Is pornography moral?

[Antonio the Sixth]

I think drawing a mustache on a baby is immoral but that doesn't stop me from doing it.

That probably sums it up best.  What is the deal with the "is it moral" threads?  C'mon we all know we do immoral stuff.  Just grow up and deal with it.  And if you can't handle it then don't do it.

Very true. It's worth noting that we all do a lot of immoral things throughout our lives. And porn is low enough in the scale of immorality not to really bother one too much. Just don't delude yourself that it's all right.

[Oakvale]

"Don't delude yourself that it's all right"? That's awfully repressive. I don't think anyone should bother feeling guilt for watching porn. Is Atlas secretly Catholic?

[Antonio the Sixth]

"Don't delude yourself that it's all right"? That's awfully repressive. I don't think anyone should bother feeling guilt for watching porn. Is Atlas secretly Catholic?

Apparently, you're more of a Catholic than I am.

[Boris]

"Don't delude yourself that it's all right"? That's awfully repressive. I don't think anyone should bother feeling guilt for watching porn. Is Atlas secretly Catholic?

I dunno, if you're closing 20 tabs for the 3rd time in a day, it might be time to hit the gym, brush up on some social skills, and meet some actual women...

[The world will shine with light in our nightmare]

I'm laughing at this thread more than I should.

[Oakvale]

"Don't delude yourself that it's all right"? That's awfully repressive. I don't think anyone should bother feeling guilt for watching porn. Is Atlas secretly Catholic?

I dunno, if you're closing 20 tabs for the 3rd time in a day, it might be time to hit the gym, brush up on some social skills, and meet some actual women...

Well yes but that's quite different from not "deluding yourself into thinking it's alright".

[Antonio the Sixth]

"Don't delude yourself that it's all right"? That's awfully repressive. I don't think anyone should bother feeling guilt for watching porn. Is Atlas secretly Catholic?

I dunno, if you're closing 20 tabs for the 3rd time in a day, it might be time to hit the gym, brush up on some social skills, and meet some actual women...

Well yes but that's quite different from not "deluding yourself into thinking it's alright".

I guess the way I put it is a bit pretentious - obviously, you are free to have different moral values than my own and I don't want to impose them on others. But still, I have a hard time seeing how you can get past the kind of issues pornography raises other than in ways which I find very difficult to accept personally.

[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.

[opebo]

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.  And I am, sadly, forced to occasionally use the manual technique from the Bad Place because even here I can only afford proper service an average of twice a week.

[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.

[afleitch]

Can't we get a f-cking proper and mature discussion of sex as a thing that people do on this forum?

[Tetro Kornbluth]

Can't we get a f-cking proper and mature discussion of sex as a thing that people do on this forum?

A lot of people here only have sex in their minds - and constantly - which, of course, as we know is the wrong place to do it.

This thread is awful btw. I'll objectify who I want, when I want... in my own private time.

[Maxwell]

I'm generally what they would call an amoral atheist, so I can't tell you.

[Antonio the Sixth]

I'll objectify who I want, when I want... in my own private time.

Which is fine if you can keep it from having any influence into your interaction with other people - which I'm sure you manage to, and which I also strive to. But I you can't deny that the kind of images that are watched have a major impact on the way individuals think and act, and thus on a society's culture and mores.

Honestly, I don't even think "official" porn is really the main problem. The kind of softcore porn that we find everywhere on commercials and trashy TV shows actually has a more perverse and infinitely more powerful effect on society IMO.

[Foucaulf]

We're getting to the point where Nathan is shriller than Opebo. I don't like this.

If there is no substantial moral discussion on this forum, it's because people are either hard secular humanists or thinkers who dismiss most social activity as illegitimate due to power relations or something. I mean, come on!

Sure, I watch pornography from time to time. But to say there's a moral imperative against it is a strong statement. Afleitch had a good post two pages back about sexuality, and I think most people on this forum agree that worldviews should be changed based on new evidence. So why not apply it to this case?

[Tetro Kornbluth]

I'll objectify who I want, when I want... in my own private time.

Which is fine if you can keep it from having any influence into your interaction with other people - which I'm sure you manage to, and which I also strive to. But I you can't deny that the kind of images that are watched have a major impact on the way individuals think and act, and thus on a society's culture and mores.

Honestly, I don't even think "official" porn is really the main problem. The kind of softcore porn that we find everywhere on commercials and trashy TV shows actually has a more perverse and infinitely more powerful effect on society IMO.

It's posts like these that make me feel sympathy for Mrs. Thatcher.

Wow
                                                                                  many abstract
                             so 'irony'                                                          wow
                                           much postmodern        many opinion
         wow                                                                                               little facts

[Tetro Kornbluth]

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?

[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.

[Tetro Kornbluth]

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

However, I will accuse you of something more fundamental:

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').

* I'm more of a hedonist in theory than in practice. In practice I'm some guy writing about Nietzsche and Porn at one thirty six in the morning.

[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.

[Tetro Kornbluth]

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

[Link]

"Don't delude yourself that it's all right"? That's awfully repressive. I don't think anyone should bother feeling guilt for watching porn. Is Atlas secretly Catholic?

I dunno, if you're closing 20 tabs for the 3rd time in a day, it might be time to hit the gym, brush up on some social skills, and meet some actual women...

Well yes but that's quite different from not "deluding yourself into thinking it's alright".

I guess the way I put it is a bit pretentious...

Not at all.  Part of being a man is seeing the world as it actually is the good, the bad, and the ugly.  Just because I happen to like and do certain things doesn't mean I am going to delude myself and say it is okay.  I texted in the car today.  I drank too much on Saturday.

"Don't delude yourself that it's all right"? That's awfully repressive.

Repressed?!  You think people who eschew porn and um, have sex with an actual woman are repressed?  I need an Atlas dictionary.  I just came from a thread where I got called "elitist" for wearing $30 khakis to have breakfast in a restaurant instead of showing up in my pajamas.

[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.

[opebo]

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

Imagine harder.
[/quote]

No, thanks.

[Antonio the Sixth]

I'll objectify who I want, when I want... in my own private time.

Which is fine if you can keep it from having any influence into your interaction with other people - which I'm sure you manage to, and which I also strive to. But I you can't deny that the kind of images that are watched have a major impact on the way individuals think and act, and thus on a society's culture and mores.

Honestly, I don't even think "official" porn is really the main problem. The kind of softcore porn that we find everywhere on commercials and trashy TV shows actually has a more perverse and infinitely more powerful effect on society IMO.

It's posts like these that make me feel sympathy for Mrs. Thatcher.

Wow
                                                                                  many abstract
                             so 'irony'                                                          wow
                                           much postmodern        many opinion
         wow                                                                                               little facts

Really? I honestly thought that what I was saying was basically a truism everyone more or less agrees with (though possibly to different extents). I had no idea I was being "postmodern", a kind of thought which I don't know much of and of which, based on what I know, I have many qualms with (in particular, isn't postmodernism markedly morally relativistic? if so, that's a weird accusation you're throwing at me considering the context ).

As for having much opinion and little facts, that's obvious (though some written works on this topic which inspire my basic opinion are far from being short on facts), but isn't that what we're all doing? I don't see how my argument is substantially different from that of others' in this thread - it's largely a theoretical discussion.