Selling Pornography

[Lemur]

Why does the law not recognize the consent of a 6 year old, if not for moral reasons?

A pre-pubescent child cannot offer consent for reasons both anatomical and hormonal. They are incapable of "getting" sex. They can understand sensuality, such as a good backrub, but they cannot grok sexuality. It's an endocrine thing.

Much more relevant to your argument to ask why we do not allow a post-pubescent child to give consent. A sixteen-year-old, for example, has all of the correct physical development and triggered hormones to function as a sexual creature, and yet we do not see them as consenting partners.

[Strike For The South]

Why does the law not recognize the consent of a 6 year old, if not for moral reasons? You can deny it or dress it up any way you like, but laws are based on morals, and to say otherwise is simply dishonest.

The little engine that could

[Vuk]

A pre-pubescent child cannot offer consent for reasons both anatomical and hormonal. They are incapable of "getting" sex. They can understand sensuality, such as a good backrub, but they cannot grok sexuality. It's an endocrine thing.

Much more relevant to your argument to ask why we do not allow a post-pubescent child to give consent. A sixteen-year-old, for example, has all of the correct physical development and triggered hormones to function as a sexual creature, and yet we do not see them as consenting partners.

So what if they get nothing out of it, there are perverts who like children that young. (A famous religious figure amongst them) Why can a six year old not give their consent for that activity? And as you say, why not a 15 or 16 year old?
Why do we care whether people have sex with children or not? Why do we care if people kill their neighbors or not? Call it ethics (defined as " a system of moral principles" and also "also known as moral philosophy, is a branch of philosophy that involves systematizing, defending, and recommending concepts of right and wrong behavior.") if you want, but it all gets down to morals. All of our laws are based on morals. Some morals can contradict themselves (moral belief in complete freedom of the individual vs moral belief that the government has a duty to make sure its citizens lead a good life), but all laws are based on one person's morals or another's. America was founded on a certain set of morals that emphasized responsible freedom, and that is why the moral basis of America is so important to politics today.

[Hax]

So what if they get nothing out of it, there are perverts who like children that young. (A famous religious figure amongst them) Why can a six year old not give their consent for that activity? And as you say, why not a 15 or 16 year old?

Wow, you actually managed to bring Islam into the discussion. Very good, you must be really proud of yourself. That'll show them jihadis.

Guys, can't we make a new Godwin's Law? At a certain point in a discussion about what's wrong in our modern society, someone will blame Islam. Let's call it Vuk's Law.

[Vuk]

Wow, you actually managed to bring Islam into the discussion. Very good, you must be really proud of yourself. That'll show them jihadis.

Guys, can't we make a new Godwin's Law? At a certain point in a discussion about what's wrong in our modern society, someone will blame Islam. Let's call it Vuk's Law.

You mentioned Islam, not me. I never said the word.

[Lemur]

Why can a six year old not give their consent for [sex]? And as you say, why not a 15 or 16 year old?

Because a pre-pubescent child would not get anything out of it, and would probably be harmed physically, mentally, or both. As for 15 or 16 year olds, that's a judgment call. We, as a society, deem them too immature to have consensual sex with an adult or drink intoxicating beverages. Both are arguable, but that's where we've arrived as a society.

Why do we care whether people have sex with children or not?

For the same reason we don't allow children to rollerskate on the roofs of skyscrapers. Strong potential for harm.

All of our laws are based on morals. Some morals can contradict themselves (moral belief in complete freedom of the individual vs moral belief that the government has a duty to make sure its citizens lead a good life), but all laws are based on one person's morals or another's.

Laws are compromises reached to achieve a minimal level of mutual protection and non-destructive behavior. Obviously laws proceed from a moral/ethical underpinning, but ... I'm not even clear on what point you're trying to make. Rephrase, maybe? Are you trying to circle back to Hobbes' Leviathan or something? And if so, how is that relevant to porn?

[Vuk]

Because a pre-pubescent child would not get anything out of it, and would probably be harmed physically, mentally, or both. As for 15 or 16 year olds, that's a judgment call. We, as a society, deem them too immature to have consensual sex with an adult or drink intoxicating beverages. Both are arguable, but that's where we've arrived as a society.


