That's not what I mean by 'bad'. I mean if it encourages (eg by glamorising) harmful attitudes and actions — andrewk

I think it's ridiculous to say that actions in games in any way translate to real life, or that games in any way "encourage" anything outside of playing the game.

I think it's ridiculous to say that actions in games in any way translate to real life, or that games in any way "encourage" anything outside of playing the game. — Terrapin Station

Yes, I think this is at least generally true, and here is the theory behind it:

At various times we occupy different compartments of life activities. These compartments are separated by "membranes" or doorways through which we can step, but which can be quite opaque to ourselves and others, depending on how we manage them.

Playing a game is a compartment which has rules and regulations. A classroom is another compartment which has rules and regulations. Our bedroom is a third compartment. A cubicle at work is a fourth compartment... and so on. We occupy many compartments, each with its own rules and regulations.

It is easy to move from compartment to compartment. Sometimes we take nothing with us from one compartment to another, and sometimes we take quite a bit. People leave the "work compartment" where they have had a bad day and enter their home compartment with a large load of the days aggravations in a bag, which are generously shared with anyone available.

Watching pornography on the internet in the home office is one compartment; a bed in which a spouse is lying is another compartment. One could bring the minimal rules and regulations of pornography-watching to bed, but chances are against this happening. Home, bed, and spouse have well established and practiced rules and roles.

I don't disagree with that, really, but I'd simply say that we don't need a "theory" of it. People are simply not going to confuse videogames with things that aren't videogames. (Well, not unless there's something seriously wrong with them.)

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. — Noble Dust

Frankly, I find that kind of talk to be nonsense, and reflective of a kind of naive, intellectual idealism. I don't have much of a fondness for such flowery and opaque language. Looking past a person's individual humanity, their unique unrepeatableness, the deeper meaning of what sex symbolizes, profoundness, intimacy, deep individuation, objectification... We're talking about masturbating over porn here, and that is hardly the time or the place for deep reflections and bleeding hearts. What exactly do you expect of people? People should not masturbate over porn because of your personal and highly particular views on the matter? Or they should do so only if they do so whilst contemplating individuality and what it means to be human? It's like you either misunderstand the purpose of porn, and of watching porn, or you want it to be something that it is not, and would make little sense to be. You seem to be comparing it to some pecuilar philosophical ideals you've picked up from somewhere, but I think that the comparison itself is inappropriate. These ideals would be more understandable outside of this context. Within it, it just seems bizarre and out of place. Behind the cover of such talk, what's left? What are you really saying? Can't you put it more plainly?

I think you're wrong to claim that the normalization of pornography just leads to deeper social isolation and disconnect from the role sex plays in human intimacy. That is likely true of some cases, but is not representative of all. It is entirely possible for porn to be treated as something normal without sliding down this slippery slope of "deep social isolation" and "disconnect" from "human intimacy". That's a load of nonsense. You're conjuring up this artificial link between the two to bolster your own feelings that sex should be something "special" and "uncorrupted", and to make yourself feel better by painting a picture where you're more "caring", "connected", and in tune with some kind of "deeper meaning". But this is just an arrogant pretence.

Another criticism I have is that - and this is especially clear near the end of the paragraph quoted above - you are guilty of the No True Scotsman fallacy.

What exactly would be the mechanics of a porn viewer that does not objectify the actors and their sexuality? — Noble Dust

What does it even mean to objectify the actors and their sexuality? If you can give me a clear answer, then I might be able to answer your question.

What's an example of healthy porn use, versus unhealthy use? — Noble Dust

One way of distinguishing the former from the latter is in terms of excessiveness. It would be unhealthy to watch porn for hours on end, day after day. That's common sense.

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. — Noble Dust

It's not a question of addiction of at all, if we're to maintain the generality of this topic. There are vast swathes of people who aren't addicted to porn. The average watcher of porn is not an addict.

As for this principle of objectification, specifically with regards to the innocuous context of someone simply watching porn, then it doesn't mean that much to me. If you want to discuss real issues, like how people ought to be treated, then that'd be a different story.

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. — Noble Dust

But, if you're still talking about what I was talking about, which was finding the "consenting via monetary gain" aspect objectionable, then that's not a problem specific to porn. So why make it all about porn? That's not really a problem you have with porn, but a problem you have with the basic economic structure of society; and it applies not just to porn, but to employments too varied and numerous to list.

