... exploitation and coercion... It's their career choice, they're getting paid, and lots of people get satisfaction from it. — Sapientia

The pornography business is as exploitative as any unregulated, non-unionized, low-status work place is. Actors and other staff work long hours (get as much material on tape as is possible in as few days as possible). The pay is low on a per hour basis. Performers do not receive royalties, generally. It isn't a long-term career for performers, even if they want it to be, because producers want fresh faces (fresh bodies). An increasing volume of porn on the market depresses the value of any given production.

Physically, the work can be pretty tedious. Creating the appearance and illusion of sexual excitement is something of a strain. Men have difficulty maintaining erections over the course of a 12 hour day of sex scenes, women and men both get sore (depending on what sort of sex is being performed) and everybody gets tired and irritable after a while.

Most people do not elect pornography performance as one of their top 10 career choices. Many people accept this work because they don't have lots of better options, (and some people imagine that it will be exciting and serve as a gateway into 'real acting'; it usually isn't). A few people do manage to make a long-term career out of it, either as performers or by becoming producers.

Most pornography productions are unimaginative. People don't watch porn for interesting plots but a porn production can be more interesting or less interesting. But "interesting" usually involves more time, skill, and production expense, so don't expect to see much of it.

There are risks in sex work. Rough sex can produce injuries. Sexually transmitted diseases are always a risk which can be reduced or minimized, but not entirely eliminated.

@Bitter Crank, First of all, to clarify an ambiguity in that comment of mine which you've quoted, when I said "and lots of people get satisfaction from it", I had in mind the viewers more than the performers.

The pornography business is as exploitative as any unregulated, non-unionized, low-status work place is. — Bitter Crank

That's pretty much what I'd expect. The main gist of much of what I was saying is that the pornography business is much like other such businesses, and is not a special exception in this regard. There may well be exploitation in a sense, but not really in the sense that I had in mind, which is to say generally keeping within the confines of the law in that area.

Actors and other staff work long hours (get as much material on tape as is possible in as few days as possible). The pay is low on a per hour basis. Performers do not receive royalties, generally. It isn't a long-term career for performers, even if they want it to be, because producers want fresh faces (fresh bodies). An increasing volume of porn produced depresses the value of any given production.

Physically, the work can be pretty tedious. Creating the appearance and illusion of sexual excitement is something of a strain. Men have difficulty maintaining erections over the course of a 12 hour day of sex scenes, women and men both get sore (depending on what sort of sex is being performed) and everybody gets tired and irritable after a while.

Most people do not elect pornography performance as one of their top 10 career choices. Many people accept this work because they don't have lots of better options, (and some people imagine that it will be exciting and serve as a gateway into 'real acting'; it usually isn't). A few people do manage to make a long-term career out of it, either as performers or by becoming producers.

Most pornography productions are unimaginative. People don't watch porn for interesting plots but a porn production can be more interesting or less interesting. But "interesting" usually involves more time, skill, and production expense, so don't expect to see much of it.

There are risks in sex work. Rough sex can produce injuries. Sexually transmitted diseases are always a risk which can be reduced or minimized, but not entirely eliminated. — Bitter Crank

That's also pretty much what I'd expect it to be like.

How is this different from prostitution? — Noble Dust

The difference between prostitution, pornography, and dating-with-the-expectation-of-having-sex is plain.

In prostitution, a provider offers sex to a customer in exchange for cash.
In pornography, a producer hires two people to have sex with each other and share the experience with the world.
In dating-with-the-expectation-of-having-sex, one party pays for dinner, drinks, and a dance or two with the hope of having sex with the other party.

We could discuss marriage, too. The point is, people routinely exchange cash for sex, one way or another. The reason we do this is that sex has been commodified and people often commodify themselves. A person may be viewed, and view themselves, as a hot property. Access to the hot property is available for some kind of fee.

Commodity exchange is by no means the sum and substance of human sexuality, but it is one element that is often in play. We might not like this arrangement, but there it is, there it has been for quite some time.