For the same reason we don't allow children to rollerskate on the roofs of skyscrapers. Strong potential for harm.


Laws are compromises reached to achieve a minimal level of mutual protection and non-destructive behavior. Obviously laws proceed from a moral/ethical underpinning, but ... I'm not even clear on what point you're trying to make. Rephrase, maybe? Are you trying to circle back to Hobbes' Leviathan or something? And if so, how is that relevant to porn?

But who cares if the 6 year old is harmed? Who cares if a child rollerskates of the roof of a skyscraper? Why should we care if there is strong potential for harm? Why do we make laws to achieve a minimal level of mutual protection and non-destructive behavior? Exactly because laws do have a moral/ethical underpinning. That is the point I was trying to make. Those in this thread in favor of porn have been consistently denying both that laws do and should have a moral basis, and stating that their arguments have none. I was trying to explain to them that laws do indeed have a moral underpinning, and that even their arguments are based on moral beliefs.

[Strike For The South]

You mentioned Islam, not me. I never said the word.

He who must not be named. ?

Listen you. Their is demonstrable proof the sexually abused children are subject to a litany of other problems later in life. Children object to being touched in the first place. It does not take a mental Herakles to realize that these acts should be illegal. Now if you were a smarter man I would say you are using a logical principle known as "reduction to the absurd" but you are not as evidenced by you ripping defnitions from wikipedia.

Also as a supposed history student you should know better than to use "And that is why X has such a bearing on our lives today" Such a dull statement which only proves the basest of knowledge. Graduate Assistants around the world cringe when they see this phrase on 99 out of their 100 1000 level papers they need to grade over a weekend which would have been much better spent killing themselves with gin

[rory_20_uk]

Come on - punches above the belt. Merely having nasal polyps isn't a matter for the .org

[Rhyfelwyr]

You mentioned Islam, not me. I never said the word.

So who was the reference about then?

Anyway, as much as I really dislike the idea of prostitution, I realise that that is my own opinion and it should not be enshrined in law. It's your body, you can do what you like with it.

At the same time there is a difference between the simple principle of selling your body for money, and the realities of the prostitution business today.

As such there should be pretty harsh restrictions on brothels and how and where they operate. For example those addicted to drugs should be protected as vulnerable people in the same way that the homeless are. You can't compare a high class escort with somebody needing their next dose of crack.

And I would also be very sympathetic towards residents that would not want a brothel anywhere near them. Communities should be able to legally ban brothels if they don't want them in their area.

[Lemur]

Those in this thread in favor of porn have been consistently denying both that laws do and should have a moral basis, and stating that their arguments have none. I was trying to explain to them that laws do indeed have a moral underpinning, and that even their arguments are based on moral beliefs.

Um ... that's a bit confusing. I argued in favor of porn and sex work, for example, and I didn't go into anything about the law being divorced from morality.

Look, a certain level of mutual protection is not only moral, it's necessary. A society that cannot offer us some minimal protection from each other is a failed society. It's the difference between Switzerland and Somalia. So yes, mutual protection is both moral and practical.

So ... I'm not clear on what argument you're responding to, or what point you're trying to make. Morality plays a role in law? Sure, absolutely. But it does not follow that any single group's morality or any single religion's morality is formative in American law. We're a nation of comrpomises. And practical, empirical considerations almost always win in the end (okay, so the War on Drugs puts lie to my argument, but I believe even that festering sore will some day be lanced).

Anyway. Am I even addressing what you're saying? I'm very unclear on what you're advocating.

[rory_20_uk]

And I would also be very sympathetic towards residents that would not want a brothel anywhere near them. Communities should be able to legally ban brothels if they don't want them in their area.

Ah, good old NIMBYs. With them we'd have no major roads, airports, sewage plants, power plants, council houses etc etc. Of course they are needed... but there are reasons why it would be much better elsewhere - nothing to do with us living here.

I think that things should be banned based upon events in the area, not merely a carte blanche block. Shutting down the business would be a good incentive by itself to ensure punters are well behaved, but I am sure others could be thought of.

Most disturbances around brothels are likely to be related to alcohol.

Again with all things there would be no problems with high cost venues - Link a friend spoke very highly of it, and was perplexed that I declined attending based upon the fact I am married. Anyhoo... It is not a brothel, it organises private parties where one is 100% guaranteed to have intercourse with one or more attractive women regardless of how one looks. Semantics? Probably.

