The Political Problem of Pornography

[FriedCFour]

The Porn Industry Is Rethinking How It Works With HIV Positive Performers

In late January, tucked away in a fluorescent-lit conference room at the Hard Rock Hotel in Las Vegas, dozens of porn industry insiders gathered for a panel on the latest in HIV research. In the neighboring exhibit halls, the annual Adult Entertainment Expo was underway, and fans lined up for...

jezebel.com

Double posting but a google search found something that is off the wall disturbing in relationship to porn.

 

[prinCZess]

That's extremely hard to do so, given just the sheer ease of access to modern porn sites through the internet. All I am trying to establish here is that things can be degrading for society. There isn't a point in arguing that porn is degrading if you believe degrading is 100% subjective and hold to that position, we first would have to agree that things can be degrading not purely based on opinion for an individual or morally degrading for society.

I mean...You can think something is morally degrading for society. I might well disagree. Whether something actually is 'degrading' would have to be based on an analysis of its harm, negative effects, and what unforeseen (or foreseeable) consequences could/would result from changes to the status quo or return to previous matter. Whether something is 'morally degrading' then would still be very dependent upon your morals and what you wish society to live by (this being essentially why there's not much to be had discussion-wise between @The Name of Love and myself--pretty divergent starting points on that topic).

Regardless, what an individual finds 'morally degrading' to themselves is dependent upon that individual's feelings. Those feelings can be changed with personal effort (or lack thereof). Appeals to 'society' needing to protect [x] from their own decisions is degrading to the individual's agency and instituting such is (in my opinion) a greater moral degradation than the visible existence of gambling, boozing and licentiousness in society (with the added asset that there's a good bit of indication that nanny-state interference in these types of affairs typically backfires or has massive unintended consequences).

 

[FriedCFour]

Regardless, what an individual finds 'morally degrading' to themselves is dependent upon that individual's feelings.

All morality is purely subjective? It's not individually dependent, its communally and socially dependent with some pretty clear agreements on a lot of big ticket items like murder and pedophilia.

 

[The Name of Love]

Except 'degrading' is a matter of opinion--I refer you back to how 'degrading' some people find men who go into the wrong work.

That two people can disagree about something doesn't mean that there isn't some objective standard.

If you want to contest that, you'll forgive me for not believing the only so far presented evidence related to this (presuming it's relevant--which is another presumption that might not be justified) besides your own assertion of it being the case--which consists of a cropped mishmash of graphs where the only source is on one that doesn't actually focus on women*...And all of which don't pertain to pornographic actresses--whom are quite outside the average in terms of number of partners.

The nature of pornography as something that's degrading isn't directly related to what this thread's about - which is that pornography causes political problems - but it's tangentially related insofar as it's important to have a standard for public decency.

Well, you've seen the stats on how difficult it is for a former prostitute to settle down with one partner?

 

[prinCZess]

All morality is purely subjective? It's not individually dependent, its communally and socially dependent with some pretty clear agreements on a lot of big ticket items like murder and pedophilia.

Feelings on moral degradation is certainly purely subjective.
There can exist an objective morality. I'd even be of the mind there is. Mankind is not good at grokking it (in the Christian conception because of simple inability to live up to it and the world being fallen, in other conceptions because there isn't an objective morality at all, and in others because the extent of moral reasoning amounts to the Golden Rule writ large ala Kant's Universal Imperative). Even when/if man does get it (or claims to), attempting to enforce it can and has caused larger issues than a more laissez-faire approach (Puritan Massachussets executing Quakers for heresy because obviously the spread of a religious falsehood against the moral order of society as determined by the Puritan assembly in the colony was sinful and wrong as an example I've been reading on lately).

And individual behavior regarding moral matters is individually dependent--communities and society can influence individual perspective, they cannot settle it (elsewise we'd see the successful elimination of murder, of robbery, and of sin by the proper social and community pressures and influences--which is impossible. There can be, at best, a reduction in such things--there always exist individuals who descend from the moral state of their surroundings to something worse--or, conversely, rise above their surroundings to the better).

