Is Porn Inherently Degrading?

[Functionless]

I don't think porn is inherently degrading. People make it degrading. It is possible to make porn that celebrates sexuality as something beautiful and sacred.

Porn can degrade men and women equally, but it usually just degrades women.

 

[UnTheist]

I agree with the others. Porn cannot be 'inherently' degrading. It's how you view it.

 

[horizon_mj1]

Yes in my opinion porn is inherently degrading. Sex between two partners is meant to private and sacred, a beautiful moment in time, not something to be viewed by other people.

 

[ranjana]

sex between two partners is meant to be erotic and respectful... so what if those two people are voyeurs or exhibitionists, they should do what pleases them and turns them on, (as long as it is lawful!!)

 

[horizon_mj1]

Good point.

 

[Sententia]

What about those of us that aren't ashamed of watching it? Are we still wretched souls and is it still degrading to us?

Personally, I don't think it's inherently degrading at all, if it were, simply because of SOME of the language they use in SOME of the films, then we'd be able to say every movie ever made is degrading.

Besides, just because some people don't like being called a b***ch and a whore while having sex, doesn't mean everyone feels that way. Some women like to have soft, calm, "love-making". Some women like to get slapped around and choked while they're going at it. Are they degraded when it's something they want, something that turns them on?

Also, my own question: If porn IS inherently degrading, are you degraded if you make your own amateur porn flick?

Agreed. Great post. It is quite hard for many to see the bigger picture. They have an idea of what something is and because of the limits and repressive nature of society dont often have good outlets to discuss their beliefs. Some other people like to take their ideas of what something is, interpret it and impose their perceptions and interpretation onto others.

Its always uplifting to see people analyzing and exploring a subject rather then just passing summary judgement.

 

[PureX]

I agree with the others. Porn cannot be 'inherently' degrading. It's how you view it.

One can view violence as a turn-on, but it's still violence. One can view humiliation as a turn-on, but it's still humiliation. The definition of it doesn't change just because we happen to be turned on by it. The question here isn't is porn good or bad, or is porn a turn-on, the question is, is porn inherently degrading (exploitive). I believe that pornography is defined by it's exploitive and degrading characteristics. It's these that set it apart from "erotic art" or any other kind of nude photography. So it is inherently degrading. But that doesn't mean people will not still find it titillating.

 

[madhatter85]

If yhou have ever seen a clip of "My Bare Lady" wich is a reality TV show where they take porn stars and try to turn them into real actresses, you will see exactly the kind of influence pornography has on the brain.

Pronography is a poin, it is addictive and designed to tear the family apart. the husbnad that spends his time ignoring his wife, staying up to download, watch, and do other things with pornography is discracing himself and disrespecting his marriage vows.

The young kid who becomes obsessed with pornography will end up one day not being able to sustain a meaningful relationship, and expect women to do certain things when becoming intimate.

Yes, pornography is inherently degrading andi can not stress to you the importance of staying away from it and educating your children on the dangers of it. despite how widely accepted it is in society. Smoking, drinking, gambling, and adultery, are all acceptable things in society today and they completely destory families as well.

 

[doppelganger]

What does it mean for something to be "exploitative"?

Is selling my physical labor for money being exploited? Can it be, sometimes? If so, when?

 

[darkendless]

If yhou have ever seen a clip of "My Bare Lady" wich is a reality TV show where they take porn stars and try to turn them into real actresses, you will see exactly the kind of influence pornography has on the brain.

Pronography is a poin, it is addictive and designed to tear the family apart. the husbnad that spends his time ignoring his wife, staying up to download, watch, and do other things with pornography is discracing himself and disrespecting his marriage vows.

The young kid who becomes obsessed with pornography will end up one day not being able to sustain a meaningful relationship, and expect women to do certain things when becoming intimate.

Yes, pornography is inherently degrading andi can not stress to you the importance of staying away from it and educating your children on the dangers of it. despite how widely accepted it is in society. Smoking, drinking, gambling, and adultery, are all acceptable things in society today and they completely destory families as well.

You base this all on what exactly? A few examples you see on TV of playboy bimbos prancing around?
Porn has nothing to do with meaningful relationships.

Things are acceptable in society because they're not that bad. Some people though cannot accept that and do their best to make the rest of us feel guilty for their prudish and unfounded behaviour.

 

[PureX]

What does it mean for something to be "exploitative"?

Is selling my physical labor for money being exploited? Can it be, sometimes? If so, when?

I would say that exploiting someone is taking advantage of their circumstances for your own benefit, and to their harm.

 

[Magic Man]

One can view violence as a turn-on, but it's still violence. One can view humiliation as a turn-on, but it's still humiliation. The definition of it doesn't change just because we happen to be turned on by it. The question here isn't is porn good or bad, or is porn a turn-on, the question is, is porn inherently degrading (exploitive). I believe that pornography is defined by it's exploitive and degrading characteristics. It's these that set it apart from "erotic art" or any other kind of nude photography. So it is inherently degrading. But that doesn't mean people will not still find it titillating.

Humiliation is only humiliation if the person is humiliated. I don't see the necessary connection between being exploitative and being degrading. As Dopp just said, and I've said before, couldn't you consider pro wrestling exploitative? Couldn't you consider any job exploitative? I'm being exploited for my desire to make money.

 

[Magic Man]

I would say that exploiting someone is taking advantage of their circumstances for your own benefit, and to their harm.