I've never heard lust described in terms that would suggest there are some contexts in which it is acceptable — anonymous66

Of course, I don't know all of what you've heard in your life. While "lust" is often given a negative spin, "lusty" (having an abundance of lust) usually gets a more positive spin -- "lusty young man", a "lusty knight", and so on. In many sections of reality, men (at least, and sometimes women) are expected to have a keen interest in sex, and the adjective for that term is "lusty". There are even references in literature to "lusty maids".

Are we really concerned that we may be an enactor of one or more of the Seven Deadly Sins?

1 Lust
2 Gluttony
3 Greed
4 Sloth
5 Wrath
6 Envy
7 Pride

They are all equally deadly; why don't we have discussions here about envy, sloth and gluttony? There's certainly plenty of that going around.

We don't discuss these often or with much passion because "sin" has become a more generalized concept--still serious, for those who worry about sin, but not divided into 7 specialties. And large numbers of people just don't think in terms of "sin" the way they used to.

There is a concerted effort on the part of some feminists to redefine a lusty male interest in sex as dangers the church hadn't thought of. The "male gaze" and "the objectification, exploitation, and abuse" of women have replaced "lust". (I'm including "abuse" here because it's meaning has been weakened by over use. "Child abuse" still has somewhat clear meanings, but "abusing a woman sexually" could mean just about anything.)

...virtually all cocaine users are addicted on the first hit. — Noble Dust

I don't know where you got that from, but I'm pretty sure that that's simply not true and a big exaggeration. And I'm basing this is in part on my own experience of taking cocaine. I've only done it two or three times, and with years gone by in between.

Having just looked it up, so far, I've found only statements along the lines that some people can become addicted after a short period of use. Not that virtually all cocaine users are addicted on the first hit. And, based on a few things I've read, "addiction" might be the wrong word to use, since "while not regarded as physically addictive, cocaine can produce severe psychological dependence because of the strong cravings it produces". (This is from the results of googling the myths and facts about cocaine).

Whether inadvertently or otherwise, you seem to have stretched the truth.

What would you make of an argument like this one?: Porn is giving people the wrong idea. It suggests that all consensual sex is fine. What we need is porn with a different message. The message being: sex is great, but it's for married people (or just for people in committed relationships?) So, instead of creating porn w/ sex fantasies implying or outright promoting fornication and adultery, create a genre of porn with fantasies of people meeting other wonderful people that they respect and treasure, falling in love, getting married, then having great sex.
Sounds like a great way for profiteers to make some money and for them to do society a favor in the process. — anonymous66

What do I make of it? Laughable, outdated, sending the wrong message, and very limited appeal.

I think it is more likely the case that more relaxed social mores regarding sex drives the societal acceptance of porn than vice-versa. — Arkady

Can you think of a solution? — anonymous66

Non-applicable. Solutions are for problems.

While limiting one's concern to exploitation that is illegal is commonplace and understandable, it seems an unsatisfactory moral stance to me. It delegates the decision about what constitutes morally unacceptable exploitation to the relevant legal authorities, and law has only a loose correlation with ethics.

A parallel with the market for chocolate occurs to me. Until recently, most chocolate was produced from cocoa that was grown and harvested in poor countries under very exploitative conditions involving lots of child labour. That exploitation was mostly legal where it occurred.

In recent years there has been a strong global movement against this, the result of which is that an increasing amount of the chocolate produced is produced under much less exploitative conditions. There are certification schemes for Fair Trade chocolate that appear to be credible. At first, only niche suppliers produced Fair Trade chocolate but now the large players are seeing the need to start complying with these expectations. There is a long way to go but there has been real, tangible progress.

Maybe I'm easily amused but the idea of a Fair Trade Porn market, accompanied by a suitable certification scheme, appeals to me. The scheme could have dual criteria of (1) no significant exploitation of the people involved in production and (2) no portrayal of activity that encourages sexual violence or unfair use of power imbalance.

I wonder what the chances are of the US government sponsoring such a scheme.

