Why is masturbation considered healthy, but watching pornography is considered unhealthy? - Page 2 - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

Provision of the two UN HDI indicators other than GNP.
Forum rules: No one line posts please.
#14945599
Godstud wrote:So you mean hitting that button that asks you if you're over 18? Ok. I'm fine with that.


No, I mean "a system of gift card-like vouchers, purchased in person with ages checked by the retailer (similarly to other typically age-restricted purchases such as alcohol) that would provide a more anonymous and secure solution to age verification."

That would be completely anonymous. The retailer wouldn't log your name, they would just verify your age and give you a code to access the sites. It's simple, anonymous, and effective.
#14945600
Pants-of-dog wrote:Instead, MT was pointing out that the performers are exploited. And if someone is watching it and enjoying it (which s the point of watching porn) , they are enjoying the act of watching someone being exploited.

This is true even if the person watching is not aware of the exploitation.

Also, most porn depicts very unrealistic sex. If it conditions you to think that most sex is like that, that would also be unhealthy for your relationships.

That's complete bullshit. Performers are not "exploited" but paid rather well.

There's no such thing as "unrealistic sex" unless you're talking about some FX effects or animations that portray something unrealistic. You're talking about something else: porn actresses care about how they look while most ordinary women not so much and they're jealous of the looks of said porn actresses. But that's not a good reason to ban porn or to suggest that porn is wrong.
#14945607
Sivad wrote:No, I mean "a system of gift card-like vouchers, purchased in person with ages checked by the retailer (similarly to other typically age-restricted purchases such as alcohol) that would provide a more anonymous and secure solution to age verification."
That's hardly anonymous, and it's extremely inconvenient.

Sivad wrote:That would be completely anonymous. The retailer wouldn't log your name, they would just verify your age and give you a code to access the sites. It's simple, anonymous, and effective. It's not anonymous.
You have to show your face and they'd likely want to charge you for something that's free. Great way to make the internet a pay-to-play place. It's a horrible fucking idea, and all because you don't want to supervise your stupid rugrats. :knife:
#14945609
Godstud wrote: it's extremely inconvenient.


It's a minor inconvenience that would greatly mitigate a major public health crisis.

You have to show your face


People have been buying porn from corner stores for decades, it's not a big deal.

and they'd likely want to charge you for something that's free.


You could tax the porn sites to pay for it and distribute the codes for free.

It's a horrible fucking idea


It's a great idea. It's simple, easy, cheap, and effective.

and all because you don't want to supervise your stupid rugrats. :knife:


You'll see how easy that is when your kids hit that age. You can't supervise teenagers 24-7, it's not possible.
#14945610
Sivad wrote:It's a minor inconvenience that would greatly mitigate a major public health crisis
. Major public health crisis? You're totally exaggerating it to stupid proportions. :lol: Talk about melodrama!

Sivad wrote:People have been buying porn from corner stores for decades, it's not a big deal.
Your opinion only. Why do we have to PAY for something we've already paid for, too? You'd take something free and make people pay for it. :knife:

Sivad wrote:You could tax the porn sites to pay for it and distribute the codes for free.
You seem to think that minors won't be able to get it. That's as stupid as the people who think minors can't get alcohol.

Sivad wrote:It's a great idea. It's simple, easy, cheap, and effective.
No, it's an incredibly stupid idea, and taking something that's free, and now making people pay for it. :knife: It's not easy, cheap, nor would it be effective.

Sivad wrote:You'll see how easy that is when your kids hit that age. You can't supervise teenagers 24-7, it's not possible.
:lol: You're making a really stupid assumption, there, old man. I have 3 children... age 8, 27 and 29. You're blathering on about bullshit that you probably have no idea what you're talking about. Have you raised teenagers in the computer age? I have.

Again, if you're a parent then make the time and supervise your kids, or make the time to at least educate them properly. If you can't do that, then don't have them.
#14945620
Godstud wrote:. Major public health crisis? You're totally exaggerating it to stupid proportions. :lol: Talk about melodrama!


No, it's a public health crisis, that's not an exaggeration. Go look at the studies on pornography addiction or the effects of pornography on the developing brain.

Your opinion only.


It's a fact that people have been buying porn at convenience stores for decades.

Why do we have to PAY for something we've already paid for, too? You'd take something free and make people pay for it. :knife:


Pigovian taxes are pretty common, there's nothing outrageous or unfair about them.

You seem to think that minors won't be able to get it. That's as stupid as the people who think minors can't get alcohol.


It would make it much more difficult for them to access it. I didn't say it would eliminate the problem, just that it would significantly mitigate it.


