on a western scale. Sex sells, and its being used constantly in just about everything we interact with. Watch TV and there's an element of porn in many TV ads prior to the watershed time (8pm?). Watch the news and often you will see commentaries talking about something a porn start has done during the showbiz weekly slot. Hell, watch sports and the camera persons will often zoom the camera's to show beautiful women in the stands or cheerleader types.

It may not be the classical definition for porn, but its an element of sex, thats shown to viewers.

walk into most newsagents and you'll see Perfect10, Playboy etc on the shelves. Even Maxim, FHM, etc have taken an element of porn and stuck into the face of the familiar.

I don't particularly like porn that much. The Fake moaning, the groaning, and the scarey tattoo'd men pumping equally dodgy women. Or you get beautiful women on equally beautiful women. Boring. Still, nobody is going to take my selection of movie clips and pictures (on my computer) away from me.

Porn is it wrong? No. Only if you say that sex as an act is wrong. Porn is just an expression of it. The same way lapdancing, and strip clubs have been allowed for decades.

neuro-praxis

Klaz said

Porn is it wrong? No. Only if you say that sex as an act is wrong.

These two opinions don't go hand in hand. What you've done is remove context.

"Sex as an act" as you put it is neither right nor wrong: it is its context that gives it any kind of moral tone. In the same way "cutting somebody" is neither right nor wrong - the context (whether it's a doctor making a life-saving incision or a thug having a stab) is what's important.

So I say yay to sex, and boo to porn.

bonkey

neuro-praxis wrote:

I would like to prospose the notion that some actions lower the dignity or worth of the person who performs them; i.e., degrades them. Whether or not the agent feels degraded (according to the definition of the word) becomes irrelevant.

As such, I feel that pornography is something that lowers the dignity of the men and women involved.

...

And...unpopular as this opinion is, I don't think pornography is healthy and positive. At all.

its interesting to see the direction that you pose your argument.

Surely the only reason that porn is degrading is because you have already decided that it is not healthy or positive?

More explicitly......

People find porn wrong. Therefore, they will hold those who partake in the porn industry in lower esteem then otherwise. Ergo, those people are degraded in they eyes of others. Thus, porn is degrading.

Yes, there are unquestionably those in the industry who feel degraded, but I would say that is true of any industry. Clearly, no industry should allow exploitation of workers (which would lead to degradation), but thats a question of regulation rather than prohibition, surely.

The only other situation where porn can be degrading is where people decide that the act is degrading for other reasons. Therfore, degradation is not a good argument on which to base prohibition on. Rather, it is a symptom of the underlying reasons held by those who cause it to be degrading, and surely then it is these reasons which should be the basis of arguments for its prohibition by those that seek it?

jc

bonkey

neuro-praxis wrote:

"Sex as an act" as you put it is neither right nor wrong: it is its context that gives it any kind of moral tone.

And what is wrong with the context? Why is it OK to engage professionally in sports, or acting, or any myriad of other activities for others' enjoyment (as well as possibly your own, and financial gain all round), but not in professional sex for the same purpose?

What is sacred about sex in this respect?

jc

neuro-praxis

Surely the only reason that porn is degrading is because you have already decided that it is not healthy or positive?

No, my opinion on porn won't change whether it is or is not degrading.

Bonkey I wasn't setting a premise, I was explaining what the word "degrade" really means, so that I could use it without being pounced on for using a cliché. You'll notice that I said "as such", not "therefore".

Ergo, those people are degraded in they eyes of others.

I don't hold people who are involved in the porn industry in low regard, but I do regard their industry as low. The reason for this is because I have a high view of the human body, a high view of the dignity of the human person, and a high view of sexual relationships.

You are absolutely right when you say that exploitation causes degradation. Exploitation in and of itself is not a bad thing. We exploit our surroundings all the time to make money or grow food or whatever. You're talking about negative exploitation there. I would argue that pornography in and of itself is a negative exploitation of the body and as such all pornography is a form of exploitation. Perhaps you view pornography as a positive exploitation of the body? The exploitation you speak of, I am assuming, is where women are forced to be pornstars, which is a blatant abuse of human rights and a far more serious issue.

