The Morality of Adult Films

[ryzno]

You might...

From Websters Dictionary:

adjective mor·al \ˈmȯr-əl, ˈmär-\

Simple Definition of moral

• : concerning or relating to what is right and wrong in human behavior
  
  
• : based on what you think is right and good
  
  
• : considered right and good by most people : agreeing with a standard of right behavior

It's possibly true. You're very adamant that it's immoral, but you're having a hell of a time explaining clearly why it's immoral without resorting to "because I said so".

I do have a hard time expressing myself with words. I had to do my graduation essay 3 times and it only needed to be 2 pages. goes to me
But from what I've gathered so far we're taught morals. I was taught doing porn is wrong. So in my book it's immoral.

Must be the way you said it. Maybe you just put it more succinctly than everyone else so we just have an easier time referencing it.

Had to google succinctly, I guess I'm that. See above response to Imari.

You're not being singled out here. You have an opinion that it other don't readily understand your reasons for holding. It's a discussion board, so people are asking you about it. If you don't want to reply, put us all on ignore. Or don't post in an opinions section of a discussion forum.

I post here cause I do like to learn from other peoples views. But I don't ask a million questions either if I don't get it or agree. I don't have ANYONE ignored/blocked. Like I said, I do like to read other peoples views even if I think they are incorrect. You can still learn things. Just like the links to Fox, referenced in the America(or the Election thread not sure). Even though you don't like the source you can still learn something.

You sure? Because a lot of what you say comes across as "I'm not racist, but...".

I look at porn a couple of times a week. I have nothing against it. I guess I'm immoral for watching it. If so oh well. Like I said I think what they do is wrong. They do it fine, I still think it's immoral. Just like I said when I said I threw some of my moral point out the window just trying to get in the damn industry we're talking about.

but it also happens everywhere so it's hard to use that to specifically designate why one industry is more immoral than others.

And I still can't figure out why we're talking about different industries. And comparing the morality of them.
I'll use the prize boar as an example. What does it have to do with this at all? Someone had to jack it off to breed another one. I don't see anything having to do with morals in that. I was taught that is a thing that is needed in farming.

Why does that matter? Is it worse to be taking it instead of giving it?

Well you know my view on homosexuality... Regardless he referenced that I would be the one taking the "man meat", which I wouldn't. So it does matter.

Like... is a bikini ok? How about an ankle? How about topless? What about top on but just bottomless? How small can the thong get before it's immoral? Pasties? Merkin? What about something that's translucent... sheer but still kinda see through?

Seriously?

What about sex with your spouse for money on camera where no nudity is shown?

Sauce required lol. I can't even figure out how you could do that.

 

[Danoff]

I was taught doing porn is wrong. So in my book it's immoral.
...

Seriously?

Sauce required lol. I can't even figure out how you could do that.

Have you ever been wrong? Have you ever been taught anything that was wrong? How did you discover that it was wrong?

It's a human response to shut down when you don't understand something ,or when a subject becomes complicated. When our heads can't figure something out we rely on our emotions... and our emotions are programmed in part by our experiences.

I ask you to probe your moral viewpoint and you respond with dismissal because it strikes you as silly or complicated. If I ask you to differentiate showing an ankle for money vs. showing a breast, you won't be able to do it in any non-arbitrary way. But that will strike you as complicating things and you'll fall back on your emotional response to the effect of "it feels wrong to me".

Challenge that. Explore where your conceptions about morality come from and whether they actually make sense. This may strike you as odd, but you can be wrong about morality. The only way you'll discover that is to listen to reasons as to why it might be so.

 

[Famine]

From Websters Dictionary:

Hence "you might".

Also "simple definition"

 

[Northstar]

Sauce required lol. I can't even figure out how you could do that.

Have you ever watched Crank?

 

[ryzno]

Have you ever been wrong?

Yes.

Have you ever been taught anything that was wrong?