:lol: You're making a really stupid assumption, there, old man. I have 3 children... age 8, 27 and 29. You're blathering on about bullshit that you probably have no idea what you're talking about. Have you raised teenagers in the computer age? I have.


Well, then I have to conclude that you were just totally oblivious to what you're kids were getting up to.

Again, if you're a parent then make the time and supervise your kids, or make the time to at least educate them properly. If you can't do that, then don't have them.


By that logic we should get rid of age requirements on all potentially harmful or hazardous products. 12 year olds should be allowed to go into Walmart and buy a fifth of jack, a shotgun, and some amputee porn and it's up to the parents to supervise.
#14945622
Sivad wrote:Go look at the studies on pornography addiction or the effects of pornography on the developing brain.
So get Net Nanny then. Why should I have to pay for your perverted kids, though? You want to protect your children, then pay for it yourself. Don't expect others to do so. Educate your fucking kids instead of hiding everything from them. It works.

Sivad wrote:Well, then I have to conclude that you were just totally oblivious to what you're kids were getting up to.
[Bulaba edit: warning for Rule 2 issued] I was an attentive parent who paid attention to what my children were doing.

Get a Net Nanny program if you can't trust your stupid children not to look at porn on the internet. YOU pay for it!

Sivad wrote:Pigovian taxes are pretty common, there's nothing outrageous or unfair about them.
YOU pay for it by getting a program that will do it for you. Why do others have to pay for YOUR stupid kids?

Sivad wrote:By that logic we should get rid of age requirements on all potentially harmful or hazardous products. 12 year olds should be allowed to go into Walmart and buy a fifth of jack, a shotgun, and some amputee porn and it's up to the parents to supervise.
:lol: Use some of that logic by getting a computer program to police your kids instead of expecting the state, and someone else, to do it for you! Aren't you one of these libertarians who wants LESS government? This is just inviting MORE.

There are programs you can use to prevent your kids from looking at sites. Use them and quit whining. The ability to police what your kids see is already available, but you simply don't want to pay $15/mo because you want someone else to pay and be inconvenienced for YOUR sake. Fuck that! :knife:
#14945628
Sivad wrote:By that logic we should get rid of age requirements on all potentially harmful or hazardous products. 12 year olds should be allowed to go into Walmart and buy a fifth of jack, a shotgun, and some amputee porn and it's up to the parents to supervise.


I like this suggestion actually.

:excited:

Sivad wrote:Pigovian taxes are pretty common, there's nothing outrageous or unfair about them.


My concern is that it would incentivize the government to promote or protect pornography because it now has a revenue stream from it.

Sivad wrote:No, it's a public health crisis, that's not an exaggeration. Go look at the studies on pornography addiction or the effects of pornography on the developing brain.


I think its a problem from a moral perspective, but I have a hard time seeing an easy solution. The issue seems deeply cultural to me, and lets be honest, its the fact that videos can be viewed instantly at the click of a button and without payment that has been the medium for pornography becoming ubiquitous and the only reason that free-streaming sites ranging from bitchute to pornhub to youtube even exist is because that sort of thing (instant gratification) is appealing in the first place to our culture.

@Godstud

I pretty much agree with all of your arguments, in spite of my moral opposition to pornography, but you are using a libertarian argument on this in spite of studies showing that the industry is causing real psychological harm to children.

The irony of this, is that the same argument you are using here "parental rights and personal responsibility" is the same argument I used against government intervention in my vaccination choices, in spite of counter-claims of personal harm.

If my kids get measles because they are not vaccinated, that is my own fault as a parent and its my responsibility not to expose other kids to them. Likewise, if my kid gets psychological damage from watching hardcore midget porn, that is my fault as a parent and its my responsibility to deal with the consequences of that.

@Sivad I think is being inconsistent in a opposite direction, but at least he isn't arguing that vaccines should be mandated or that porn should be banned outright.

Anyway, I am not arguing this Tu Qoque, just making an observation. ;)
#14945632
skinster wrote:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wdBETTHrAEI

Sanctimoniousness ignorant bitch! She doesn't give one word of thanks to the pornography industry. Our 2018 internet infrastructure would have come about without pornography, but it would have been delayed perhaps for years without the internet pornography industry. For a number of years it was vital to the development of internet infrastructure.

