The Political Problem of Pornography

[Abhorsen]

That’s really stretching it.

Not really. Please note that this get's truer the further from center people get. I'm not saying that a normal, socially conservative christian is like a normal, left of center liberal (though those are becoming rare). Those are very different. But once you get further out, it becomes very similar.

But this:

I know this will sound callous, but I have little interest in the concerns, sentiments, feelings, or state of the prostitutes. They exist to serve a need, nothing else.

Is dehumanizing, as the poster is not caring for the prostitutes as people, but as an object with a use. And ultimately, some on the right just want the government to deal with this problem by banning it (spoilers/basic economics: that doesn't work). Similarly, we have people on the left who have long stopped considering Trump supporters as people, and hate them entirely. They do want government to come in and solve their problems as well. It's the same stupid idea, with different branding.

And there is a reason for this: they are both authoritarians at heart, regardless of what they say about their political beliefs. They think ordering people around is the solution.

 

[DarthOne]

Interesting that you didn't say the same thing to him over his "praying" remark, which is basically the same thing.



The details are different but the gist of it is the same. Porn is bad, women need more modesty et cetera. One is trying to force a broad category of prople people to do thing X against their will, the other is trying to force people to do Y against their will. Both are shit whose place is in some African shithole, not in civilized society.

Because he’s either sarcastically saying he’ll pray for your soul or he’s being genuine. Neither of which is equivalent to your comment in either humor or good will.

There’s a hell of a lot of a matter of degree between thinking ‘porn is harmful’ and ‘women’s sense of style has gone to heck’ and whatever the fuck is going on in the Middle East. That’s like equating criticism on Israel to the Holocaust.

And while I don’t remember exactly how far he’s willing to go with it*, I think that Western Society as a whole needs to take things down three or four notches.

* outside of his comment on prostitutes.

 

[Certified_Heterosexual]

Everything that goes against stone age Abrahamic tribal nonsense is "degenerate". "Degenerate" is just as much of a buzzword as "racist" and "fascist".

"Applying our theory to parents and children, this means that a parent does not have the right to aggress against his children, but also that the parent should not have a legal obligation to feed, clothe, or educate his children, since such obligations would entail positive acts coerced upon the parent and depriving the parent of his rights. The parent therefore may not murder or mutilate his child, and the law properly outlaws a parent from doing so. But the parent should have the legal right not to feed the child, i.e., to allow it to die. The law, therefore, may not properly compel the parent to feed a child or to keep it alive."

—Murray Rothbard, The Ethics of Liberty, Ch.14​

If you are a libertarian, any shit you wanna stir about other people's ideology is COMPLETELY INVALID.

 

[Abhorsen]

If you are a libertarian, any shit you wanna stir about other people's ideology is COMPLETELY INVALID.

This is whattaboutism: I have no response to this objection, so instead I will attack something random on the other side. Usually this is used by Soviets, so when we say the far left and far right are looking more and more similar the farther they go, this is a great example. Thanks for providing it.

Meanwhile, you still have offered no defense to 'degenerate' being a buzzword. Defenses can of course be made to this, I could even write one. But your attempt was one of the shittiest I have seen.

 

[LordsFire]

It used to, but now it doesn't. That's a sign of progress. Being gay and outed was the 'racist' of yesterday. Both are sudden and surprising, both can lead to sudden being ostracized from one's community and family, etc. Sometimes people could get through it, but frequently it would end them. It was a horrible thing. And worse, the cops were in on it. Going to a gay bar and getting caught wasn't going to end with you in prison, but with your name in the paper (the New York Vice Squad would do this all the time), publicly shaming you.

There's a world of difference between 'mass social shaming' and 'we are going to prevent you from even participating in the economy.'

Interesting that you didn't say the same thing to him over his "praying" remark, which is basically the same thing.

The details are different but the gist of it is the same. Porn is bad, women need more modesty et cetera. One is trying to force a broad category of prople people to do thing X against their will, the other is trying to force people to do Y against their will. Both are shit whose place is in some African shithole, not in civilized society.