To be honest with you Bonkey I'm not even sure that I agree with prohibition of pornography. I guess I'm just sounding out to see how I actually feel on this issue.

And what is wrong with the context? Why is it OK to engage professionally in sports, or acting, or any myriad of other activities for others' enjoyment (as well as possibly your own, and financial gain all round), but not in professional sex for the same purpose?

Ok. We agree that we all use our bodies for everything we do, including making money. Marx has some interesting theories on the labour value of every body. However, I believe that there is a point (which can't be defined I admit by legislation) where the dignity of the person performing the act is lowered.

There is a reason we all don't have sex in front of one another in the pub. There is a reason we don't have sex in front of our parents. We have constructed in our society levels of "decency" that we all adhere to, and happily! You must admit that it would be humiliating to have sex in front of all of our colleagues and family. Why? Because we are aware that as we walk around with our genitals covered by clothes, some things should have an element of personal privacy. One of the reasons we like pornography so much I imagine is because we can flaunt these norms of constructed decency...but we take care to do it behind closed doors, and we don't discuss it with our parents.

Now, there are societies where women walk around bare-breasted and it's totally non-sexual. That's fine and good and proper. If I liked my own body more I'd probably be a naturist. But there are no societies where people walk around masturbating.

I think I'm getting off the point. Sorry for rambling.

Moriarty

neuro-praxis wrote:

I would like to prospose the notion that some actions lower the dignity or worth of the person who performs them; i.e., degrades them. Whether or not the agent feels degraded (according to the definition of the word) becomes irrelevant.

As such, I feel that pornography is something that lowers the dignity of the men and women involved. There's no denying that watching pornography is enjoyable, but that's not what's up for debate. The debate is about whether or not it's a healthy and positive part of life.

The state shouldn't be in the business of imposing societal standards relating to what an individual can and can't do with their own life.

You're wanting to impose your moral and ethical standards on what a person should and should not do with their lives onto others who don't agree with you. Further, you're saying that their moral and ethical beliefs are "irrelevant" because they don't converge with your own.

Thankfully, we live in a liberal society which is built on principles that are pretty much entirely at odds with your own. The great thing is that you don't have to watch porn if you don't want to and have opinions on people who participate in porn, while others still have the choice of whether to watch/participate in it or not.

neuro-praxis

Can I quote myself here, just for Moriarty?

To be honest with you Bonkey I'm not even sure that I agree with prohibition of pornography. I guess I'm just sounding out to see how I actually feel on this issue.

And Moriarty, I don't think anyone's opinions are irrelevant. Where did I say that? You have completely pre-judged me.

The state shouldn't be in the business of imposing societal standards relating to what an individual can and can't do with their own life.

Right...up to a point. What that point is is what I'm discussing.

Moriarty

neuro-praxis wrote:

And Moriarty, I don't think anyone's opinions are irrelevant. Where did I say that?

You want to define specific things as universally degrading. Other people don't agree with certain aspects of what you would consider degrading - you consider porn degrading, but others don't. You stated that "whether or not the agent feels degraded becomes irrelevant" - which is nonsensical, because somone has to feel degraded before they may actually be. You made the falacy of leaping from 'I think porn is bad' to 'porn is bad'.

neuro-praxis wrote:

You have completely pre-judged me.

From what you've said, I don't think so.

neuro-praxis wrote:

Right...up to a point. What that point is is what I'm discussing.

If there is a point, it's far past participating in porn imo.

neuro-praxis wrote:

Can I quote myself here, just for Moriarty?

Said while I was posting, that's why I didn't see/repond in original post That's fair enough, but it wasn't how it read.

simu

There is a reason we all don't have sex in front of one another in the pub. There is a reason we don't have sex in front of our parents. We have constructed in our society levels of "decency" that we all adhere to, and happily! You must admit that it would be humiliating to have sex in front of all of our colleagues and family. Why? Because we are aware that as we walk around with our genitals covered by clothes, some things should have an element of personal privacy. One of the reasons we like pornography so much I imagine is because we can flaunt these norms of constructed decency...but we take care to do it behind closed doors, and we don't discuss it with our parents.