But The pornography industry is still unhealthy? Sure. And whose fault is that? Feminists. Of course if you leave pornography to commercial interests you're going to end up with something crass and low class. Boys men, not to mention quite a few women are going to continue to watch pornography. You can whine about it as much as you want, it will have no effect. Get over it! We need properly funded open-source pornography. The failure of feminists, whether through government funding or private initiative, to provide healthy, free, open source alternatives to commercial pornography is frankly sickening.
#14945633
I also want to note, that its not "masturbation" that is healthy, its sexual frustration that is unhealthy and we have made it more likely as a society that large portions of our population are sexually frustrated and therefore must resort to masturbation for release.
#14945635
Victoribus Spolia]I pretty much agree with all of your arguments, in spite of my moral opposition to pornography, but you are using a libertarian argument on this in spite of studies showing that the industry is causing real psychological harm to children. [/quote] Right, and you can teach your children all about porn, and the harm it does. This way you can avoid the "psychological harm".

[quote="Victoribus Spolia wrote:
If my kids get measles because they are not vaccinated, that is my own fault as a parent and its my responsibility not to expose other kids to them. Likewise, if my kid gets psychological damage from watching hardcore midget porn, that is my fault as a parent and its my responsibility to deal with the consequences of that.
No. One can be avoided thru education. The other(disease), cannot.

Seeing midget porn isn't going to kill your child, either.
#14945637
I'm in the camp that agreed that porn is generally bad.

I don't believe it should be made illegal, but I think people should be taught (ESPECIALLY young men) that porn can very much be like a drug. It literally rewires the reward/satisfaction parts of the brain just like a drug does. This rewiring can lead to a lot of dysfunctional behavior. The good news is, if you disconnect from it, you can rewire yourself back to normal.

I don't watch porn anymore.
#14945641
Godstud wrote:No. One can be avoided thru education. The other(disease), cannot.

Seeing midget porn isn't going to kill your child, either.


Obsessive porn addiction has been associated with extreme anti-social behaviors and tendencies towards sexual assault, so it could kill someone else, indirectly, besides perpetuating a business with extremely high suicide rates and trafficking. Its a really abhorrent industry that is related to death, sex crimes, and the degradation of society and enslaving of our youth to a destructive addiction. I fail to see how this is better and safer to society's well being than a few isolated cases of chicken pox. :roll:

Godstud wrote:One can be avoided thru education. The other(disease), cannot.


This is not entirely true, a lack of education on sanitation, basic hygiene, and sterilization is perhaps the greatest indicator of sickness from the vast bulk of vaccinated diseases of which you are highly unlikely to die if you contract and you often come out of it with a permanent immunity that is usually better than the facilitated immunity caused by vaccination.

For instance, what about a required vaccine for HPV or HIV (coming down the pike) for all infants? These are STDs (overwhelmingly), and getting an STD is most often the result of an adult decision, so why should I be required by the state to get my baby vaccinated for HIV when I am not allowed BY LAW to sue the vaccine company in the event of damages and when the child is at an almost non-existent risk of getting it or dying of it in infancy? :eh:

If you think that is fair, I don't see why you would be opposed to the pornography industry being regulated to protect children from viewing it when real psychological and social harm is quite evident.

Like I said, your argument seems a bit inconsistent.

If we are going to argue for parental rights and personal responsibility, both have to be grounded in a consistent ideological basis.

Mine is. I reject all consequentialist and utilitarian ethics and and argue for natural and individual rights. You seem to choose which ethical approach you will take to a political question purely on whim.
#14945656
Victoribus Spolia wrote:Obsessive porn addiction has been associated with extreme anti-social behaviors and tendencies towards sexual assault, so it could kill someone else, indirectly, besides perpetuating a business with extremely high suicide rates and trafficking. Its a really abhorrent industry that is related to death, sex crimes, and the degradation of society and enslaving of our youth to a destructive addiction. I fail to see how this is better and safer to society's well being than a few isolated cases of chicken pox. :roll:

Bullshit.

Btw., what do you mean by "sexual assault?" Groping? Kissing? Do those things lead to death?
#14945660
ccdan wrote:Bullshit.

Btw., what do you mean by "sexual assault?" Groping? Kissing? Do those things lead to death?


[Bulaba note: refrain from demeaning name-calling]

I don't really care about porn or its consequences, my point was only that if you do care about such but oppose government regulations, that would be inconsistent with a comparable stance regarding mandatory vaccination.

I don't really believe in sexual assault either and only define rape the way the cowboys would define it, so like I said, I am arguing based on views and presuppositions I don't necessarily accept, i'm running a reductio, not making a presentation of my own views per se.
#14945664
Victoribus Spolia wrote: a consistent ideological basis.

Mine is. I reject all consequentialist and utilitarian ethics and and argue for natural and individual rights. You seem to choose which ethical approach you will take to a political question purely on whim.



