Hey porn is fantastic, but the problem is, it belongs to the devil.

Do you mean what is animalistic in us?

Yes, speaking figuratively, but nonetheless truly.

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

They should know.

Yes, speaking figuratively, but nonetheless truly. — Wayfarer

Why are animalistic tendencies demonic or just bad? Do you the say the same for necessary functions like shitting?

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? — Noble Dust

From what I've read, the pornography business doesn't operate the same way that prostitution operates. Pornography producers are media businesses with a publicly available address. Most of these businesses operate in the San Fernando Valley area of L.A. They are legal businesses. Prostitution operates everywhere; it is not a legal business (except in Nevada, at least in the U.S.)

Men and women are hired by studios to work in productions. They have sex with the other people in the production. When the production is finished, the job is over. Prostitutes either work alone or are managed by a pimp or madam. They have sex with any and all customers. The job is over when they can no longer 'turn tricks' or they leave.

The thing that pornography and prostitution have in common is that the workers don't receive a fair share of the cash rewards.

Nobody in their right mind plans on being a porn star (it's not the same as being a movie star). Both men and women get into pornography either by chance (a friend who does porn suggests they try it or a producer recruits them) or they seek it out. I don't believe that men or women who perform San Fernando Valley pornography videos are hapless victims, though it is likely that they initially may have unrealistic expectations of stardom.

Or, alternatively, the simple (more accurate) portrayal of sex workers as women who have "no better prospects". — Noble Dust

Women in Europe, the US, Australia, etc. have many prospects besides sex work. There are a lot of low status legitimate jobs that an unskilled woman can apply to and have a good chance of getting hired for. They are not pleasant jobs, but they do pay regular wages. That there are a lot of unpleasant, low skill, low pay, jobs is not great, but there are alternatives.

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). — Noble Dust

But that's not a criticism of sex work. That's a criticism of sexual manipulation and its prevalence, which is understandably objectionable, whatever the context. Especially if it's something as drastic as your example. Although it's possible that what you might deem to be manipulation, might just be encouragement. You should recognise that your assessment of such things is from the perspective of a subject interpreting events, and may well be biased. (In fact, I think that your use of loaded language throughout this discussion is quite a strong indication of bias). You most likely do not have access to all of the facts or intricacies involved. Consider things from another perspective: as a porn director, it would be part of your job to get the most out of the actors you work with through encouragement, incentives, and so on. That is understandable and to be expected.

But again, it ultimately boils down to personal responsibility. If you allow yourself to cave in, consent, and go through with something that you're not really comfortable doing, and do not really want to do, then you're culpable to some extent. The question is then whether or not there are extenuating circumstances. There are laws in place relating to these kind of situations for good reason. Both employers and employees need legal protections in place so that neither are done an injustice. Problems like this require practical solutions, and your approach doesn't seem to take that into account. Anyone can interpret something as an injustice, but mere subjective interpretation is more prone to error than something practical and concrete, like a legal document showing that someone has given signed consent.

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? — Noble Dust

I am empathetic. You don't need to go into all of that detail to try to inspire empathy in me. People make mistakes, and regret those mistakes, and sometimes others involved are partly to blame. Coercion is wrong. I will not, and have not, denied that. And we've all been young and naive at some point in our lives. However, once you turn eighteen, you become an adult, and take on all of the responsibilities that that entails. That is more or less as it should be.

I wasn't saying getting off was an abstraction. My point was your understanding of sexual desire abstracts other people out.

You take sexual desire out of the context of other people, turning into something that's only between them and their own genitals.

The problem is NOT that you specifically claimed sex or porn isn't about other people. It's that your understanding of sexual desire doesn't include other people. It's what you are leaving out that's the problem.

When I suggested people ought to think of porn actors as people, you scoffed like it was disconnected from the act of watching porn. You treated like thinking about others as people was some "higher" concern, somehow conflicted with a brute desire to get off-- like my argument was suggesting an irrelevance in the face of a need to watch an object and get off.

People are never objects, not even when someone else is looking at them for pleasure.

To find someone attractive, look at them and feel aroused or desire to have sex with them is NOT objectification. There is simply never an object present, only a person. When sexual desire involves others, whether for sex or just entertainment, a person wants other people.