Not exactly. "Lust" is usually a combination of maladaptive desire which treats others as your possessions and feelings or thoughts associated with them. Where people are attacked for "lusting," thoughts, feelings or even one's own body are attacked-- much in the way Jesus famously calls one to cut off parts of you which make one lust.

I suspect it's intended to be metaphorical in many instances, but the pull of denouncing immorality often sees to used against any thoughts or feelings associated with treating someone else as their possession. To many people to "lust," in a sexual context, means "to find someone sexually attractive" or "to want to have sex with them," rather than just thinking someone yours. In this instance, you are using a version of this definition of "lust," where it represents attraction or the desire to have sex, such that lusting has been unfairly marginalised.

Alas, it is also reductive because it sort of doesn't take the conflux of desire and objectification seriously. It sort of rehabilitates instances of objectification as mere desire, in it efforts to untangle the unjust prejudice towards desire.

We see this play out in the "It'll be fine" dismissal of criticisms of the porn industry, porn watching and even sexual behaviour. The interaction between two or more people is reduced to someone's desire. What's is it that's at stake when someone is watching porn? Only the viewers desire, or so you would have us believe. It's an objectifying way of dealing with the unjust prejudice against desire.

The expression and interactions (performing porn, watching porn of people, sexual behaviour) of people are reduced to nothing but a question of one person desire. No doubt it is effective in undoing the prejudice against desire, but it has the unfortunate effect of reducing our understanding of these exchanges to nothing more than an individual's desire.

The trouble with abuse is often doesn't happen in every case or maybe even most cases. It's makes it easy to sweep under the rug, especially when livelihoods or even companies would be put at risk.

If you're interested, two (sex positive, pro ethical porn) people I sort of know by the internet recently did a podcast on porn, with a discussion of some of the issues which can arise. It's doesn't go into a lot of specific depth, but it covers some of the issues (including the recent Kink. com scandal) which can occur and how that interacts with ethical porn consumption.

https://apptopcast.wordpress.com/2017/04/21/the-fourth-episode-of-2017-gets-nsfw-its-about-porn/ (NSFW).

Not exactly. "Lust" is usually... — TheWillowOfDarkness

Yes exactly. I know what "lust" usually means, and several dictionaries have already confirmed this. It's pointless to argue against a dictionary over what "lust" usually means. That's what dictionaries are for. I'll opt with dictionary over Willow.

We see this play out in the "It'll be fine" dismissal of criticisms of the porn industry, porn watching and even sexual behaviour. The interaction between two or more people is reduced to someone's desire. What's is it that's at stake when someone is watching porn? Only the viewers desire, or so you would have us believe. It's an objectifying way of dealing with the unjust prejudice against desire.

The expression and interactions (performing porn, watching porn of people, sexual behaviour) of people are reduced to nothing but a question of one person desire. No doubt it is effective in undoing the prejudice against desire, but it has the unfortunate effect of reducing our understanding of these exchanges to nothing more than an individual's desire. — TheWillowOfDarkness

Can you clearly spell out what you think the problem is? Because it isn't clear to me from passages such as the above. You just seem to be describing the activity of watching porn with the implication that this is somehow wrong, without actually explaining why it is supposedly wrong.

Do you think that watching porn should be something more than what it is? If we're talking about sex (as opposed to solo stuff) then it's two (or more) people (though possibly a person and an animal) fucking, whilst being filmed and/or photographed, for people to look at and presumably get off on, for money. Do you have some kind of romantic, high-minded notion that the "expression and interactions" of the performers ought to be recognised in some special way, respected, and cherished? Because if so, I think that that's rather silly, to be frank. There's a time and a place... and masturbating over porn ain't really it.

Just bandying around terms like "objectification" doesn't help. Why is this supposedly wrong? One has a sexual desire, one finds an object for that desire, masturbates, ejaculates, and the desire is satisfied. Where is the wrongness? In this context, I see none. Outside of this context, I can envisage it in certain situations. So, ultimately, it seems to me, this is about having the right attitude or mindset. It is about appropriateness. It is a people problem about personal responsibility, and porn is just being scapegoated, in much the same way that alcohol or videogames or rock music has been scapegoated.