I'm not sure I understand your wording. Have I been taught how to do something that most would consider to be wrong? If so, then yes.

How did you discover that it was wrong?

By being told it was wrong, punished as a child for doing something wrong or thrown in jail for doing something wrong.

I ask you to probe your moral viewpoint and you respond with dismissal because it strikes you as silly or complicated. If I ask you to differentiate showing an ankle for money vs. showing a breast, you won't be able to do it in any non-arbitrary way. But that will strike you as complicating things and you'll fall back on your emotional response to the effect of "it feels wrong to me".

I find it silly cause you see ankles in public everyday. You don't see a pair of titties on full display in public everyday. Unless you're in Hollywood and Kylie K or one of them; that's my opinion on see through clothing in public.
Sure I'm gonna look, but I don't think what shes doing is right and it lowers my overall judgement on the person even if I did know her.
Now as far as showing an ankle for cash fine. There is nothing private about it, unless you're Muslim. It's the same response I gave you when you when you showed the pic of Arnold.
I didn't ignore you, I even used your boar reference in response to Imari. I forgot you said it.

Challenge that. Explore where your conceptions about morality come from and whether they actually make sense. This may strike you as odd, but you can be wrong about morality, and the only way you'll discover that is to listen to reasons as to why it might be so.

I'm trying to, but I don't see how some of the things brought up, like being a sewer worker, have anything to do with morals of Adult Films. Its a job that needs to be done. And hopefully they are not naked while doing it(:idea:sounds like another category of porn)

Also "simple definition"

I'm glad my ignorance gave you entertainment today.👍 And I didn't google simple definition, I literally typed in the just the word.

Have you ever watched Crank?

No. Is it on Netflix or Hulu? Looks interesting.

 

[Imari]

But from what I've gathered so far we're taught morals. I was taught doing porn is wrong. So in my book it's immoral.

I think this is the thing though. Children are taught morals, and they're expected to simply accept them.

As adults, most people have questioned at least some aspects of the morality they were taught. They then either decide that they agree with it, or they don't and they change their view. Either way, they have some reasoning behind what they think.

It's entirely possible to come across some aspect of your morality that you simply had never had reason to question before. Happens all the time. But in that case you should probably question why you think they way you do, and if that really is what you want to think.

I post here cause I do like to learn from other peoples views. But I don't ask a million questions either if I don't get it or agree.

That's how you deal with that situation, but it's not the same for everyone. Other people want to understand, and will keep asking questions until they do.

Personally, I don't see how not asking questions about something you don't understand helps but you're welcome to do whatever you find works for you.

I look at porn a couple of times a week. I have nothing against it. I guess I'm immoral for watching it. If so oh well. Like I said I think what they do is wrong. They do it fine, I still think it's immoral.

See, but this just isn't true. You may watch porn, but you've been very clear that you're against at the very least certain types of porn, if not all of it.

You think it's wrong. That's the definition of having something against it. You need to realise that you're playing both sides of the fence here by saying it's fine but wrong.

And I still can't figure out why we're talking about different industries. And comparing the morality of them.
I'll use the prize boar as an example. What does it have to do with this at all? Someone had to jack it off to breed another one. I don't see anything having to do with morals in that. I was taught that is a thing that is needed in farming.

Because there are other industries which are not considered immoral that perform the same actions as porn. Masturbating a boar for breeding is not immoral, but masturbating a boar for entertainment is? That seems weird.

I find that where perception is concerned, comparing similar situations can provide insight into why we think and feel the way that we do. There are numerous things that have aspects in common with pornography, and so analysing your feelings about those may help you find the words you need to talk about how you feel about porn.

That's why we've been asking you about other industries and activities. Because with porn you know how you feel but can't explain it. By extending to other things we might be able to understand where you're coming from more.

Well you know my view on homosexuality... Regardless he referenced that I would be the one taking the "man meat", which I wouldn't. So it does matter.

I guess. I just find it odd that even within homosexuality, whatever you may think of it, you view it as more demeaning to be taking cock than giving it.

