Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Did any of you "Moral" folks even take a glimpse at that exporn stars website I pasted? If you aren't morally appalled at the porn industry after reading through some of those testimonies than something is wrong with you. At the very least you are in denial of the problem.

You can compare my calling porn evil to the Church Lady all you want, but the fact remains women are abused in porn and people that fund that industry so they can get off, are morally bankrupt.

Also dogma is famous for his non sequitors that's why he inserted the sugar issues to get you derailed.

GG

I did look through them, and my thought were, 'every business has bad people in it, and people suffer in every business'. It may be slightly more pronounced in porn for other reasons like socio-economic class and other things, but I can't be sure. That was just my gut reaction.

Not all women involved in porn are abused, and I'd imagine abusing the producers of the product you're trying to sell is a bad idea. If I was a porn producer, I would want all the actors working for me to be happy so that they would enjoy their job, and thus make the videos they produce more enjoyable for the customer, thus earning me more money. That's just good business. Abusing them so they hate their job, and thus preform poorly AND have the added ability to sell their story of their horrible treatment at my hands to some talk show, thus ruining me? Not so good business. It's like the capitalist argument xkcd posted a few days back.



Either:
a) The porn producers AREN'T money grubbing sons of female canines, because they don't care about mistreating their income stream.
b) They just don't mistreat their income stream, so their income stream STAYS their income stream.

@Grog:

Not at all, companies like Coca-Cola oppress their workers (or buy from suppliers that oppress their workers). The porn industry also oppresses its workers.

Are they both equally bad? If not, why?

If you won't answer that question, then there really isn't a point in having this discussion. I'm sorry if you lack the intellectual agility to consider similar relationships that exist in different cases, I suspect that you are like Orlanth in your myopic dedication to your own moral judgments. But do not pretend as though I'm attempting to derail a thread because you can't keep up.

generalgrog wrote:Did any of you "Moral" folks even take a glimpse at that exporn stars website I pasted? If you aren't morally appalled at the porn industry after reading through some of those testimonies than something is wrong with you. At the very least you are in denial of the problem.

You can compare my calling porn evil to the Church Lady all you want, but the fact remains women are abused in porn and people that fund that industry so they can get off, are morally bankrupt.

Also dogma is famous for his non sequitors that's why he inserted the sugar issues to get you derailed.

GG

I saw an awful lot of unsubstantiated opinion on that link, and I would suspect, quite a lot of quotes taken out of context. Simple truth is, any industry that the workers get highly paid leads to a decadent lifestyle. Look at Premier League Footballers and their ilk. All young, all with more money than sense, all of them morally dubious. To single out the Porn industry alone is disingenuous to say the least. Truth is, people make some bad decisions in life. Many people try something once, then swear off it for the rest of their lives, and I do mean experiences as well as substances. But to take literally a handful of supposed 'testimonies' and say this is standard, well, come on now. I do have a mind you know.

Oh, and seriously hands up who genuinely enjoy their job, and who don't feel even the slightest bit exploited? I've worked several minimum wage jobs, knowing full well that the bigwigs could quite easily afford to up staff pay, if they were prepared to curtail their own earnings. Which they aren't. Life on the minimum wage, when you can just about afford to house, clothe and feed oneself is pretty frigging close to indentured worker in my opinion.

@ dogma

Your attempt at a nonsequitor...and now adhominem?....way to go you are a master"de"bater(pun intended)

The bottom line i,s you can't defend your claim that the porn industry is just fine.....so you throw in sugar to change the subject.

GG

generalgrog wrote:Did any of you "Moral" folks even take a glimpse at that exporn stars website I pasted? If you aren't morally appalled at the porn industry after reading through some of those testimonies than something is wrong with you. At the very least you are in denial of the problem.

You can compare my calling porn evil to the Church Lady all you want, but the fact remains women are abused in porn and people that fund that industry so they can get off, are morally bankrupt.

Also dogma is famous for his non sequitors that's why he inserted the sugar issues to get you derailed.

GG

It really isn't as simple as that though. The major companies that produce porn are heavily self-regulating, so as not to get shut down, and so the issue of exploitation and that sort of thing isn't a problem with them. The real problem lies with the less open, more shady minor companies that produce some of the worst (in terms of exploitative) pornography in order to make a profit. I agree, there is a great deal wrong with the industry, not least that it's not representative of what sex is actually like, but I wouldn't go as far to say that the whole thing is black and white evil. It's just too complex for that, and we don't live in a world where we can make that kind of judgement in an instant.

Not to mention the link that was posted later to the clip on the Tyra Banks Show, with attached critique. It clearly showed a well adjusted young woman who did porn because she enjoyed it. She did not suffer from any problems, and was perfectly settled with her job. However, the skew in the interview is quite obvious, as the attached critique and revelations from the young woman in question point out.