While limiting one's concern to exploitation that is illegal is commonplace and understandable, it seems an unsatisfactory moral stance to me. It delegates the decision about what constitutes morally unacceptable exploitation to the relevant legal authorities, and law has only a loose correlation with ethics.

A parallel with the market for chocolate occurs to me. Until recently, most chocolate was produced from cocoa that was grown and harvested in poor countries under very exploitative conditions involving lots of child labour. That exploitation was mostly legal where it occurred.

In recent years there has been a strong global movement against this, the result of which is that an increasing amount of the chocolate produced is produced under much less exploitative conditions. There are certification schemes for Fair Trade chocolate that appear to be credible. At first, only niche suppliers produced Fair Trade chocolate but now the large players are seeing the need to start complying with these expectations. There is a long way to go but there has been real, tangible progress.

Maybe I'm easily amused but the idea of a Fair Trade Porn market, accompanied by a suitable certification scheme, appeals to me. The scheme could have dual criteria of (1) no significant exploitation of the people involved in production and (2) no portrayal of activity that encourages sexual violence or unfair use of power imbalance.

I wonder what the chances are of the US government sponsoring such a scheme. — andrewk

Yes, good point, and I agree with most of that. I acknowledge that what is legal and what is moral doesn't always overlap, and I accept that there have been - and still are - exploitative practices in business which should be reformed. The porn industry would be no exception in this regard, and I think that the model for reform, if required, should be along the lines of this "Fair Trade" idea. However, I disagree over the details of what that should consist in. The first point is fine (although "exploitation" would have to be thoroughly defined, and in the right way), but as for the second point, if such portrayals are permitted in films and videogames, then porn should be no exception. The second point is fine if it is only to be a standard for a certain kind of porn video which coexists alongside others without such a standard, but not as a universal standard.

Edit: Sorry, in hindsight, I think I overlooked a key word there: "encourages". Although there is some ambiguity there which could be problematic for my liberal political stance, in that I wouldn't want the baby to get thrown out with the bathwater, which I think it conceivably could be via an interpretation of implicit encouragement. There'd be the question of what constitutes encouragement. Coming up with legislation is complicated stuff.

On the other hand, lust just seems wrong. And taking acts so personal (the physical acts of sex) and making them public just seems wrong. — anonymous66

Neither seem at all wrong to me.

And doesn't the porn industry just promote the idea that people are merely a means to an end?

I don't think so, and certainly not any more than any business does, say, with respect to our interaction with the people who work at that business.

Is it possible that our attitudes towards sex and nudity just need to change? — anonymous66

In any event, I'd answer "Yes" to this, but in that I think we're still far too uptight and puritanical when it comes to sex and nudity, we're still far too focused on monogamy, and movements like SJWism are taking a turn for the worse in this, in that it, for example, tends to parse any focus on sex whatsoever as misogynist, sexist, etc.

And doesn't the porn industry just promote the idea that people are merely a means to an end? — anonymous66

I don't think so, and certainly not any more than any business does, say, with respect to our interaction with the people who work at that business. — Terrapin Station

Yes, I don't think so either. It doesn't promote any ideas about how people should be treated in general. Nor, typically, do videogames, for example. If you treat people badly or steal cars, then basically that's on you. Don't be a bad workman. Fiction is fiction, and not reality. And what you see in one context might not be appropriate in another.

as for the second point, if such portrayals are permitted in films and videogames, then porn should be no exception. — Sapientia

I agree. While I am generally very liberal, video games or other media items that encourage violence or socially harmful attitudes (eg to women or minorities), will be on my hit list if I ever attain any form of political influence.

However, having never played Grand Theft Auto or watched Game of Thrones, I have no idea whether they are really as bad as they sound.

I agree. While I am generally very liberal, video games or other media items that encourage violence or socially harmful attitudes (e.g. to women or minorities), will be on my hit list if I ever attain any form of political influence.

