What about an argument like this one?:
Female genitalia haven't been featured in much art over the centuries, but male genitalia have. So, women and society in general aren't comfortable with female genitalia. Porn is helping (or can help?) change that (at least the porn that shows a variety of labia types and shapes).

Therefore: Porn that helps women feel good about the appearance of their genitalia is good.

Therefore: Porn that helps women feel good about the appearance of their genitalia is good. — anonymous66

It's not hard to imagine porn that helps women, and men, feel good about not only their genitalia, but their entire bodies as well:

Feature a mix of attractive people who display widely varying body types: fat, thin, muscular, slight, tall, short, small breasts, small genitalia, large breasts, large genitalia, etc.

some would say that "attractive people" eliminates people who are too fat, too thin, too short, too tall, too muscular, not muscular enough, long hair, short hair, blond hair... and so on and so forth. Not really.

What makes a body type attractive in porn (and in more complex theater) is flattering lighting, a reasonable amount of physical grace, a pleasant disposition, conviction, and so on.

Gay porn has a fairly new category (maybe 25 years old) of "bears". "Bears" are men who were probably once slim, muscular, etc. but who have now gotten fat, old, wrinkled, gray haired or bald, and worse. When sympathetically photographed, they look pretty good. When not photographed sympathetically, they look awful. The same goes for lots of other body types. Hostile camera, ugly pictures.

Some otters, male and female, look great as old otters in the old folks home. Usually, though, young sleek otters become old fat bears. Life is hard -- get over it.

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

Should harm be the deciding factor? What of moral intuition? Are there other forms of harm that haven't been considered (like the harm of treating people as a means to an end)? — anonymous66

Lust, per se, does not seem wrong to me at all, but only in certain contexts or in excess. I'm not a Christian, so I don't think that it's a sin or anything like that, and if you happen to feel guilty about feelings of lust, then frankly that's your personal issue and doesn't effect my thinking on the matter.

Nor does it seem wrong to me that porn is publicly available (with some restrictions). It's often not even really personal in a sense, given, for one thing, the fact that people who have a career in porn typically treat it as just a job and make a conscious separation between their personal sex-life and their public onscreen sexual activity. Not very personal if you're in a studio with a film crew and all of their equipment recording you for publication.

I don't buy this "objectification" (treating people as a means to an end) objection either. For those who are dumb enough to start thinking that porn means that you can rightly treat just about anyone in similar ways outside of that context, without due consideration, then yes, that is of course a problem. But we should no less desire that publication of porn be shut down or severely limited/censored than we should desire that publication of media which contains violence or other forms of abuse, such as films and videogames, be shut down or severely limited/censored. I don't think a prudish, moralistic, Mary-Whitehouse-type attitude is the right one. Stop scapegoating and take responsibility. We should not have a nanny state interfering in this matter.

In cases of exploitation and coercion and suchlike (in more of a legal sense - some people will no doubt simply and loosely bandy around such emotive terms as labels to slap on to the target of their moral indignation), then sure, that's wrong. But these cases are a small minority and an exception; they are dealt with by the authorities; and besides such cases, I don't really see it as a problem. It's their career choice, they're getting paid, and lots of people get satisfaction from it.

I don't buy this "objectification" (treating people as a means to an end) objection either. For those who are dumb enough to start thinking that porn means that you can rightly treat just about anyone in similar ways outside of that context, without due consideration, then yes, that is of course a problem. But we should no less desire that publication of porn be shut down or severely limited/censored than we should desire that publication of media which contains violence or other forms of abuse, such as films and videogames, be shut down or severely limited/censored. I don't think a prudish, moralistic, Mary Whitehouse type attitude is the right one. — Sapientia

Ironically, since we're on a philosophy forum, the immediate question isn't actually about whether any law should or shouldn't be imposed about porn, which seems to be the main concern of most of the posters here who seem to be in favor of porn. As someone concerned about porn, my concern is exactly that "objectification" you speak of. Allow porn legally, till the cows come home, please. I'm in favor. It's not a matter of legislation. But from a philosophical perspective? Porn does objectify sexuality in a way that can be exceedingly harmful to human nature.