I'm not going to say that's typical either, since it is only one case, and until we get some kind of official medical study about the numbers of porn actors who have drug/abuse problems as compared to a control group, we can't say one way or another. I for one sincerely doubt the 90% figure GeneralGrog has been throwing around.

generalgrog wrote:@ dogma

Your attempt at a nonsequitor...and now adhominem?....way to go you are a master"de"bater(pun intended)

Ad hominem only exists when a given point about a person s made in lieu of a point about their argument. I made my point about your argument, and attached a personal jab. You could remove my personal jab and my argument would remain ergo, no ad hominem.

generalgrog wrote:
The bottom line i,s you can't defend your claim that the porn industry is just fine.....so you throw in sugar to change the subject.

GG

I already indicated that I wasn't changing the subject, and showed why that is the case. In fact, I'm attempting to get at the heart of why we judge the porn industry in the fashion that we do; generalized principles and all that.

You can talk about bottom lines all you want, its really a very effective way of maintaining an intellectual bubble. I mean, if you simply attribute dissent to broad, categorical matters of intent it become quite easy to suppose that your opinion has never been punctured.

Also, I never said that the porn industry was fine.

Don't draw inferences, you are worse at it than Orlanth, and he is absolutely awful at it.

I'm not saying that the porn business is great. It has significant problems, attracts a lot of damaged people, and gives them multiple opportunities to damage themselves further or be damaged further.

That being said, as Dogma pointed out, a LOT of industries we enjoy the products of involve exploiting people.

Porn is sexier than sweatshops, though, and it happens here and involves (at least some) attractive women, so that skews how we perceive it relative to them.

dogma wrote:@Grog:

Not at all, companies like Coca-Cola oppress their workers (or buy from suppliers that oppress their workers). The porn industry also oppresses its workers.

So what?

Outside of rhetorical gamesmanship, what do they have to do with each other? Why do you persist in blaming the victim?

He's not. He's arguing that the people pointing fingers at the porn industry in all likelihood overlook similar problems with products they consume (whether it be Coke, sneakers, or coffee). If your dollars also go to industries which exploit people, you're claiming a false moral superiority.

Mannahnin wrote:He's not.

I know. I'm hearkening back to his lol-worthy sock puppet quip.

Mannahnin wrote:He's arguing that the people pointing fingers at the porn industry in all likelihood overlook similar problems with products they consume (whether it be Coke, sneakers, or coffee). If your dollars also go to industries which exploit people, you're claiming a false moral superiority.

I think you're inferring a lot of things. I'm not saying other companies don't have issues. I'm saying that an objective person could look at the porn industry, particularly as relates to the global sex trade, and say that it is a predominantly negative force in the world.

Something to think about.

Monster Rain wrote:
So what?

Outside of rhetorical gamesmanship, what do they have to do with each other? Why do you persist in blaming the victim?

They both exploit their workers and generally have a negative impact on the places in which they do business; according to some, anyway. I'm not really trying to argue that porn, or Coke, is a terrible force in the world. I'm only using the two as a means of getting at the root of our reprehension.

Hell, I could argue that sugar laden soft drinks, or really any consumer good, has effectively destroyed modern society. I wouldn't even be unique in arguing that, I would merely be unique in arguing that in the context of a defense of the porn industry.

Really, what I'm trying to get at is the fact that porn is criticized not because its exploitative, but because it deals with sex.

We're American, we exploit people all the time, but God have mercy if a boob bounces free of a bra.

All that being said, porn was a very, very ugly business not very long ago. It has cleaned up its act, in much the same way that Vegas has, because it has realized that there is more money in legitimate business than illegitimate business.

dogma wrote:

All that being said, porn was a very, very ugly business not very long ago. It has cleaned up its act, in much the same way that Vegas has, because it has realized that there is more money in legitimate business than illegitimate business.

I will argue that if sex was made illegal, it would actually encourage the American spirit.

Some of our most innovative ideas is when the creative circumvent the law and the obstacles set before them. Think of all the interesting and imaginative ways sex is going to get dispensed via illegal methods.

It still just seems like you're justifying the negative actions of one industry by pointing out that other industries are bad, with a little "hurrr Americans are sexually repressed" sprinkled in for flavor.

Yes. Sugary soft drinks are bad for you, and Coke does some bad things. How does that have any bearing on criticizing another company or industry, regardless of its business model?

WarOne wrote:
I will argue that if sex was made illegal, it would actually encourage the American spirit.

Some of our most innovative ideas is when the creative circumvent the law and the obstacles set before them. Think of all the interesting and imaginative ways sex is going to get dispensed via illegal methods.

Aren't most of the weird Japanese fetishes the result of laws regarding what can, and cannot be displayed in porn?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Monster Rain wrote:It still just seems like you're justifying the negative actions of one industry by pointing out that other industries are bad, with a little "hurrr Americans are sexually repressed" sprinkled in for flavor.