There is absolutely a difference. While there are some fringe people on the right who want to try to force issues (I think 'name of love' actually holds this position), the majority of people on the right hold to something like the Non-Aggression Principle when it comes to use of government force. They'll try to persuade you not to do what they think is wrong (extra-marital sex, alcoholism, recreational drugs in general, porn, etc), but they won't try to outright ban it.

The fringe left on the other hand, is dragging the rest of the left along with it, and either proposing or implementing laws that make arguing against them illegal. They have already managed to get many powerful corporation and academic institutions to either willingly take part in or bend the knee to their ideology.

And this is with incomplete social power and authority. We know from their own words that the left wants to go further, and understanding of human psychology will make it clear that the path this leads, is more and more aggressive attempts to stamp out 'wrongthink' in the pursuit of utopian ideals.

Conservatism fundamentally recognizes that external forces cannot perfect man, that each struggles within him or herself with their darker and lighter sides. The role of government is to apply force when this struggle manifests in attacking others.

This is why I do not consider people like name of love to actually be conservatives. American Conservatism rejects political authoritarianism, and does so on the basis of Biblical Christian ideology. Any attempt to use force to make someone into a good person is doomed to failure. Force can stop people from being as bad as they would otherwise be, and thus fining people for petty offenses (shoplifting, minor assault, vandalism), and imprisoning them for major offenses (grand theft, aggravated assault, rape, murder) is appropriate.

I'll stop before I start trying to lay out the entirety of conservative ideology, and put it more succinctly:

If you think you can take control of every facet of someone's life to make them a better person, you are playing at being god, and doing something that not even God Himself actually does. That's wrong, and history shows that such attempts are doomed to failure besides.

That doesn't mean you can't tell someone what they're doing is wrong though. In fact, not calling evil out for what it is can be wrong in and of itself.

 

[Abhorsen]

There's a world of difference between 'mass social shaming' and 'we are going to prevent you from even participating in the economy.'

It's not just social shaming. People lost their jobs, lost their families, and then lost their lives because of being outed as a 'degenerate'. It was worse, you fortunately just never had to live through it. I've just read about it, and been thankful I didn't have to live it either.

 

[Certified_Heterosexual]

This is whattaboutism: I have no response to this objection, so instead I will attack something random on the other side.

It's not whataboutism; @GoldRanger was judging my ideology for being immoral, and I pointed out to him that libertarians have absolutely no standing from which to be throwing around claims of other people being immoral. I'm actually engaging with criticisms an entire meta-level higher than you are.

Meanwhile, you still have offered no defense to 'degenerate' being a buzzword.

That's because simply pointing out that something is a buzzword is not an argument against it; all you're doing is making an observation that it's common to hear.

 

[Abhorsen]

It's not whataboutism; @GoldRanger was judging my ideology for being immoral, and I pointed out to him that libertarians have absolutely no standing from which to be throwing around claims of other people being immoral. I'm actually engaging with criticisms an entire meta-level higher than you are.

That's... exactly what whattaboutism is? Thanks for admitting it? I'm glad we agree? I'd apologize for all the question marks, but I don't think you realize what you did.

Whataboutism's origins, for the record, were the US going: Gulags are evil, and the USSR going: but what about your lynchings?

The USSR, in such a scenario, still hadn't defeated the US's point about the Gulags (because they couldn't). So defend your position as moral, instead of calling others immoral. I won't even get to the point where you are citing an AnCap to talk about a libertarian, it's like citing a literalist who follows all of Leviticus to insult a Catholic. (Unless @GoldRanger is an AnCap).

 

[King Krávoka]

I know this will sound callous, but I have little interest in the concerns, sentiments, feelings, or state of the prostitutes. They exist to serve a need, nothing else.

Artificial Intelligences are people too, Rory.

 

[Senor Hortler]

Not really. Please note that this get's truer the further from center people get. I'm not saying that a normal, socially conservative christian is like a normal, left of center liberal (though those are becoming rare). Those are very different. But once you get further out, it becomes very similar.