[Vuk]

Listen you. Their is demonstrable proof the sexually abused children are subject to a litany of other problems later in life. Children object to being touched in the first place. It does not take a mental Herakles to realize that these acts should be illegal. Now if you were a smarter man I would say you are using a logical principle known as "reduction to the absurd" but you are not as evidenced by you ripping defnitions from wikipedia.

Also as a supposed history student you should know better than to use "And that is why X has such a bearing on our lives today" Such a dull statement which only proves the basest of knowledge. Graduate Assistants around the world cringe when they see this phrase on 99 out of their 100 1000 level papers they need to grade over a weekend which would have been much better spent killing themselves with gin

Listen my MDF, I am not saying it will not harm children, or that it is good to harm them. I am pointing out that there is a reason why we don't let people do it, and it is a moral one: because it would hurt the children. If you read the rest of this thread, you find out that 90% of those arguing in favor of the pornography industry were trying to completely divorce morality from law. I used an extreme example to demonstrate that laws are indeed based on morals.
Wait, why did I just waste my time responding to a MD weightlifter who thinks that having pumped biceps is the same thing as being intelligent?

Anyway, as much as I really dislike the idea of prostitution, I realise that that is my own opinion and it should not be enshrined in law. It's your body, you can do what you like with it.

At the same time there is a difference between the simple principle of selling your body for money, and the realities of the prostitution business today.

As such there should be pretty harsh restrictions on brothels and how and where they operate. For example those addicted to drugs should be protected as vulnerable people in the same way that the homeless are. You can't compare a high class escort with somebody needing their next dose of crack.

And I would also be very sympathetic towards residents that would not want a brothel anywhere near them. Communities should be able to legally ban brothels if they don't want them in their area.

"I really dislike the idea of prostitution"
"It's your body, you can do what you like with it."
You see Rhyf, what my point is is that no matter the moral reason you object to prostitution, the belief that "it is your body, you can do what you like with it" is also a moral belief.
You cannot say "That is a moral belief, you cannot push it on me", when the opposing side is also a moral belief. With laws, you are dealing with two competing moral beliefs. You cannot invalidate someone else's belief as "simply a moral argument" when yours is too! You need to accept them as equally valid and worthy of discussion, and then analyze their individual merit and decide which one you agree with.
Why should those addicted to drugs be protected as they are vulnerable people? Shouldn't they be allowed to do what they want with their bodies? You are imposing your personal moral beliefs on them by passing a law like that. You see what I mean? Which moral argument is more important, someone's right to do what they want, or the government's responsibility to protect them, even against their will? You either go absolute, or compromise. Absolutism on such issues is very rare, and most people draw a line of compromise. Where they compromise between the two different beliefs and draw the line is different from person to person though.
You cannot though dismiss an argument out of hand as being 'moral' or a 'personal belief', because all laws and lacks of laws and regulation are based on morals and personal beliefs. It just depends which ones are held by a majority of our representatives at the time.

Um ... that's a bit confusing. I argued in favor of porn and sex work, for example, and I didn't go into anything about the law being divorced from morality.

Look, a certain level of mutual protection is not only moral, it's necessary. A society that cannot offer us some minimal protection from each other is a failed society. It's the difference between Switzerland and Somalia. So yes, mutual protection is both moral and practical.

So ... I'm not clear on what argument you're responding to, or what point you're trying to make. Morality plays a role in law? Sure, absolutely. But it does not follow that any single group's morality or any single religion's morality is formative in American law. We're a nation of comrpomises. And practical, empirical considerations almost always win in the end (okay, so the War on Drugs puts lie to my argument, but I believe even that festering sore will some day be lanced).

Anyway. Am I even addressing what you're saying? I'm very unclear on what you're advocating.

Forgive me, I did not mean 100% (though I believe I said it), but a majority at least were arguing that morals had no place in the formation of laws.

Mutual protection is moral. Who said that moral things are not practical? Moral decisions can be practical or impractical, but they are still based on moral beliefs.
And though it is not what this thread is about (nor the linchpin of my argument), a single religion and a single group's morality was very dominant in America's founding documents.

