This site makes extensive use of JavaScript.
Please enable JavaScript in your browser.
Live
PTR
10.2.7
PTR
10.2.6
Beta
Porn, Immoral?
Post Reply
Return to board index
Post by
Hyperspacerebel
Okay then. What about couples who watch pornography together and what about pornography in which women are put in a place of power. Pornography does not naturally infringe upon marriage either or on our duty to not objectify women then. Is pornography still immoral or is it amoral?
It still does those things. Instead of accepting each other completely as they should be doing they are turning away from each other to a second source. If you look at my discussion of marriage is most assuredly is very much against it.
Secondly go back to my OP. " moral obligation to view every person as more than an object of one's own desires." That's all an image on a screen can be, no matter how they are portrayed.
To a lot of people sex is nothing more than a physical activity (note: I'm not saying this is the case with me, I'm just being relative), hence there are porn-stars and swingers.
A lot of people murder and rape and abuse and lie and cheat. That doesn't make it right, and it is not a very valid argument.
Marriage is only ceremonial. It does not bind you to anything--- which is why we have adultery. Marriage does not need to exist for you to trust your partner, and it does not need to exist to have a completely dedicated relationship. A lot of the time it is nothing more than a thing of convenience--- the government grants benefits to married couples. And a lot of the time fidelity is more a thing of guilt than dedication--- "but I'm married."
The problems exist
only because
it's viewed as something merely ceremonial. I dare you to tell your wife (now or when you get married) that you really did not mean the promises you made, and that it was merely for ceremony's sake. And, no marriage isn't necessary for there to be trust, it's necessary for the trust to be protected.
Of course, this goes without saying. I don't understand why pornography would necessarily hurt my partner.
It hurts you.
You
are the one who then would hurt your partner.
Am I being disloyal if I watch pornography with my girlfriend?
You're saying her total self-giving isn't enough for you, and that you want more.
In other words, what if it is an infringement of the bounds of a relationship as put forth by religion rather than an infringement of my dedication to my partner?
I'm not sure what this means. I haven't brought in religion, you have said you don't want religion brought in, and now this. So what if it is an infringement upon religion? That has nothing to do with what we're talking about.
1. Pornography gives us sexual release when it is needed.
2. Pornography allows us to live our sexual fantasies.
3. If singles view pornography only pleasure and happiness can be derived from their actions as they have no partner to cheat on.
4. Pornography provides additional jobs to those who need them.
5. Pornography provides a temporary escape from bad relationships.
1. Pornography gives the impression that sexual release is needed and should be acquired on-demand; so when there comes a time when sexual release cannot or shouldn't be achieved, we've been conditioned to go against that.
2. Pornography diminishes your partener's self-giving of her/his own sexuality.
3. Pornography does the same things psycologically to a single as a married person. Cheating has nothing to do with it.
4. So does every other immoral action. Jobs have nothing to do with it.
5. Pornography gives one the excuse not to fix a bad relationship before it's too late.
You're just looking at the benefits of the moment. If you're going to claim an overall good, you have to look beyond that.
It has nothing to do with promiscuity in our culture.
You support this point by using particular examples. If you're going yo make a universal claim, citing particulars won't prove anything.
You're note that my claim is not a universal: the huge increase of divorces is due
at least in part
to the rise of sexual promiscuity in our culture.
For you to get insulted in by what I've said in some way I did not foresee, complain about it and tell me what a horrible person I am, and give me the typical religious argument.
I don't get insulted.
I think you're a very integrous person for having the bearing to argue a point.
I haven't used a single religious argument.
Post by
484763
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
184848
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
484763
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
184848
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
484763
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Hyperspacerebel
You (Edit: Ivokk) don't seem to understand the very
Utilitarianism
you want to adhere to.
Post by
184848
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
184848
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Squishalot
Hey Hyper, why were you so quick to assume in the following statements?
Some would say it is immoral because sex is icky and shouldn't be acknowledged outside of a marraige behind closed doors, and even then with the lights off.