I'm not absolving anyone of anything, and I think that's where you're getting hung up. The porn industry is bad, but so are most other industries. My point is that the porn industry receives more criticism than it deserves because there are other, worse examples of exploitation in the course of business. This doesn't mean the porn industry doesn't exploit people, or that it isn't to be criticized, it means only that evil-monkey-pointing at it isn't constructive outside context; especially when the absence of context is used to finger (harhar) porn as uniquely bad.

Monster Rain wrote:
Yes. Sugary soft drinks are bad for you, and Coke does some bad things. How does that have any bearing on criticizing another company or industry, regardless of its business model?

It gets at why we're criticizing something. I know everyone says that they don't like porn because its exploitative, but most of those people support companies that exploit others, if not directly engage in exploitative behavior themselves. As such, it seems disingenuous to claim that porn is bad because its exploitative, when what really appears to be significant is American prudishness. I mean, let's be honest, capitalism is based on exploitation, for better or worse.

As little respect as I have for Grog's position, he has at least been forthright in describing his opposition to the industry; for the most part anyway.

Monster Rain wrote:It still just seems like you're justifying the negative actions of one industry by pointing out that other industries are bad, with a little "hurrr Americans are sexually repressed" sprinkled in for flavor.

That's exactly what he's doing, because he doesn't want anyone to focus on the idea that

A: Porn is bad

and

B: Jacking off to it is bad.

He want's us all to feel good inside about this facet of immorality in our culture. He's a classic enabler.

GG

No, that's not what I'm doing at all. Please read the post above yours for an explanation as to what I'm actually doing.

By the way I don't drink Coke, or sugary drinks, or knowingly buy goods made in sweat shops. What does that make me? Maybe there is some other product I buy that dogma can use to compare with porn? Shrugs

GG

p.s. Is Ahtman enjoying the thread more now? LOL

Dogma, the conversation wasn't about criticizing Coca-Cola. If you started a thread to do so, I'd join you.

We were talking about a specific industry and people were citing their issues with/support for said industry. You bringing up Brazilian Sugary Death Tonic was totally beside the point.

1. I don't believe you, because its impossible to live in American and not buy goods produced via exploitative practice; especially if you eat any sort of relatively exotic vegetables.

2. If you do so unknowingly it is merely due to a lack of curiosity regarding the source of your consumables.

dogma wrote:1. I don't believe you, because its impossible to live in American and not buy goods produced via exploitative practice; especially if you eat any sort of relatively exotic vegetables.

2. If you do so unknowingly it is merely due to a lack of curiosity regarding the source of your consumables.

I would say it's partly #2 and also the lack of time to find out.

GG

Monster Rain wrote:Dogma, the conversation wasn't about criticizing Coca-Cola. If you started a thread to do so, I'd join you.

We were talking about a specific industry and people were citing their issues with/support for said industry. You bringing up Brazilian Sugary Death Tonic was totally beside the point.

I don't think so. If we are to move beyond "I don't like this because I don't like this", then we need to start discussing generalized ideas of morality, which means getting at the root of what makes porn so reprehensible.

Someone posited that it was exploitation that made it bad, and I indicated that other things are exploitative, and that we don't see a so much rancor regarding them. As such, it seems that what we really dislike about porn is not the exploitation, but something else. My hypothesis is that prudishness is at the root of the matter, but I might be wrong.

Regardless, the point of bringing sugar producers into the conversation was to get beyond the trappings of porn itself, and into the general principle that causes people to regard it as bad.

Along the way I addressed Grog's position on addiction and lust, but those parallel conversations didn't really take off.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

generalgrog wrote:
I would say it's partly #2 and also the lack of time to find out.

GG

And that's fine.

After all, without bad, there is no good.

Also, without bad, the world is far less interesting.

dogma wrote:
Along the way I addressed Grog's position on addiction and lust, but those parallel conversations didn't really take off.

I would be more than happy to explore that...however I think Ahtman would be displeased.

GG

The other thing is, if you must buy things that are the direct result of human suffering, why not minimize the amount?

We have to eat and wear clothes, but jacking to Sasha Grey's on-screen antics is optional.

Monster Rain wrote:The other thing is, if you must buy things that are the direct result of human suffering, why not minimize the amount?

We have to eat and wear clothes, but jacking to Sasha Grey's on-screen antics is optional.

That is a really good point. It takes a lot more effort to go out slay a beast. Skin it, tan it, and make your own clothes, thus ensuring that you haven't purchased from possible sweat shop vs just not spending a few bucks on porn.

GG

What is destructive about Sasha Grey's antics?

Who is it harming?

dogma wrote:What is destructive about Sasha Grey's antics?

Who is it harming?

I only mentioned her because she had already come up in the thread.

You know what I meant.

Well, yeah, but my question was meant to be taken generally.

What does porn destroy?

dogma wrote:Well, yeah, but my question was meant to be taken generally.

What does porn destroy?

If one subscribes to the idea of sex addiction porn could destroy anything that Gambling or Alcohol problems might destroy let alone illicit drug addiction.

And yes, Dogma, I have problems with how those industries do business as well.