The mere object which brings sexual arousal doesn't exist. When watching porn, it's people getting us off, not a mere object of a hot body doing sexy things.

That argument makes no sense. If coercion is wrong, it doesn't matter if your eighteen or thirty-five​ or a hundred. You are treating coercion like it's the victim's responsibility, as if it were a "mistake" they made and so it's fine for it to happen.

I can't endorsed Noble Dust's infantalisation of women and sex workers, but they're right about your lack of empathy.

Consider the situation he talks about, where a women is coerced or manipulated into doing things she doesn't want, by flattery, promise of worth or riches. Is this fine? Yes, according to you, she just should have known better.

But what of the responsibility of the porn producers and audience to women who might work in the industry? Shouldn't they have been honest with this woman about what the porn industry involves, told here the truth of how far its adoration, worth or riches goes, rather than considering it just enough to get her to say "Yes."?

You should recognise that your assessment of such things is from the perspective of a subject interpreting events, and may well be biased. — Sapientia

Sure; we all should, including yourself. There's no way to assess anything other than as a subject interpreting events.

You most likely do not have access to all of the facts or intricacies involved. — Sapientia

Again, no one does. This isn't an argument.

But again, it ultimately boils down to personal responsibility. If you allow yourself to cave in, consent, and go through with something that you're not really comfortable doing, and do not really want to do, then you're culpable to some extent. — Sapientia

When someone manipulates another person, how is the victim culpable? Resistance to manipulation stems from personal autonomy, not personal responsibility. Personal responsibility is on a spectrum based on a person's level of autonomy. A mentally handicapped adult without much autonomy doesn't have the same responsibility of a mentally healthy adult, for instance. The ability of people to be autonomous individuals varies widely, based on a bunch of factors, and their level of expected personal responsibility stems from that.

From what I've read, the pornography business doesn't operate the same way that prostitution operates. — Bitter Crank

What have you read on this? I'd be interested to read it as well.

Most of these businesses operate in the San Fernando Valley area of L.A. They are legal businesses. Prostitution operates everywhere; it is not a legal business (except in Nevada, at least in the U.S.) — Bitter Crank

The reason I bring up prostitution in relation to porn isn't because of legality. As I said elsewhere, I'm not in favor of some sort of law against porn. I'm tentatively in favor of legalizing prostitution as well. I'm more concerned that porn and prostitution may have a link, and sex trafficking is a business that operates within prostitution. Plus, in a way, porn is like an evolution of prostitution.

What have you read on this? I'd be interested to read it as well. — Noble Dust

The pornography business is a sleazy topic which mainline media rarely cover, and about which few serious books are written, besides books and articles which attack the product, the customers, and the and the producers.

So, if you want to know more about the adult business, I'd start with two adult entertainment business sites xbiz.com and avn.com [adult video news] for starters. These are not "porn sites" but since they are about the porn business, you might not want to peruse these sites with the family (depending on what your family is like).

You'll have to sleuth your way into this information.

btw, On May 11, xbiz.com had an article on "ethical porn".

I'm more concerned that porn and prostitution may have a link — Noble Dust

Do you mean an operational, or business link--like pimps produce porn? Or, a link in that whatever leads one to try porn might lead them to try prostitution?

I think there is, quite possibly, a link. For instance, in Minneapolis, prior to 1993, the principle owner of porn shops was also involved in several whorehouses, to use an old fashioned term (they were, officially, "health clubs"). Some of his porn shops featured strip shows that involved contact through a window -- whether this led to prostitution later, don't know. Some gay and straight porn stars reported turning tricks before or after getting into the porn business.

Human trafficking for purposes of prostitution has been well established both as a criminal practice and as a law enforcement problem for quite some time. Whether adding porn production to a trafficked woman's to do list happens, or not, I don't know.

Certainly, if porn were produced under the same terms as human trafficking or forced prostitution, then that product would be far too morally contaminated to be acceptable as a product for commercial sale.

I'm more concerned that porn and prostitution may have a link — Noble Dust

You're imagining things...

