In pornography a "moral dilema"?

[1137]

Many people are claiming that pornography is / should be a huge moral issue in today's world. Personally, I think it is pretty straight forward: If you do not want to watch porn, do not watch it. If you do want to watch porn, watch it. We have both freedom of expression and free will, and one can do whatever they want as long as it isn't hurting others. Yet, people actually want porn to be illegal to make, watch, etc. While pornography is not my thing, I still feel that this is a scary concept, especially since so many people agree. Why should people who do not want to watch porn have ANY right to stop people from watching it? I fear that this is one of the many debates that shows how close America is coming to becoming a fascist nation.

Now, I heard two rebuttals:
1. Pornography is demeaning to women. Well, first off, I do not see how a woman being in porn is demeaning to women in general. Only the person making the choice should be tied to that choice. That woman chose to be in pornography, so obviously she feels differently about the situation. Just because you see a woman in a porn in no logical way means you should respect women less in general. And yes, I accept our world is not big on logic, or even intelligence.

2. Pornography is negatively influencing men to treat women more aggressively, or in other negative ways. Again, how is porn responsible for this? Influencing people to do something and forcing them to do it is a completely different story. These men are making an individual choice to treat women in different ways. Therefore, they are the problem, not pornography. And yes, I accept our world, especially with such heavy Christian influence, does not seem to believe in taking responsibility for one's actions. We love scapegoating.

Anyways, discuss.

 

[connermt]

Many people are claiming that pornography is / should be a huge moral issue in today's world. Personally, I think it is pretty straight forward: If you do not want to watch porn, do not watch it. If you do want to watch porn, watch it. We have both freedom of expression and free will, and one can do whatever they want as long as it isn't hurting others. Yet, people actually want porn to be illegal to make, watch, etc. While pornography is not my thing, I still feel that this is a scary concept, especially since so many people agree. Why should people who do not want to watch porn have ANY right to stop people from watching it? I fear that this is one of the many debates that shows how close America is coming to becoming a fascist nation.

Now, I heard two rebuttals:
1. Pornography is demeaning to women. Well, first off, I do not see how a woman being in porn is demeaning to women in general. Only the person making the choice should be tied to that choice. That woman chose to be in pornography, so obviously she feels differently about the situation. Just because you see a woman in a porn in no logical way means you should respect women less in general. And yes, I accept our world is not big on logic, or even intelligence.)

2. Pornography is negatively influencing men to treat women more aggressively, or in other negative ways. Again, how is porn responsible for this? Influencing people to do something and forcing them to do it is a completely different story. These men are making an individual choice to treat women in different ways. Therefore, they are the problem, not pornography. And yes, I accept our world, especially with such heavy Christian influence, does not seem to believe in taking responsibility for one's actions. We love scapegoating.

Anyways, discuss.

Porn is just an expression of our sexuality. Like most anything people can get their hands on, it can be harful if abused and not watched in the proper context.
Don't like it, don't watch it.
Like it, watch it.
Take care of yourself and your family and let everyone else do the same.
We should start minding our own business more than each other's.

 

[Quintessence]

I could comment on the other point as well, but I mainly want to comment on this one.

2. Pornography is negatively influencing men to treat women more aggressively, or in other negative ways. Again, how is porn responsible for this? Influencing people to do something and forcing them to do it is a completely different story.

Of course they're not the same. What I'm confused about is why you seem to believe that an influencing factor is somehow not responsible when it very clearly a causal variable. For example, if a study shows a statistical correlation between males who watch pornography and aggressive behavior - after accounting for confounding factors - it makes no sense to deny that pornography may influence (e.g. is responsible for) men to behave aggressively.

I've never understood our tendency to slap responsibility on individuals to exclusion of environmental variables that can be statistically proven to contribute to the situation. Maybe as a scientist, I just think too much like one all the time. If something can be proven statistically to be a causal variable, it is responsible. Not solely responsible, but responsible. Whether or not there should be legal responsibility is a much different question to me.

 

[Sunstone]

2. Pornography is negatively influencing men to treat women more aggressively, or in other negative ways.

Got any science on that? It seems that's a common assumption, but what little science I'v seen on the issue is at most inconclusive.

