Is pornography moral?

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

Both are immoral (abnormal).

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

Is the use and/or viewing of pornography moral?

Depending on the context, I think it can be argued that pornography is just as immoral as prostitution.  If you believe that prostitution is immoral because it involves society forcing a person to be sexually penetrated to make a living, then how is pornography any different other than that a camera and a multi-billion dollar industry are involved?

That's a good point, there are certainly similarities between the two. The only difference is that with pornography, all participants in the physical act are workers, whereas with prostitution, one of them is a consumer. It's the difference between Object-Object and Subject-Object in terms of the actual act.

Prostitution is certainly more concerning than pornography accepting that analysis--which I think makes a good deal of sense intuitively, at least--but that also does a very good job of explaining why both are objectionable if one believes that sexuality needs to be Subject-Subject to be moral.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

afleitch, your argument makes sense. I still disagree with it, but it makes sense and, being a stuck-up virgin who literally clutches rosaries, I can't really refute it.

I think that what most of us are referring to as pornography, however, depends at least in part upon the intentions of the people producing it--obviously almost anything can be consumed as pornography, according to taste. I'd also say that, personally, a lot of my moral objections to pornography don't really obtain any more, at least not as much, if it doesn't involve living actors (drawn stuff bothers me less than filmed stuff, written stuff bothers me less than drawn stuff, et cetera).

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

Both are immoral (abnormal).

Have to agree.

I really don't understand my fellow lefties sometimes.

Objectification, exploitation, sex without feelings, etc.

All sex is objectification.

So you are saying that it is impossible to think of you partner as a human person during the sexual act? I unfortunately am unable to contradict you but I highly doubt it.

Why would you want to do that? 

オペボちゃん、もう寂しいである必要はない！

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

オペボちゃん、もう寂しくないで下さい！

Didn't you ever hear the rule about sharing with the entire class, Nathan? 

opebo-chan, you don't have to be lonely any more!

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

オペボちゃん、もう寂しくないで下さい！

Didn't you ever hear the rule about sharing with the entire class, Nathan? 

opebo-chan, you don't have to be lonely any more!

Haha, thanks!

(Full disclosure: What I originally posted was 'opebo-chan, please don't be lonely any more!' but when I saw this thread again a few minutes ago I decided that 'you don't have to...' captured my ~*~true feelings~*~ better.)

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

I think NOT viewing porn is probably immoral. 

Please elaborate.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

I think NOT viewing porn is probably immoral. 

Please elaborate.

People who have sexual urges that they repress for moral/religious/whatever reasons tend to drive themselves crazy, become very on edge, or fail to think rationally.  This release-starved person then levies their crazy upon everyone else.  I see it happen all the time.  People need to be able to crank one out without feeling so damn terrible about it.

That's an argument for masturbation, not pornography. One doesn't necessitate the other.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Of course.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

People who have sexual urges that they repress for moral/religious/whatever reasons tend to drive themselves crazy, become very on edge, or fail to think rationally.  This release-starved person then levies their crazy upon everyone else.  I see it happen all the time.  People need to be able to crank one out without feeling so damn terrible about it.

That's an argument for masturbation, not pornography. One doesn't necessitate the other.

Good lord, what're the poor bastards supposed to do?  Just stare at the wall?

opebo, your quote that Nathan decided to so ceremoniously immortalize in his signature is quite accurate no? 

Nathan-land.  As much fun as watching paint dry... literally. 

See, what I'm getting from this is that you're essentially admitting that you and opebo are just really unimaginative and possibly that your leisure time isn't very balanced, although I doubt that's what you're trying to say. Bonus points for the unorthodox use of the word 'literally'! As somebody who admires Sesame Weichbrodt from Buddenbrooks, I think I'll deal with this sick burn by adding it to the Wall of Repurposed Insults (And Nix's Non-Serious Insult) too.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

See, what I'm getting from this is that you're essentially admitting that you and opebo are just really unimaginative and possibly that your leisure time isn't very balanced

No amount of imagination can substitute for a moving picture, Nathan.

Imagine harder.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

On this thread, Nathan, you seem like a learnt and very well read man, of which I certainly am not being an artless and cynical hack that I am but may I suggest going over a book or two again to rejog your memory. In particular I'm thinking of Nietzsche's Beyond Good and Evil, a book which btw if I wrote the laws of intellectual life I would force all academics to read once a year. Anyway, in that opus I especially like the section on the stoics. It's an excellent section and full of good truths for this thread. Do you remember it?