No. Willow, you should stop telling me what my understanding is, because you do not understand what it is. I know my understanding better than you do. If you want to seek clarification on something that I've said or think, then do so. Quote me, ask me questions. Otherwise I'm just basically going to ignore these kind of replies from you. You're being uncharitable and attacking a straw man.

People are never objects, not even when someone else is looking at them for pleasure. — TheWillowOfDarkness

I'm not sure whether I agree or disagree, because this term, "object", is ambiguous. You should stop using that term and replace it with what you really mean to say. That would be helpful. Obviously people are people, and not inanimate objects, like a chair. But people can be, and often are, used as a means to an end, and this is often quite ordinary and not immoral. There was the example given of the musician for hire, and there are plenty of other examples which could be given. Those who object in this particular case of porn actors need to explain why this is some sort of special exception.

To find someone attractive, look at them and feel aroused or desire to have sex with them is NOT objectification. There is simply never an object present, only a person. When sexual desire involves others, whether for sex or just entertainment, a person wants other people.

The mere object which brings sexual arousal doesn't exist. When watching porn, it's people getting us off, not a mere object of a hot body doing sexy things. — TheWillowOfDarkness

Then what is objectification?? What do you mean?? Saying something obvious, like that it's a person in the video, does absolutely nothing. No one is thinking otherwise. A man is a person and so is a woman. People are people. People have bodies. People are not objects like chairs or pianos. It is people who are in porn videos, not objects. People, including those who watch porn, are not so stupid as to fail to realise these truisms.

That argument makes no sense. If coercion is wrong, it doesn't matter if your eighteen or thirty-five​ or a hundred. You are treating coercion like it's the victim's responsibility, as if it were a "mistake" they made and so it's fine for it to happen. — TheWillowOfDarkness

Here were go again, reading into something I've said, rather than addressing it directly. Please stop interpreting how I'm treating things, and address what I've actually said. Or at least seek clarification before diving in head first. Because you're not doing a very good job of it.

I said that coercion is wrong, and I meant what I said. These cases are an exception. Whether someone is responsible, or to what degree, is a complex issue, and should be treated on a case-by-case basis, and all of the circumstances would have to be taken into account. I'm not part of the legal profession and neither are you. We're not part of a jury who has been presented with all of the details. So it is harder to make an impartial judgement with regards to matters such as culpability, extenuating circumstances, innocence and guilt. And I'm not just talking in a legal sense, but in a philosophical sense also. I'm just using the legal system, with its methodology and concepts, as a point of reference.

Sure; we all should, including yourself. There's no way to assess anything other than as a subject interpreting events. — Noble Dust

Well, ultimately, yes. But there's more to it than that. For example, there's a big difference between what some guy on a philosophy forum happens to think, and the kind of investigation carried out by the police.

Again, no one does. This isn't an argument. — Noble Dust

It's not a matter of all or nothing, it's a matter of the extent to which we have knowledge or evidence, and, with regards to the latter, its strength. It's about the difference between what might largely amount to speculation and views firmly grounded upon evidence.

When someone manipulates another person, how is the victim culpable? Resistance to manipulation stems from personal autonomy, not personal responsibility. Personal responsibility is on a spectrum based on a person's level of autonomy. A mentally handicapped adult without much autonomy doesn't have the same responsibility of a mentally healthy adult, for instance. The ability of people to be autonomous individuals varies widely, based on a bunch of factors, and their level of expected personal responsibility stems from that. — Noble Dust

I've already acknowledged that there can be varying degrees of culpability, and that there can be extenuating circumstances. For someone to have no autonomy at all, and therefore no personal responsibilty at all, in such situations would be an exceptional case, I think. I was speaking more in general. Generally, you'd be responsible for what you consent to. That's a personal choice. But, of course, if, say, someone has a gun to your head, then that will make a big difference.

Objectification is ignoring that others are people whose well-being is important, in favour of understanding and using them as objects to achieve your desire. It's not about being sexually aroused be someone. Nor is it about desiring a sexual relationship. It's not even about wanting to see sexy images of someone.

The problem is when understanding and concern for another person are not present, when someone understands an exchange between two people is only about getting what they desire. In pornography and sex, this means considering other people, their desires, their well-being, rather than just arousal, activity or entertainment someone wants for themselves.