 

[A-bear]

For example, if a study shows a statistical correlation between males who watch pornography and aggressive behavior - after accounting for confounding factors - it makes no sense to deny that pornography may influence (e.g. is responsible for) men to behave aggressively.

Is there such a study? I can't tell if you're citing a hypothetical study that hasn't actually been conducted yet, or if a study of this sort was actually performed.

And how exactly do you experiment on this subject while "accounting for confounding factors?"

 

[Father Heathen]

Not all pornography is the same. If a loving couple videotaped themselves having sex, for example, how would that be degrading or objectifying women?

When it comes to strippers, porn stars, prostitutes, etc. as long as they're adults who've chosen their line of work by their own free will, then there should be no issue. Those who object to it don't have to view or partake in it.

 

[1137]

I could comment on the other point as well, but I mainly want to comment on this one.



Of course they're not the same. What I'm confused about is why you seem to believe that an influencing factor is somehow not responsible when it very clearly a causal variable. For example, if a study shows a statistical correlation between males who watch pornography and aggressive behavior - after accounting for confounding factors - it makes no sense to deny that pornography may influence (e.g. is responsible for) men to behave aggressively.

I've never understood our tendency to slap responsibility on individuals to exclusion of environmental variables that can be statistically proven to contribute to the situation. Maybe as a scientist, I just think too much like one all the time. If something can be proven statistically to be a causal variable, it is responsible. Not solely responsible, but responsible. Whether or not there should be legal responsibility is a much different question to me.

Influence and being responsible for is not the same thing. A person almost never has to do anything they choose not to do. If you treat women badly because that guy in the porn slapped her too, you are choosing to do it, the porn is not slapping your girl in the face. The girl in the porn allowed to have her face slapped. We are treating everything as individual because we are all individuals. If we start blaming the influences, there is absolutely no responsibility. Ever heard of the butterfly effect? Maybe a butterfly flapping it's wings a little faster in the another country caused a person to murder your loved one. That is hardly their fault!!! (See how ridiculous such an idea is??)

 

[Quintessence]

Is there such a study? I can't tell if you're citing a hypothetical study that hasn't actually been conducted yet, or if a study of this sort was actually performed.

And how exactly do you experiment on this subject while "accounting for confounding factors?"

There was a study in mind I was thinking of, but it was a few years ago that I came across it and I can't seem to find it again.

Sorry, I got a bit technical there. Whenever you do correlational studies in science, you need to account for variables that may be influencing or interfering with what you are measuring. Confounding factors obscure the true relationships that are going on between variables and can lead to mistaken conclusions. Confounding factors may be the "real culprit" so to speak when it comes to establishing relationships between things, especially when you gather up enough correlational studies to imply causation. For example, in order to say something like "being Christian increases the probability of being anti-abortion" you must control for other confounding variables such as cultural upbringing or socioeconomic status that may be responsible instead (or in addition to the claimed variable).

Doors, we're just going to have to agree to disagree because to me it is ludicrous to claim that influence doesn't equate to responsibility. It flies in the face of everything science stands for and is also just plain counterintuitive. Human behaviors are caused, and we're kidding ourselves if we think we have total "choice" or "control" in the matter. Regardless, I don't use the term "responsibility" in a way that implies the existence of free will anyway. Free will - particularly the contra-causal variety - is a dubious concept.

 

[1137]

Doors, we're just going to have to agree to disagree because to me it is ludicrous to claim that influence doesn't equate to responsibility. It flies in the face of everything science stands for and is also just plain counterintuitive. Human behaviors are caused, and we're kidding ourselves if we think we have total "choice" or "control" in the matter. Regardless, I don't use the term "responsibility" in a way that implies the existence of free will anyway. Free will - particularly the contra-causal variety - is a dubious concept.

Influence is a cause, yes. But we can make choices based on that influence. Even if someone pulls a gun on you and tells you to rob a bank, you can still refuse. You, personally, are choosing to rob the bank or be killed / taken hostage / whatever. Now, will that bank robber be held responsible for the influence? Yes, because it is quite forceful. Going into google, typing in a porn site, and going to it is not really pornography forcing you to watch it. How you act due to what you see is still your choice. I cannot even fathom how that is too complex to grasp. I fear a world where people like you have control and nobody is responsible for their actions, what a horrific existence that will be.