I can't help but wonder if the same view extends to women, and therefore to your perception of porn being demeaning. After all, it's their job to take the cock. Is a person demeaned simply by the act of taking the cock?

By being told it was wrong, punished as a child for doing something wrong or thrown in jail for doing something wrong.

I don't want to put words in Danoff's mouth, but I suspect the question was more along the lines of "Have you ever been taught something that you later realised of your own volition was wrong?" I.e. not having your morality defined by outside authorities.

Vegans are probably a good example. Most of them would have been raised eating meat and animal products, but at some point in their life they questioned that and decided that it was wrong for them. They may have had information and guidance from outside sources, but they had to use that to arrive at the conclusion that eating meat was wrong themselves.

 

[Danoff]

I'm not sure I understand your wording. Have I been taught how to do something that most would consider to be wrong? If so, then yes.

Has someone taught you something incorrect. Like... teaching you that homosexuality is immoral, or that the Earth is 6000 years old, or that women should not show their ankles in public.

By being told it was wrong, punished as a child for doing something wrong or thrown in jail for doing something wrong.

The answer I'm looking for here is a personal development of morality. I'm looking for you to identify a time when you changed your own opinions on morality due to exposure to rational thought or alternative norms.

I find it silly cause you see ankles in public everyday. You don't see a pair of titties on full display in public everyday. Unless you're in Hollywood and Kylie K or one of them; that's my opinion on see through clothing in public.

Sure I'm gonna look, but I don't think what shes doing is right and it lowers my overall judgement on the person even if I did know her.

...why? Because it's unusual? You don't see someone wearing red sneakers every day either but it doesn't lower your judgement of them. "I was taught it was wrong" is not a good reason to think something is wrong. It's just passing the buck onto the person that taught it to you. Give me an actual reason, one that makes sense.

I'm trying to, but I don't see how some of the things brought up, like being a sewer worker, have anything to do with morals of Adult Films. Its a job that needs to be done.

Try answering them and see where it takes you. If you don't see the connection, not to worry, I'll supply the connection for you. And Adult Films are a job that needs to be done. Porn is a good way to satisfy frustrated single men who might otherwise turn to violence as an outlet.

I'll re-post my questions so you can give them a shot:

I'd be interested to know where you draw the line on taking off clothes or sex for cash. Like... is a bikini ok? How about an ankle? How about topless? What about top on but just bottomless? How small can the thong get before it's immoral? Pasties? Merkin? What about something that's translucent... sheer but still kinda see through?

On the sex front, what about a massage? What about a massage that gets someone off even though no contact was made with private parts? What about sex with your spouse for money on camera where no nudity is shown? What about a farmer who needs to extract some genetic material from a prized boar?

So far you've said that see-through clothing is wrong because it's not normal (I addressed this above). Ankles are ok because that is normal in our society (likewise). And farmers are ok because they're doing it for a different purpose.

On that last one, why is it ok to perform a sex act on a pig as long as it's not for the pig's benefit?

 

[Johnnypenso]

I find it silly cause you see ankles in public everyday. You don't see a pair of titties on full display in public everyday. Unless you're in Hollywood and Kylie K or one of them; that's my opinion on see through clothing in public.

Better not come north of the border then. Titties in public is perfectly legal up here

 

[ryzno]

Personally, I don't see how not asking questions about something you don't understand helps but you're welcome to do whatever you find works for you.

By "get it", I meant get their reasoning of their point I find incorrect. Like someone saying the earth is flat, I'm not even going to waste my time with that person.
If I don't get the overall subject I will/have/do ask questions. Or I google it.

See, but this just isn't true. You may watch porn, but you've been very clear that you're against at the very least certain types of porn, if not all of it.

I am against some parts of it. But I still have my opinion on the persons doing it overall. I need to stop using the word wrong.