If someone is looking for a hookup, it means not just searching for someone who says "Yes," but someone else who wants to have sex with them. The goal is not for them to "get some." It's to engage in an act which benefits the well-being of someone else.

The same is true of pornography. If someone is producing or watching pornography, they ought to be concerned about the well-being of the people involved. Yes, the pornography is about making money (for the producer) and feeding desire (for viewers), but it's also (if people are ethical) about the well-being of people performing it. Both the producer and viewer ought to understand pornography is not just about making money or obtaining pleasure, but an expression of the well being of the performers.

One does not watch porn (if they are non-objectifying and ethical) just to, as you crudely put it, to "get off." They do so to engage in a mutual interaction which benefits both their well-being (which includes, in most instances, getting off) and the well-being of any actors involved. Just as hookups are defined by finding someone else whose well-being benefits, producing or watching pornography (as least the ethical sort) is about benefiting the well-being of someone else (the performers involved).

So the question here isn't legal. The law is frequently a blunt instrument. It simply can't deal with the range of issues and understanding which come in human relationships. Ethics is what matter to us.

Instead of making "bad faith" arguments that "the law says..." or "but they chose it..," we can think deeper. We can consider the other person and their well-being, rather than just what the law allows us to do and how we can manipulate the situation to gain the most personal benefit. At certain points we can say, when we recognise the other people we are dealing with: "Well, that is legal, and they might of said "yes," but in circumstances their well-being isn't going to benefit. This action I'm about considering will cause them harm, despite it being legal and them agreeing to it. It's my ethical responsibly not to harm them, even it means giving up what I want."

But people can be, and often are, used as a means to an end, and this is often quite ordinary and not immoral. There was the example given of the musician for hire, and there are plenty of other examples which could be given. Those who object in this particular case of porn actors need to explain why this is some sort of special exception. — Sapientia

When they're objectified, yes (and it's highly immoral).

This is the deep set myth of objectification I'm talking about. Is it "objectification" merely to work for someone, give something to another person or follow someone's instruction? No, it's not. Simply hiring a musician doesn't amount to objectification. Nor does hiring a sex worker. To hire someone doesn't mean objectification.

An employee is only treated as a means to an end if the employer (and consumer) understands and treats them that way. What do you think it says about your position that it reads mere employment as objectification, as if wanting, desiring or asking something or someone else amounted to treating them as a means to an end? Can you not recognise they, even if you want or demand something from them, are their own person who has a well-being that's more than just whether you reach your business goals?

A musician for hire isn't objectified unless their boss is ignoring their well-being--i.e. misleading them about the nature of the work, making false promises about what the role will gain them, setting impossible deadlines, demanding the musician work to the expense of health and relationships, etc.

So no-one is making an expectation for porn actors. People in any other line of work can be objectified just as badly (and frequently are).

One does not watch porn (if they are non-objectifying and ethical) just to, as you crudely put it, to "get off." They do so to engage in a mutual interaction which benefits both their well-being (which includes, in most instances, getting off) and the well-being of any actors involved. — TheWillowOfDarkness

The problem I have with the argument about objectifying the men or women performing in a pornography product is that I am not interacting with the actors. I am separated from the actors by time and space. I am viewing a video recording of the actors. I can not interact with the actors. The actors are not interacting with me. Pornography is not a live conference call. The actors on screen might have been dead for 40 years (there's lots of vintage porn for sale). The actors can not reach forward in time and across space to me, nor I to them.

At the time the production is made, the producers, cameramen, actors, fluffers (they help the guys get an erection if that turns out to be a problem), catering, and so forth have a relationship. That relationship can not/does not extend to viewers.

All media productions -- dramatic film, advertisements, radio shows, television soap operas, Eurovision broadcasts, educational television programs, etc. all have the same limitation: What is on the roll of film or the spool of video tape, or in digital memory, is static. What I see on television, even if it's a live broadcast, is a flat image that I can not literally affect and that can not respond to me. No relationship carries forward from the warm bodies and bright lights of the studio.

The most we can do is respond imaginatively to the static image. That's all.

