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.) — Wayfarer
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. — Wayfarer
Privacy is meant to be provided and assured by society, not dictated, meaning it is up to us what to keep personal and what to make public.And taking acts so personal (the physical acts of sex) and making them public just seems wrong. — anonymous66
I argue that the porn industry's actions and/or intentions don't define pornography, that you confuse pornography with sexual objectification and that the porn industry doesn't really promote such sexual objectification as much as it reinforces it. The last may seem just a pointless argument about semantics but what I mean is that demand makes porn as objectifying as it is, it's not an inherent trait of porn itself.And doesn't the porn industry just promote the idea that people are merely a means to an end? — anonymous66
You don’t recognise sex and porn are always about other people. — TheWillowOfDarkness
I was watching an Owen Jones video on YouTube yesterday, and in it, right at the start, he gave a good example of objectification, and it was immediately clear to me what was wrong about it: "Objectifying two of the most powerful women in the country, talking about - not what they stand for - but about their legs". — Sapientia
Wouldn't the world be a better place without the passions?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. — Bitter Crank
I don't care about the exploited workers at McDonald's.... so, why would I care about exploitation in the porn industry?" — anonymous66
Wouldn't the world be a better place without them? [edit: the seven deadly sins] — anonymous66
I'd agree that tautological aboutness is correct--if one is thinking of an other, then one is thinking of an other, but otherwise you simply seem to be doubling down that indeed there are some things that involve a lot of people where everyone thinks about them the same way. That's not the case, however.People are always thinking about other in the context of sex and porn. The activity involves the direction of thoughts, desires and actions towards other people .
. . — TheWillowOfDarkness
I don't agree that there's anything wrong with that--anymore than there would be to only focus on "what they stand for" and not focus on their legs. It's just two different aspects of them as people. You can't focus on every aspect at any one time, and there are no correct/incorrect aspects to focus on, no objectively more or less important aspects, etc. — Terrapin Station
I don't agree that it's degrading, though. And yeah, I'm obviously not going to agree that consensus has anything at all to do with it. — Terrapin Station
It's degrading because ogling at their legs takes a serious and important matter down a grade - it drags it into the gutter. — Sapientia
I don't agree that there's anything wrong with that--anymore than there would be to only focus on "what they stand for" and not focus on their legs. It's just two different aspects of them as people. You can't focus on every aspect at any one time, and there are no correct/incorrect aspects to focus on, no objectively more or less important aspects, etc. — Terrapin Station
So if you can't focus on every aspect of the two women all the time, it's just as valid to focus on their legs as it is the political issues at hand because there's no objective right or wrong? — WhiskeyWhiskers
You're wrong about these things being "entirely subjective". — Sapientia
It isn't pure coincidence that large scale agreement occurs. — Sapientia
There's inter-subjectivity, — Sapientia
Suppose, Māgandiya, there was a leper with sores and blisters on his limbs, being devoured by worms, scratching the scabs off the openings of his wounds with his nails, cauterising his body over a burning charcoal pit. Then his friends and companions, his kinsmen and relatives, would bring a physician to treat him. The physician would make medicine for him, and by means of that medicine the man would be cured of his leprosy and would become well and happy, independent, master of himself, able to go where he likes. Then he might see another leper with sores and blisters on his limbs, being devoured by worms, scratching the scabs off the openings of his wounds with his nails, cauterising his body over a burning charcoal pit. What do you think, Māgandiya? Would that man envy that leper for his burning charcoal pit or his use of medicine?
Porn has long-standing effects on the brain, which have been neuro-biologically studied. — Agustino
For example, someone who has been a porn actor will have a difficult time raising normal children. The kid will go to school, and his mates will be like "Oh wow, your momma sucks it quite well! ;) " - and if the kid is a girl, then she'll be treated like the town bicycle, everyone will want a ride. — Agustino
That's not at all how I use the word "valid." That use of the word "valid" seems like a category error to me. — Terrapin Station
But in any event, I'm fine with anyone focusing on whatever they'd like to focus on. — Terrapin Station
Maybe there is less there than one thinks there is. — Bitter Crank
It clearly isn't if you know what the words valid and category error mean. Is it 'acceptable' for papers to be objectifying female politicians? No. Is it 'acceptable' for papers to be talking about children in sexually suggestive language as if they were adults? No. Unless you have some personal definition of 'valid' peculiar only to you, or you're deliberately using it in another sense to contrive a category error, it's not a category error. — WhiskeyWhiskers
An argument is valid or not. Not (interpersonal) behavior. — Terrapin Station
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.