If you don't understand my argument, let me take the War on Drugs. The main argument against the WoD is that it violates people's freedom. Is that not a moral argument? On both sides, the arguments are both moral and practical (or at least their claims are that they are practical: reduce crime, etc, etc.).

[Rhyfelwyr]

"I really dislike the idea of prostitution"
"It's your body, you can do what you like with it."
You see Rhyf, what my point is is that no matter the moral reason you object to prostitution, the belief that "it is your body, you can do what you like with it" is also a moral belief.
You cannot say "That is a moral belief, you cannot push it on me", when the opposing side is also a moral belief. With laws, you are dealing with two competing moral beliefs. You cannot invalidate someone else's belief as "simply a moral argument" when yours is too! You need to accept them as equally valid and worthy of discussion, and then analyze their individual merit and decide which one you agree with.
Why should those addicted to drugs be protected as they are vulnerable people? Shouldn't they be allowed to do what they want with their bodies? You are imposing your personal moral beliefs on them by passing a law like that. You see what I mean? Which moral argument is more important, someone's right to do what they want, or the government's responsibility to protect them, even against their will? You either go absolute, or compromise. Absolutism on such issues is very rare, and most people draw a line of compromise. Where they compromise between the two different beliefs and draw the line is different from person to person though.
You cannot though dismiss an argument out of hand as being 'moral' or a 'personal belief', because all laws and lacks of laws and regulation are based on morals and personal beliefs. It just depends which ones are held by a majority of our representatives at the time.

There is a distinction to be made between the rules we need to function as a society (eg your body your rules), and the manner of life that we as individuals believe to be appropriate or moral for people to lead (eg selling your body is bad).

You are suggesting that consent is just another moral belief. But it is not, in fact it is the single most important rule for establishing the boundaries that allow us to live together as a social species. Of course this doesn't mean it has to be taken as an absolute rule, it is just a principle that is best generally respected.

I would have thought that all this was obvious, and that this context would be a given when I was talking about enforcing morality.

[Sasaki Kojiro]

Wow, nice thread here.

Sasaki, 9 times out of 10 I'm in general agreement with you, but on this it's polar opposites. I'm a bit perplexed, usually the stance taken is what I'd expect from the religious nutcases and holy rollers.

Yes. Progressive morality is still in it's infancy and is having toothing pains. They are breaking away from religious conservative views and having trouble finding an alternative. Simplified ideologies like libertarianism and "everything is ok as long as [inadequate rule]" are too common. As we shrug of our puritanical heritage and open our eyes to the light we must learn to see and judge and discriminate.

Are you against coal mining? What about factory work? Construction? What is the fundamental difference between such labor intensive occupations and porn? You have mocked the assertion but you have not actually refuted it.

...

There are laws against false advertising and regulatory agencies in place to enforce them. I support those efforts.

What's the fundamental difference between misleading and false? You see you understood the principle all along.

You chose to start a thread proposing banning an activity based on nothing but, yes, your personal opinion. You have not supported that opinion with any facts. You have not even bothered to define what you consider 'hardcore' porn versus what you would keep legal. Basing law on subjective conceptions of dignity and morality is wrong headed in my opinion, because those conceptions differ greatly between people.

Yeah in your personal opinion

Why the extreme authoritarianism?

A law banning the sale (but not production or distribution) of hardcore pornography is "extreme authoritarianism"? Of course not.

If you ban a young lady from making money doing porn and she ends up working for minimum wage in a factory and stripping on the weekends, have you really helped her?

Yes obviously. Are you going to be like "you haven't given any facts" again?

On the contrary, the reason I am bothering to argue this is because I relate to these people. Both the gay community and the gun community are important to me, and I constantly witness moralists from both sides of the ideological aisle try to tell these people what is best for them and force their own conceptions of morality on them through the law. It's all done under the veil of compassion for their own good and it is all pretty disgusting.

Your feelings about other things are bleeding over into this argument. We have many laws aimed at preventing exploitation of workers. The fact that this is something religious moralists are against is irrelevant. What if some porn companies go out of business because of laws requiring std testing? Are we going to go "what about the poor woman who has to work stocking shelves instead" over that too?

edit: Ok, because I can see us going around in circles again...