Positing that the viewer ought to be concerned about the wellbeing of the real characters on the screen seems like a truly monumental misapprehension of what media is, and how it works. WOD, when you go to a movie, or watch Transparent, or Orange is the New Black, or BBC Masterpiece Theater, Formula One racing, Soccer, Cricket, Rugby, or Croquet on TV--whatever you watch--do you really think about the actual wellbeing of all the people who played the characters you might see? How does that work for you?

It simply does not matter what the viewer thinks about the performer: the performer is not present in the image.

Well, ultimately, yes. But there's more to it than that. For example, there's a big difference between what some guy on a philosophy forum happens to think, and the kind of investigation carried out by the police. — Sapientia

So are you critiquing my response here, or critiquing your own statement? vis:

You should recognise that your assessment of such things is from the perspective of a subject interpreting events, and may well be biased. — Sapientia

____

It's not a matter of all or nothing, it's a matter of the extent to which we have knowledge or evidence, and, with regards to the latter, its strength. It's about the difference between what might largely amount to speculation and views firmly grounded upon evidence. — Sapientia

Where did I suggest an all or nothing attitude, and what "firmly grounded" evidence can you provide for your views about porn in this context?

I was speaking more in general. Generally, you'd be responsible for what you consent to. — Sapientia

I don't think a general case of an 18 year old woman going into the porn business would be analogous to a general example of personal responsibility (what does that even mean?).

In other words, what exactly amounts to general here?

There was a PBS documentary on porn - it's more than 10 years old but still relevant

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/porn/

There's also been a recent documentary called Hot Girls Wanted that looks at the lives of some of those in the business - http://www.imdb.com/title/tt4382552/

Objectification is ignoring that others are people whose well-being is important, in favour of understanding and using them as objects to achieve your desire. — TheWillowOfDarkness

But people can be used as a means to achieving desire in many ways without ignoring that their wellbeing is important. So, yet again, this is not a criticism specific to the porn industry, or the activity of porn watching. It is a criticism of a certain way in which some, but not all, people in those kind of situations think or act.

Also, I think that considerations of wellbeing should be looked at in a context of reasonable expectation. What would and would not be reasonable to expect of people who watch porn? It would be reasonable to expect people to go to porn sites which they believe to be legitimate, that is, law abiding. It would be reasonable to expect people to make a conscious effort to avoid any material that they believe to amount to abuse or that is suspect, and to report it. It would not be reasonable to expect people to reach conclusions about whether or not a porn actor has been manipulated, coerced, or mistreated without sufficient evidence, and it would not be reasonable to expect people to take highly impractical and inappropriate steps towards these concerns, such as, for example, attempting to contact a porn actor to check if they're alright. It wouldn't be reasonable to expect people to give up porn just because there are some less than ideal cases, or just because some people find it distasteful, or just because some people disapprove. There would have to be a very good reason, and this would have to amount to more than speculation or a certain point of view.

The problem is when understanding and concern for another person are not present, when someone understands an exchange between two people is only about getting what they desire. In pornography and sex, this means considering other people, their desires, their well-being, rather than just arousal, activity or entertainment someone wants for themselves. — TheWillowOfDarkness

What do you expect? I think that it's unreasonable to expect one to be in a constant mode of empathy and moral concern over everything. People are not obliged to be a sort of moral police force, ever vigilant for wrongdoing. People can and should simply get on with life, and do the ordinary things that they do, like watch a film, play a game, jack off to porn, without having to submit to the expectations of do-gooders all the time. Life's too short and you only live once. You have to draw the line somewhere, since striving for moral perfection is not a realistic or reasonable goal. I mean, you could kick up a fuss over virtually anything: you shouldn't eat at McDonald's because of such-and-such, you shouldn't play videogames because of so-and-so, you shouldn't shop at this store or that one because of such-and-such. Oh no, you shouldn't watch that, listen to that kind of music, or play that sport, or associate with those people, or do this or that or anything much at all really, because someone, somewhere might have some sort of complaint.

If someone is looking for a hookup, it means not just searching for someone who says "Yes," but someone else who wants to have sex with them. The goal is not for them to "get some." It's to engage in an act which benefits the well-being of someone else.