Are you thinking of Aphorism 9, about how any philosophy 'when it starts to believe in itself' creates the world in its own image? If so, point taken! However, point also confessed, so I would appreciate it if you would if nothing else not use this as grounds to accuse me of hypocrisy, since everything that Nietzsche accuses the Stoics of in that section I admit of myself freely. If I didn't exercise some degree of 'self-tyranny' I would be in a very bad situation for reasons unrelated to sexuality, and I'm afraid I'm just not enough of a relativist--or alternately I'm just too self-centered, if you'd rather--to see that as personally specific to me. In any case I don't think that observing that something is a natural instinct or a natural outcome is sufficient as moral justification anyway (because while nature and natural categories may be basically good they are also basically flawed), though certainly it's sufficient for compassion and giving the benefit of the doubt in at least some specific cases of things that we see as immoral in the abstract. Which is partially why I'm, for instance, actually a lot fonder of opebo than my tone in my arguments with him on these kinds of subjects tends to imply--there's not much doubt of which to assign benefit in his case, but it does no good and is not very open-hearted or forgiving to hold him in total contempt for having views and acting in ways that I believe are damaging. But, really, when it comes right down to it, it's fun and in a sense liberating for me and I hope at least somewhat of a sociocultural reality check for our more hardline secularist or hedonist posters for me to carry on clutching my rosary.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

On this thread, Nathan, you seem like a learnt and very well read man, of which I certainly am not being an artless and cynical hack that I am but may I suggest going over a book or two again to rejog your memory. In particular I'm thinking of Nietzsche's Beyond Good and Evil, a book which btw if I wrote the laws of intellectual life I would force all academics to read once a year. Anyway, in that opus I especially like the section on the stoics. It's an excellent section and full of good truths for this thread. Do you remember it?

Are you thinking of Aphorism 9, about how any philosophy 'when it starts to believe in itself' creates the world in its own image? If so, point taken! However, point also confessed, so I would appreciate it if you would if nothing else not use this as grounds to accuse me of hypocrisy, since everything that Nietzsche accuses the Stoics of in that section I admit of myself freely. If I didn't exercise some degree of 'self-tyranny' I would be in a very bad situation for reasons unrelated to sexuality, and I'm afraid I'm just not enough of a relativist--or alternately I'm just too self-centered, if you'd rather--to see that as personally specific to me. In any case I don't think that observing that something is a natural instinct or a natural outcome is sufficient as moral justification anyway (because while nature and natural categories may be basically good they are also basically flawed), though certainly it's sufficient for compassion and giving the benefit of the doubt in at least some specific cases of things that we see as immoral in the abstract. Which is partially why I'm, for instance, actually a lot fonder of opebo than my tone in my arguments with him on these kinds of subjects tends to imply--there's not much doubt of which to assign benefit in his case, but it does no good and is not very open-hearted or forgiving to hold him in total contempt for having views and acting in ways that I believe are damaging. But, really, when it comes right down to it, it's fun and in a sense liberating for me and I hope at least somewhat of a sociocultural reality check for our more hardline secularist or hedonist posters for me to carry on clutching my rosary.

Oh, I don't wish to accuse you of hypocrisy. Even less do I wish to take away one's pleasure from you and just before you accuse me of being a hedonist*, I would like to remind you that I made this thread

Oh, no, I didn't think you did, nor did I wish to accuse you of being a hedonist (I do remember that discussion, and wish I been able to contribute more of value in it); others in this thread obviously are, but I wasn't saying that about you.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Yes, clutch your rosary. I don't mind that. What I do object to is having to clutch your rosary in the name of some personal imperative or belief. There's a lot of personal psychoanalysis of others going on, but whose nature, whose human nature, are we talking about? I see no reason to think it's that of 'society' (or even less, 'culture').[/quote]

This is something that I'm definitely trying to consider. I'm at this point honestly not sure whether I agree with Nietzsche (and you) on this or not. I'm leaning towards disagreeing, but I assure you that I am thinking about it and I'll continue to think about it. I'm not sure I will ever stop. Unless I do I rather think I will continue along roughly my present course, because it genuinely has served me well thus far, but I try not to be un-self-aware about it.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Eight-seventeen in the evening and replace hedonist with idealist, but, yeah, same here.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Oh, I didn't say you thought I was a hedonist. I wouldn't even dare attach labels to myself.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Perhaps then I should continue on with Fritz:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I'll add that I think that Nietzsche on the Stoics is one of the favourite pieces of literature ever.

It's now 2:30AM and I have to eat

I reread Aphorism 9 in its entirety when I made my first response.

Nietzsche's a fantastic writer, of course, of the major modern philosophers certainly one of the most talented with prose and perhaps the most, but I simply don't always find him convincing. Nor, I assure you, do I never find him convincing.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

Tik: The problem with the idea that it satiates desires that would otherwise come out in other ways is that a lot of people argue, not entirely without empirical evidence (yes, I am hedging here, only because I don't have the studies that support this view in front of me right now and I'm heading out to go hiking in a few minutes), that watching a lot of it can also warp attitudes or exacerbate already unhealthy attitudes about sex and about women and about the sorts of things that it shows--in other words that it creates or at least can in some cases create the sort of desires that one might think it would satisfy.