There's a kind of sex that's wild and intense. The characters on the scene are cosmic. It's fun times at the temple of the Mood God. And there's a place for that.

There's another kind of sex that's very personal. It's tender because the most vulnerable parts are unveiled: not genitals, but hearts.

May everyone have both kinds at some time or other along the byways to nowhere.

I think it's ridiculous to say that actions in games in any way translate to real life, or that games in any way "encourage" anything outside of playing the game. — Terrapin Station

(Y)

Playing a game is a compartment which has rules and regulations. A classroom is another compartment which has rules and regulations. Our bedroom is a third compartment. A cubicle at work is a fourth compartment... and so on. We occupy many compartments, each with its own rules and regulations. — Bitter Crank

Exactly. It's about context and appropriateness. Some people here seem to want to blur the boundaries. The simple act of watching porn says nothing about how sociable or intimate one is. It says nothing about your view of how people should be treated in general. It's a highly specific and isolated context, and it is misguided to read too much into it.

Agree with Noble Dust

You don’t recognise sex and porn are always about other people.

Other people are actually what we think of first in any instance of pornography or sex— “Their hot.” “I’d like to fuck them.” "Watching them have sex gets me off so well.”

The idea sex or pornography is about some abstraction of individual desire, like just “getting off” or “pure physical pleasure” is a myth. In any instance, sex or pornography means means interacting with another person and their expression. Even the purest “physical,” no stings-attached, act of sex or consumption of pornography is about someone else.

It’s the defining difference between solo masturbation and either sex and pornography. People prefer sex or pornography becasue it’s about other people. Many people prefer to access the bodies and/or expressions of others, whether in a sexual relationship (sex) or pornography (entertainment).

In either sex or pornography, we are making use of someone’s “private” body and expressions. We can only do because they found it worthwhile to give us such access (unless it abuse and rape). To consider sex or pornography as only getting off to a passive object is to entirely misunderstand what’s happening. It’s to pretend other people are not involved— a foundation for abuse to occur or be ignored.

You scoff at the notion of recognising watching porn to be about anything more than getting off to an object, but it is exactly the right time for “high-minded” concerns like the fact someone is a person rather than a object. At what point could it be any more important to recognise another person is at stake than sex or pornography? How are we meant to recognise someone’s sexual expression, and it’s limits, if we don’t even recognise they are a person involved in the interaction?

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. — Sapientia

It's entirely wrong because it utterly misunderstands what's involved with sex or pornography. Instead realising they are about other people, it forms a myth that sexual arousal (by others) and desire is only about you and getting what you want.

The myth runs so fucking deep that many people can't even think of sex, pornography or even relationships in any other way except getting an object. You see this a lot in complaints that concerns about objectification are somehow attacking sex or sexual desire (which you are more or less suggesting here).

To recognise, for example, that porn involves other people acting to provide you entertainment, by choice to do something they consider worthwhile, is meant to be some plot to undermine sexual desire, all because it dares to point out porn is about more than oneself and getting their satisfaction.

Something that I think should be mentioned is the Sexual Revolution which unfolded during the last 100 years, culminating in the 1960's.

A lot of people seem rather nonplussed by the term 'sexual revolution', and indeed it is not very well recognised or understood any more - it's hardly discussed. You can read volumes on what it was, but the upshot is that what is regarded as normal or normative standards for sexual behaviour underwent radical changes as a consequence (which is pretty much what the Wikipedia entry on it says). But now it's the new normal, and questioning the new normal is now itself regarded as strange or threatening. It's normal, right?

It is true, of course, that such topics are the focus of comment and controversy by many conservative commentators. Indeed to even discuss it, is nowadays to be categorised as 'conservative', regardless of one's views on other matters of social policy (such as education, taxation, public health, and so on.)

Anyway, in this context, note the majority view - I think it is the majority view - is that porn is normal and very much a matter of individual choice. There's nothing wrong with it, unless it involves minors, illegal acts, or force. Even violent pornography is OK, if the participants are willing. What is wrong, is the belief that it is immoral - because that is said to suggest censorship, which is interference with freedom of choice, and also 'judgementalism' which is one of the very worst kinds of attitudes anyone can be accused of in a liberal culture. ('Stone him!')