The same is true of pornography. If someone is producing or watching pornography, they ought to be concerned about the well-being of the people involved. Yes, the pornography is about making money (for the producer) and feeding desire (for viewers), but it's also (if people are ethical) about the well-being of people performing it. Both the producer and viewer ought to understand pornography is not just about making money or obtaining pleasure, but an expression of the well being of the performers.

One does not watch porn (if they are non-objectifying and ethical) just to, as you crudely put it, to "get off." They do so to engage in a mutual interaction which benefits both their well-being (which includes, in most instances, getting off) and the well-being of any actors involved. Just as hookups are defined by finding someone else whose well-being benefits, producing or watching pornography (as least the ethical sort) is about benefiting the well-being of someone else (the performers involved).

So the question here isn't legal. The law is frequently a blunt instrument. It simply can't deal with the range of issues and understanding which come in human relationships. Ethics is what matter to us.

Instead of making "bad faith" arguments that "the law says..." or "but they chose it..," we can think deeper. We can consider the other person and their well-being, rather than just what the law allows us to do and how we can manipulate the situation to gain the most personal benefit. At certain points we can say, when we recognise the other people we are dealing with: "Well, that is legal, and they might of said "yes," but in circumstances their well-being isn't going to benefit. This action I'm about considering will cause them harm, despite it being legal and them agreeing to it. It's my ethical responsibly not to harm them, even it means giving up what I want." — TheWillowOfDarkness

I think that our differences on this issue reflect two different ways of thinking: idealistically and pragmatically. Your thinking reflects the former, whereas mine reflects the latter. You want people to think and feel in a special way which conforms with your ideals, whereas I think that actions are more important. I think that to adopt the kind of thinking and feeling that you endorse would in many cases amount to a difference that makes no difference. Jacking off to porn is jacking off to porn - however you rephrase it (e.g. by using terms such as "personal expression" or something along those lines, which may give a different impression. I may put it crudely, but I believe in straight talking) - whether you do so in the normal way, with the kind of thoughts and feelings which are appropriate and to be expected, or whether you do so with the additional considerations that you endorse. If the end result is the same, then it doesn't make any real difference. That only the latter would gain your approval is not something that I care about.

As for harm, the first step would of course be to ensure that there is good enough reason to believe that harm has indeed been caused, rather than just imagined. Then one must assess the significance, and how any actions would or would not have a harmful effect. Then weigh this against other factors which merit consideration, and so on. So, it's not so simple or straightforward, and I think that a lot of cases wouldn't pass these tests.

So are you critiquing my response here, or critiquing your own statement? — Noble Dust

The same standard should apply to both positions. But you're the one who's been making a positive argument, whereas I've largely been questioning and criticising it in comparison to such a standard. If you're claiming that harm has been done, or that manipulation or coercion is involved, then you have a burden to back that up, and I'm giving you an idea of what I consider to be weak evidence and strong evidence.

Where did I suggest an all or nothing attitude, and what "firmly grounded" evidence can you provide for your views about porn in this context? — Noble Dust

I said that you most likely do not have access to all of the facts, and you replied that no one does. My comment could have perhaps been better worded, as you took my comment too literally, and so missed the point, which was attempting to get you to think about how well equipped one may or may not be to judge such a matter in different contexts. This relates to method: what have you done, or perhaps failed to do, in reaching your conclusion? What kind of hand have you got? A pair of aces or diddly squat? Don't try to switch the focus back on me. The burden lies with you.

I don't think a general case of an 18 year old woman going into the porn business would be analogous to a general example of personal responsibility (what does that even mean?).

In other words, what exactly amounts to general here? — Noble Dust

Why not? I think that it's analogous to many other situations and is not unique in this respect. For example, if I decide to get a tattoo, sign a disclaimer, and then later regret what I've done, then, all things being equal, I'm to blame. The porn situation is essentially no different. I mean, you could assume that some kind of coercion or whatever must have been involved, but that'd just be begging the question and failing to act in accordance with a key tenet in jurisprudence, which is the presumption of innocence - commonly expressed as 'innocent until proven guilty'. There are plenty of 18 year old women who don't go into the porn business, and - believe it or not - not all who do are victims or damsels in distress who need a white knight to fight on their behalf. Circumstances can of course vary, and in some cases exceptions should be made in light of them, but age and gender alone do not a smoking gun make.