However, having never played Grand Theft Auto or watched Game of Thrones, I have no idea whether they are really as bad as they sound. — andrewk

Perhaps you've misinterpreted my comment. I am in favour of consistency, but in the opposite direction; by which I mean that, if anything, they should all be permitted, rather than banned. Don't get me wrong, I don't think that encouraging violence or socially harmful attitudes is a good thing, but I'd dispute that they do so (not explicitly, at least), or the extent to which they do so, and I'd dispute where the ultimate responsibility lies (with the consumer, rather than the producer).

I'm a fan of both Grand Theft Auto and Game of Thrones. Yes, they're probably as "bad" as people say, if by that you mean to refer to the kind of graphic content which some people may find shocking, vulgar, obscene or objectionable in some way. Those people should just not play those kinds of games or watch those kinds of series. They should not complain or wish to ruin it for the rest of us.

Yes, they're probably as "bad" as people say, if by that you mean to refer to the kind of graphic content which some people may find shocking, vulgar, obscene or objectionable in some way. — Sapientia

That's not what I mean by 'bad'. I mean if it encourages (eg by glamorising) harmful attitudes and actions (and looking back at my post, I believe that was perfectly clear). If it does then it's some of the people playing the game that are 'ruining it for the rest of us'. If it doesn't then I see no reason for anybody to object to people using them.

As I said, I have no knowledge of whether such things do encourage such attitudes and actions, as I have nothing to do with them.

You know that Isis has a terrorist GTA? I got far cry primal last night. Luckily there are no remaining mammoths.

We often want to control everything else, rather than ourselves.

[Porn] doesn't promote any ideas about how people should be treated in general. — Sapientia

I wonder. Performers of both genders frequently engage in acts which would have been regarded as degrading or inherently immoral not too long ago. Now the 'permissive society' has taken off all the taboos, these are now said to be matters of individual taste. But if women allow themselves to be degraded (I won't dwell on the specifics), isn't that in some way degrading to women in general? Doesn't it amount to a tacit or even explicit endorsements of acts of exhibitionism or sado-masochism or whatever it happens to be?

I notice that the nearest the we get to condemnation of any such acts is when the recipient or subject is hurt by it, or at any rate, hasn't consented to the behaviour. Then it's 'bad' because it's physically harmful, or done against consent, But no matter what the act, if all involved are willing participants, then there can't be anything wrong with whatever they do, as 'consent' is the sole criteria. Is that right?

I'll gib my two cents. Firstly, porn is fiction, not reality. Like movies, and video games. Except that instead of pretending to be shot, or solving a mystery, you're pretending to be sober, not a horrible racist, enjoying yourself with your spouse watching, and not in weird inhuman sideways poses, and are screaming from the cramps rather than orgasms.

I do think though, that women were generally barred from all means of real sovereignty, and means of self-support. Sex work was a means of doing that. Most marriages are of necessity for livelihood for women. Reminds of of Russell's remark about there probably being more unwanted sex in marriage than prostitution.

I think that further degrading people that have very little options for themselves (as if they all grew up dreaming of being sex workers), for marketing their literal, most valuable assets because, one, the market exists, and two, they have no obvious better options.

If there is a problem, it's will us all, not them.

Labels. Ideological prison? Or the only thing keeping people in Florida from drinking Windex? Discuss.

Firstly, porn is fiction, not reality. — Wosret

Yes. This is a critical fact: Porn is fiction, not reality. As fiction goes, porn is not the most problematic genre.

I do think though, that women were generally barred from all means of real sovereignty, and means of self-support. Sex work was a means of doing that. Most marriages are of necessity for livelihood for women. — Wosret

You are exaggerating. Granted, the average woman does not have exactly the same opportunities as the average man does, but women in the industrialized nations are generally able to achieve self support, and even sovereignty. Where marriage is a necessity is in providing adequate incomes on which to raise children. It takes two incomes from two adults, if the primary breadwinner is not earning a very substantial salary.