What exactly does sexual objectification mean? It means the subject (the porn viewer) takes another subject (the porn actor) and makes that subject (the actor) into an object of desire, or sexual fulfillment by way of the viewers own sexual motives, without concern for the motives of the sexual object (the actor). In other words, there's no way to know the true sexual motives of the actor, through the medium of a computer screen, not least of all because porn is, at the end of things, an act, not an accurate portrayal of the sexuality of the actor (excluding amateur porn). It's so obvious that it's stupid to say, but sexual consent within porn only and always exists through a disjointed medium of the actor consenting via monetary gain, and the viewer consenting through their own sex drive. How is this different from prostitution? Not by any definitional distinction, surely. So, within internet porn specifically, there is no mediate connection between actor and viewer. There is no ontological line between consent and prostitution (or in worse cases, rape) within the context of porn. Viewing porn is a form of voyeuristic prostitution (or at worst, rape), and there's no clear way to discern which is which, other than one's own intuition with regards to the body language of the porn actors within a given scene, which are often hard to read.

Now, who is the porn actor? The porn actor is an equal to the porn viewer, philosophically: They are both free individuals engaged in an act, but only theoretically. In context, however, the porn actor becomes subservient to the desires of the viewer (and more immediately, in initial context) the director of the film. And in this way, the viewer becomes subservient to the actor via seduction. So, the porn actor serves the same purpose as the stripper in the strip club. The porn actor is objectified in the same manner as the club stripper. The further masquerade that porn provides for us is that the actors are enjoying it, and we get more details of the farce than we used to when the strip club was all we had. Anyone with half a wits knowledge on female sexuality can dimwittedly discern that the large majority of female porn actors are not deriving very much real sexual pleasure from their work. Sure, "lesbian" porn actors (how many of them are truly lesbians, sexually?) may derive pleasure form the know-how of another woman, but this is a single category in the ever-burgeoning categories of the major porn sites, which continue to abstract themselves further and further away from any semblance of normal sexual expression, and continue to emphasize the desires of the heterosexual male. All of this emphasizes the objectification of a misguided view of female sexuality within the process of porn production, purely for the sake of the heterosexual male. Female porn actors may be willingly subjecting themselves to a sexual experience that they don't find gratifying for the sake of making a paycheck, but what toll does this take on them themselves, the actors who derive no real fulfillment form their work? And how is this different than prostitution? If a female actor is willing to make thousands of dollars on single porn scenes, without actually enjoying the work, what does this say about the gap between vocational fulfillment and monetary gain?

So in other words, sexual objectification obtains through the process of the perpetrator (the porn viewer) gaining sexual fulfillment through the victim's (the porn actor's) consent or non-consent to performing a sexual act solely for the benefit of the perpetrator (the porn viewer), and not with any real regard for the sexual pleasure of the victim (the porn actor); the victim (porn actor) only achieves compensation through a monetary gain: i.e. prostitution.

In cases of exploitation and coercion and suchlike (in more of a legal sense - some people will no doubt simply and loosely bandy around such emotive terms as labels to slap on to the target of their moral indignation), then sure, that's wrong. But these cases are a small minority and an exception; they are dealt with by the authorities; and besides such cases, I don't really see it as a problem. It's their career choice, they're getting paid, and lots of people get satisfaction from it. — Sapientia

What stats or studies can you provide to illustrate that cases of exploitation are "a small minority and an exception"?

Ironically, since we're on a philosophy forum, the immediate question isn't actually about whether any law should or shouldn't be imposed about porn, which seems to be the main concern of most of the posters here who seem to be in favor of porn. As someone concerned about porn, my concern is exactly that "objectification" you speak of. Allow porn legally, till the cows come home, please. I'm in favor. It's not a matter of legislation. But from a philosophical perspective? Porn does objectify sexuality in a way that can be exceedingly harmful to human nature. — Noble Dust

Firstly, ethics, politics, and law are related to philosophy, and are each highly relevant to the topic, so comments along those lines are entirely understandable and not out of place here. What is or is not your main concern need not be mine, and my post was not specifically directed at you in any case.