My reaction to the initial "acting in hardcore porn is no different than stocking shelves, I would be upset if my daughter did but I also would if she stocked shelves" response was " I'm not going to bother arguing with that". You said something about trying to convince people, yeah, I really don't have to convince the public at large on that one.The only reason we are still arguing is that for a while you were going the "it would be wrong to ban the sale of it even if acting in hardcore porn was that much worse than stocking shelves like you say, because it's government oppression" route, which you seem to have ditched now, the only thing left is all the distractions about freedom and tyranny and personal opinions of morality.

Sure, absolutely. But it does not follow that any single group's morality or any single religion's morality is formative in American law. We're a nation of comrpomises. And practical, empirical considerations almost always win in the end (okay, so the War on Drugs puts lie to my argument, but I believe even that festering sore will some day be lanced).

Using force to stop immoral behavior is often more immoral than allowing it. That is the basis for societies becoming more liberal. Cheating on your wife? Wrong, but arresting people for it is worse. It is still considered immoral by law however (at least in some places) in things like divorce law.

The problem here is that some people are ignoring the justification for liberalism and taking as their new moral principle "it is wrong for the government to ever try and do this kind of stuff"...and then when other people make moral arguments for why the government should they hypocritically try and disqualify that. It is a much more puritanical morality, it is puritanical about ideology.

A single groups morality should be enshrined in law if that group is correct. For example, the abolitionists.

[Sasaki Kojiro]

listen...we have an industry in which (regardless of what the norm is) people are frequently exploited...there are homeless people, naive 18 year olds, women in abusive relationships who's boyfriends want to make a bit of cash, drug addicts, people desperate for a bit of cash in general...there is currently a market for (ever increasing?) extremity in the acts depicted...it's something which has no redeeming social value, a negative social value even considering that stupid people watch the stuff...and it's quite simple to cut the money out of it while leaving people free to make it if they wish and free to distribute it, so that the legal market isn't replaced by a black market...

And you want to sit there and say that the people in this thread who have, for example, reacted sympathetically to the homeless guys in the OP or to stories about women who were raped on the porn set, that they are "disgusting...forcing others to adhere to their conception of dignity under a veil of compassion...moralist authoritarianism dressed up as a solemn concern for humanity"??? And yet all the actual people who get screwed over are "anecdote" to you. It's their choice so "it's no business of yours unless it affects you". Your main concern is about not opening the door to more "Santorum-esque government activism."

It's 100% selfishness on your part. The argument reminds of you some religious homophobic stuff that you hate and you worry that if it was accepted it would lend them support. You can't be bothered to develop a more robust and nuanced ideology that can handle a minimal amount of limits on the degree to which people can be exploited. Instead you churn out paragraph after paragraph about how oppressive the idea is and how acting in porn is no more exploitative than stocking shelves. Give me a break.

[Whacker]

@ Sasaki

Here's where I think there's a big disconnect and disagreement; the topic of "exploitation". My personal perception is that the actual exploitation and coercion of women (and men?) in the porn industry is pretty much minimal. Sure it happens, but it's very rare. I *think* Lemur indicated his experiences are also along this line, but I can't/won't speak for him and he'll probably rip me a new one if I'm wrong.

So, here's a question for you. I understand you believe strongly in the exploitation aspect. Do you have any impartial studies or references to provide that we can look at to support your position, that might change our minds?

[Lemur]

I *think* Lemur indicated his experiences are also along this line

That's exactly what I was saying. When I was young and good looking (about seventy years ago) I knew a number of people who got involved in some aspect of sex work. Stripping, phone sex, that sort of thing. None of them were damaged by it in any measurable or tangible way, all of them made buckets of cash more than they would in a traditional low-skill job, and several of them have gone on to stellar lives and careers.

I know that anecdotes are not data, but personal experience should count for something. Doing a quick mental count, I have known six people who worked in some aspect of the sex business for more than a month. Dated two of 'em. They made good money, they generally had fun, and then they got out.

But as per usual with Sasaki, I have no idea if I'm even addressing his point.

[Sasaki Kojiro]

@ Sasaki

Here's where I think there's a big disconnect and disagreement; the topic of "exploitation". My personal perception is that the actual exploitation and coercion of women (and men?) in the porn industry is pretty much minimal. Sure it happens, but it's very rare. I *think* Lemur indicated his experiences are also along this line, but I can't/won't speak for him and he'll probably rip me a new one if I'm wrong.