Because there are other industries which are not considered immoral that perform the same actions as porn. Masturbating a boar for breeding is not immoral, but masturbating a boar for entertainment is? That seems weird.

Masturbating a boar for entertainment is called bestiality, which is illegal. And I'm sure the person doing it doesn't enjoy his job. If he does there is something wrong with him. I wouldn't enjoy it as a job on a farm, but I'd do it if I had to.

I guess. I just find it odd that even within homosexuality, whatever you may think of it, you view it as more demeaning to be taking cock than giving it.

I can't help but wonder if the same view extends to women, and therefore to your perception of porn being demeaning. After all, it's their job to take the cock. Is a person demeaned simply by the act of taking the cock?

Where did I say that? I have the same view on all of them, male or female, giver or receiver, homosexual or not.

Has someone taught you something incorrect. Like... teaching you that homosexuality is immoral, or that the Earth is 6000 years old, or that women should not show their ankles in public.

Yes, it is, the earth is not, no I'm not Muslim or Amish.

I'm looking for you to identify a time when you changed your own opinions on morality due to exposure to rational thought or alternative norms.

I have, I was taught that drugs, alcohol and ciggs are wrong. Look at me now.

...why? Because it's unusual? You don't see someone wearing red sneakers every day either but it doesn't lower your judgement of them. "I was taught it was wrong" is not a good reason to think something is wrong. It's just passing the buck onto the person that taught it to you. Give me an actual reason, one that makes sense.

It's illegal, it's called indecent exposure. Why is prostitution illegal but porn not? The woman is doing her job right? I have the same judgment of them(prostitutes).
As Johnny said it's legal up there to show your tits. I'd still have the same opinion of the woman.

And Adult Films are a job that needs to be done. Porn is a good way to satisfy frustrated single men who might otherwise turn to violence as an outlet.

Never thought of that. They should legalize prostitution, problem solved.

Like... is a bikini ok? How about an ankle?

Yes.

How about topless? What about top on but just bottomless?

No.

How small can the thong get before it's immoral?

When you see the actual vagina or penis.

Pasties?

Not something I'd let my son see so no.

Merkin?

I regret googling that... That's just nasty.

On the sex front, what about a massage?

I don't see that as sexual.

What about a massage that gets someone off even though no contact was made with private parts?

I'd question the person receiving the massage. I've never found a arm/shoulder massage as a turn on. Driving for a job, makes them rather tight. I'm not a fan of the kind where you have to take off your clothes.

On that last one, why is it ok to perform a sex act on a pig as long as it's not for the pig's benefit?

I guess cause I'm from the south I don't look at farm work like that. They are not breeding in porn.

Better not come north of the border then. Titties in public is perfectly legal up here

Actually it sounds like I need to.

======

Just hit preview, holy wall of text.

 

[Imari]

By "get it", I meant get their reasoning of their point I find incorrect. Like someone saying the earth is flat, I'm not even going to waste my time with that person.
If I don't get the overall subject I will/have/do ask questions. Or I google it.

So what's the problem? Other people don't understand, so they're asking you questions.

I mean, by your logic you'd rather they treated you as a flat earther with no reasonable ideas at all and ignore you? At least this way it's an implicit admission that people think that your ideas may have value.

Masturbating a boar for entertainment is called bestiality, which is illegal.

Legality and morality are often similar, but they're totally not the same thing. Just because something is illegal doesn't make it immoral.

Legality aside, what is the difference between masturbating a boar for work and masturbating a boar for entertainment?

And I'm sure the person doing it doesn't enjoy his job. If he does there is something wrong with him.

You keep doing this as well. You assume to know what people may and may not enjoy, and define anything outside your apparently somewhat limited sphere as unacceptable.

I wouldn't enjoy it as a job on a farm, but I'd do it if I had to.

See, I find this quite ironic. You can accept that someone on a farm might not like the job of masturbating a boar, but they'd do it if they had to because that's part of the job that they do for the money they earn.