I don't accept your claim about objectification, and in particular, I reject the way that you've framed it above, such that you target porn rather than people. Objectification resides in a perspective, not in a porn video. It's ultimately about how it's viewed, rather than how it's made, or what it consists in.

Being concerned is one thing, but claiming that "porn objectifies sexuality in a way that can be exceedingly harmful to human nature" is quite another. Porn doesn't objectify. People objectify. I do accept that it is a problem that there are people who are constituted in such a way as to form objectionable views about others through watching porn - to the extent that that is a factor. But this problem is just a particular example of a far more general problem. 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.

What exactly does sexual objectification mean? It means the subject (the porn viewer) takes another subject (the porn actor) and makes that subject (the actor) into an object of desire, or sexual fulfillment by way of the viewers own sexual motives, without concern for the motives of the sexual object (the actor). In other words, there's no way to know the true sexual motives of the actor, through the medium of a computer screen, not least of all because porn is, at the end of things, an act, not an accurate portrayal of the sexuality of the actor (excluding amateur porn). It's so obvious that it's stupid to say, but sexual consent within porn only and always exists through a disjointed medium of the actor consenting via monetary gain, and the viewer consenting through their own sex drive. How is this different from prostitution? Not by any definitional distinction, surely. So, within internet porn specifically, there is no mediate connection between actor and viewer. There is no ontological line between consent and prostitution (or in worse cases, rape) within the context of porn. Viewing non-consensual porn is a form of voyeuristic prostitution (or at worst, rape), and there's no clear way to discern which is which, other than one's own intuition with regards to the body language of the porn actors within a given scene, which are often hard to read. — Noble Dust

At least in this paragraph you begin by speaking in terms of the viewing subject, because that's what this is primarily about. It's about how the other is viewed, whether as subject, object or both. (I see no reason why it can't be both, and why the terms should only be used in a mutually exclusive way, given that a subject can be an object in various ways (as someone else mentioned on the first page of this discussion, and the example of a musician-for-hire was given) and this is not necessarily wrong).

In reply to your comment that "there's no way to know the true sexual motives of the actor, through the medium of a computer screen" - I think that that wouldn't constitute a good enough reason to support the conclusion that porn is some kind of big problem. This problem equally applies in numerous other situations, yet this problem strikes me as largely trivial. Is this not just the so-called problem of other minds? It's a problem for philosophers with too much time on their hands to dwell upon whilst the rest of society functions as normal, where we somehow manage to interact with each other as if we do in fact have access to a sizeable chunk of such knowledge to all intents and purposes. Fortunately, we often don't need to read people's minds, and we don't need to in the case of legal porn, since before it even gets to the porn stage, there's a legal process in place which involves giving signed consent. And anything dodgy is dealt with by the authorities. The only responsibility here with which a citizen is, and should be, concerned is to report a suspected crime. If you think that some porn video that you've watched constitutes exploitation, for example, then the burden is on you to do something about that. If your concern is a problem for you, then you should do something about it, but blaming porn - without discrimating on a case-by-case basis - would be to go the wrong way about it.

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.

Or, is it more about the act itself, sex? If so, what is it that supposedly makes sex a special case?

Regardless of how you attempt to spin it, porn is simply not analogous to rape. Only those cases of porn which involve actual rape (as opposed to depicted rape) can rightly be equated in that way. However, the similarities between prostitution and porn do, on the other hand, warrant more of a link. But what's the supposed problem? One difference between prostitution and porn is that the former is on the black market and the latter is not, so the former exposes those involved to a greater risk of all kinds of problems than does the latter. But if the former was legalised in a similar way as the latter, then it wouldn't be a problem for me. It is already more or less legal in the form of escort services anyway.

Non-consensual porn is a red herring. By porn, I mean legal porn, where there is legal consent, which is the only consent which matters. It's not my burden to attempt to read someone's mind, but to ensure that I do what I can to watch only legal porn, because legal porn is ethical porn.