But this:

Is dehumanizing, as the poster is not caring for the prostitutes as people, but as an object with a use. And ultimately, some on the right just want the government to deal with this problem by banning it (spoilers/basic economics: that doesn't work). Similarly, we have people on the left who have long stopped considering Trump supporters as people, and hate them entirely. They do want government to come in and solve their problems as well. It's the same stupid idea, with different branding.

And there is a reason for this: they are both authoritarians at heart, regardless of what they say about their political beliefs. They think ordering people around is the solution.

I really, really don't think the average woman is choosing to be a sex worker because she 'just totally loves fucking'; but because it's one of the few jobs out there that pays well, and is one she can legally do. Prostitution is disgusting; but so is sewer working, and bin collecting, and the being the person who scrapes chewing gum off of the floor. A prostitute is an immoral person, no different to the woman who gets an abortion, or a divorce. But these things are rarely (to the point of being never, but I say rarely to cover my ass for the one person that is pro baby murder) done out of malice.

Prostitution - if it cannot be eliminated entirely - should be regulated. Not to the point where you have avowed red light districts, but certainly to the point where it can be done without putting someones life in danger. The UK's laws on sex workers seem to be actively designed to encourage rippers (men who murder sex workers). A woman can be a sex worker in her own home, but cannot live with other sex workers, or operate a household with other sex workers in it. It has to be purely her. Meaning that it essentially illegalises women working together, as that would be running a brothel.

Sex workers need to be able to work together or they are easy prey for people that want to hurt them, rob them, or simply not pay them. I don't care about these women's feelings, or their financial safety, or even honestly their physical wellbeing. But they would be citizens of the state, and the state has a responsibility to them. If education has failed, and the economy is so fucked that they cannot get jobs, and they become prostitutes then they are doing it to survive. No person (generally speaking) in a comfortable, well adjusted life is going to go 'Man I really want to work out of a dingy apartment fucking ten strangers a day for cash!'. And if there are a few weirdo's who are into that, then laws are made with the majority in mind.

I fundamentally do not see prostitution as being the result of a healthy and robust education, economic and family system; anyone that goes through such a system and still chooses sex work should be protected from abuse by the rest of society as thee is something wrong with them, and if those systems are so bad that there is no other option but sex work then those women should be protected because of the states failure to do something so basic as to eliminate the need to fuck strangers to afford things.

EDIT: Weirdly I do agree with Germaine Greer of all people on the topic of sex work. It's very shrouded in the male fantasy of sex workers being so into sex that they'll make it there job, rather than it being a result of a shitty situation for the women.

This is whattaboutism: I have no response to this objection, so instead I will attack something random on the other side. Usually this is used by Soviets, so when we say the far left and far right are looking more and more similar the farther they go, this is a great example. Thanks for providing it.

I think he was more saying that since Libertarians offer little in terms of concrete morality beyond 'money' that their ability to criticize others on anything other than 'money' is invalid. Like an atheist trying to talk to a devout christian about the afterlife (to really fucking mangle an analogy). Which ... eehhhh; Libertarianism is a toothless mindset to my eye (I mean Molymeme got his entire worldview refuted by some youtube SJW hitting the 'ban button' and he's just whinging that he was a good boy that dindu nuffin despite a business simply deciding not to associate with him is totally fine.) but I don't think most Libertarians are the physical incarnation of the Monopoly man, and do have some moralistic grounding beyond 'muney'

 

[Deleted member 88]

LI is just a meanie. News at eleven.

Anyway-I’m referring to the social function of prostitutes. Protecting them from overly aggressive clients would fall to the state(i.e. the police).

Ideally men would focus on higher callings and either not have sex drives at all, or very disciplined ones within marriage.

Men are not like that though. And the male sex drive needs a healthy outlet and since not all men are married or can marry-prostitution satisfies that urge.

One thing prostitution has over porn is that the former is far more realistic. Porn gives a very false idea as to what sex looks like for most people, and what actually happens. Prostitution is messy, uncomfortable, awkward and real. Real women. Real men.

