Porn!

simu

Oh, that didn't come out clearly. What I meant was how can degradation exist as anything beyond a feeling? (or thinking about it, maybe as a one of a mental hierarchy of feelings)

neuro-praxis

You've just reworded the same idea.

Excelsior

simu wrote:

Oh, that didn't come out clearly. What I meant was how can degradation exist as anything beyond a feeling? (or thinking about it, maybe as a one of a mental hierarchy of feelings)

That isn't much more clear, it has to be said.

What neuro has argued (and there is space for disagreement) is that being degraded is a state, not a feeling. Now we can argue all the way up the Mekong about whether our values are societal or objective independent of context or a mixture or something else entirely, but there are things which degrade the agent involved.

Some of these things we all agree on; such as genocidal rampage and child sexual abuse. Some of these things are more up for debate. One of those debatable things is pornography.

That is what neuro is trying to do:
to have a debate on whether porn is a positive thing or not.

**Note for 1/2 readers. I am not in any way comparing porn to genocide or child sex abuse.**

pickarooney

If straight porn degrades women, what does gay porn do?

Moriarty

neuro-praxis wrote:

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

It's more complicated than that. Taking your example, 'the answer' should read "their feelings are irrelevant in this instance, because society as a whole agrees that beating your spouse is unacceptable." There is no such consensus over porn[1], so it does come down to how the individuals involved feel. In any case, we're just getting bogged down in pedantic arguments over language at this stage so lets just agree to disagree that it's specifically "degrading".

Excelsior wrote:

neuro is basically questioning whether our attraction to porn justifies the use of porn.

I'm questioning why she should have a say over what I or anyone else views or participates in in and of their own free will in the first place.

Excelsior wrote:

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.
...
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.

Care to provide links?

Excelsior wrote:

Internationally, it is an industry that exploits women in disadvantaged situations. It doesn't exploit their labour, it exploits their body and their sexuality.

So instead of properly regulating it, we'll just .. what? Restrict it? Ban it? Make it a criminal offence to participate in?

Excelsior wrote:

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:
...
All law relating to citizens falls within this definition.

No, it's not. Most (nearly all?) law falls within the definition of how people interact with others in society. They're two seperate and distinct issues.





[1]: or rather, there's a general consensus that porn is fine to a greater or lesser extent (reasonably inferred since its legal and many watch/participate in it) which has the same end effect for this point.

neuro-praxis

To be fair, Moriarty, I haven't questioned your right to have access to porn.

Moriarty

You haven't said it explicitly, but that seems to be where you're coming from.

simu

Well, my problem with the degradation is that it's subjective, whether it's a feeling or a state, although the way people go on about it here, you'd think there was some very obvious and unanimously accepted system under which all acts are or could be measured in terms of degradation.

Are there any more concrete reasons why people think porn has a negative effect on society?

Excelsior

Moriarty, most of your points can be responded to by quoting myself:

Mise wrote:

No one has proposed banning pornography.

One of the benefits of being so wise is that I can just refer back to previous wisdom. In this case, my wisdom consists of observing what has been said in this thread.

In terms of linking you to academic studies online, I think that might be neigh on impossible. That isn't exactly standard practice.

Moriarty

Excelsior wrote:

Moriarty, most of your points can be responded to by quoting myself:


One of the benefits of being so wise is that I can just refer back to previous wisdom. In this case, my wisdom consists of observing what has been said in this thread.

In terms of linking you to academic studies online, I think that might be neigh on impossible. That isn't exactly standard practice.

Gee, I wish I was as smart and brainy as you.

simu

Excelsior wrote:

In terms of linking you to academic studies online, I think that might be neigh on impossible. That isn't exactly standard practice.

There must be some articles from reputable newspapers at least...

Excelsior

Moriarty, with a little training and a whole lot of hard work, you can some day be as intelligent as me, a person at the end of a computer terminal typing things into a discussion forum in a desperate effort to get strangers to agree with me on the idea that porno films aren't all good.

That is a noble dream and one I wish all people could have the courage to aspire to.

SIMU, I am sure there are. But I am too darned lazy to go look. Besides, the op-eds might challenge my sex-hating prejudices so its best to leave that whole hornets nest alone and get back to my window which badly needs squinting through.

Zombrex

It is interesting that people seem to be forgetting that the people who are in porn are actors. They are acting a part. So is it fair to say that they themselves are degrated by the way they appear in the movie, when it isn't actually them you are seeing, but the act they are putting on for the cameras.

Is the male porn star actually degrading the female porn star because he is appearing to degrade her. If that is true, then surely any actor who has ever done something that degrades his character is also degrading himself. Any actor who has acted humilated or insulted is degrading herself by allowing the film makes to protray that.

The male porn star might be a very nice guy, he is told to act a certain way by the director of the film because that is what he wants for the move. It doesn't mean the male porn star goes home and ejaculates all over his wife everytime he has sex.