I don't see what this has to do with it. Societies and/or practical neccesity dictate that different acts are carried out in different places. You don't eat dinner on a bicycle, you don't play cards in a crowded cinema. People act differently and show different aspects of their personality in different social situations. No one's saying it would be good to watch porn with your parents or have orgies in St. Stephen's Green.

I just don't see what's degrading about porn.

neuro-praxis

Moriarty wrote:

You want to define specific things as universally degrading. Other people don't agree with certain aspects of what you would consider degrading - you consider porn degrading, but others don't. You stated that "whether or not the agent feels degraded becomes irrelevant" - which is nonsensical, because somone has to feel degraded before they may actually be. You made the falacy of leaping from 'I think porn is bad' to 'porn is bad'.

No, you have incorrectly inferred. What I was originally saying is that degradation is a state not a feeling. That's it. Yes, I happen to believe that pornography is degrading, but that conclusion is not reached from the dictionary definition of the word "degrade".

Whether or not the person involved in any act feels degraded is irrelevant to the meaning of the word "degrade".

Your half-reading of what I said and this following stupid argument we're having was exactly what I was trying to avoid when I tried to separate the feeling of degradation from the state of degradation.

Allow me to make an extreme example. If, for one reason or another, a battered spouse does not feel degraded, does that mean that they are not degraded? The answer is no: their feelings are irrelevant to their state.

I never made any objective statements about pornography.

Excelsior

No one has proposed banning pornography.

This was turning into a pretty interesting conversation where we could thoughtfully consider our opinions on this issue and see if they should budge a little. Let's go back to that place and start reading each other's posts again.

Whether you agree with neuro or not, don't decide in advance that she has no basis for her opinions. Give her a hearing.

Most of us like porn. I hear the old arguments trotted out about, "I myself don't like porn with all the fake moaning and the dodgy sets but I'll die to protect other's rights to watch it", all the time. Whether people are being sincere or not I can't tell but the profits of the industry clearly indicate that a great deal of men and a surprisingly large number of women enjoy porn.

neuro is basically questioning whether our attraction to porn justifies the use of porn. There is a sizeable and growing body of sociological research that concretely links habitual porn use with a range of behaviours most people can agree are negative; from lower views of women in relationships right up to sexual aggression. Comparing this reasonable and rigourous study to computer-game violence hoopla is not at all accurate.

On top of that, there is a huge body of evidence that suggests that many of the porn actresses (the ones who never end up as stars) involved in the industry are not there of their own accord. Internationally, it is an industry that exploits women in disadvantaged situations. It doesn't exploit their labour, it exploits their body and their sexuality.

Finally, there is a suggestion that since we are all enlightened now, and liberal, we have to reject any claims to limiting the private behaviour of others. This is best expressed perhaps by Moriarty when he wrote:

The state shouldn't be in the business of imposing societal standards relating to what an individual can and can't do with their own life.

All law relating to citizens falls within this definition.

Elsewhere in the thread we were told that we were more sexually permissive today than at any other point in the history of Western Civilisation. Where do you get that impression? Why do you think that is naturally a good thing? Judging from our own literature, Ireland was a sexually enlightened society pre 1850. Have you all got a basis for this belief which approaches myth that we have suddenly broken free into an era of healthy sexual attitudes or are just basing your opinion on your exclusive society-fed instincts?

One has to take that question seriously to take the line of argument I'll call the Bill Hicks Position into consideration.

I'll leave you with the diary of a porn star:
http://tinyurl.com/7x7qb

neuro-praxis

simu wrote:

I don't see what this has to do with it. Societies and/or practical neccesity dictate that different acts are carried out in different places. You don't eat dinner on a bicycle, you don't play cards in a crowded cinema. People act differently and show different aspects of their personality in different social situations. No one's saying it would be good to watch porn with your parents or have orgies in St. Stephen's Green.

I'll try to explain it another way simu. Your examples are not analogous to the contexts of sex. We don't eat dinner on a bicycle because it's impossible. We don't play cards in the cinema because we have paid to see a film, and also because it would disturb others. We don't have sex in public, not because it is impossible or simply because it would disturb others (we all have had a loud party from time to time) but because it is something that as a society we tend to keep private. Do you disagree?

I just don't see what's degrading about porn.