If men have to get their rocks off, it’s best they have a realistic outlet where human bodies aren’t ridiculous idealized constructs.

 

[Morphic Tide]

Men are not like that though. And the male sex drive needs a healthy outlet and since not all men are married or can marry-prostitution satisfies that urge.

What makes you so certain that pornography can't serve the same purpose? What makes you so certain that all wives are up to the task of satisfying the needs of their partner's sex drive? GoldRanger's life certainly seems to contradict your view, at the least.

 

[Senor Hortler]

LI is just a meanie. News at eleven.

Anyway-I’m referring to the social function of prostitutes.

Ideally men would focus on higher callings and either not have sex drives at all, or very disciplined ones within marriage.

Men are not like that though. And the male sex drive needs a healthy outlet and since not all men are married or can marry-prostitution satisfies that urge.

One thing prostitution has over porn is that the former is far more realistic. Porn gives a very false idea as to what sex looks like for most people, and what actually happens. Prostitution is messy, uncomfortable, awkward and real. Real women. Real men.

If men have to get their rocks off, it’s best they have a realistic outlet where human bodies aren’t ridiculous idealized constructs.

Do you not think that that rather abuses and devalues the women? And the men actually now that I think about it.

Openly consigning a whole collection of your population to being essentially disposable doesn't seem the healthiest of ways to deal with a sex drive. Sure not every man can marry, but doesn't mean that they cannot be productive members of the state; and while being a sex worker is distasteful; it doesn't render the women worthless as people. If the state had fulfilled it's function these women would have gone on to have healthy and productive lives. If they are defective then do you not think that the state has the duty to look after them even if they are engaging in sex work, and if the states systems are defective do you not think that these women are owed protection for the states failure?

 

[Deleted member 88]

We have to decide what we value more.

Women’s dignity or a man’s primal urges.

The one we choose to ignore-which has a worse effect on the health of society as a whole?

 

[Senor Hortler]

We have to decide what we value more.

Women’s dignity or a man’s primal urges.

The one we choose to ignore-which has a worse effect on the health of society as a whole?

I don't...see how those are mutually exclusive? You can protect women who are sex workers, and still allow men to sleep with them. Just don't let the men abuse them. A mans 'primal urge' is not to murder, or beat women. It is to love them. Sometimes that's purely physical, sometimes purely emotional, most of the time both.

 

[Certified_Heterosexual]

What makes you so certain that pornography can't serve the same purpose?

Because pornography is addictive, and has adverse effects on the brain and sexual habits. Prostitution is just like regular old promiscuity, just with money attached. It's far less dangerous than people training their brains and endocrine system to become used to a socially flattened simulacrum of real sex.

 

[King Krávoka]

A mans 'primal urge' is not to murder

It actually is.

 

[Senor Hortler]

It actually is.

Not his fucking partner! If you have a primal urge to murder your girlfriend then you're a sick fucker.

 

[Abhorsen]

[Prostitution stuff]

I come to a similar position, from a different POV. Basically, it is the prostitutes right to sell her body, if that is what she thinks is the best choice for her. I don't think it's a smart decision, but it is her decision, not mine. As for regulation, some light regulation, preferably done by the industry itself, would probably be wise, but only after the current version of the industry (which is heavy on sex slavery through pimps) is burned to the ground. I'd go for a license dependent on age verification and consistent STD checks. Too much regulation, and you just benefit the pimps instead of the people doing the work.

I think he was more saying that since Libertarians offer little in terms of concrete morality beyond 'money' that their ability to criticize others on anything other than 'money' is invalid. Like an atheist trying to talk to a devout christian about the afterlife (to really fucking mangle an analogy). Which ... eehhhh; Libertarianism is a toothless mindset to my eye (I mean Molymeme got his entire worldview refuted by some youtube SJW hitting the 'ban button' and he's just whinging that he was a good boy that dindu nuffin despite a business simply deciding not to associate with him is totally fine.) but I don't think most Libertarians are the physical incarnation of the Monopoly man, and do have some moralistic grounding beyond 'muney'

Our moralistic grounding is ultimately that one shouldn't do aggressive violence to another, also known as the Non-Aggression Principle. This has consequences, one that all state force is ultimately violence, so all laws are doing violence. One can justify a government on the grounds that it prevents a good deal more aggression than it causes (or through other justifications), but that would result in a small/limited government. Also, since theft is a form of aggression, it is also not allowed, and that results in capitalism. Ultimately, the money part is a consequence of libertarian morals, not a result.