Mercury_Tilt

This post has been deleted.

seamus

The issue of "degradation" as simu says, is subjective. It will vary from person to person. Some will feel that any porn degrades the actors and viewers. Others may feel that soft porn is OK, but hardcore porn degrades the actors, etc.
Many porn "fans" hold their porn stars in a high regard, very like other people regard celebrities. Their view of the porn star is twisted, based on what they've seen in films, but the same can be said for every person who ever liked a celebrity.

Thus, the point of degradation is moot. It has no real meaning or agreed application in this context.

If foul language offends you, tough, you can't ban it because "Rapists have be known to use foul language". by the same token, if Porn offends you, tough. "Rapists have be known to watch porn" - here's a ****ing newsflash for you; EVERY MALE IN THE COUNTRY HAS WATCHED PORN. It's the guy who's *never* seen porn who's the odd one out.

I'm sick of all of this "Films cause violence", "Video games cause violence", "Music is the tool of the devil" bull****. It's FUD crap spouted by moronic individuals who can't see past their small minds to blame themselves when their little Billy starts jamming a needle into his arm. It must have been something else, because they're too busy fighting dumb causes for Billy to get into any trouble.

All parents should receive a sentence equal to half of what their child gets when the child does anything. Make them cop on pretty ****ing quickly.

</rant>

I'm curious to know your definitions of porn. You see I can understand the DVD's with raw content being considered a bit much.

Are some of the movies you see on normal TV channels that feature a fair bit of sex in them, in reality porn aswell (Dangerous Liasions, Fatal Attraction etc)? You see where do we draw the line? You start banning certain types of porn then its only a matter of time before it starts getting to the stage where they wish to ban subtle forms of titilation (cruel intentions, 40 days 40 nights). Where does it stop?

I remember seeing a thread on the politics board about kissing being illegal in some country. Most posters wrote of their suprise and how it was wrong to restrict freedoms and such. Only problem is that when you give certain groups creditibility in their wacky beliefs, is that it can start to go too far.

I don't particularly want to live in a society where public signs of affection are banned, or the freedom I have to experiment with sex in the privacy of my own home is restricted (and monitored, perhaps).Start restricting one on a major scale, and it gives power to those that want more banned/restricted.

Just one other question in regards to porn. What about the hundreds of thousands of amateur video's that are floating around the internet. Many of these video's are from couples that get a kick out of being taped, and then getting complete strangers to watch them.

Surely they know what they're doing, and do you really believe that these people are being degraded by their own choice?

lol. Just thought of something. Was the person that modelled for Michelangelo's statue "David" taken advantage of, since he's displaying his nudity to everyone. Bit of a stretch but such nudity can be described as porn, considering fully clothed women sucking lollipops can be considered such.


BBC Discussion similiar to this thread here:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/magazine/4305257.stm

A.S.H.

Klaz, as has been stated before noone is explicitly trying to ban porn (although if you follow their logic it should be for the good of society).
A Point was made earlier about how there are more murders now thatn 40 years ago. Great what about 40 years before that or before that again. I think in Victorian times a group of upper class would wander around and cause lots of trouble including killing people (but that was ok cause mostly they killed poor people). Society's opinions on certain things change as time goes by, Now some are saying that porn is degrading, one question to be asked is that before porn became so widespread (dvd's internet, heck even the magazines back in the day) what did people do. It is only a relatively recent thing that selling ones body for sex had such negative feedback.

I have a good imagination and so can visualize Porn without the need for my ,Still not large enough, porn collection. I personally see a pretty lady on the street will sometimes have a quick thought or fantasy of what it would be like to (insert sex act depending on the mood i'm in) Now thinking of her like that is (according to society) degrading to her, she however is not aware of it and probably didn't notice as she was looking at this hunky guy across the way and having thoughts about him. Thining about sex with different people is natuaral. It is to do with evolution, those people who didn't think about sex a lot didn't breed and so didn't eveolve. There is probably a branch off from homo erectus(heh heh heh he said erect) that eveolved to a level where they had nothing but happy go lucky pure thoughts, they came this close to creating a perpetual motion machine but died off due to not f*cking. Our lineage however did a heck of a lot of f*cking, hence our sexual fantasies and it's overt expressionin porn.

Also for the women some may feel degraded but certainly 40 years ago (well that would be the 60's) maybe 50 to 60 years ago sex in ireland between a man and his wife was fairly robotic. thanks to the spread (oh er) of porn we have learned that maybe women would like to have someone go down on them, and many, many , many other enjoyfull things can be done

The Corinthian

Is porn degrading? It is in so far as Society considers it so. If something lowers you in either you own estimation or that of your peers (or more correctly Society in general).

Personally, I would consider working as a sanitary worker pretty or in McDonalds degrading work too. An interracial relationship would have been considered degrading too an odd forty years ago. So ultimately what we consider to be degrading comes down to Society’s own prejudices. As such whether a porn actor or actress considers what they do degrading or not is somewhat irrelevant to whether Society does.

Of course, the issue remains whether we are becoming desensitised to porn. Another way of looking at it is whether it is less taboo, more acceptable than it once was. And in this respect it probably is. And by extension of my previous argument this increased acceptability will probably lead to a situation where it is no longer considered by Society as degrading and more than an interracial relationship.