They are both free individuals engaged in an act, but only theoretically. In context, however, the porn actor becomes subservient to the desires of the viewer (and more immediately, in initial context) the director of the film. So, the porn actor serves the same purpose as the stripper in the strip club. — Noble Dust

No, not only theoretically, they are free in practice, just not absolutely - but no one is absolutely free. They could do otherwise and stop at any time. As for subservience, so what? That subservience is what the job involves, just like countless others, including my own, and this is no secret. As part of my job I am subservient to customers and my superiors in the workplace. I could quit my job at any time. This is not exploitation in the relevant sense. In some other sense perhaps, but we're not talking in the context of Marxism here. I'm sticking with the legal definition because I think that it is more sensible in assessing these sort of situations, has a stronger foundation, and is of far greater practical use than someone's subjective interpretation.

And in this way, the viewer becomes subservient to the actor via seduction. — Noble Dust

The viewer has chosen to get off on porn and is free to stop at any time. So what? It's not like the viewer is being forced at gunpoint. You could talk in this way about virtually anything, which just demonstrates the absurdity of this line of argument. Am I also then seduced by and subservient to television, videogames, breakfast, and virtually any other activity that I engage in?

So, the porn actor serves the same purpose as the stripper in the strip club. The porn actor is objectified in the same manner as the club stripper. — Noble Dust

Why stop there? I think that you have to either go the whole nine yards by applying this logic to virtually every profession going, or you must concede to special pleading. It's all or none: either we're all objectified and it's an ordinary occurrence or none of us are. Either way, I think that such talk is pretty meaningless and an example of taking advantage of loaded language.

The further masquerade that porn provides for us is that the actors are enjoying it, and we get more details of the farce than we used to when the strip club was all we had. — Noble Dust

So what? I'm sorry, but I find this ridiculous. I masquerade in my job as someone who genuinely gives a fuck about customers, even when I do not. That's what the job involves and I knew that before I applied.

Anyone with half a wits knowledge on female sexuality can dimwittedly discern that the large majority of female porn actors are not deriving very much real sexual pleasure from their work. — Noble Dust

Since when do jobs have to be enjoyable? Do you think that retail workers are always so happy to serve you? Keeping up appearances is part of the job. So what?

...and continue to emphasize the desires of the heterosexual male. — Noble Dust

Well, of course. The heterosexual male is the main consumer, so they're the target market. What do you expect? Supply is directed towards demand.

All of this emphasizes the objectification of a misguided view of female sexuality within the process of porn production, purely for the sake of the heterosexual male. — Noble Dust

Who are you to say what is and is not a misguided view of female sexuality? And so what if it is for the sake of the heterosexual male? (Besides, I think that being selective, by focussing, as you do above, for example, on how female sexuality is portrayed in porn, only serves to reflect bias. There is a wealth of porn available in all different kinds and combinations of gender and sexual orientation to cater to all sorts of desires. And if there is objectification in one, there is objectification in all. Why is it so often about women, as if they're damsels in distress, when plenty of men are in the exact same situation? How often do you hear about the objectification of men? No where near as often).

Female porn actors may be willingly subjecting themselves to a sexual experience that they don't find gratifying for the sake of making a paycheck, but what toll does this take on them themselves, the actors who derive no real fulfillment form their work? — Noble Dust

This just looks like more special pleading. Why should this by treated any differently to other jobs which can take a similar toll on employees?

And how is this different than prostitution? — Noble Dust

More importantly, why should it matter?

If a female actor is willing to make thousands of dollars on single porn scenes, without actually enjoying the work, what does this say about the gap between vocational fulfillment and monetary gain? — Noble Dust

Why female? And why isn't this just a general problem about work? Looks like one to me. Find a better job? There's always that option.

So in other words, sexual objectification obtains through the process of the perpetrator (the porn viewer) gaining sexual fulfillment through the victim's (the porn actor's) consent or non-consent to performing a sexual act solely for the benefit of the perpetrator (the porn viewer), and not with any real regard for the sexual pleasure of the victim (the porn actor); the victim (porn actor) only achieves compensation through a monetary gain: i.e. prostitution. — Noble Dust

Perpetrator, victim, compensation and prostitution?! That just made me laugh out loud. Ridiculously loaded language.