I agree that people are free to do what they like, provided nobody is injured and nothing stolen or destroyed. That is after all the meaning of freedom in liberal culture. But that doesn't justify the complete abandonment of sexual morality, which is pretty well what porn signifies. However it seems my attitude must have been shaped in an earlier age. So I know what I say about it will generally be regarded as out-dated and embarrassingly mistaken - so I won't spend a lot more time debating it. Just wanted to get that point out in the open.

A lot of the conflict, I think, has to do with the change of the significance of sex. Humans haven't really all changed that much in what they want out of sex in their personal lives.

The big difference is sex is accepted as recreation and/or entertainment, rather than being an activity only for married people. In a lot of cases, people seem to react more to this aspect ("Look at how the demand themselves by having casual sex and appearing in porn!" ) rather than abusive behaviour itself.

It's a bit like the objectification I just took Sapientia to task for, only instead of objectifying people for one's pleasure, it does it for the purity of society. I mean it has it's own position ("Follow this rule: only have sex and talk about sex within the context of your life long relationship. Anything else is demeaning" ), but it doesn't leave a lot to discuss with respect to people, sex, pornography and harm.

Something that I think should be mentioned is the Sexual Revolution which unfolded during the last 100 years, culminating in the 1960's. — Wayfarer

Could you expand on this a bit more. Are you dating the sexual revolution from 1870 to 1970? Norms of sexual behavior wasn't static during this period, turning both less and more restrictive at different times, but I am surprised that you term the whole 100 years as part of the "sexual revolution".

At least in the United States (the region I am most familiar with), what we call the sexual revolution was probably begun in the late 1940s, early 1950s. Beatniks, bohemians, and homosexuals were one part; young heterosexual adults were another part. The 1950s are only represented as the "Leave it to Beaver" high point of the nuclear family.

The largest changes in sexual behavior ("the" sexual revolution) resulted from the introduction of the reliable daily birth control pill. The Pill freed women from the fear and risk of pregnancy. The short-lived counterculture of the 1960s was a combo effect of the sunny economy, the baby boom, low tuition costs for college, and easy geographical mobility. The sexual revolution continued into the 1970s with the legalization of abortion and gay liberation movements.

Pornography was redefined by the courts in the 1960s as a legal product that could be sold through normal business channels.

By 1980, "the revolution" was over. Sex won.

Well, the Wikipedia article says that the main two waves of the Sexual Revolution were the 1920's and then the 60's, but the term itself hails from the 1960's, and I think that is the pivotal time. You may recall the musical, Aquarius, which equated 'liberation' with sex, hence, 'sexually liberated'.

But I think the groundwork was laid much earlier. 'If God is dead, everything is permissible' was one major factor. Insofar as the sexual act was previously only to take place within the confines of 'holy matrimony', then the 'death of God' removes that foundation, at least as far as the secular state is concerned.

Another was Sigmund Freud. His theory of libido and repression was, I think, hugely influential on culture - much more so in the long run than his actual therapy, which has more or less died out. But in the public mind, Freud equated sexual repression with hysteria and neurosis, and also depicted libido as the very life-force, the expression of which was practically a 'summum bonum' in Freud's materialistic and atheist view of the world.

So the Victorian attitude that sex was dirty was not only discarded, but practically turned inside out; sexuality was something to be celebrated, flaunted, and even constitutionally protected. And once the nexus between sexuality and procreation was removed by the availability of contraception, then of course this resulted in the widespread attitude of the secular West that we see today.

And, here we are.

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

If no one is forced, or coerced and no one feels that they are being harmed in any way, then what could be the problem?

But I think the groundwork was laid much earlier. 'If God is dead, everything is permissible' was one major factor. Insofar as the sexual act was previously only to take place within the confines of 'holy matrimony', then the 'death of God' removes that foundation, at least as far as the secular state is concerned. — Wayfarer

But you don't believe in the kind of personal God who would be concerned about the specific issue of what people do in or out of matrimony, do you?

sexuality was something to be celebrated — Wayfarer

I don't understand why exactly you think sexuality is not something to be celebrated.