How is that different to porn? Someone might not particularly like what they're doing, but they find it unobjectionable enough to just get on with the job.

Where did I say that? I have the same view on all of them, male or female, giver or receiver, homosexual or not.

You implied it. You felt the need to correct him so that he didn't think that you were the one taking the cock. That's only matters if you think there's a distinction, and you'd probably only correct it if he'd wrongly assumed that you were the subordinate partner.

You said I knew your view on homosexuality. I actually don't, you haven't specifically said. I can infer from the fact that you refused to do gay porn, your impending marriage to your wife, and your perception of sodomy that you're fairly strongly hetero yourself. I could guess that you're somewhat anti-gay simply based on statistics, as people who share your views tend to be. But it would be wrong of me to act on that assumption or treat you as if it were true. I don't know until you choose to tell me, and it's simply not relevant at this point. If I feel it's useful for me to know I'll ask.

The point was not your view on homosexuality. It was your view on sexual partnerships. All through the first pages you referred solely to the women being abused in porn. I simply thought that taken in conjunction with the apparent dom/sub view of the homosexual relationship that it could have indicated that perhaps the reason you feel so strongly about porn is because you view it as a dominant/submissive relationship that you're uncomfortable with.

I could be wrong, I don't say that you do view it like this. I simply thought that it might be an interesting thing to raise with you.

 

[Danoff]

Yes, it is, the earth is not, no I'm not Muslim or Amish.

The point is whether you were taught otherwise, which you address below.

I have, I was taught that drugs, alcohol and ciggs are wrong. Look at me now.

What made you change your mind? Or what made you not accept what you were taught?

It's illegal, it's called indecent exposure. Why is prostitution illegal but porn not? The woman is doing her job right? I have the same judgment of them(prostitutes).
As Johnny said it's legal up there to show your tits. I'd still have the same opinion of the woman.

Then you're tacitly explaining that your answer "because it's illegal" is not really the answer. So what's the real answer?

Never thought of that. They should legalize prostitution, problem solved.

...except you think it's immoral (as above). Why?

Yes.
No.
When you see the actual vagina or penis.
Not something I'd let my son see so no.

To summarize: bikinis and ankles are ok. Bikinis that show vagina are not ok. Pasties are not ok regardless of not showing the nipple.

So when you say "vagina" are we talking pubic hair here or actual lady parts. Are you ok with pubic hair showing (for money)? What about the same coverage but no pubic hair (for money)? Is that ok? This is the same bikini we're talking about, just a different level of grooming. Why are Pasties not ok when they don't show the actual lady part but a bikini is ok until it's so small that you see the lady part? Why is your son the determining factor in whether something is moral to do for money? We hire soldiers to kill enemy soldiers, would you show that to your son? If they get paid for it is it immoral? What size diameter becomes ok for a pastie? At what point is a bikini top too small? Is sideboob ok? How much sideboob? Is cleavage ok? How much cleavage? At what point does an amount of cleavage or sideboob (or both) result in an immoral act if they're paid for the photo?

I'd question the person receiving the massage. I've never found a arm/shoulder massage as a turn on.

Is it immoral to get paid for it if the person receiving does?

Driving for a job, makes them rather tight. I'm not a fan of the kind where you have to take off your clothes.

If you have your clients have to take off their clothes before getting their massage are you immoral for receiving money for it?

What about a husband and wife having sex with no nudity showing on camera for money?

I guess cause I'm from the south I don't look at farm work like that. They are not breeding in porn.

What if they did, would that make it moral?

The issue is, as you've drawn up morality, you're going to draw an arbitrary indefensible line in the sand* where on one side you have an act that's moral and on the other side you have almost the same act which is not moral and with absolutely zero rational reasoning with which to distinguish them.

*You already have really, I'm just narrowing the field slowly to show it to you.

 

[ryzno]

So what's the problem? Other people don't understand, so they're asking you questions.

I mean, by your logic you'd rather they treated you as a flat earther with no reasonable ideas at all and ignore you? At least this way it's an implicit admission that people think that your ideas may have value.