No, thanks.

無精者～

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

Good lord, Nathan, who are you to decide what are 'healthy attitudes' about sex?

As much of anybody as you are, I should think, unless you assume that my beliefs and preferences make me or others more miserable than yours make you or others, which I think I would know significantly more about than you would, don't you agree?

Besides, I know what healthy and unhealthy attitudes about other people, as people, in general, are, and how one should think of and treat others. Women, even actual or intended sex partners, count as people for purposes of moral consideration--shocking to you, I'd imagine, but I believe pretty strongly that that's the case.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

[working on a response to Tik; will probably finish it this evening since I have other things to take care of first]

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

Tik: The problem with the idea that it satiates desires that would otherwise come out in other ways is that a lot of people argue, not entirely without empirical evidence (yes, I am hedging here, only because I don't have the studies that support this view in front of me right now and I'm heading out to go hiking in a few minutes), that watching a lot of it can also warp attitudes or exacerbate already unhealthy attitudes about sex and about women and about the sorts of things that it shows--in other words that it creates or at least can in some cases create the sort of desires that one might think it would satisfy.

I'm sympathetic to the line of thinking, and I'm interested in the specifics of the studies you mentioned. Nevertheless, it seems like a slippery slope. Inferring that you dislike pornography for idealistic reasons (my apologies if that's not the case),  even if pornography can bring about desires and attitudes that are, um, disagreeable or otherwise wrong, does that damn the whole thing? I think an absence of pornography would ultimately result in even worse behaviour and attitudes. I like a really solid array of evidence before I condemn something as more often harmful than not. You're the one with the studies, though, I've got nothing but my own inclinations and biases.

You're right that I believe pornography to be immoral for intrinsic, idealistic reasons, but it always helps to have some corroboration that it's also immoral in a way that does actually hurt people.

As it turns out a lot of the research on this was done in the eighties and nineties and doesn’t really take online pornography into account. I don’t know if that would change the outcomes at all. In any case here you go, with the caveat that all of these studies are controversial and some, including that done by the Reagan-era Justice Department that some of these cite, may have been politically motivated:

Pornography and sexual aggression: are there reliable effects and can we understand them?
Effects of Exposure to Pornography on Male Aggressive Behavioral Tendencies
Pornography Use and Sexual Aggression: The Impact of Frequency and Type of Pornography Use on Recidivism Among Sexual Offenders
Pornography and Rape: A Causal Model
Men’s Behavior Toward Women After Viewing Sexually-Explicit Films: Degradation Makes a Difference

(And with the additional caveat that I couldn’t find some of what I was looking for and that this isn’t really a subject in which I would claim especial academic expertise anyway. I'll try to find some critical overviews of this discourse to add in a later post, in the interests of fairness. I believe there are several.)

I’ve tried to link papers from a variety of perspectives that generally agree with mine, ranging from radical feminist views to more moderate ones (EDIT: Note in particular, as Lurker points out in the post below this one, that 'Pornography and Rape: A Causal Model' opens itself up to a lot of methodological criticism and its titular 'causal model' is most probably at least overstated somewhat, possibly actually wrong. I'm still including it because it gives a decent summary of the 1986 Justice Department report and reactions to it--I'll try to find the Justice Department report itself--and because of the interest of what Russell chooses to write about and the way she chooses to write about it as ideologically representative of her strain of feminism at the time). The general takeaway in the moderate view is that while viewing pornography doesn’t in all or even most cases lead to degraded and violent views of women, it can encourage or exacerbate preexisting tendencies in those directions rather than ‘satiating’ them or serving as ‘catharsis’, and that pornography that is itself violent or even sadomasochistic (beyond a certain point) can lead to some pretty alarming results. With some exceptions these are generally agreed that the sociological problem with pornography is not the sexual explicitness as such but rather the portrayal of violence and the sensibility that sex is some kind of commodity. This is a set of conclusions with which I’m comfortable because, again, a significant part of my moral issue with pornography is with what it is intrinsically (i.e. of course it would sometimes encourage the sensibility that sex is some kind of commodity! It itself makes sex some kind of commodity!) rather than merely its extrinsic effects. And what Antonio was saying earlier about being exposed to half-clad women in commercial contexts all the time being a significantly more major problem in that it leads to thinking of women as themselves consumer goods or possibly robots of some description (see for instance this article) is pretty heavily borne out by the evidence. The only way to deny that media representations of women effect the way people see actual women is to be completely uninformed or not want to believe it. I think we know who in this conversation has ulterior motives.