I know you didn't say it, but it's pretty obvious you're hitting on Christians. That's very, very far from most Christians' views. As a Catholic I can say that sex is the most beautiful natural act that a human can perform. I believe the abuse of it is 'icky', not the act itself.
Just FYI - I think that part of the reason everyone wants to bash an argument of yours by denying religion is because you often pull the topic back to religion, even if you're not using it as part of your argument.
For the record, when I saw the statement, I envisaged an old granny who grew up in the 1930s bemoaning the sexualisation of kids these days. Not necessarily a Christian.
I see my post already has some flames but okay,the comment on me trying to stop my friends , whats more intrusive is them trying to convince me to start watching it by flashing videos on there phones at me.And since no-one is siding on the side of the im-morality ill take up the debate
Firstly - up to this statement, there were no flames. If you think you've been flamed, go visit the Paladin forum and ask something stupid. Then come back and consider whether you've been flamed here.
Secondly - it is just as intrusive to convince them to stop, as it is to convince you to start. Christian evangelists are just as 'annoying' or 'bad' as athiest 'evangelists'. (Yes, you're Muslim, I'm just using it as an example.)
Thirdly - by 'siding with im-morality', you're giving off the impression that you believe it's immoral already, and that your original post isn't about questioning it, but looking for support for your views. There's no point asking for opinions if you're not going to listen to them.
Well other than the fact that it would cause people to be tempted to have sex and the fact that i beleive a wo/man showing of there body is wrong because of objectification,loss of respect to the human body,etc...
The problem with your argument is exactly the same as what you're pushing back onto others. For the same reason that it's difficult to prove that there is no objectification, it's difficult to prove that there *is* objectification, and so on so forth. Who is the burden of proof on? I would have thought that the onus is on those who say it is immoral to demonstrate why it is immoral, rather than those who say it is 'ok' (note - not 'morally right', but 'acceptable'), because you're the ones trying to enforce a way of life (i.e. without porn).
and the fact that if you give in to one desire your more liable ,given the chance, to give into more (drugs,bullying,cursing in an extremely insulting way to someone, etc....)
Can you display evidence of this? Psychological theory suggests on resource depletion suggests that people who are happier (excuse the lack of technical terms) are less likely to be aggressive. If porn results in satisfaction of desires, is a person likely to be happier? There are always two sides to an argument, and without the ability to measure relative 'good' (is the social damage from divorce better or worse than the social benefit from reduced aggression? How can we measure such damage/benefit?) then we can't make judgements on which is better or worse.
Edit:
6-utilitarianism I beleive is fundamentaly wrong because then trials would be based on public opinion, If the neighborhood deemed you negative then your out and i beleive a world of laughing freaks would not be good, for example if everyone did what best affects them positivly , then why not go to ww3 and make everyone kill each other so that the survivors can be happy, it makes terrorism moral because it advances the happiness of the majority of the terrorist and etc.....
I can safely say that you also don't understand utilitarianism. Just for the record.
Post by
Hyperspacerebel
Just FYI - I think that part of the reason everyone wants to bash an argument of yours by denying religion is because you often pull the topic back to religion, even if you're not using it as part of your argument.
For the record, when I saw the statement, I envisaged an old granny who grew up in the 1930s bemoaning the sexualisation of kids these days. Not necessarily a Christian.
Probably because you don't hear the argument directed at you every other day like I do.
To be able to acquire sexual release on-demand increases overall pleasure, even if it generates situations in which it is not proper for us to seek that release. If there is no pornography, then we cannot relieve that sexual tension in either situation... but if there is then we can at least do it in the former (and with some people even the latter).
Pornography creates a dependence. Not just on porn--on sensual fulfillment. It's at that point that sex becomes a mere physical act, and a selfish one at that.
The pleasure that the porn-watcher receives compensates for this
Who are you to say the good of one individual is better than the good of another individual? Especially when the one can easily go without porn (yes, it's possible) while the other. as a human. cannot go without complete human affection without if affecting her/him.