I guess whether or not you see pornography as degrading will depend on your view of sexual relationships. I actually think that sex shared between a couple is something significant. For me, sex is not purely physical. Being a sexual person is part of who I am. My sexuality affects my life and my opinions and my experiences and it is a chunk of the whole and complete ME. It's a part of my woman-ness and it's something positive and something that requires a little nurturing. The idea of exploiting my body and its ability to "give sex" for money is morally repugnant to me. That doesn't mean that pornography has no physical effect on me: it just means that I choose to express my sexuality without pornography, which is including the paid and directed sexual actions of complete strangers.

Do you actually believe that such a thing as a degraded act exists? Do you not believe that a paedophile who abuses children is degrading him/herself, even if they feel satisfied?

Like I said: degradation is a state - not a feeling.

simu

neuro-praxis wrote:

I'll try to explain it another way simu. Your examples are not analogous to the contexts of sex. We don't eat dinner on a bicycle because it's impossible. We don't play cards in the cinema because we have paid to see a film, and also because it would disturb others. We don't have sex in public, not because it is impossible or simply because it would disturb others (we all have had a loud party from time to time) but because it is something that as a society we tend to keep private. Do you disagree?

I just don't see the relevance. I'm not saying porn should be displayed on every billboard but rather, that it should be available if people want it in places that, for whatever reason, society has dictated it's acceptable - at home, in sex clubs, whatever!

I actually think that sex shared between a couple is something significant. For me, sex is not purely physical. Being a sexual person is part of who I am. My sexuality affects my life and my opinions and my experiences and it is a chunk of the whole and complete ME. It's a part of my woman-ness and it's something positive and something that requires a little nurturing. The idea of exploiting my body and its ability to "give sex" for money is morally repugnant to me. That doesn't mean that pornography has no physical effect on me: it just means that I choose to express my sexuality without pornography, which is including the paid and directed sexual actions of complete strangers.

Sure, that sort of lovey-dovey sex is nice but there's also less emotional sex and I don't value one above the other. They can both be good experiences. (Actually, it's a bit of a simplification saying there are only 2 kinds but it'll do for this thread).

Do you actually believe that such a thing as a degraded act exists? Do you not believe that a paedophile who abuses children is degrading him/herself, even if they feel satisfied?

Like I said: degradation is a state - not a feeling.

Hmmm... maybe degradation can only exist as a feeling. Sure the paedophile might feel degredated or other people might see them as such but these are all just feelings. What else is there?

neuro-praxis

simu wrote:

Sure, that sort of lovey-dovey sex is nice but there's also less emotional sex and I don't value one above the other. They can both be good experiences. (Actually, it's a bit of a simplification saying there are only 2 kinds but it'll do for this thread).

I didn't say they both couldn't be good experiences. I basically said that I believe that one is more significant than the other.

simu wrote:

Hmmm... maybe degradation can only exist as a feeling. Sure the paedophile might feel degredated or other people might see them as such but these are all just feelings. What else is there?

Degraded means lowered, debased. There are far more things in existence than feelings...? There are decisions that I make every day contrary to my feelings. Feelings have very little to do with rationale. You are disagreeing with the dictionary definition of the word and if you want to do that there is nothing further I can say on the issue.

www.dictionary.com

1. To reduce in grade, rank, or status; demote.
2. To lower in dignity; dishonor or disgrace: a scandal that degraded the participants.
3. To lower in moral or intellectual character; debase.
4. To reduce in worth or value: degrade a currency.
5. To impair in physical structure or function.
6. Geology. To lower or wear by erosion or weathering.
7. To cause (an organic compound) to undergo degradation.

Excelsior

simu wrote:

...but these are all just feelings. What else is there?

Grand so. Do we have to take that unthought through, unfounded personal instinct out to its logical conclusion or can you agree that any argument based on the idea that we are all just driven by feelings that can't be compared or judged against each other might not actually constitute an argument at all?

Whether you meant to be so loose with your words I can't tell but the philosophy you have actually extended, one whereby all actions are driven by relativised and immeasurable "feelings", makes any idea of law meaningless.

Is your feeling that everything is a feeling just a feeling or have you some evidence to back it up?!