In general, what this means is that libertarian morality is heavily focused on individual rights. It is a basic thing on which additional morality can be attached, as well. For example, a Christian libertarian would personally obey what they felt Christ Commands were, but might vote for things like gay marriage, even though it is sinful, because it is also wrong for the government to stop people from marrying.

 

[LordsFire]

Do you not think that that rather abuses and devalues the women? And the men actually now that I think about it.

Openly consigning a whole collection of your population to being essentially disposable doesn't seem the healthiest of ways to deal with a sex drive. Sure not every man can marry, but doesn't mean that they cannot be productive members of the state; and while being a sex worker is distasteful; it doesn't render the women worthless as people. If the state had fulfilled it's function these women would have gone on to have healthy and productive lives. If they are defective then do you not think that the state has the duty to look after them even if they are engaging in sex work, and if the states systems are defective do you not think that these women are owed protection for the states failure?

There are a number of Christian charities that help women get out of prostitution. Probably a number of secular ones too, though I'm less familiar with those.

The hierarchy of responsibility for helping people in hard circumstances goes something like this:

1. First, yourself. If you find a hardship, you do what you can to overcome it.
2. Your family. Siblings, parents, spouse, even children if they're old enough, should be helping you deal with the hardship.
3. Your friends. Sometimes friends can functionally be family, either way they should help you in hardship.
4. The community you are a part of. Ideally this would be your church, but it could be a hobby group, your coworkers in some rare occassions, etc.
5. Unrelated people who have chosen to actively look for those in need of help, and help them.

The state should not be involved on a systemic level, because the state uses force of arms to take money from citizens to do what it does. And once you've set a precedent of taking from one group to give to another, and the benefactors get to vote, you're in a system with profoundly perverse incentives.

I can see some edge cases. If I were a sheriff running a jail, I'd be fine with letting homeless people sleep in the lobby of the office, or empty cells in the county jail, if they genuinely lacked anywhere else to stay. The ability to do so would be dependent on them not wrecking the place though. I could see similar if I had a position of authority in running a courthouse, city hall, etc. But that's making good use of resources that already exist, not appropriating new ones for that purpose.

We have to decide what we value more.

Women’s dignity or a man’s primal urges.

The one we choose to ignore-which has a worse effect on the health of society as a whole?

These statements are somewhat ambiguous, and could have some profoundly negative meanings. I'd like you to clarify just what you mean here.

Because pornography is addictive, and has adverse effects on the brain and sexual habits. Prostitution is just like regular old promiscuity, just with money attached. It's far less dangerous than people training their brains and endocrine system to become used to a socially flattened simulacrum of real sex.

Both are destructive, and both can be addictive. There are few who pay for prostitution, who do not also make use of porn. There are far more who use porn who don't pay for prostitution.

Both have a host of negative consequences, many of them overlapping. I would very much say that prostitution is worse though, because it inherently directly harms two people, instead of one.

In general, what this means is that libertarian morality is heavily focused on individual rights. It is a basic thing on which additional morality can be attached, as well. For example, a Christian libertarian would personally obey what they felt Christ Commands were, but might vote for things like gay marriage, even though it is sinful, because it is also wrong for the government to stop people from marrying.

American Conservatism is inextricably intertwined with Libertarianism. American Conservatives are political libertarians, but socially less so.

And no, a Christian Libertarian would not vote for gay marriage. They'd vote for the government to have no involvement with marriage in the first place; voting for gay marriage would be to approve of a sinful practice.

It's similar to how the cake shop would sell homosexuals cakes, but they wouldn't sell them a wedding cake. That was a very fine example of Christian-based American Conservative principles in action.