Pornography poll

[Knight of Albion]

Pornography degrades and exploits women, and corrupts and debases the men who view it.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

My logic is not contradictory, for alcohol & cigarettes would be banned as well. The amount of so-called "positives" you experience from such behaviors are far outweighed by their negations.

The best possible world would be one that openly criticizes, and dare I say demonizes, negative behaviors. It would not be ruled by majorities or mere mainstream opinions. It would be ruled by irrefutable philosophies and irreducible, scientific facts.

The vast majority of evidences & arguments available on pornography & voyeurism have defeated the notion that it is a positive behavior. Granted, the world we experience is complete crass compared to any imagined utopia, so for the time being I don't criticize it heavily - satiate your sexuality as responsibly as possible.

In a perfect world, however, I would say that sexuality would be best satiated through private, monogamous relationships. There is no need to expand sexuality into music, film, or other arts. At that point, it is oversaturation; a gluttony of the mind.

Your opinion here has nothing to do with "irrefutable philosophies" and "irreducible, scientific facts". All I see is severe moralism, sex-negativity and a desire to control other people.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

Pornography degrades and exploits women, and corrupts and debases the men who view it.

What about if it's gay male porn and it's women watching?

 

[Apex]

An interesting study on addiction and porn:
No such thing as porn 'addiction,' researchers say -- ScienceDaily

Journalists and psychologists are quick to describe someone as being a porn "addict," yet there's no strong scientific research that shows such addictions actually exists. Slapping such labels onto the habit of frequently viewing images of a sexual nature only describes it as a form of pathology.

I also saw another article recently that said the main correlation between the frequency which someone watches porn is best related to their libido. So, the higher the sex drive, the more someone may watch porn. I will try to find this article but I am not sure where I saw it.

 

[Gehennaite]

Your opinion here has nothing to do with "irrefutable philosophies" and "irreducible, scientific facts". All I see is severe moralism, sex-negativity and a desire to control other people.

And all I see is a moral relativist, blinded by the solipsism of his Western upbringing.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

And all I see is a moral relativist, blinded by the solipsism of his Western upbringing.

Of course I'm a moral relativist. It's the only rational way to view morality. You have no facts to back up your argument, let alone science.

 

[freethinker44]

An interesting study on addiction and porn:
No such thing as porn 'addiction,' researchers say -- ScienceDaily

I also saw another article recently that said the main correlation between the frequency which someone watches porn is best related to their libido. So, the higher the sex drive, the more someone may watch porn. I will try to find this article but I am not sure where I saw it.

I was listening to a panel discussion on NPR a while back. They were throwing out ridiculous numbers on porn addiction, like the way some of them were talking you would think armageddon has come and gone a left something worse in its place, just all the world's problems could be traced to porn and video games, turns out they were getting their numbers from the assumption that 2-3 hours of porn per week was a severe addiction.

I seriously choked on my coffee when they said that, I was completely flabbergasted. And it was a while ago so I don't remember it word for word, but I remember they either implied or out-right said that a couple hours of porn were ruining people's lives. That's ridiculous, 3 hours of anything is not an addiction, I don't even think doing meth for 3 hours a week would be an addiction, much less a severe, life-ruining addiction like they were saying 3 hours of porn is.

 

[Gehennaite]

Of course I'm a moral relativist. It's the only rational way to view morality. You have no facts to back up your argument, let alone science.

"It's the only way to view morality..."

That's called a belief, and few are buying it. Most people subscribe to moral absolutes, especially on the subjects of violence & sexuality. In fact, the vast majority of humankind historically & presently exercise absolutes.

Do you actually believe that in a utopian society we'd tolerate something like voyeurism?

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

"It's the only way to view morality..."

That's called a belief, and few are buying it. Most people subscribe to moral absolutes, especially on the subjects of violence & sexuality. In fact, the vast majority of humankind historically & presently exercise absolutes.

Just because most people subscribe to a belief, doesn't mean that it's substantiated. But you're wrong, anyway. Most people don't believe that violence is always wrong. As with most things, people's beliefs on violence are situational.

Do you actually believe that in a utopian society we'd tolerate something like voyeurism?

In a utopian society, prudish opinions wouldn't exist and people wouldn't be trying to restrict the sexual rights of adults. I fail to see what your problem with voyeurism is. What is your problem with people enjoying the consensual performances of exhibitionists?

 

[Drolefille]

In a perfect world, however, I would say that sexuality would be best satiated through private, monogamous relationships.

Not satisfactory. Sorry. :rainbow1:

 

[kashmir]

Not satisfactory. Sorry. :rainbow1:

neither is any ones claims here.
its all opinionated.

 

[Drolefille]

neither is any ones claims here.
its all opinionated.

Missed my point. And that's a bit like saying "in a perfect world everyone would be straight/white/cis." It's pretty insulting to the people who aren't.

 

[kashmir]

Missed my point. And that's a bit like saying "in a perfect world everyone would be straight/white/cis." It's pretty insulting to the people who aren't.

goes both ways, reread all posts
seems like the only time evidence is demanded is when it hits a nerve
odd
plenty here took stances and no evidence was demanded.
why now?

why all the strawmanng bro?
he didnt say that at all.

 

[Drolefille]

goes both ways, reread all posts

Ah no, it doesn't, as I don't say that everyone should be poly, or bi.
I pointed out the person who said that needs would be satisfied in a way that wouldn't satisfy me. Thus I responded to the things that were relevant to me.

I'm not mono, and no perfect world would change that without changing who I am.

 

[kashmir]

personally I could give a hoot but its completely obvious that others do.
Women are killing themselves to be "sex objects" and starve themselves.

they are not being exploited by men, only when abducted.

I think outside the box and that is just how it is.
I cant be anyone but me.

why do 4 year old girls dress like mom and wear make up?
off topic?
are you sure?

now I guess I have to prove myself with empirical evidence because it struck a nerve.

 

[Drolefille]

I'm pretty sure 4 year olds play dress up and play with makeup because their moms wear it, that's true whether mom was dressed like June Cleaver or wearing mini skirts and stilettos.

I don't think that this is related to porn.

 

[kashmir]

Missed my point. And that's a bit like saying "in a perfect world everyone would be straight/white/cis." It's pretty insulting to the people who aren't.

why all the strawmanning, he didnt say that, not even close

 

[Drolefille]

why all the strawmanning, he didnt say that, not even close

He said in a perfect world, everyone would be satisfied sexually in monogamous relationships. That's like saying in a perfect world everyone would be satisfied sexually in opposite sex relationships. It's a comparison, not a straw man.

 

[kashmir]

He said in a perfect world, everyone would be satisfied sexually in monogamous relationships. That's like saying in a perfect world everyone would be satisfied sexually in opposite sex relationships. It's a comparison, not a straw man.

Monogamy is a form of relationship in which an individual has only one partner during their lifetime or at any one time

what is wrong with that?
no gender attached, your turning this into what it not
a strawman is to misrepresent to give weight to your argument and you did just that

In my perfect world I want one person to love and grow old with
No evidence needed.

you perfect world is?

 

[Drolefille]

Monogamy is a form of relationship in which an individual has only one partner during their lifetime or at any one time

what is wrong with that?
no gender attached, your turning this into what it not

I'm very aware of what monogamy is. See my signature. I am not a monogamous person. I would never be satisfied in a monogamous relationship. I find such a perfect world insulting and hence replied regarding the matter.

Comparison to sexual orientation was just that, a comparison. I can keep repeating this part if you'd like.