A syncretic ethics isn't necessarily inconsistent. A commitment to the greater good is the most rational foundation for an ethical framework and that requires us to incorporate many different normative strands in our moral deliberation. Sometimes the greater good is the individual, sometimes it's the group, sometimes the ends justify the means, and some things are just categorically wrong. The world is too complicated for any one narrow theory to fully accommodate, there are too many competing and conflicting values that need to be taken into account and the only way to rationally order or prioritize them is by determining which best serves the greater good in a given scenario.
#14945668
If interested this might be a good read.
[url]web.mit.edu/sgrp/2008/no2/EatonSAPF.pdf[/url]

Its a stronger anyiporn position which doesn’t reject all porn but does make an argument that much of it isn’t without concern or impact and tied to the classic feminist position of it being one basis of harm towards women through the attitudes it fosters towards women in susceptible mentalities.

Rae Langton also had interesting points within liberal tradition of free speech, arguing how it fosters a mentality that silences women.
https://cpb-us-w2.wpmucdn.com/voices.uchicago.edu/dist/9/177/files/2008/01/langton-speechactsunspeakableacts.pdf

This seems a novel approach without stepping beyond standards of typical liberal position and such isn’t as easily dismissed as merely a puritanical imposition.
She is also one who has a very clear assessment on objectification in her sexual solipism paper. Where treating things as people holds no moral concern but treating people as things does and discussing how the two relate in regards to porn.
[url]web.mit.edu/langton/www/pubs/SexualSolipsism.pdf[/url]

Lengthy reads but worth it
#14945672
Sivad wrote:It doesn't have to generate surplus revenue and the revenue would be generated by restricting pornography, not promoting it.


I understand the goal, but does government ever do that effectively? They have made a fortune on making drugs illegal and there has been evidence of top-secret programs where the U.S. sponsored illegal drug rings and smuggling. Why? Because there is big money in it.

tax penalization is no different. If the politicians and bureaucrats know that they can make money off the industry, they aren't going to want to see it go out completely, so they will never be wholeheartedly behind its restrictions. Besides, if such restrictive policies result in making all mainstream porn pay-per-view, then you will have free stuff (illegal) out there that is probably more shady then what we have now.

ALSO:

I don't see the ethical position you described as syncretic at all, what you argued for was something entirely different. The position you describe was a purely utilitarian ethic that was willing to take in considerations on the individual, and normative levels so long as they still serve the greater good (collectivist utilitarianism or consequentialist ethics).

Your standard is ultimately "the greater good" and what you pragmatically admit is still ultimately based on this main criteria.

Hence, you are a utilitarian or a consequentialist, not a syncretic.

I reject the "greatest good" argument altogether, that is not how I determine what is right and wrong. If my ethical positions end up serving that end (which is often the case), that is simply a pleasant side-effect.
#14945674
Godstud wrote:Can you provide a source showing that all porn is exploitation? I highly doubt that you can make that generalization, or that people engaging in porn are being exploited.


No one claimed that all porn was exploitative. Some is, and some is not.

The stories of those who were exploited are awful, and I do not feel like quoting them here, but there is a link:
https://fightthenewdrug.org/real-storie ... -industry/

So when someone us watching porn, there is a good chance they are watching someone be exploited. And what is worse is that there is no way of knowing if this is the case.

And like other types of sex work, porn acting is not necessarily exploitative. There is ethical porn, and amateur porn.

According to who? Sex is very subjective. You cannot make that kind of generalization, with any sort of accuracy. You cannot make the assumption that it's unhealthy for your relationship, either, since the kinds of sex are as diverse as the kinds of people engaging in it. Everyone has their own "thing".


Exactly! One of the funnest things about sex is its diversity. As you know, this is true even in traditional committed monogamous relationships.

But a lot of porn does not show that diversity. It is, instead, formulaic. A skinny girl with large breasts, shaved everywhere. A man with abs and a large penis, also shaved everywhere. It starts with a blowjob, leads to penentration in the usual three poses, and then he ejaculates on her face. Even the soundtrack of moans and dirty talk is predictable.

Real sex between real people is, as you say, far more diverse and complex than that.

———————————

ccdan wrote:That's complete bullshit. Performers are not "exploited" but paid rather well.

There's no such thing as "unrealistic sex" unless you're talking about some FX effects or animations that portray something unrealistic. You're talking about something else: porn actresses care about how they look while most ordinary women not so much and they're jealous of the looks of said porn actresses. But that's not a good reason to ban porn or to suggest that porn is wrong.


viewtopic.php?f=45&t=172456&p=14945538#p14945443

It is implausible that the IDF could not or would[…]

Moving on to the next misuse of language that sho[…]

@JohnRawls What if your assumption is wrong??? […]

There is no reason to have a state at all unless w[…]