Murder and pedophilia are indeed large layers of overlap in that Christian/Kantian/empty/etc. moral division.

That two people can disagree about something doesn't mean that there isn't some objective standard.

Indeed. It does mean they operate off of differing standards, however. And settling whose objective standard is the right one has been a running debate even within Christian morality, much less human morals.

Well, you've seen the stats on how difficult it is for a former prostitute to settle down with one partner?

No, unless you're referencing that batch of graphs again?
Which, if you are, don't cover that. The only one that can be tracked down covers the happiness in marriage of those who've been in previous relationships. Prostitutes and porn actresses probably don't characterize themselves as in a relationship with their clients/coworkers.

 

[The Name of Love]

Indeed. It does mean they operate off of differing standards, however. And settling whose objective standard is the right one has been a running debate even within Christian morality, much less human morals.

Are you a moral subjectivist?

 

[prinCZess]

Are you a moral subjectivist?

Personally? No. Descriptively? Yes.

 

[Bacle]

Dropping birth rates, extreme numbers of people saying they wont have kids, and degeneracy is absolutely afoot.

Cuckolding can be positive for some couples, study says | CNN

Acting on adulterous fantasies may strengthen a relationship, as counterintuitive as it may sound.

www.google.com

The fact that you roll your eyes at this is kind of mind blowing.

I agree dropping birth rates is absolutely an issue.

But dropping birthrates is more an issue of economic problems than 'moral degeneracy' from porn or the presence of those types of fringe activities (I fully agree the trans fringes hurt society; men are never women and vis versa).

It's probably easier to blame porn from your view, because you feel you can do something about that, whereas you probably cannot do anything about the systemic economic issues which have created disincentives for having kids.

Far better to wither and die then to give up your principles. I mean I don't agree with live about banning porn. Still though arguing folks should support things they fundamentally oppose. Just because the world has "changed" isn't something that should happen.

Whether it should happen or not is irrelevant if it already has happened.

The only principles I hold to are those of the Constitution, along with realism and practicality. Everything else it too rigid, too inflexible, and too unwilling to address its own flaws/biases.

 

[Lanmandragon]

I agree dropping birth rates is absolutely an issue.

But dropping birthrates is more an issue of economic problems than 'moral degeneracy' from porn or the presence of those types of fringe activities (I fully agree the trans fringes hurt society; men are never women and vis versa).

It's probably easier to blame porn from your view, because you feel you can do something about that, whereas you probably cannot do anything about the systemic economic issues which have created disincentives for having kids.
Whether it should happen or not is irrelevant if it already has happened.

The only principles I hold to are those of the Constitution, along with realism and practicality. Everything else it too rigid, too inflexible, and too unwilling to address its own flaws/biases.

Sure I agree with that but expecting others to abbandon thier principles is folly. Because they won't period if they truly believe what they're saying.

 

[Bacle]

Sure I agree with that but expecting others to abbandon thier principles is folly. Because they won't period if they truly believe what they're saying.

I think it is possible to get people to...not abandon their principles, but to accept their principles may not be the end all, be all of morality.

I think there are more pragmatic, practical, and realistic people in the world than dogmatic or principles hardliners.

 

[Liberterrarium]

Dropping birth rates, extreme numbers of people saying they wont have kids, and degeneracy is absolutely afoot.

I'm one of the many people worldwide who feel no urge whatsoever to have children. That's not porn, that's the fact that it's my body, my life, my choice, and I have other things I'd rather do.

 

[Lanmandragon]

I think it is possible to get people to...not abandon their principles, but to accept their principles may not be the end all, be all of morality.

I think there are more pragmatic, practical, and realistic people in the world than dogmatic or principles hardliners.