That's what I like about this site. Even if one person doesn't figure it out someone else will. I don't have the patience or curiosity to ask someone 20 questions.

Legality aside, what is the difference between masturbating a boar for work and masturbating a boar for entertainment?

One is a job needed for breeding farm animals, the other is just plain stupid. There is no way you are going to get me to say masturbating a boar for personal pleasure is ok. It's not.

How is that different to porn? Someone might not particularly like what they're doing, but they find it unobjectionable enough to just get on with the job.

How is that different to porn? Someone might not particularly like what they're doing, but they find it unobjectionable enough to just get on with the job.

It's different because your nude and having sex. I don't know what else to tell you.

You said I knew your view on homosexuality. I actually don't, you haven't specifically said.

I have in other threads, I thought you might remember.

I can infer from the fact that you refused to do gay porn, your impending marriage to your wife, and your perception of sodomy that you're fairly strongly hetero yourself. I could guess that you're somewhat anti-gay simply based on statistics, as people who share your views tend to be.

Check, check and check.

All through the first pages you referred solely to the women being abused in porn. I simply thought that taken in conjunction with the apparent dom/sub view of the homosexual relationship that it could have indicated that perhaps the reason you feel so strongly about porn is because you view it as a dominant/submissive relationship that you're uncomfortable with.

I never even thought of homosexuality like that. I was trying to show flaws in the industry which got ignored and twisted into what we're talking about now.

Dorry something just happend Ill finish this when I get back

 

[Imari]

One is a job needed for breeding farm animals, the other is just plain stupid. There is no way you are going to get me to say masturbating a boar for personal pleasure is ok. It's not.

I'm not trying to get you to say it's OK. I'm trying to get you to explain why it's not. Your rational in this passage is "it's just stupid". You and I both know that's no explanation at all. So why don't we try again?

What's the difference that makes breeding farm animals for work fine, and for pleasure not?

It's different because your nude and having sex. I don't know what else to tell you.

See, it's the same problem again. You treat nudity and sex as though anything involving them is automatically immoral, even though you explicitly accept that there are situations where nudity and sex are fine. Clearly, nudity and sex by themselves aren't the problem, so why don't you have another go at describing what the real problem is.

==========

You're treating nudity and sex being bad as an axiom, and the situations where it's moral as exceptions. Some of us don't see any reason for treating nudity and sex as bad. It's also convenient in that when you stop treating it as innately bad, there's no necessity to try and draw lines between what is OK and what isn't. Which as you're discovering is incredibly difficult.

If you want to take nudity and sex as bad then fine, but there has to be some sort of reason why you would do that. For comparison, let's look at drugs.

Something like heroin is pretty widely frowned upon. For good reason, in general it damages the users, the people around them, and the community in general in a variety of ways. Whereas something like marijuana, while illegal in a lot of places, is pretty widely tolerated because it really has very little impact on anyone other than the user. Or at least no greater impact than other drugs like alcohol and tobacco which are deemed acceptable more or less by cultural conditioning.

So looking at it this way, you can see that it's possible for someone to distinguish between drugs by how much harm free use does to the community.

If you look at nudity and sex this way, I can't see any way that those things specifically cause any harm at all. There's harmful things associated with certain pornographic groups, but it's probably fair to say that it's at least in part because pornography and porn actors are marginalised and stigmatised. If people were free to simply have sex and be nude, I don't see that the world becomes a worse place at all.

Maybe you see it differently, but here's where I need you to explain why nudity and sex specifically are damaging. Just as drugs can be damaging but need not be if they're dispensed and used in a responsible and regulated manner, the same can be said for porn. If you think it's innately bad, you need to explain the harm that's occuring that isn't simply incidental harm that could have happened anywhere.


P.S.

I have in other threads, I thought you might remember.

I don't, I'm sorry. I've had a lot going on recently, so I apologise that I don't remember.

