Is pornography moral?

[© tweed]

I do think internet porn is damaging to people in ways we don't yet quite understand

I definitely agree with this. I think people have too blase and naive a view of pornography and the effect it has on people, especially on children and teenagers. Internet pornography and the huge and instant access to video pornography especially is an entirely new and unprecedented thing, and I'd be surprised if there aren't at least some harmful psychological, social, etc. aspects to it.

I still wouldn't call pornography immoral though.

There's already evidence that it's very harmful: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wSF82AwSDiU

and yourbrainonporn.com, and r/NoFap.  for those interested.

(though r/NoFap does have a cult-like quality to it)

[H.E. VOLODYMYR ZELENKSYY]

I'll just leave this here.

[politicallefty]

I don't think it's either moral or immoral, but I voted with the former option. To call viewing pornography abnormal is to classify basic human nature as abnormal. (Is anyone here going to claim that masturbation is abnormal and/or immoral?) As for producing pornography, the only issues I see are those about how those involved are treated. As long as all individuals are fully consenting and properly compensated for their work, I see no issues.

[opebo]

Well I don't lend any credence to the idea of 'morality'.  To me there is no right or wrong.  And, of course I do suspect that the reason we get a fairly high 'moral' rating in this poll is simply that the majority of the forum likes and depends upon this artistic product for sexual satisfaction.

[minionofmidas]

Partaking in the production of live-action pornography IS prostitution in every respect but the law.

[afleitch]

Partaking in the production of live-action pornography IS prostitution in every respect but the law.

So if a couple decide to film themselves having sex and let others view it then that is prostitution? Is prostitution now so wide an angle that it covers everything sexual, bar actually doing it with your own partner?

[minionofmidas]

Partaking in the production of live-action pornography IS prostitution in every respect but the law.

So if a couple decide to film themselves having sex and let others view it then that is prostitution? Is prostitution now so wide an angle that it covers everything sexual, bar actually doing it with your own partner?

Ah. I meant commercial live-action pornography, of course.

[angus]

So if a couple decide to film themselves having sex and let others view it then that is prostitution?

only if they're making money.  

Otherwise it's just one of the newer subgenres of pornography.  Some folks call it Gonzo Pornography (or cinéma vérité if they're trying to sound sophisticated.)  It is rather too pedestrian for my tastes, but I know people who thoroughly enjoy this sort of thing.  They're the sorts who also like Reality Television and those horrible cooking contest shows on The Food Network.  

[Beet]

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.

[World politics is up Schmitt creek]

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.

[Antonio the Sixth]

Both are immoral (abnormal).

Have to agree.

[Miles]

Don't ask me how I found this, but a while ago, Ron Jeremy had a series of debates on this.

[Grumpier Than Uncle Joe]

Option 3, normal

[Oakvale]

Both are immoral (abnormal).

Have to agree.

I really don't understand my fellow lefties sometimes.

[Antonio the Sixth]

Both are immoral (abnormal).

Have to agree.

I really don't understand my fellow lefties sometimes.

Objectification, exploitation, sex without feelings, etc.

[TNF]

Both are immoral (abnormal).

Have to agree.

I really don't understand my fellow lefties sometimes.

Objectification, exploitation, sex without feelings, etc.

What's wrong with having sex without having feelings for someone?

[afleitch]

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.

[afleitch]

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.

Sexuality isn't subject-subject however. In any coupling at a sexual level there will always be a somewhat fluid subject-object dichotomy, most evidential in vaginal penetration but also in other forms of penetrative sex (which is why the 69 position, particularly between two women or two men is curiously 'democratic')

In pornography there is the 'object'; whether it be a person, a recording of a person, an image, a painting or even the written word - and the 'viewer.' In every case it is the viewer who determines whether the image is pornographic in nature and what response (including a sexual response) to give to it and whether to determine it's 'moral' status.

Therefore if I walk into a museum and see this;



It is both artistic and degenerate, sensual and scandalous, moral and immoral in equal measure. That is what it is until it is viewed. It is only upon the sight of such an image that one can determine it's moral value. This statue is not pornographic in itself. I think it is beautiful, though I can bet you 5 denarii that if we had the internet 2000 years ago the above image would violate the terms of service!

[Antonio the Sixth]

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.

[afleitch]

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.

Then you don't know what is meant by objectification Objectification of a person does not strictly 'dehumanise' them; it can accentuate specific parts of them (by simplifying their function) as part of the overall sexual act. There is always a level of objectification between lovers. 'Give me your hole' is far more appropriate to the mood than 'please may I insert my erect penis into your x' would be.

[The world will shine with light in our nightmare]

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.

Then you don't know what is meant by objectification Objectification of a person does not strictly 'dehumanise' them; it can accentuate specific parts of them (by simplifying their function) as part of the overall sexual act. There is always a level of objectification between lovers. 'Give me your hole' is far more appropriate to the mood than 'please may I insert my erect penis into your x' would be.

The word 'objectification' usually implies degrading a person.  Not here to play with semantics, though.

[Napoleon]

I don't consider it immoral, but calling it moral is also a bit odd...

I probably should have called it 'morally neutral,' but it's the same idea.

In that case, "Both are moral" would be my answer. FTR, I don't consider prostitution immoral either.

^^^^^

[afleitch]

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.

Then you don't know what is meant by objectification Objectification of a person does not strictly 'dehumanise' them; it can accentuate specific parts of them (by simplifying their function) as part of the overall sexual act. There is always a level of objectification between lovers. 'Give me your hole' is far more appropriate to the mood than 'please may I insert my erect penis into your x' would be.

The word 'objectification' usually implies degrading a person.  Not here to play with semantics, though.

I meant in terms of making an object of parts of one's partner, or facets of their personality in sex. I hope that's a little clearer.

[Beet]

afleitch is right... the one place where objectification is normal and expected is during sex.

[World politics is up Schmitt creek]

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).