If your willing to vioate your pricipals you don't actually have pricipals. It's hardly relevant though this is way off topic. My opinion is simple porn is very likley harmful. It's also immoral as it promoted female promescueity and male weakness. Outlawing it is an unacceptable thing though. As it empowers the state far far to much. Which is a bad thing no matter what the situation. In my opinion the state should be as weak as feasible within the bounds of human nature.

 

[The Name of Love]

Personally? No. Descriptively? Yes.

Could you elaborate on what you mean by this?

But dropping birthrates is more an issue of economic problems than 'moral degeneracy' from porn or the presence of those types of fringe activities (I fully agree the trans fringes hurt society; men are never women and vis versa).

it’s not an either/or thing. Consumerist economics go hand-in-hand with sexual liberation ideology. Both promote vapid hedonism that contrasts the denial of self-gratification required for family formation. In fact, the widespread selling of sex online is a perfect example of the two overlapping.

It's probably easier to blame porn from your view, because you feel you can do something about that, whereas you probably cannot do anything about the systemic economic issues which have created disincentives for having kids.

To be fair, we can’t do anything about the porn either. The people who set up the economics are also the same people who are promoting and defending pornography.

If your willing to vioate your pricipals you don't actually have pricipals. It's hardly relevant though this is way off topic. My opinion is simple porn is very likley harmful. It's also immoral as it promoted female promescueity and male weakness. Outlawing it is an unacceptable thing though. As it empowers the state far far to much. Which is a bad thing no matter what the situation. In my opinion the state should be as weak as feasible within the bounds of human nature.

I don’t get this “empowering the state” phobia you seem to have. Are you perhaps a libertarian?

 

[Captain X]

If your willing to vioate your pricipals you don't actually have pricipals. It's hardly relevant though this is way off topic. My opinion is simple porn is very likley harmful. It's also immoral as it promoted female promescueity and male weakness. Outlawing it is an unacceptable thing though. As it empowers the state far far to much. Which is a bad thing no matter what the situation. In my opinion the state should be as weak as feasible within the bounds of human nature.

Let me break it down for you - you live by your principals and let others live by theirs. Don't know how to make it any clearer that the problem here comes from demanding others to give up their principals to live by yours.

 

[FriedCFour]

Let me break it down for you - you live by your principals and let others live by theirs. Don't know how to make it any clearer that the problem here comes from demanding others to give up their principals to live by yours.

I truly wish it could be like that but that just isn't possible. You can't leave a vacuum of societal influence and everyone just figures out exactly what they want without anyone saying "this is good". You yourself, in telling him to live by his principles, are in fact telling him to live by your own held principles of "live and let live" and not to try and persuade people not to do things. You want your own principle to be dominant and for him to follow it, even as you tell him not to demand others to give up their principles. You are demanding they give up their principles just by that statement.

 

[prinCZess]

Could you elaborate on what you mean by this?

I ascribe to an objective set of morals myself--though I'm drastically incapable of even approaching living up to them.
Describing societies, not everyone shares my morals and that merits recognition in pragmatic terms of how those with weaker or differing morals from my own (or even the same ones) can breach those without undue harm beyond to themselves, and how measures I'd otherwise hypothetically favor to (try and) uphold moral behavior could be instead used as tools of personal aggrandizement or profit.

A society of perfect people, besides having no need to ban porn or drug abuse or being rude, would be capable of doing so because of the perfection of individuals present--it would cause no uproar nor inspire any ill behavior of its own on the part of anyone in such a society. Perfect individuals are a pipe dream, and because of such a perfect society even more-so such that many attempts at banning immoral actions or behavior become more harmful to the innocent, ignorant or disliked by the imperfect individuals heading society than they do to those who would engage in such immoral behaviors--because those bans are carried out in a society of people far from perfect and incapable of holding the same morals or flawlessly upholding those they do have.

So, to round back to the topic, the political problem of pornography is that even presuming people universally held to moralities which see it as degrading, there is no person without sin available to cast the first stone in an active ban of the issue (ignoring all other practicality or definitional arguments)--and a correspondingly high likelihood of such a position being overtaken by someone who either saw themselves as without sin or reveled in the power and opportunity to indulge their own moral failings such a position could bring.