 

[Famine]

I'm glad my ignorance gave you entertainment today.👍 And I didn't google simple definition, I literally typed in the just the word.

... and posted the first thing that agreed with you.

That notwithstanding, you missed the point that you might base your morals on what you believe, but that's your prerogative. Not everyone does - and that's their prerogative - and a simple dictionary definition that reinforces your point of view for you doesn't counter that fact. In effect, you're violently agreeing with me, that you base your morals (as you said) on what you believe.


I'm interested in your point of view that breasts shouldn't be seen in public and it's immoral to do things that you think should be done in private in public. I wonder how you cope with nursing mothers and public communal urinals.

 

[ryzno]

I'm tired of answering questions that have nothing to do with porn.
I don't care if it is for pay or for free, you walk around in public nude I'm going to look down upon you and set my judgment.
I think porn is immoral.
And just like the boar, breastfeeding has nothing to do with the subject at hand. I've only seen breastfeeding in public three times in my life. And I have nothing against it.

And since y'all are so gung ho on the dang boar, would any of y'all, masturbate a boar for your entertainment. If you would do that, please block me, cause I don't need friends like that.

 

[Famine]

I'm tired of answering questions that have nothing to do with porn.

That rather seems to be because the questions are challenging some very poorly thought-out dogma that you've expressed, and you'd rather maintain the dogma you're comfortable with than investigate how it may be wrong.

What we've gleaned from your comments is that you view porn as 'immoral', because you view sex as something that adults should do in private for free. The questions people have been asking you relate to other forms of sex, privacy and employment to challenge that - and your responses indicate that you don't want it challenged, which begs the question of why you posted in the first place...

 

[Northstar]

you walk around in public nude I'm going to look down upon you and set my judgment.

Why? There's nothing more natural than being naked.

 

[ryzno]

That rather seems to be because the questions are challenging some very poorly thought-out dogma that you've expressed, and you'd rather maintain the dogma you're comfortable with than investigate how it may be wrong.

What we've gleaned from your comments is that you view porn as 'immoral', because you view sex as something that adults should do in private for free. The questions people have been asking you relate to other forms of sex, privacy and employment to challenge that - and your responses indicate that you don't want it challenged, which begs the question of why you posted in the first place...

They are my thoughts on the subjects. Why should I question my thoughts? Seems a few people like masturbating boars for fun. You should be more worried about them. Cause that's all I'm taking away from this situation. I ask the same question that I was asked and I get ignored, so in my mind we're done. Why should I answer a question no one else will?

 

[Imari]

Why should I question my thoughts?

Because sometimes our natural reactions to things are not what they should be. Someone might grow up in a community that was strongly anti-drugs, and so their natural reaction would be to condemn anyone who so much as smokes a joint.

But perhaps they might think about that reaction, and decide that actually that's a bit silly, and that if someone wants to have a puff that's their business.

We question our thoughts because that's how we learn things. If we all just accepted the first thing that came into our heads, the world wouldn't get anywhere.

Seems a few people like masturbating boars for fun. You should be more worried about them. Cause that's all I'm taking away from this situation.

You're letting your emotions get in the way of thinking about it clearly. It's not specifically about masturbating boars, but it's a great example because it's something that pushes emotional buttons for just about everyone. The natural response from 99% of the population is somewhere between "eww" and "that's :censored:ing disgusting".

Porn is similar, although the amount of people that have a strongly emotional response to it is probably less. You get people like me, who can watch basically anything and not blink an eye.

However, if you can understand what it is specifically about masturbating boars that makes you so uncomfortable, then maybe you're on your way to understanding what it is about porn. The thought is that it might be easier to figure it out for something at the extreme end of the spectrum like that, but maybe it's just so uncomfortable thinking about it for any length of time that it's just not possible.

If masturbating boars isn't working for you, find something that you object to in a similar way to porn but isn't so objectionable that you're uncomfortable thinking about it. Try to understand what it is that makes you object to it, and get back to us.