I think that further degrading people that have very little options for themselves (as if they all grew up dreaming of being sex workers), for marketing their literal, most valuable assets because, one, the market exists, and two, they have no obvious better options. — Wosret

Sex work is not a dream job. No kidding. Neither are a good share of the jobs people drag themselves to every day.

The labor of all men and all women has been commodified. Female sex workers are no more exploited than truck drivers, custodians, roofers, secretaries, sales clerks, and factory workers are exploited.

The fact is that many individuals--men, women, young people, old people, smart people, stupid people--all kinds, have difficulty taking care of themselves in times of economic recession or depression. People who live in areas of endemic poverty, under-employment, and few opportunities will suffer more than people who live in booming economic areas.

You are exaggerating. Granted, the average woman does not have exactly the same opportunities as the average man does, but women in the industrialized nations are generally able to achieve self support, and even sovereignty. Where marriage is a necessity is in providing adequate incomes on which to raise children. It takes two incomes from two adults, if the primary breadwinner is not earning a very substantial salary. — Bitter Crank

Modernity doesn't exist in a vacuum. History matters, and conditions the way people behave in the future regardless of further necessity. True in our individual lives, and our societies.

Sex work is not a dream job. No kidding. Neither are a good share of the jobs people drag themselves to every day.

The labor of all men and all women has been commodified. Female sex workers are no more exploited than truck drivers, custodians, roofers, secretaries, sales clerks, and factory workers are exploited.

The fact is that many individuals--men, women, young people, old people, smart people, stupid people--all kinds, have difficulty taking care of themselves in times of economic recession or depression. People who live in areas of endemic poverty, under-employment, and few opportunities will suffer more than people who live in booming economic areas. — Bitter Crank

The important thing isn't the drudgery, or the work per se, but the prestige. This is two fold. Firstly, the skill level. Anything that you can do that most people can't, is usually impressive, or not awful even if it's gross -- but just doing things that anyone can do, but just wouldn't... few respect that. Second is simply perception, if everyone thinks something is terrible, even if it isn't, and you know that you do it/are it, then you'll hide it, feel terrible, or simply stop listening to, or empathizing with others.

porn is fiction, not reality. — Wosret

I think it's reality for very many people nowadays, specially young adult males. They find it impossible to relate to actual women because of their conditioned responses.

Real relationships are hard and scary, real people require care, consideration and negotiation. Porn and masturbation don't. The anti-natalists will all get their way, or in the future we will all do it with virtual reality, like on demolition man.

When were men and women ever relating well? Although, at least they were relating...

Porn doesn't objectify. People objectify. — Sapientia

But people create porn; people objectify through porn. Porn is one of the most straightforward ways to objectify. When a person objectifies another person, they look past that person's individual humanity (their unique, unrepeatableness) and transform their experience of that person into an object of desire; there's a disposable aspect to objectification. On the other hand, a sexual experience that does not objectify any of the participants is one in which the individual humanity, the unique unrepeatablness of each person is upheld and intensified, rather than overlooked. Sex and individuality are profoundly linked, but porn, for instance, makes the sex act impersonal, and not individual. Porn focuses on the sex urge, and not the deeper meaning of what sex symbolizes. The normalization of pornography just leads to deeper social isolation and disconnect from the role sex plays in human intimacy. We live in a world where the carnal is separated from the intimate, because we live in a world of social isolation. That's the irony; true sex means deep individuation, but our society's focus on individuality leads to sexual objectification, not intimacy.

The problem is ultimately about those views themselves and the people who hold them, not with porn. The fact is, due to our nature, people are flawed; and, as a result, people will inevitably form flawed views. I'm all in favour of promoting views which avoid these kind of flaws, but blaming (in this case) porn itself is not, in my view, the right approach. — Sapientia

What exactly would be the mechanics of a porn viewer that does not objectify the actors and their sexuality? What's an example of healthy porn use, versus unhealthy use? It's not a question of whether one person is addicted and another is not, ultimately. The same principle of objectification underlies the very nature of what porn is, and the function it serves, regardless of how regular porn use is, whether it's compulsive, not compulsive, or whatever.