So I know what I say about it will generally be regarded as out-dated and embarrassingly mistaken - so I won't spend a lot more time debating it. Just wanted to get that point out in the open. — Wayfarer

I don't think that what you say will be "embarrassingly mistaken" unless you fail to provide a plausibly justifiable argument to support it; one that doesn't involve belief in doing the will of a personal God. I say this because its hard to see what alternative to positing such a wilful personal God who deliberately created us and will punish us for transgressions against His will could justify your stated attitude to what you see as the moral wrongness of sexual permissiveness (and judging by what I know of your beliefs as expressed in your previous posts, I believe you do not posit such a God).

Deleted due to duplication.

Isn't his concern more about people only caring for experiences of the world?

Most of the time Wayfarer comes back around to how deeply unsatisfying the world is, as if living for what is valuable in life (including sex) amounts to nihilism. For him we're supposed to aim "higher," to find the infinite not in our lives and the world around us (even in life-long committed relationships), but in the infinite of a spiritual realm above desires and worldly concerns.

In this respect, limiting sex to "holy matrimony" is important. It makes sex "higher," not for any individual's desire or well-being, but for the glory of the spiritual realm which, according to Wayfarer, makes life worthwhile.

I think Wayfarer is more worried about how, sans the authority on high, sex becomes about ourselves and our well-being, generating a secular culture in which meaning is understood to be expressed by the world.

Very good points.

One of the things that happened in the US, from which other countries were spared, was prohibition. But prohibition has some highly unintended consequences, one of which was bringing together a mixture of people who didn't normally mix in the speakeasies. Class, race, ethnicity, gender, sexual deviants, etc. all were in the room together to drink. This mixing resulted in a further loosening up of mores.

There was a busy Atlantic traffic jam of people going to and coming back from Europe, and bringing with them new ideas from various European (like French) social and artistic movements.

Radio was introduced; people's horizons were widening; the economy was booming (except for the farm economy). Cars were giving people mobile privacy boxes. Houses were a lot smaller in the 20s than they are now, and social mores, evening if they were loosening, were still tighter than they are now. Cars gave people a way of getting away from the nosy observations of parents and neighbors.

Prohibition was repealed in 1933 about. Liquor laws were re-established, and there was a strong reaction to all of the damnable social mixing that went on in the speakeasies. So bars were under legal pressure to monitor and restrict behavior. Now, only mixed couples (male/female) were allowed to dance. Black/white mixing, men dancing together, etc. were verboten. Then too, if the lively days of the 20s were spurred by a booming economy, a depression put a definite chill on the social scene of the 1930s.

Freud had an influence among some groups, certainly, but in the 20s I think it would have been restricted to a social elite. Psychoanalysis, infantile sexuality, and all that would have embarrassed to death the average rural, small town American (which was a big chunk of the population).

Here's a song from 1926 which substantiates your observations.

I don't see what people could really care about beyond what is experienced while in this world.

If a person is more concerned about his or her personal survival after death, and the nature of that (supposing for the sake of argument that there is such) than about the poverty, injustice, suffering etc. they experience either personally or observed others experiencing, then, considering that the former concern is over something we can only irrationally believe we could do anything about, and the latter is something we can definitely do something about if we have the will, then would we not have to conclude that he or she is impractical? Doesn't true spirituality consist above all in practicality (in the Kantian sense)?

Can it be logically consistent to assume that there could be a "higher aim" for sex, or anything else at all in the absence of an assumption that there is an infinite intentional intelligence and will, or, in other words a personal God? In order that our lives could have a "higher meaning" would there not have to have been an infinite transcendent deliberation that determines it? How else could we make sense of it? What could a "spiritual realm" even be without an infinite intentional intelligence and will that determines it's value and meaning?

None of these questions are intended to suggest that there could not be a human meaning to human life; a meaning that could be more than merely subjective; that could be objective in the sense of being rational and intersubjective, or perhaps better, transsubjective. Such a human meaning could of course be coherently understood to be amply spiritual, but not in any sense of afterlife or unseen "spiritual realms", but rather only in the phronetic sense of this-worldly ethics.

I am also not suggesting that there is no God, in the fully personal sense; I am, for the purposes of this argument remaining agnostic about that. The question that concerns me is how the notion of "higher purpose" could be made coherent in the absence of the presumption of a personal God.