On principle I would at least hope that we can all agree that in any case it is far, far, far more important to try to ensure that people who do not want to have sex or for others to have access to their sexualities do not have to have sex or have others have access to their sexualities than that people who want access to others’ sexualities be guaranteed it. Not having to have sex or be sexualized if you don’t want to is a right. Getting to have sex or sexualize others if you want to isn’t. I would hope that we can all agree on that but I doubt it somehow.

Chances are most of the porn you watch involves young women (or men) masturbating in front of a webcam or having sex with their significant other.  Not professionally produced pr0ns.

What?  Really?  Is that the kind of weird stuff young people are into nowadays?  Good lord, the professional stuff is far better than that crap.  Like comparing Breaking Bad to watching a reality TV show.

Hear, hear!

Yeah, too bad that's the opposite of the moral difference.

It's fascinating to see the heavy firepower brought out here in defense of porn.

Well... if prudishness didn't have such dire consequences...

Cry me a river. Thinking that watching pornography is mildly to moderately morally wrong and something that people should try to avoid doing is not even close to the same territory as disowning young women for having sex with their boyfriends or raping lesbians to try to make them straight. Stop it.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

Nathan:

I don't want to get too involved in this discussion, but I took a look at one of your links, as I found its claims to be somewhat interesting - (though obviously I only read parts of it). Diana Russel concludes that there is most likely a causal relationship between consumption of pornography and levels of rape, not only a correlation, (p. 66). One of her pieces of "evidence" for this is one study that suposedly shows that U.S. States with the highest rates of porn consumption also have the highest numbers of rapes (It would be intereting to see these numbers, and the method used). She then says:

"If the rape rates were very low in this country, or if they were found
to have declined over the past few decades, these facts would likely be cited
to support the view that pornography does not play a causative role in rape".

(As the argument against this she uses some survey done by herself - hardly an unbiased source). As a matter of fact, U.S. rape statistics have declined for the past decades, even though there has been a obviously massive increase in porn-watching. This seems to stand in clear contrast to her hypothesis.

Yes, Russell is one of the more ideologically and conceptually interesting sources here but hardly one of the more unbiased or scientifically rigorous. Thank you for pointing this out; I think I'll have to look through Russell's paper once again in more detail to see if there are any other points on which it doesn't hold up to further scrutiny.

On the other hand, if you're using the National Crime Victimization Survey I'm pretty sure that has been criticized, including by other government surveys ('The Sexual Victimization of College Women', for example), on the grounds that it only counts crimes perceived as crimes by the victim.

There have also obviously been other social forces at play over the past several decades that almost certainly affect rates of rape or reported rape. At the least I think we may say that Russell likely overstates the causal link that she is positing. I've edited my above post to reflect this potential concern with her work.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

Good posts Nathan.

I'll get back to you in a couple of days, although you do not realize that no finding is likely to change my mind here. I have, after all, already suggested that this was probably true in a very small number of cases (as a ratio of the total number of porn consumers). For now, though, this is a placeholder.

I'd probably argue for a higher ratio than you would but I don't, in principle, disagree. Again, this is only part of why I hold the position that I do, but it's a part that Tik was curious about and I tried to answer him as best I could.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

I’ve tried to link papers from a variety of perspectives that generally agree with mine

Which is where I loose you.

I interpreted Tik as asking for an argument (i.e. a presentation of the studies that I find convincing or conceptually interesting myself) rather than a balanced summary of views. If I'm wrong in this interpretation I'll gladly try to link some papers that take opposing standpoints.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

I haven't attempted to look for any of Dworkin's or McKinnon's work online, is the only problem there.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

I don't think most people buy into the idea that chastity should be seen as a virtue.

I think that's partially TJ's point.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

I'm not going to say that pornography is immoral because I don't find anything inherently immoral in nudity or sex (and those concepts don't necessarily need to be related). I do think that certain forms of pornography can be destructive when they reduce the actors to instruments of sexual gratification, causing the viewer to have difficulty thinking of people as anything other than sex objects. Still, I'm going to need a little bit more of an explanation as to why chastity is a virtue before I can vote "no".

How are you defining pornography, exactly? Pornography at least as I understand the term does imply that the work exists primarily or solely for the purpose of sexual gratification; it's not any work that includes nudity or sex. The concept of chastity as TJ is referring to it (and, although I'm not as familiar with conservative Calvinism as I am with conservative Catholicism, I'd guess as DC Al Fine is too) doesn't involve a categorical objection to these things, or even to their depiction in art.

How are people writing novels on this subject? Morality is a human construct

Very few people actually act as if they believe that, even though many say that they do.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

It's not, apparently.

It isn't the idea that there's nothing inherently morally objectionable about pornography that I have a problem with--I disagree with it but disagreeing with something and having a problem with it aren't or at least needn't be the same--so much as the idea that this is a simple, self-evident truth and that any beliefs to the contrary are just nonsensical and not worth engaging. It's either uncalled-for posturing or profound myopia.