In general, people are responsible for their actions. That's a fundamental ethical assumption, and important in other respects as well, such as in terms of practicality. That you can throw spanners into the works by altering a generalised hypothetical situation by introducing specific and potentially game-changing factors doesn't really make that any less so, because you'd have to sacrifice that generality we began with, and we'd be talking about something else: something more specific. That would be to move the goal posts.

In general, people are responsible for their actions. — Sapientia

Unless one suffers from the lamentable condition which the Greeks knew as 'akrasia', or weakness of will, which manifests as 'acting against one's better judgement'. That is precisely what is at stake in respect of this particular matter, because porn has an enormous pull, and is highly habit-forming. The upshot is, many who would like to walk away from it, or never have anything to do with it, are quite unable to do so. That is why there is an entire genre of literature, and forms of therapy, and websites devoted to, 'porn addiction'. Because such habits undermine your ability to be 'responsible for your actions'. It's like gambling or cigarette or alchohol addiction, but in this case, what suffers is the ability to have meaningful intimacy with a significant other (quite aside from the well-known issue of porn-induced erectile dysfunction which is now quite prevalent among young males.)

The other point that needs to be made, is that it's one thing to oppose censorship on the grounds of 'freedom of expression', and another to defend porn as porn. You can argue that it is up to individuals as to what imagery they decided to consume - indeed it may well be - but to then argue that there is no intrinsic difference between highly sexualised imagery, and any other kind of imagery, is blurring a critical distinction.

The point isn't about what you think about from second to second watching actors. I'm not talking about setting down, watching pornography and thinking: "Oh what a wonderful time the actors are having" at every moment. That's just distracting. Most people would get taken out of the narrative on screen. If one is watching a film, one does not jump up and down saying: "Oh what a wonderful time the actors had making it." It's effectively the audience breaking the forth wall.

My point is about something else entirely. Since we know media representations are a production and fictional, we always relate to them as more than images. We get home from a movie, talk about how great the production was, how hot the actors were, how the actors, writers and/or directors did such a great of producing media. Ideas about the status of the people who produce media we enjoyed form in our head.

We think about them in relation to ourselves and desires, whether they a skilled, how they are supposed to act given our love (or hatred) for them, what they are meant to do or do not for us, how they are meant to be treated by audiences, producers and fans. In consuming media, they are giving us something and we are taking from their efforts, so we understand and recognise as people with a status in reference to ourselves.

What is this status? Do we recognise the people we are watching have well-being that's important? Are we going to take them seriously as other people? Are we going to have concern they are treated ethically? Are we going to recognise they are people who exist beyond merely appearing on a screen to give us pleasure?

When I say objectification runs deep, I'm talking about the sort of response you've given here. You take my point, which is about how we think about the performers we watch outside of the representation on screen, and treat it like I'm some idiot confusing representations with reality. Instead of recognising you know media representations are produced, so you have thoughts regarding the people who made it and what they mean, you pretend you're only thinking about an image on a screen. Objectification. More than that even, you use the fact you are thinking about a representational image to pretend this objectification is somehow necessary or unavoidable, as if one couldn't think about a image on its own terms and then, at a different time, consider the people who produced it and their well-being.

It absolutely does matter what the viewer thinks of the performer. Not in the sense of changing or influencing something that's already made, but in terms of respect and basic decency given to other people, which impacts what other people think of the performer and the actions other take towards them going forward.

Who needs porn when I can just as easily think of Sappy in his spiffy plaid?

Was Sappy in his spiffy plaid on a skiff, by any chance with former FBI Director Comey?

Jacking off to porn is jacking off to porn - however you rephrase it (e.g. by using terms such as "personal expression" or something along those lines, which may give a different impression. I may put it crudely, but I believe in straight talking) — Sapientia

You mean jerkin' the gherkin, floggin the log, chokin' the chicken, whitewater wristing, oiling the mutton dagger, poppin' the purple pimple, grippin' the gristle?

because porn has an enormous pull, — Wayfarer

Oh, yeeaahhh!! As Bob Hawke once said "I think we're gonna have to take a long, hard look at this issue".

Seriously, though, you're coming off as a bit priggish here. Better to lighten up, and take the load off, I would say. ;)