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

Yes, I accept that there can be problems similar to those you get with gambling, smoking, and drinking. But my position is the same with those as it is with porn, which means that there are lines which should not be crossed with regards to liberty and scapegoating. I am in favour of practical solutions that can help with these kinds of problems without throwing the baby out with the bathwater. For example, I'm in favour of the limits that have been placed on advertising which promotes cigarettes, and I am in favour of those adverts designed to increase awareness of the problems with drinking, smoking and gambling. I don't smoke and have a low opinion of smoking. But I wouldn't make the blanket statement that no one should smoke or that smoking is bad (in a strictly ethical sense, not in the sense that it is bad for your health).

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

I accept both of those distinctions. I would object to censorship and defend porn as porn, and that's exactly what I've been doing. And, although there is a distinction between highly sexualised imagery and other kinds of imagery, that doesn't mean that true analogies can't be made. They can and have.

I am in favour of practical solutions that can help with these kinds of problems without throwing the baby out with the bathwater. — Sapientia

What baby? Rosemary's? >:)

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

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

You talk about porn as seeming wrong to you. I ask you: why is that? My guess is that you either don't understand its purpose, thinking any sexual activity should be reserved for procreation or that, at the opposite pole, you view sex as more than baby-making, like as an expression of passion and most porn out there fails to support that view, being as dispassionate as it is, and so becomes revolting.

A sensible assessment.

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".

But there's quite obviously a big difference between that and porn. A porn actor is not a prime minister. The former has chosen to use his or her body as a sexualised object of desire. The former is doing so purposefully. In the former context, it is entirely appropriate to react in this sort of way.

Scapegoating undermines a serious issue and a worthy cause. Doing so makes you part of the problem, not part of the solution.

@Noblosh
What are you suggesting is the purpose of pornography?

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

There are no true statements of the form "M is always about x," at least not when we're talking about at least a handful of people doing and thinking about M.

What makes M about x is that S thinks about M in a particular way--namely, so that S associates M with x. M is only about x insofar as that's the case. Otherwise M is about something else.

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

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.

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

Wouldn't the world be a better place without the passions?

This reminds me of a conversation wherein my interlocutor said, "I don't care about the exploited workers at McDonald's.... so, why would I care about exploitation in the porn industry?"
Maybe we should care about exploitation, no matter where it occurs.

From where I'm sitting, some are saying, "wouldn't the world be a better place if we could get rid of [all of] the passions?"
And some are saying, I don't care about passion X, so why would I care about passion Y?" Or maybe they're saying, "I don't care about passion X in situation Y, so why would I care about passion X in situation Z?"
If there is a passion (harmful emotion) involved with porn... let's be honest about it.

I don't care about the exploited workers at McDonald's.... so, why would I care about exploitation in the porn industry?" — anonymous66

Honestly, anonymous66, I've tried very, very hard to get off watching industry films of exploited McDonald's workers, and try as I might, I didn't get even a tingle in my dick. I didn't get a tingle in my conscience either, because it isn't the case that McDonald's employees are necessarily exploited. They are doing relatively skinless work for (usually) less than an 8 hour shift less than 5 days a week and their wages are often quite adequate for that kind of work.

A parent may not be able to support themselves and a child on McDonald's wage and hourly arrangement, but that is becoming increasingly true of many low-skilled jobs. Under capitalism, one should keep one's expectations low. If you want to pursue great expectations, then you should become a socialist like me.

Wouldn't the world be a better place without them? [edit: the seven deadly sins] — anonymous66

It would certainly be a better place without some of them, at least. Any chance of getting rid of them?

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.

To want to have sex with someone is to think of them. Watching someone on screen is to consider an image of their body. In any case, their is the significance of another person on someone's mind, even when someone is thinking "Wow, that's a hot body I'm attracted to."

Desire, attraction and pleasure towards others always involves thinking about someone else. That's what makes it different from just looking at an image (e.g. a picture of a fictional person) or merely involving yourself (e.g. just masturbating on your own, with no tights about anyone in particular).

I'm not saying a handful of people are thinking about others in this context. My point that *everyone* is doing so in this context. It's entailed in thinking, desiring or acting in a way that involves another person-- this doesn't change just because someone insists "I'm only looking at an image" or "It's just about my own pleasure." In either case, said person is still thinking about someone else.

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'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.

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

It's wrong given the context. Given the context, it's inappropriate and degrading. There are right and wrong aspects to focus on in different contexts, and this can be illustrated with numerous examples in which there would be broad consensus. I'm not suggesting that the consensus makes it right or wrong, accordingly, but that your personal morality is unusual and less relatable.

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.

I'm also rather anti views of "appropriate"/"inappropriate" behavior with respect to different social contexts--basically, those are views of etiquette.

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. And it's disrespectful to frame it in that way when that's clearly not what the meeting was about - they weren't there to show off their legs, they were there to discuss important political matters.

And I do think that consensus is not entirely irrelevant. If you differ drastically from the consensus on moral issues, then there might just be something wrong with you. Morality isn't a matter of anything goes and it isn't entirely personal. I think one needs to look outside of oneself for comparison.

It's degrading because ogling at their legs takes a serious and important matter down a grade - it drags it into the gutter. — Sapientia

But that a is a "serious and important matter" and b isn't is entirely subjective. Your opinion could just as well be seen as taking the serious and important matter of leg-oggling and degrading it--you feel it's nowhere near as important as other focuses. Different people have different opinons on that, and no one is right or wrong objectively. I'm certainly of the opinion that there's nothing "guttery" about leg-oggling.

What something is about is subjective, too, and the idea that just in case x was about A to S, then all further talk about x must be about A is what I consider purist nonsense. Of course, some people would prefer to talk about A in relation to x, and that's not wrong objectively, but it's not right, either.

Morality is in no way determined by consensus. There is no right or wrong morality objectively. It's just what individuals feel is right or wrong. It is entirely personal. And that, which isn't itself a moral claim, is a fact.

I heard a good example of degrading commentary on a recent radio news program. The announcer/reporter was discussing budget negotiations between the legislators and the governor and, because the process was slow, suggested that the state legislators were behaving "like children playing in the sandbox".

This comment was made on a different frequency than references to the legs of political leaders, but has the same effect of 'taking them down a few pegs'.

I should probably note that I'm not of the opinion that someone shouldn't do something just because someone else finds it "degrading." Valuation is always subjective.

The Willow of Darkness, a portion of one of your replies has been posted on The Philosophy Forum Facebook page. Congratulations and Thank you for your contribution!

You're wrong about these things being "entirely subjective". It isn't pure coincidence that large scale agreement occurs. There's inter-subjectivity, and that is based in part on objectivity. I'm not saying that morality is objective, but neither are moral matters entirely subjective.

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?

The daily mail is meant to be.. Oh. It would be wrong if the daily mail was meant to be a proper newspaper. But it's utter prurient garbage. Is it 'not wrong' for the daily mail to subtly sexualise children because there's no objective right or wrong? Or is that just another aspect by which one can view children, no more or less valid than any other?

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

That's not at all how I use the word "valid." That use of the word "valid" seems like a category error to me.

But in any event, I'm fine with anyone focusing on whatever they'd like to focus on.

You're wrong about these things being "entirely subjective". — Sapientia

Nope. Not at all. You're wrong that I'm wrong about that.

It isn't pure coincidence that large scale agreement occurs. — Sapientia

Correct. And that it's not coincidence that large scale agreement occurs has absolutely no bearing on whether ethical judgments are entirely subjective.

There's inter-subjectivity, — Sapientia

Intersubjectivity doesn't amount to anything aside from the fact that people can agree with each other from a behavioral perspective. In other words, Joe can say, "I feel it's morally wrong to disagree with anything Terrapin Station says" and Bob can say, "Yes, I agree." Intersubjectivity amounts to nothing more than that.

Moral judgements are entirely subjective.

Okay since someone deleted my previous post, I will make a more serious response now.

Number 1. Watching porn is alike watching a gladiator fight, in the sense that in the production of it many people are generally harmed in quite irreversible ways. We can talk about both spiritual/psychological and social harm. 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.

So yes - there is quite some pleasure to extract out of watching people do things that you'd never do yourself - whether this is fighting to the death, or shagging in public, or whatever other fantasy you have. Why? Because it's fulfilling your desire, without paying the cost that is normally associated with that fulfilment. Other people - the actors are paying the costs for you. So it's a way of doing things you'd never be able to do in real life. For example, a woman may fantasise about being shagged by 10 guys, but there are some costs associated with that in real life. She's not going to want to go through with that, but she can easily fulfil that fantasy through porn. This is oppression - gaining something at the expense of others.

Number 2. In an age dominated by sexual obsessions, most porn watchers are victims who, once in the cycle, find it hard to escape. It's nice to watch porn. I mean you have so many hot chicks a single click away - you can have variety, you can experiment with different races, different colours, married women, virgins, bisexuals - anything you can imagine! And there's no charge - you know, they don't want you to do anything in return, they don't protest, they start/stop when you dictate, etc. If you are a hedonist, you'd do well to stop dating other women/men, and just get yourself properly into porn my man! You'll achieve more pleasure than you can ever imagine, at no cost! Enough with the chasing women, losing time, etc. Just tune in to the porn!

But - porn keeps you sexually obsessed and doesn't permit you to focus adequately on other things in your life. You will not learn to value and respect other women or men. You will not develop a kind of love that transcends mere sexual expression. Instead you'll become very self-centered, always oriented after your own pleasure.

Number 3. Porn has long-standing effects on the brain, which have been neuro-biologically studied. These are actual structural changes that happen in the brain due to watching porn. Porn leads to:

• Decreased Willpower
• Numbed Pleasure Response
• Sexual Hyper-reactivity

Please do yourself a favour and watch this video:


Since the effects of porn are subtle, people who are addicted to porn (watch it frequently) don't even realise what they're missing out on.

Number 4. From within the life of porn, things look good. You're banging the hottest chicks on the planet, seeing tens of hot, steamy, naked women in minutes, all the while you're flapping that bird like there's no tomorrow! But from without, things look very different. I will allow this Buddhist story to speak for me:

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

It is the case that Porn has effects on the brain, but -- quite seriously -- so does everything else. Learning French, driving a car in heavy traffic, walking in the forest, swimming in a lake, arguing with your boss, feeding a baby, writing a book, singing, studying music -- it all has an effect -- and quite possibly an enduring effect. "And all these effects have been neuro-biologically studied"

Not only that, but everything you have ever done so far had a significant effect on the brain, and THERE IS NOTHING YOU CAN DO ABOUT IT. The brain contains a record of our lives so far.

So, porn having an effect on the brain is saying no more than riding a bike for 2 hours has an effect on the brain,.

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

Which means that among other things, you're assuming that:
(a) kids are watching so much porn that they have a veritable mental catalog of porn actors at their disposal
(b) most fellow students know everyone's parents, and
(c) most porn actors are very easy to recognize in person

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

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.

But in any event, I'm fine with anyone focusing on whatever they'd like to focus on. — Terrapin Station

Even if it's the sexual objectification of children in a national tabloid. Wow. This is your brain on moral relativism.

Are you aware that watching an excessive number of TED talks will cause your dick to fall off?

Look TED talks are not the equivalent of a peer-reviewed journal, or even just serious science journalism. The presenters may be experts in their field, but they are presenting a combination of "speech to inform" and "speech to persuade". So all of these fairly brief, quite punchy, slick, fast-talking lecturers are all over the Internet, and the lion's share of what they have to say is being taken at face value.

One of my favorite Ted talks, A STROKE OF INSIGHT by Jill Bolte Taylor is really informative and inspiring. BUT, a paragraph of fine print is missing from the talk. After her massive stroke, Ms. Bolte Taylor couldn't tell shit from shinola. It took her something like 8 to 10 years of intense therapy to recover her mental skills. She did not remember the stroke that she is talking about. Rather, the experience was reconstructed. All this is explained in her book.

The point isn't to knock Bolte-Taylor; the point is to suggest caution about swallowing everything in a TED talk, hook, line, and sinker.

Maybe there is less there than one thinks there is.

Maybe there is less there than one thinks there is. — Bitter Crank

You've been watching too many TED talks.

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.

I'm not of the view that any speech or expression is unacceptable.

An argument is valid or not. Not (interpersonal) behavior. — Terrapin Station

So you are using it in another one of its senses so as to make it a category error. Regardless, it doesn't really matter whether I use the word 'valid' or 'acceptable' because you've just admitted you don't have an issue with tabloids sexually objectifying kids because there's no objective right or wrong.