And if it is not so much that which is the problem, but rather the "consenting via monetary gain" aspect, then your problem isn't just with porn, but is with a huge and fundamental aspect of our society. That's just how society functions, and it isn't going to change any time soon. — Sapientia

Sure, in a way, this is the problem that I have with porn. Just because society may not change anytime soon, doesn't mean it's not worthwhile to rail against the depravity of the situation. If we all say "it won't change anytime soon", then it won't. If we all say "it needs to change", then it might. And I'd rather say what seems right, knowing nothing will change, then say what's easier to say, knowing that nothing will change. I'll gladly keep being a pain in everyone's ass on this topic; I'll gladly keep saying things that make you laugh out loud at how ridiculous you think they are.

That's not what I mean by 'bad'. I mean if it encourages (e.g. by glamorising) harmful attitudes and actions (and looking back at my post, I believe that was perfectly clear). — andrewk

That would come under "objectionable in some way", would it not? I wasn't clueless as to what you might've meant, I just thought that there was a good chance that it would relate to, or correspond with to some extent, the graphic content, in that you might think that this content does just what you describe above.

If it does then it's some of the people playing the game that are 'ruining it for the rest of us'. — andrewk

Can you give a concrete example, then, so we're not merely speaking hypothetically?

The bottom line is, it's a certain kind of person that's the problem, not a videogame. You shouldn't go around banning stuff because of a group of idiots. That's just scapegoating. If there's an explicit message that, e.g. people should go out and steal cars, then the game should be banned. But that's never the case, and it comes down to a matter of interpretation, or rather misinterpretation.

As I said, I have no knowledge of whether such things do encourage such attitudes and actions, as I have nothing to do with them. — andrewk

Then this is quite pointless, in the same kind of way that it's quite pointless to discuss how many angels can dance on the head of a pin. For all you know, there could be nothing relevant to what we've been discussing that actually does what you'd object to.

We often want to control everything else, rather than ourselves. — Wosret

Indeed.

I wonder. Performers of both genders frequently engage in acts which would have been regarded as degrading or inherently immoral not too long ago. Now the 'permissive society' has taken off all the taboos, these are now said to be matters of individual taste. But if women allow themselves to be degraded (I won't dwell on the specifics), isn't that in some way degrading to women in general? Doesn't it amount to a tacit or even explicit endorsements of acts of exhibitionism or sado-masochism or whatever it happens to be? — Wayfarer

Whether it's degrading or not is arguable and to some extent a matter of interpretation. And, of course, just because it was considered as such in the past, that doesn't mean that it is.

I don't think that anyone who engages in those kind of acts in porn which some find to be degrading are so for people in general. (And this is a general issue, about porn actors, rather than specifically about women; although I accept that it may be the case it is an issue in which women are predominantly effected). That's because the context and specificities related to this act are important and should not be ignored. There's a certain sort of fiction involved in porn productions and a sort of implicit understanding or "disclaimer" that this is not real life, but a performance involving actors. Just because someone else performs an act which might be seen by some as degrading, that says nothing about me as an individual or about those of my gender. That would just fall into the category of possible interpretation - something which is read into it.

I notice that the nearest the we get to condemnation of any such acts is when the recipient or subject is hurt by it, or at any rate, hasn't consented to the behaviour. Then it's 'bad' because it's physically harmful, or done against consent, But no matter what the act, if all involved are willing participants, then there can't be anything wrong with whatever they do, as 'consent' is the sole criteria. Is that right? — Wayfarer

Well, no, consent isn't the sole criteria. You yourself just mentioned another important thing to consider in that very same paragraph: harm. Minimally, one should act within the law, for that reason as well as others. But I'll tell you what isn't a criteria: mere disapproval. If that were a criteria in the legal system, then virtually everything would be banned.

Romantic acts reinterpreted: