Porn is not victimless because the exposure demeans those posing/acting in it, and often (usually, I’m guessing), the girls are tricked and manipulated into it, or they’re sex-trafficked girls who are forced to do it. And they’re frequently degraded, insulted, scorned, and otherwise mistreated. You can talk about consent (when it isn’t coersion or force, or threat of force), but some things shouldn’t be tolerated, consent or no.
Isn’t this a very dogmatic way of seeing? You CLAIM that exposure is a demeaning experience for EVERYONE who is participating. Why are you so sure that there are no people who do not experience it as demeaning to expose themselves?
Okay, this is a very far-left, non-conservative point of view and I (as I said in another thread) reject this totally. I belief in something called “self-responsibility” and if people are playing the victim card or arguing victimhood-based I always get upset!
So if these girls are really tricked and manipulated into it, you allege they must be very silly and/or do not have a little bit of self-responsibility and the bad society is to blame if they undergo demeaning experiences.
I totally disagree here and say: As long as there is no inevitable pressure (like having a gun on your head): Every individual is responsible for his or her own actions and the society is NEVER to blame for something that anyone is doing deliberately (no gun). If you start arguing this way and strip individuals of their self-responsibility you are not far away from the left-liberal effort of creating a 100%-care-state with incapacitated individuals.
I want to live in a society were everyone has the mental ability to take the responsibility for his or her own actions. And I want to live in society were individuals are seen as 100% self-responsible. So if a girl is acting in a porn without a gun on her head NOBODY is to blame except herself!
Sorry, but left-wing attitudes are triggering something in me…
BS, phillipp. One doesn’t have to be threatened with a gun to be threatened or forced to do something that they otherwise wouldn’t do of their own volition. There’s nothing “left-wing” about that.
Doesn’t the “like” in “pressure like having a gun on your head” indicate that this was just an example?
So you think supporting victim-mentality is not left-wing?
A mature person, a person of the age of consent should be able to decide if she wants to participate in porn-production or not.
If you claim that these girls are victims of the porn-industry just because they participate and they have no chance to escape - you either do not belief in the legal system (and belief our judicial system can not protect them) or you support a kind of victim mentality.
If you think law and order can protect people from forced labour (as I do), they are no victims!
…I didn’t claim that it is absolutely impossible that somebody can be in very special circumstances where the law could not protect them. Of course there are such cases – and than it is justified to call someone a victim.
But my point is that in general porn-industry is not evil just because some people have to participate under inevitable pressure. Then the evil are the people who are acting out this pressure but the evil is not porn-industry itself.
If you believe in the integrity of the United States Judicial system and its ability and/or desire to protect the innocent you are quite naive.
Our Judicial system protects the guilty and punishes the innocent. A black Racist can burn down your town with ipunity, a white Christian will be prosecuted to fullest measure if he refuses to decorate a cake in a manner which violates his religious conscience.
I could cite similar examples for pages but all of these are reported daily, to make the claim that it would be rare for someone to be victimized is so preposterous I was looking for a sarcasm tag.
There’s so much here to address. I’m probably not going to get it all, but I’ll take a bite of it.
Yes, I claim pornographic exposure is demeaning to the parties exposing themselves (or being exposed by a pimp or intimidating and manipulative pornographer). I believe God made us with a sense of shame at being intimately exposed other than with one’s intimate partner (spouse). I’m sure there are those who rationalize that it does them no harm, but I don’t buy it. I can’t quantify it, but I feel sure that the harm is there in all cases.
There is NOTHING far-left and nonconservative about being concerned about girls getting sucked into this parasitic trade. There’s responsibility, but the same LEFTIST philosophy that is taking advantage of these girls’ lack thereof is the same one that is teaching them to be sexually irresponsible. This practice is satanic; it’s using weaseling lies to get the girl involved, then pointing the finger of shame at them to say it’s their own fault.
If you think that my position is leftist, I would wonder what your response would be if some pervert slick-talked your (hypothetical, since I don’t know anything about your family, and don’t need to for the validity of the example) 18-year-old daughter or sister into an anal gang bang and mocked, scorned, and insulted her every step of the way, especially at the end when she’s fully well aware that she got in over her head. There’s nothing leftist about protecting women and girls from perverts (either the pornographer, or the user of pornography).
No, a person of the age of consent shouldn’t be able to decide if she wants to participate in porn any more than she should be allowed to consent to be the victim in a snuff video.
Do I think the law can protect them all? Of course not. Is that any excuse not to try? ABSOLUTELY NOT.
Yes, the porn industry is most emphatically evil.
And calling it such is a decidedly conservative position.
Yes, and I absolutely agree here.
But we talked about if there is something like forced labour or slavery in the US today. My opinion is: No, not even in the porn-industrie! I think US-America’s legal system is sophisticated enough at least to protect its citizen from forced labour. I think we can say in this regard the USA has reached a quite higher level than the most third world countries.
I claim that girls that participate in the (american) porn-production should not be seen as victims of 21th-century-pron-slavery, but rather as self-responsible individuals who make there own choices.
BTW: The gay-cake:
Seeing victims everywhere and striping responsibility-for-one’s-own-actions from the people is a very LEFT WAY OF THINKING.
The desperate search for victims to protect: NOT CONSERVATIVE.
The absolute unwillingness to conceive people as self-reliant and acting on one’s own authority: VERY LIBERAL.
Seeing victims SOMEWHERE is NOT seeing victims EVERYWHERE; one extreme doesn’t justify the opposite extreme. I’ve detailed some of the reasons why sexual exploitation (which porn is) is different and very damaging. Would you care to respond to my specifics?
It has nothing to do with “seeing victims everywhere”, it is simply recognizing that the reality for most people who are not in some way “connected” with power is a reality where those stronger than you are a genuine threat and there is no defense provided to the weak by the Judicial structure.
When people know they are “on there own” and the Law will ignore their plight, they capitulate to the will of many others in the interest of survival.
Our government schools prevent the discussion of morality and teach children from the earliest ages that sexual behavior should be embraced as inevitable, all manner of decadence including adult/child sexual behavior is treated as morally nuetral and the idea that their personal worth is measured by how sexually desirable they are to others is established from the same early ages.
This is the United States education and judicial system as it is currently comprised, the fact that such a system breeds all manner of victimization is not “Leftist”; it is the Left who designed and built this apostate system specifically because they want to use children as personal sex toys.
I didn’t answer before because I had not enough time. Your previous Text:
O.K. You yourself are saying: You BELIEVE that… and you FEEL sure that… If you say that this is just your personal belief but you also could be wrong, I can live with that.
I belief that exposure can be demeaning, but I do not belief that it has to be for everyone. Why? I learned many times that people are very different in their feelings and experiences. I am living in Europe and here nudism beaches or camping places are very common. Yes porn isn’t camping but it’s about the aspect of demeaning or not while beeing naked.
Don’t understand me wrong, I would not feel comfortable in such an environment but other people do. I have never been bare in front of another person since I was five.
How old are this girls while indoctrination? If they are underage: Why aren’t their parents protecting them? If they are not underage: Do they belief everything other people are telling them?
If someone would ask me to act in a porn I would just say: No, I don’t like that. If someone would tell me that producing porn is fun and a good thing I would say: No, I don’t belief that. If someone would try to force me: I would call the police! Why can’t your girls act this way?
If my hypothetical 18-year-old daughter were in such a situation I would say: “Girl, you are 18 – if someone mock, scorn, and insult you: Go away from these people!”.
If she would say: “Oh daddy, Oh daddy, I have a new boy-friend, he is hitting and abusing me every day but I never will leave him because I truly love him – and he is insulting and physically forcing me to produce pornography but I will never got to the police because I hope he will marry me and I want a baby from him…” I would say: “Girl, you are no victim – you are just stupid!”
If I were a conservative father (I am 33 and have no kids) I would teach my kids to be alert and critical and I would learn them to act self-responsible. So if my hypothetical daughter ever came in a situation were she is insulted and abused and not able to recognize that this is WRONG and reamaing in this scene - I would have failed all along the line.
…but about understanding people as naive creatures without every sense of self-responsibility, that are not able to tell apart good and evil.
I think we are not talking about the same topic, but regarding the claim: “Pron is Evil” I say:
There is a simple solution: If someone forces you to act in a porno-film -> Call the police.
I don’t know about what kind of people you are talking who are not capable to understand this simple rule. And if you would say: The evil police system is supporting only the privileged and powerful but ignoring the plight of the “weak”, this would be a prototypical left thinking-pattern.
Let’s see if I have this straight, porn and the government are “good” and if I don’t agree with you then I am a “Leftist thinker”?
It doesn’t matter; a free society means you have no choice but to entrust adults with their vices.
You can’t treat people like children, and expect to have an adult society. Nanny state ideas tout moral excellence, but facilitate moral weakness.
That’s the actual effect of pretending laws have any meaningful place here. Banning actions where people are fully capable of giving consent.
For me porn is neither good nor bad. My stance is:
If you want to watch porn: Do it. If not: Leave it.
You are citing me quite unfair. Porn is neutral for me. And I didn’t make a judgement about the government in general. I said: I believe that police can protect people form being forced to produce pornography. I don’t know if you agree here or reject this. But if it’s the latter you should explain why people within the USA are not protected from porn-slavery by police.
I’m quite certain RET’s post alludes to the fact that the poor and weak aren’t protected in the way you imagine a perfect system to do so. Here it is:
Philipp: A poor person, by definition not having the resources to extract themselves from their environment, manages to escape to the police and report their plight - what can the police do, what will they do?
About which kind of threat or plight are we actually talking?
"what can the police do, what will they do?"
Normally, if someone forces you to do something (e.g. to act in a porn-film against your will) the police would arrest this person.
In one case, I would agree that the police might be powerless: When it is about the damage of private property.
I am very sensitive to this. And I think damage of private property is the most cowardly malefaction one can commit because the victims have no chance. I already said that I agree that police is powerless there. But originally we talked about people that are forced to produce pornography, and in this case people aren’t victims – because the police can definitely do something against it.
And in this case you can’t say:
Because everyone can call to police – you don’t have to have a special “connection” to power. If someone does not call the police, he is no victim of the society, but rather a victim of his own lack of self-responsibility. Even the dumbest person should be able to know that if someone is threatening you: You call the police!
The statement cited above sounds to me like a typical left-liberal phrase like: “white privileges suppressing poor minority” or “police supports white and powerful only”.