Agree with Noble Dust — Wayfarer

Then you too are guilty of a No True Scotsman. Sex is sex, and need not be about "deep individuation" (whatever that means). That's just an invented notion which suits your personal feelings.

Then you too are guilty of a No True Scotsman — Sapientia

I've been called worse.

That's just an invented notion which suits your personal feelings. — Sapientia

Isn't everything?

The question that concerns me is how the notion of "higher purpose" could be made coherent in the absence of the presumption of a personal God. — John

That would make an interesting discussion.

You don’t recognise sex and porn are always about other people.

Other people are actually what we think of first in any instance of pornography or sex— “Their hot.” “I’d like to fuck them.” "Watching them have sex gets me off so well.” — TheWillowOfDarkness

Yes I do. That's obvious.

The idea sex or pornography is about some abstraction of individual desire, like just “getting off” or “pure physical pleasure” is a myth. — TheWillowOfDarkness

Haha, no, getting off is not an abstraction, and it's certainly not a myth. It's an activity that happens all the time. No doubt someone, somewhere, is getting off on porn right now.

This is indeed about getting off, but it isn't just about that, and I haven't said otherwise. It is obviously about the people in the video as well. They, and what they are doing, is of course what the viewer is getting off on, and the act wouldn't make sense without that aspect.

Your entire reply is based on a big misunderstanding of my position.

I've been called worse. — Wayfarer

I'm not calling you anything, so don't make out as though that was a personal attack. It is a criticism of the position you just said that you agree with, without qualification.

Isn't everything? — Wayfarer

But there are already concepts for such things, and it is a fallacy to personally adapt them to conveniently rule out perceived faults of which you disapprove, so that sex doesn't "truly" count as sex unless it fits this model, or ideal, of yours.

Female sex workers are no more exploited than truck drivers, custodians, roofers, secretaries, sales clerks, and factory workers are exploited. — Bitter Crank

But you're missing a key factor here; sex work often involves an element of manipulation, and sexual manipulation tends to be deeper and more emotionally scarring than, for instance, a simple workplace situation of "we know you signed up to dig holes, but we need to you excavate some caverns" (horrible, off the top of my head example). "Digging holes -> excavating caverns" is not analogous to "sexy photo shoot -> sucking dick and fucking without a condom with someone you've never met", for instance. The former just requires more skill; the second requires an intensification of human intimacy which the worker may not be prepared for. An 18 year old girl getting lured into the business of sex work is a different situation than a basic dude without much prospects trying to figure out if he should work in the factory or as a custodian. The 18 year old guy without much prospects (but plenty of muscle and testosterone) has way more social potential within the work force to begin at an entry level factory/etc job, and then, if he applies himself, move up into higher paying jobs, all the while, offering his simple physical labor for a decent wage. As a side note, he's surely less susceptible (though not immune) to sexual harassment all throughout this process. This is not analogous to women being lured into the business of sex work. At this point, Sapentia will cackle out something about "you really think all female porn stars are lured into porn work? I just spat up my diet coke reading that." Not exactly, no. But take a second, and try practicing some empathy here. Imagine yourself as an 18 year old woman, a 21 year old woman, or whatever. You don't have much prospects. You know you have the body that guys want. You have an average straight female sexuality, (read: much different than straight male sexuality...I really shouldn't need to spell that out, but I start to wonder); maybe you're bi-curious even, just to be progressive. Now, you've just graduated high school, or there abouts. Where are your parents? What's there influence on your life at this point? So anyway, at this point, you're either aware that you can go into the sex business, or you're not aware. If you're aware, what are your feelings about this option? I'm not telling you what they should be; I'm suggesting that you put yourself in her shoes and imagine (wait, this isn't philosophy! Damn you, Noble Dust. You sentimental dilettante). Ok, now you're not aware that sex work is an option. A pimp approaches you, courts you, makes you feel beautiful, makes you feel a way that other men haven't made you feel before. What's your next move?

Ok, back to the basic factory dude. The mindset of a basic young dude working in the factory is not the same mindset as the 18 year old woman who decides (?) to work in the sex business. For instance, the 18 year old guy may not exactly be a philosopher, but he's used his brawn for the better part of his pubescent years for various basic purposes, so the transition to factory work, or hard labor of some kind, is at least logical. It certainly doesn't pose any amount of emotional scarring on his psyche, given that his work is, at best, only liminally sexual, not gratuitously so. His sexuality is expressed through the use of his strength to perform basic, essential tasks in a factory environment. HIs sexuality is only expressed very marginally here. And it fits with his basic situation in life. But how can we say that the innocent, 18 year old girl, initiated into the sex business, is in an analogous situation? Surely she's learned to use her innocent feminine charms to navigate the world thus far (and this is only assuming innocence, which suggests the sort of gleeful cluelesness that those in favor of porn on a general level, like Sapienta profess). Simple common sense should surely indicate that these are not analogous situations. I continue to be amazed at the brazen, willful blindness to the particulars of what gets sex workers into sex work. There is not a lot of data on the subject, so all we can do is use our best educated hypotheses, and read data from non-profits who have a stake in the claim. But the folks unequivocally in favor of porn seem to begin with the assumption that porn is unequivocally positive, which leads to an inability to even consider the possibility of what actual life would be like in a situation where sex work suddenly came unto one's horizons. Furthermore, considering that most of the small amount of data available is provided by non-profits in favor of helping people with porn problems, those unequivocally in favor of porn are, therefore, basing their arguments on less actual data. As a side note, the sheer amount of sheer opinions being thrown around on both sides here is surely much more than a typical discussion on this forum, which is indicative of the situation.

No one's mother is telling them, at age six "Laura, one day you'll be a fine porn star! A fine one!" (And no, this is not emotional pleading, again. If you find yourself feeling various emotions at this point, that signifies that the analogy is doing its work, and you'd rather not interface with it on a visceral level). There seems to be this utterly unrealistic, (porn-influenced?) meta-narrative of sexually liberated, feminist women joining the sex work force in order to gloriously flaunt their sexuality in front of us strip-club-patron-esque straight men who are apparently applauding their sexual liberation. Or, alternatively, the simple (more accurate) portrayal of sex workers as women who have "no better prospects". If sex workers only join the sex business because they have no other prospects, then our willful participation in their work simply perpetuates that situation; a situation of unrealized potential that straight men benefit from; a situation of objectified women who could otherwise have had more fulfilling careers. And no, it's not analogous to the monotonous life of the factory worker, the cherry-picker, the meter-reader, or whatever. It's a profession that bares the entirety of one's sexuality to strangers. TO STRANGERS.

But there are already concepts for such things, and it is a fallacy to personally adapt them to conveniently rule out perceived faults of which you disapprove, so that sex doesn't "truly" count as sex unless it fits this model, or ideal, of yours. — Sapientia

I'm commeniting on social attitudes towards sexuality and porn from a conservative point of view. The views I express are not exclusive to myself, they are not 'my idiosyncratic view'.

(and this is only assuming innocence, which suggests the sort of gleeful cluelesness that those in favor of porn on a general level, like Sapienta profess). Simple common sense... — Noble Dust

Ha! Simple common sense is simply not on your side in this debate. Your stance is quite far removed from simple common sense, and represents a conceited and convoluted over-intellectualisation.

Ha! Simple common sense is simply not on your side in this debate. Your stance is quite far removed from simple common sense, and represents a conceited and convoluted over-intellectualisation.

As I explained above, views have shifted on what's normal. Accordingly, this is a conflict of views that are essentially incommensurables. Sooner both sides realise it, the less ink will be spilled.

I'm commenting on social attitudes towards sexuality and porn from a conservative point of view. The views I express are not exclusive to myself, they are not 'my idiosyncratic view'. — Wayfarer

Now you're taking things out of context. That wasn't a criticism of a general view, but of a specific comment, which you seemed to express agreement with, and have not denied. There is an important difference between what sex is and how one should view it or go about it. My objection is to the fallacy of confusing these two issues. If you're a conservative, then so be it, but that doesn't mean you have to be illogical.

It's a bit like the objectification I just took Sapientia to task for... — TheWillowOfDarkness

Took me to task for! :D

Okay, if you say so, Willow. Give yourself a pat on the back. If you don't even understand my position, then you have little hope of "taking me to task" over it.

Those that are opposed to porn, and tell you how horrible it is, themselves look at porn regularly.