So, here's a question for you. I understand you believe strongly in the exploitation aspect. Do you have any impartial studies or references to provide that we can look at to support your position, that might change our minds?

I doubt anyone has been able to study it. But "It happens and it's going to happen again, but most of the time it doesn't happen" isn't a reason for keeping the status quo. And we aren't talking about stripping and phone sex anyway.

I struggle to see how people start with the conception of the porn industry as some regular industry like any other.

I know that anecdotes are not data, but personal experience should count for something. Doing a quick mental count, I have known six people who worked in some aspect of the sex business for more than a month. Dated two of 'em. They made good money, they generally had fun, and then they got out.

I do think your personal experience counts for something. I would count it as evidence that when well adjusted people go into sex work they do stripping and phone sex, have fun, make money, and get out. The non well adjusted people on the other hand...

[a completely inoffensive name]

In the interest of settling this argument, I will head down to LA tomorrow and break into the porn industry. If I blink 3 times in a row in one of my pornos, it means I am being abused. Links to my work will be given via PM as under the rules of the backroom.

[The Stranger]

what do you ppl think of this?

http://christwire.org/2012/01/has-yo...ng-underworld/

at first I thought it was rather funny, seeing the title and that it was posted on a christian site... but in the end (while many things were definitly hilarious) some things such as about the karma is quite interesting.

the big question now is ofcourse, IS THE DEVIL ON REDDIT?

keep it fapping y'all

[a completely inoffensive name]

here is also an ‘image inbox’ entitled IMGUR (

I

nside

M

y

G

enitalia

U

pon

R

equest)

Wut?

One of the most awkward messages I received was from a gamer who claimed he took a break from playing Skyrim (a new release for World of Warcraft)

Christian evangelicals are funny, they can't even do research into video games.

[a completely inoffensive name]

what do you ppl think of this?

http://christwire.org/2012/01/has-yo...ng-underworld/

at first I thought it was rather funny, seeing the title and that it was posted on a christian site... but in the end (while many things were definitly hilarious) some things such as about the karma is quite interesting.

the big question now is ofcourse, IS THE DEVIL ON REDDIT?

keep it fapping y'all

Devil has been on Reddit for a while now. The whole site been dying since 2008 when Ron Paul brigade invaded the internet, then last year when Digg killed itself and finally now that every university student knows it as "that place where my uni meme images come from".

[Sasaki Kojiro]

Christian evangelicals are funny, they can't even do research into video games.

How good are they at researching whether a website is a satirical or not?

[a completely inoffensive name]

How good are they at researching whether a website is a satirical or not?

You know, I figured as much, but I thought in this instance Poe's Law applied. Looks like I have egg on my face, since I guessed wrong.

There is a Christian baptist forum that is satirical as well that is good for an occasional laugh. I forget the name of it though.

EDIT: Landover baptist. That's the website.

[The Stranger]

How good are they at researching whether a website is a satirical or not?

why do you have to spoil all the fun...

[Major Robert Dump]

"I don't want to hear examples, I want to see studies and facts!"
"All the BS studies, I know better than facts and statistics."
I guess there is no winning this, is there?

My point is that the "all porn stars were abused" argument has been getting used by professors and religious leaders for decades now and I have yet to see and actual, up-to-date study or statistic proving this. Just because some of them have drug problems or commit suicide at a higher rate than, say, taxi drivers, does not mean there is an epidemic. I refer you to Wall Street and their coke and suicide habits.

I am pouring through this thread and looking for consistent facts, not onesy and twosie stories of people who had a bad time of it. If I am missing a post somewhere, by all means point it out.

[Whacker]

I think the easiest thing to do here is just set up a collection. We'll get Sasaki a year's subscription to Brazzers and see how it turns out. Who's in?

[spankythehippo]

I think the easiest thing to do here is just set up a collection. We'll get Sasaki a year's subscription to Brazzers and see how it turns out. Who's in?

Public username & password, and I'm in.

[Ronin]

Public username & password, and I'm in.

the "canHeScore" series alone will convert anyone.

.......or so I hear..