As much as I despise people running from logic and debate, it is your choice and I respect that. It really does not change my life in any way that you think you are a mindless slave to cause.

 

[Storm]

It's not so much a question of porn generally as the exploitative nature of the industry we have at the moment.

 

[1137]

It's not so much a question of porn generally as the exploitative nature of the industry we have at the moment.

Oh I most definitely agree. Porn is part of a much bigger issue. The values our world has today are disgusting in many cases. I would bet that many women in pornography are victims of this society themselves. Girls are taught they have to be skinny, sexual, etc and it is not helping anyone. The thing is, with porn itself it is a first amendment issue. With freedom of expression, pornography must be allowed to exist. However, perhaps if we fix the deeper problems there would be no need for it?

 

[Father Heathen]

It's not so much a question of porn generally as the exploitative nature of the industry we have at the moment.

Right. I think it's possible for porn to be tasteful, artistic and respectful.

 

[1137]

Right. I think it's possible for porn to be tasteful, artistic and respectful.

There's a line between art and pornography I think.

 

[Father Heathen]

There's a line between art and pornography I think.

How do you define that line?

 

[1137]

How do you define that line?

It's nothing specific. You can tell when sex is artistic vs pornographic. Watch the sex seen in Watchmen, then go to a porn site and watch a video. One is artistic, one is kind of gross (my subjective opinion!), and you wouldn't watch either with your grandparents... Even though I watched Watchmen with my grandparents....

 

[meogi]

Pornography is as much a moral dilemma as sex itself.

 

[Father Heathen]

Pornography is as much a moral dilemma as sex itself.

Right, porn is just sex on film. The perceived problems lie within attitudes and portrayals.

 

[Quintessence]

Influence is a cause, yes. But we can make choices based on that influence. Even if someone pulls a gun on you and tells you to rob a bank, you can still refuse. You, personally, are choosing to rob the bank or be killed / taken hostage / whatever. Now, will that bank robber be held responsible for the influence? Yes, because it is quite forceful. Going into google, typing in a porn site, and going to it is not really pornography forcing you to watch it. How you act due to what you see is still your choice. I cannot even fathom how that is too complex to grasp. I fear a world where people like you have control and nobody is responsible for their actions, what a horrific existence that will be.

As much as I despise people running from logic and debate, it is your choice and I respect that. It really does not change my life in any way that you think you are a mindless slave to cause.

It appears you're misconstruing or failing to understand what the position of determinism entails and implies given you can say things like "you think you're a mindless slave to a cause." A world that rejects contra-causal free will isn't nearly as terrible as you seem to think it would be. It's simply a different way of seeing and understanding and it is much more in accord with science than the supernatural notion of contra-causal free will. Just as you can't fathom how the "complexity" of free will is "beyond" my grasp, I can't fathom how the "complexity" of determinism is "beyond" yours. Since this is an aside from the main topic of the discussion, I'm not going to say much beyond this.

Also, be mindful of your own projections onto the situation. What's leading you to judgmentally assume that this poster is "running?" Perhaps the poster simply has had this same conversation before and isn't interested in putting forth the effort to have it again? In a word, I'd construe my response as more along the lines of sitting back and putting my hands behind my head in indifference, not getting out of my chair and running out of the room.

 

[CynthiaCypher]

It is dehumanizing.

 

[InformedIgnorance]

1. Pornography is demeaning to women.

Is it also demeaning to men since men are also often portrayed? What of other things, like modelling clothes or makeup? Or any other activity that any woman might be capable of doing? Personally I cannot see this as being valid since any activity could be seen as demeaning, for example being a house wife is considered demeaning both on the individual level and to the entire female gender by some of the women in my family, that does not mean that it is immoral.


2. Pornography is negatively influencing men to treat women more aggressively, or in other negative ways.

If true, this would suggest that pornography would be a useful treatment for men who act too passively towards women... I have not heard of it being used in this manner, so I would doubt its efficacy.