OK, so my having to sit at work 9 hours a day is harming me and they are taking advantage of my need for money. So, is my job degrading? (I work in an office setting.)

 

[PureX]

Humiliation is only humiliation if the person is humiliated. I don't see the necessary connection between being exploitative and being degrading. As Dopp just said, and I've said before, couldn't you consider pro wrestling exploitative? Couldn't you consider any job exploitative? I'm being exploited for my desire to make money.

You're looking for a 'one-size-fits-all' rule, here, and it's not going to work that way. Yet I'm sure that with just a moment's thought, you could come up with just as many scenarios that are clearly exploitative as those you present as not being so. And I'm sure you could easily imagine or recall instances in which people did not believe they were being exploited, when they clearly were in fact being exploited. So awareness is not a defining factor.

Let's try and be reasonable as we look for a proper criteria, here.

 

[doppelganger]

I would say that exploiting someone is taking advantage of their circumstances for your own benefit, and to their harm.

So it has three elements: (1) taking advantage of circumstances; (2) benefit for one; (3) harm to the other.

I'd like to start with what it means to "take advantage."

It seems to me that what constitutes "taking advantage" is that the person being harmed is acting in a way that they would otherwise not because of limitations particular to them - whether by material limitations such as lack of money and material resources (food, water, shelter), or physical limits; by mental limitations, such as mental incapacity, lack of education/skill/training, or by addictions; by social limitations - youth, sex, other sorts of discrimination - and that some "taking advantage" can encapsulate all three - material, mental and social and a synergy between them.

Agreed?

 

[PureX]

So it has three elements: (1) taking advantage of circumstances; (2) benefit for one; (3) harm to the other.

I'd like to start with what it means to "take advantage."

It seems to me that what constitutes "taking advantage" is that the person being harmed is acting in a way that they would otherwise not because of limitations particular to them - whether by material limitations such as lack of money and material resources (food, water, shelter), or physical limits; by mental limitations, such as mental incapacity, lack of education/skill/training, or by addictions; by social limitations - youth, sex, other sorts of discrimination - and that some "taking advantage" can encapsulate all three - material, mental and social and a synergy between them.

Agreed?

Perhaps instead of saying that one is "taking advantage" of someone else, it would make more sense to say that they are abusing an advantage that already exists.

 

[doppelganger]

Perhaps instead of saying that one is "taking advantage" of someone else, it would make more sense to say that they are abusing an advantage that already exists.

Okay, but you would agree with the above description regardless of what phrase we use, right?

Now can "harm" in a transaction be considered in a vacuum, or is the harm in the context of having an advantage abused a function of the difference in what I am getting out of the transaction and what I would get were there no abuse of the advantage? Put another way, is "harm" be measured by what I can get under the circumstances in which I find myself, or should it be considered by comparing it to opportunities that, because of my circumstances, are not available to me?

 

[Magic Man]

You're looking for a 'one-size-fits-all' rule, here, and it's not going to work that way. Yet I'm sure that with just a moment's thought, you could come up with just as many scenarios that are clearly exploitative as those you present as not being so. And I'm sure you could easily imagine or recall instances in which people did not believe they were being exploited, when they clearly were in fact being exploited. So awareness is not a defining factor.

Let's try and be reasonable as we look for a proper criteria, here.

No, I'm not looking for a one-size-fits-all rule. I'm looking for a reason that in one instance a certain action is acceptable and in another, it's not. I'm looking for you to explain why exploitation in one case equals degradation, but not in another case. you make the case that porn is exploitative and so it is necessarily degrading. I give another example of exploitation that is clearly not degrading, and ask why in this particular case, exploitation does not equal degradation.

 

[PureX]

No, I'm not looking for a one-size-fits-all rule. I'm looking for a reason that in one instance a certain action is acceptable and in another, it's not. I'm looking for you to explain why exploitation in one case equals degradation, but not in another case. you make the case that porn is exploitative and so it is necessarily degrading. I give another example of exploitation that is clearly not degrading, and ask why in this particular case, exploitation does not equal degradation.

The answer is because it doesn't. Some things degrade us, and some things don't. Why? Because we are the way we are.

If I get you to agree to strip naked in public, and urinate on yourself for money, you will be degrading yourself regardless of whether or not you got paid, and regardless of whether or not you felt the degradation. And I would be exploiting you whether or not you realized it. I can take pictures of this activity and sell them for money, but the money changes nothing. The people who buy those pictures may not feel as though you were degraded, either, because they routinely do these things to each other, but that still changes nothing. The fact would remain that you had humiliated yourself for money, and most people will be able recognize this instantly. Those who don't very likely have some illness that causes them to deny or ignore the exploitive and humiliating aspects of such an activity. THEY are the anomaly. And they are also proof of the damage done by such activities as pornography. The fact that they may be unaware of that damage does not mitigate that the damage exists.

 

[PureX]

Okay, but you would agree with the above description regardless of what phrase we use, right?

Now can "harm" in a transaction be considered in a vacuum, or is the harm in the context of having an advantage abused a function of the difference in what I am getting out of the transaction and what I would get were there no abuse of the advantage? Put another way, is "harm" be measured by what I can get under the circumstances in which I find myself, or should it be considered by comparing it to opportunities that, because of my circumstances, are not available to me?

The harm is measured by who you were before the exploitation, and who you are after. Who is doing the measuring, is relative.