In some cases--murder and child pornography and other examples--that danger and moral incapability is outweighed by the danger posed to others by doing nothing to bar it. In the case of pornography? Not so much. Even then, convincing other people in society to share moral convictions is a more sure-fire and effective manner of action than is mandating moral behavior (such has a tendency to inspire intentionaL subversion long-documented in church and social history that is more damaging than is the inability of some to uphold moral behavior as defined by the authorities).

 

[The Name of Love]

I truly wish it could be like that but that just isn't possible. You can't leave a vacuum of societal influence and everyone just figures out exactly what they want without anyone saying "this is good". You yourself, in telling him to live by his principles, are in fact telling him to live by your own held principles of "live and let live" and not to try and persuade people not to do things. You want your own principle to be dominant and for him to follow it, even as you tell him not to demand others to give up their principles. You are demanding they give up their principles just by that statement.

Such is the logic of the liberal: his principles ought to be dominant because they're "neutral," and if you insist otherwise, there's something wrong with you. Liberalism is the most intolerant of all ideologies.

 

[The Name of Love]

I ascribe to an objective set of morals myself--though I'm drastically incapable of even approaching living up to them.
Describing societies, not everyone shares my morals and that merits recognition in pragmatic terms of how those with weaker or differing morals from my own (or even the same ones) can breach those without undue harm beyond to themselves, and how measures I'd otherwise hypothetically favor to (try and) uphold moral behavior could be instead used as tools of personal aggrandizement or profit.

A society of perfect people, besides having no need to ban porn or drug abuse or being rude, would be capable of doing so because of the perfection of individuals present--it would cause no uproar nor inspire any ill behavior of its own on the part of anyone in such a society. Perfect individuals are a pipe dream, and because of such a perfect society even more-so such that many attempts at banning immoral actions or behavior become more harmful to the innocent, ignorant or disliked by the imperfect individuals heading society than they do to those who would engage in such immoral behaviors--because those bans are carried out in a society of people far from perfect and incapable of holding the same morals or flawlessly upholding those they do have.

So, to round back to the topic, the political problem of pornography is that even presuming people universally held to moralities which see it as degrading, there is no person without sin available to cast the first stone in an active ban of the issue (ignoring all other practicality or definitional arguments)--and a correspondingly high likelihood of such a position being overtaken by someone who either saw themselves as without sin or reveled in the power and opportunity to indulge their own moral failings such a position could bring.

In some cases--murder and child pornography and other examples--that danger and moral incapability is outweighed by the danger posed to others by doing nothing to bar it. In the case of pornography? Not so much. Even then, convincing other people in society to share moral convictions is a more sure-fire and effective manner of action than is mandating moral behavior (such has a tendency to inspire intentionaL subversion long-documented in church and social history that is more damaging than is the inability of some to uphold moral behavior as defined by the authorities).

That's not moral subjectivism then. The idea that I ought to be considerate of the differing moral views of others is in itself a moral position. And in any case, your assertion that we ought only to have the law enforce moral standards when it hurts others is not something I share. I think the law should enforce standards necessary for the maintenance of the society we live in, at bare minimum. And widespread porn use is bad - it promotes egalitarianism, miseducates people about sex, undermines family formation, and leads people away from traditional religion into hedonism, as I laid out in my opening post. I hold that these factors will undermine society, whether or not they "hurt people" here and now.

 

[Captain X]

What's wrong with egalitarianism?

 

[The Name of Love]

Double posting, but I found two interesting articles people should read. I think the author puts forth something rather sensible.

How To Nuke The Porn Industry And Save The American Family

Pornography undermines the need for and trust in the family at nearly every level – marriage, parental relations, and dating.

dailycaller.com

Libertarians Are Wrong About Pornography. Don’t Let Them Control The Conversation

How people procure pornography, who can procure it, and what “average” pornography looks like has changed.

dailycaller.com