What stats or studies can you provide to illustrate that cases of exploitation are "a small minority and an exception"? — Noble Dust

Are you really suggesting that the number of porn videos which have been proven by a court of law to be guilty of legal exploitation could realistically outweigh the number of porn videos out there which have not? That would strike me as obviously mistaken, so I don't see why I should go to the effort of looking it up. What reason have you to doubt this? I would be very surprised if it were otherwise.

Edit: Searching the internet just brings up results relating to sexual exploitation or coercion of minors, which just serves to reinforce my view that it's probably a relatively rare occurrence with regards to adults, because your average producers of porn would obviously want to cover their own backs before filming, so they'd simply get legal consent in the form of a signed contract. They'd have the legal documentation which would mean that there is no case against them. I doubt that most will see it as necessary or worth the risk to break the law by cutting corners or by forcing people against their will.

Lust, per se, does not seem wrong to me at all, but only in certain contexts or in excess. — Sapientia

How are you defining lust?

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

Imagine this scenario. A child is born to a prostitute. Her mother has always been a prostitute, she is paid $1 a year, lives in squalor, has one change of clothes.. you get the picture, it's an awful life. The child grows up believing that type of life is normal. When she becomes an adult, she choose to become prostitute herself, and allows people to create videos of her engaging in sex. Lots of people get satisfaction from watching her perform those sex acts. She gets paid $1.50 (she get 50 cents more a year in return for letting them make videos) a year, and has virtually the same quality of life as her mother. Was her career choice actually a choice?

Imagine this scenario. A child is born to a prostitute. Her mother has always been a prostitute, she is paid $1 a year, lives in squalor, has one change of clothes.. you get the picture, it's an awful life. The child grows up believing that type of life is normal. When she becomes an adult, she choose to become prostitute herself, and allows people to create videos of her engaging in sex. Lots of people get satisfaction from watching her perform those sex acts. She gets paid $1.50 (she get 50 cents more a year in return for letting them make videos) a year, and has virtually the same quality of life as her mother. Did she actually choose to become a porn star? — anonymous66

If she did so of her own unrestricted will, then, in the relevant moral and legal sense, yes. Everyone fits that criteria in regards towards their own upbringing. Parents have a standard of living. They perform some kind of function for society. By the laws of supply and demand, most of those careers are going to be in jobs the parent does not really want, with a good chance that they barely tolerate the work. Children are going to be raised up in this environment.

@Chany Is it actually a choice if you don't even know there are alternatives, or if you don't have access to those alternatives?

How are you defining lust? — anonymous66

The normal way.

Imagine this scenario. A child is born to a prostitute. Her mother has always been a prostitute, she is paid $1 a year, lives in squalor, has one change of clothes.. you get the picture, it's an awful life. The child grows up believing that type of life is normal. When she becomes an adult, she choose to become prostitute herself, and allows people to create videos of her engaging in sex. Lots of people get satisfaction from watching her perform those sex acts. She gets paid $1.50 (she get 50 cents more a year in return for letting them make videos) a year, and has virtually the same quality of life as her mother. Was her career choice actually a choice? — anonymous66

That's very different from the kind of typical case that I had in mind, so any conclusion you try to draw from any answer that I provide can't just be transferred over to other cases or generalised. For that reason, I see little point in answering. I'm not arguing that there can't be exploitation and really awful circumstances which in effect leave one with no choice. I thought that this was a discussion about porn in general.

How are you defining lust? — anonymous66


The normal way. — Sapientia

What do you mean when you say, "The normal way?"

Chany Is it actually a choice if you don't even know there are alternatives, or if you don't have access to those alternatives? — anonymous66

What do you hope to achieve by introducing these specifics? They are game changers, for me at least, so any conclusion you draw can't be used to support a general conclusion about porn or porn actors, the majority of whom do know about and have access to alternatives.

That's very different from the kind of typical case that I had in mind, so any conclusion you try to draw from any answer that I provide can't just be transferred over to other cases or generalised. For that reason, I see little point in answering. I'm not arguing that there can't be exploitation and really awful circumstances which in effect leave one with no choice. I thought that this was a discussion about porn in general. — Sapientia

What do you mean by a typical case? You must have a scenario in mind when you insist that everyone involved in the porn industry is doing what they do voluntarily, and that they understand they have a choice.

What do you mean when you say, "The normal way?" — anonymous66

I mean what I said. With due respect, please don't play dumb.

I mean what I said. With due respect, please don't play dumb. — Sapientia

I honestly don't know what you have in mind when you use the word "lust". Can we agree to this definition?: Lust: An overwhelming desire or craving: a lust for power.

People lust after things other than sex, don't they?

You must have a scenario in mind when you insist that everyone involved in the porn industry is doing what they do voluntarily, and that they understand they have a choice. — anonymous66

That's a straw man and not something that I've said. I acknowledge that there are exceptions.

What do you mean by a typical case? — anonymous66

I mean a case that is typical. If you want to know what I think that consists in, I think that that consists in circumstances similar to other jobs, which means that the person in question knows what the job involves, what they'll be paid for it, and they then consent and get on with it. What more do you want to know? I've seen plenty of porn videos with healthy-looking Europeans, Americans and Asians who most likely get paid a lot more than 50p an hour or whatever it was you came up with, and who most likely have knowledge of and access to other career options. I'd say that these cases are fairly typical and can be easily found on the internet on legitimate-looking sites.

What do you hope to achieve by introducing these specifics? They are game changers, for me at least, so any conclusion you draw can't be used to support a general conclusion about porn or porn actors, the majority of whom do know about and have access to alternatives. — Sapientia

Assuming, for the sake of argument, that we agree that a majority know they have a choice... what about those who don't know they have a choice?

Assuming, for the sake of argument, that we agree that a majority know they have a choice... what about those who don't know they have a choice? — anonymous66

My reasoning here is like this: Is it harmful to be involved in the making of porn? If it is harmful, can people choose to willfully harm themselves? How can we tell if it is harmful?

I honestly don't know what you have in mind when you use the word lust. Can we agree to this definition?: Lust: An overwhelming desire or craving: a lust for power. — anonymous66

I find that hard to believe. But sure, that's more or less what I meant. Lust. It's a strong desire for something, isn't it? We both know what lust is - no point pretending otherwise. We're not speaking French. It can be overwhelming. A lust for sex, power, revenge...

Assuming, for that sake of argument, that we agree that a majority know they have a choice... what about those who don't know they have a choice? — anonymous66

What about them? They're an exception, and, if we're to keep this as realistic as possible, most likely a child or someone who is under duress and suffering abuse, and I feel sorry for them and think that it's wrong and that something should be done about it. Either way, that'd be illegal.

But that has nothing to do with what I was talking about. I was talking about the typical porn video you'll find from a legitimate porn site. Not some imagined hypothetical scenario or an extreme case or anything illegal.

But that has nothing to do with what I was talking about. I was talking about the typical porn video you'll find from a legitimate porn site. Not some imagined hypothetical scenario or an extreme case or anything illegal. — Sapientia

Hmm. I don't know. Consider this....

LEXINGTON, Ky. (March 25, 2010) − You have to start with acknowledging and understanding the reality of a problem before you can fix it, according to University of Kentucky philosophy professor Natalie Nenadic.

Morehead State University philosophy professor Karen Bardsley will discuss just what is real and what is not in a talk titled "Pornography and the Power of Images" at 4 p.m. Friday, March 26 in Room 228 of the UK Student Center.

Bardsley specializes in the philosophy of film, combining the concepts of aesthetics, cultural theory, cognitive science and the philosophy of mind and perception.

Bardsley's point is a simple one: film is powerful. If films did not enjoy influence, then companies would not dish out millions of dollars for 30-second Superbowl advertisements. And the pornography industry would not make billions of dollars annually.

"Most viewers insist that they are well aware of the difference between film and reality and that they aren't hopelessly manipulated by the film images they view," Bardsley has said. However, there is a clear relationship between images and viewers.

"The effects of pornography are real," said Nenadic. "And an important step in understanding that is through talks like Professor Bardsley’s."

Bardsley will discuss some of the latest research on how moving images shape the perceptions, behavior and beliefs of viewers, especially with regard to pornography.

Nenadic is teaching a graduate course at UK this semester called "Modernity, Pornography and Sex Equality." "Professor Bardsley’s talk will be a great addition to my class, but it will also appeal to a wide audience," she said.

Nenadic feels that pornography plays a part in the objectification and mistreatment of both women and children."A lot of pornography involves digital recordings of actual sexual abuses, and pornography as a whole teaches men that sexual abuse and exploitation of women is normal," she said. "It portrays women as enjoying this kind of treatment and shows it as a form of sexual liberation. Well, philosophy can say, 'this is wrong.'"

As well as publishing articles and giving numerous talks on this topic, Bardsley has co-edited a book on the nature of creativity and has presented on a wide range of philosophical topics, including environmental ethics, the nature and value of philosophy and the importance of academic freedom.

"Pornography is not about what we traditionally understand as sex education nor does it portray some sort of sexual equality. These are major misconceptions that are widely believed," said Nenadic. "We need philosophy to help us understand and name it properly. When you take seriously most women’s experiences of pornography, you get a clearer grasp of what it is, which can help us come up with practical and more effective solutions to the problem."

Nenadic hopes that attendees will come away with more than just the facts from Bardsley's lecture. "Philosophy is a major part of this discussion," said Nenadic. "In philosophy, you think about finding meaning in your life. How do you disentangle yourself from something so pervasive? You have to acknowledge it."

For more information on Bardsley's talk, please contact Nenadic at nataliedotnenadicatukydotedu.

I find that hard to believe. But sure, that's more or less what I meant. Lust. It's a strong desire for something, isn't it? We both know what lust is - no point pretending otherwise. We're not speaking French. It can be overwhelming. A lust for sex, power, revenge... — Sapientia

So, you're not talking about sexual desire, right? I mean, the night my son was conceived, I wouldn't call what I felt for my wife "lust".

But, there is something called lust... Doesn't lust actually have the sense of an excessive desire for something that isn't rightfully belong to the one doing the lusting? I've never heard lust described in terms that would suggest there are some contexts in which it is acceptable, or that one can have less than excessive lust. In my mind, if someone is talking about lust (in a sexual sense) that isn't excessive, then he must actually mean sexual desire, something I have no issue with.

I'm talking about lust in relation to the passions (or the passions) Hopefully, there is no one making the claim, "The passions aren't so bad.." In my mind, the passions entail emotional suffering.

How about this definition? Lust: perverse or corrupt versions of love for something or another... excessive or disordered love of good things.

Nenadic feels that pornography plays a part in the objectification and mistreatment of both women and children."A lot of pornography involves digital recordings of actual sexual abuses, and pornography as a whole teaches men that sexual abuse and exploitation of women is normal," she said. "It portrays women as enjoying this kind of treatment and shows it as a form of sexual liberation. Well, philosophy can say, 'this is wrong.'"

If that's merely how she feels, then so what? Why should I care? I happen to feel otherwise and doubt her claims. If that's what she thinks, then where are the sources to back that up? The first part doesn't really need backing up, since I accept that a significant number of pornographic recordings contain sexual abuse and exploitation, but these are illegal and not what I was talking about. If, on the other hand, she's talking about the typical kind of porn video you can easily find from a legitimate porn site, then the burden lies with her (or you, if you're arguing the same point). Presumably there have been a large number arrests and legal cases that have resulted in prosecutions if that was indeed the case? Wouldn't this have made the news? And I'm not really talking about sites where you can upload just about anything, because then it's of course possible that you'll find abuse, but most of these sites are probably moderated, have legal disclaimers, the functionality to report abuse, and so on. If I thought that a porn video contained illegal abuse, then I'd report it. Can't say that that's ever happened to me though. If the abuse is hidden so well that I have little-to-no chance of detecting it, and even if I stick to sites which seem legitimate, then what would you expect of me?