And tell me, how do rape and murder provide jobs?
Police, judges, gun sellers, etc. If you're going to argue utility you can't pick and choose.
Post by
TheMediator
This thread got incredibly dumb past the first couple of responses, that's all I'm going to say, because I don't want to get into an arguement with someone who would never admit their wrong anyways over trivial bull****.
Post by
Hyperspacerebel
This thread got incredibly dumb past the first couple of responses, that's all I'm going to say, because I don't want to get into an arguement with someone who would never admit their wrong anyways over trivial bull****.
kthxbai.
Post by
Squishalot
Probably because you don't hear the argument directed at you every other day like I do.
Still doesn't justify dragging something unnecessary in - what you said didn't help your argument at all, and simply inflamed other people into seeing your viewpoint as a religious one. There's no need to be defensive in the first instance, or now even, because that just aggravates people reading what you say.
It's just a piece of advice, take it and adapt accordingly, or ignore it and continue to be flamed on religious grounds when it's not for debate, it's up to you. Again, like I've pointed out to you before - don't expect everyone else to see what you write the same way that you do.
<everything else in that post>
None of that is me. You might want to edit your quoting to clarify that.
Post by
Hyperspacerebel
Again, like I've pointed out to you before - don't expect everyone else to see what you write the same way that you do.
See, you expect me to see what other people write as they do, but you don't expect everyone else to see what I write as I do.
I respect what you're trying to say, but I'm going to take what I read exactly as I see it unless the person who wrote it in the first place wishes to clarify, which hasn't happened.
Post by
Squishalot
Again, like I've pointed out to you before - don't expect everyone else to see what you write the same way that you do.
See you expect me to see what other people write as they do, but you don't expect everyone else to see what I write as I do.
I respect what your trying to say, but I'm going to take what I read exactly as I see it unless the person who wrote it in the first place wishes to clarify, which hasn't happened.
I expect you to rise above other people, if you want to avoid hypocrisy. Just because everybody does it doesn't make it right? Haven't I read that somewhere?
If your life-long goal is to become a teacher, then yeah, I'd expect you to do that. I'd expect you to be aware of what you say, and the potential consequences of it. Including being the first to explicitly introduce a mention of religion, in a thread specifically asked to avoid religion.
Edit: And thanks for re-quoting appropriately.
Post by
184848
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Hyperspacerebel
I expect you to rise above other people, if you want to avoid hypocrisy.
See, that's what I don't get. There is nothing to 'rise above.' There is nothing wrong with taking something as it appears at face value to you and running with it. If I see that someone has misinterpreted me, I'll clarify what I said. If I misinterpret someone else, I expect them to clarify me, otherwise I'll assume what I got from it is exactly what they wished to convey.
You can take him to mean old grannies if you want, you have just as much information as me to make that judgment. I'm not going to get on your case for that even though you may be completely wrong as to what he was implying.
Post by
Squishalot
See, that's what I don't get. There is nothing to 'rise above.' There is nothing wrong with taking something as it appears at face value to you and running with it. If I see that someone has misinterpreted me, I'll clarify what I said. If I misinterpret someone else, I expect them to clarify me, otherwise I'll assume what I got from it is exactly what they wished to convey.
I dunno, I saw him listing out some broad views on pornography. At face value, there's nothing there on Christians, just as there's nothing there on gays or feminists, in case someone wanted to read it in. What you're doing is taking it to mean something deeper.
There is something to rise above. You don't like people seeing your arguments as religiously biased when they're not intended to be. A good place to start is not assuming the same of others.
Post by
Hyperspacerebel
There is something to rise above. You don't like people seeing your arguments as religiously biased when they're not intended to be. A good place to start is not assuming the same of others.
I only don't like it
after
I clarify or state as such. I've made plenty of religious arguments in this forum.
Post Reply
You are not logged in. Please
log in
to post a reply or
register
if you don't already have an account.