As for that last part, I rolled my eyes. Philosophy can say a whole load of things, and there is seemingly no limit to how ridiculous or utterly wrongheaded it can be.

So, someone says, "a lot of pornography involves digital recording of actual sexual abuses, and pornography teaches men that sexual abuse and exploitation of women is normal..It portrays women as enjoying this kind of treatment and shows it as a form of sexual liberation."

If there is evidence? What then? What if only the last part is true... That "pornography teaches men that sexual abuse and exploitation of women is normal... It portrays women as enjoying this kind of treatment and shows it as a form of sexual liberation."?

Edited to add:
Are you saying, "I don't care... AND it's not true?" Or are you saying, "It's not true"?

Chany Is it actually a choice if you don't even know there are alternatives, or if you don't have access to those alternatives? — anonymous66

No, but nothing in the example you provided indicated that everyone in the child's life withheld information about all other possibilities for employment and lifestyle and that the only job on the market that the woman potentially qualified for and was made available was pornography.

On another note, we may not need to have access to alternatives in order to be morally responsible for our decisions, a la Frankfurt cases in which the agent does not have alternative possibilities and is still intuitively held responsible.

So, someone says, "a lot of pornography involves digital recording of actual sexual abuses, and pornography teaches men that sexual abuse and exploitation of women is normal.."
If there is evidence? What then? — anonymous66

Then I'll take that into account when considering these things, but as I was just adding to my previous comment in an edit, if I could detect it, then I'd report it. If not, then what would you expect of me? I wouldn't give up watching porn just because it might, unbeknownst to me, contain illegal abuse or exploitation, just as I wouldn't give up videogames or watching television on a similar basis.

What if only the last part is true... That "pornography teaches men that sexual abuse and exploitation of women is normal?" — anonymous66

Does it or doesn't it? I don't care about "what if's" unless I can see that there's a good point behind it. What if the moon was made of cheese?

So, you're not talking about sexual desire, right? I mean, the night my son was conceived, I wouldn't call what I felt for my wife "lust". — anonymous66

Of course I'm talking about sexual desire! What else would I be talking about? We're talking about sex after all. But, like I said, strong sexual desire. I don't really care what you would or wouldn't call it, I care about what it is. It would be odd if you didn't lust after your wife the night that your son was conceived. You might prefer to call it something else, but why should I care?

But, there is something called lust... I've never heard lust described in terms that would suggest there are some contexts in which it is acceptable, or that one can have less than excessive lust. In my mind, if someone is talking about lust (in a sexual sense) that isn't excessive, then he must be talking about sexual desire. — anonymous66

No, I don't think that it's necessarily excessive, just typically overwhelming... He was overcome with lust.... His lust might've been just the right amount.

I get that lust is traditionally considered a sin and that it is not uncommon for it to be associated with negative connotations, but so what?

How about this definition? Lust: perverse or corrupt versions of love for something or another... excessive or disordered love of good things. — anonymous66

No, I'll more or less stick with the first definition I found online, which is usually a sensible idea. I'll not define it in such a way that it is necessarily immoral by implication, because I don't think that that best reflects reality. I can quite easily conceive of situations in which lust is not an immoral vice, but something quite normal, natural and acceptable. I don't find that at all counterintuitive - quite the contrary.

Edited to add:
Are you saying, "I don't care... AND it's not true?" Or are you saying, "It's not true"? — anonymous66

I'll care more if it is shown to be true, or if I am presented with what I consider to be a good reason to believe that it is true. Otherwise I don't much care because it's merely conjecture, and I have my doubts about it. The fact that it was said by a philosophy professor doesn't cause me to believe that it's true, because philosophy professors have said all kinds of things, some of which strike me as absurd, and many of these statements contradict other statements made by different professors of philosophy. Philosophy is quite different to other professions.