 

[LeMansAid]

@ryzno, like?/dislike?, ok?/not okay?, don't have to have aligned yes or no answers. One can like something that's not ok, and think something is ok that they don't like. It may appear a simple concept, but that doesn't stop people often letting their preferences get in the way of logical thinking about what's ok and not ok.

It would be interesting to have you consider these things in relation to your views on homosexuality as well. You could find that once you divorce the common practices (or the ones you think are common) from the basic concept of being attracted to a person of same sex, that you'd have much less, or no issue, with it. You don't have to like anal sex to be ok with homosexuality - especially since anal sex is absolutely not intrinsic to a male/male relationship, and having a relationship at all isn't intrinsic to a homosexuality. For some people it's as simple as feeling an attraction to same sex, and nothing more. As a start, I think that's what you could consider being ok with, but you may well find it difficult to rid your mind of the associations.

To be honest, my only potential concern with the boar deal, is whether or not I think the boar is suffering abuse. In isolation, the human's part in it is completely none of my business.

 

[Famine]

They are my thoughts on the subjects. Why should I question my thoughts?

I'd suggest that it's because it is fundamental to knowledge. The pursuit of all knowledge starts by finding out how you could be wrong...

Seems a few people like masturbating boars for fun. You should be more worried about them.

Why? They aren't posting here.

Cause that's all I'm taking away from this situation.

That's because you'd rather deflect the conversation onto something depraved and revolting so that there is no focus on your utter unwillingness for even a moment's introspection. You'd rather set your mind to an extreme emotional response than admit any possibility that you could be wrong, because to you it means that you're right - after all how can a bunch of sick freaks who like tugging off pigs be right about anything?

Of course no-one here is a pork onanist, but it helps you to think that they are.

I ask the same question that I was asked and I get ignored, so in my mind we're done. Why should I answer a question no one else will?

If you are asked a question and you ask one in return, claiming you shouldn't have to answer because no-one answered yours is foolish at best. It only leads to a circular path of ignorance where no-one answers anything - why should anyone have to answer your question if you didn't answer theirs?

Perhaps as the person first asked a question you should first answer it? Then people will be more willing to answer the questions you have posted.

As for "in my mind we're done", you keep saying you're withdrawing only to post again. Even if you're not going to question anything else in your head, you should question what you're getting out of running away from something challenging your beliefs then repeatedly returning to it to proclaim you're running away from it...

 

[ryzno]

It only leads to a circular path of ignorance where no-one answers anything - why should anyone have to answer your question if you didn't answer theirs?

Perhaps as the person first asked a question you should first answer it? Then people will be more willing to answer the questions you have posted.

Unless I'm dumb and blind, I've answered almost every question asked of me by Imari and Danoff. As a matter of fact I've answered over 30 of their questions. It's not my fault they don't like my answer. I don't get where y'all think I haven't answered any questions.
I think its time I got on in response considering this has been going on for almost a week now. But I don't even care for an answer now, I see where this is going.

We are done now, cause it seems to me, you're on their side. So don't worry about me posting in this thread again. Or this section for a while. Like someone said, what is a debate if no one answers questions.

 

[Famine]

Unless I'm dumb and blind, I've answered almost every question asked of me by Imari and Danoff. As a matter of fact I've answered over 30 of their questions. It's not my fault they don't like my answer.

I think its time I got on in response considering this has been going on for almost a week now. But I don't even care for an answer now, I see where this is going.

You certainly missed the "If" at the start of my sentence. If you believe that makes you dumb and blind, so be it. For my money it's just another attempt to distract from having your beliefs - that you were so willing to post - challenged.

We are done now,

As for "in my mind we're done", you keep saying you're withdrawing only to post again.

cause it seems to me, you're on their side.

I don't know what side that is. However, as it seems I'm also challenging your beliefs now, it would be entirely appropriate for you to put me in with the other people doing that so that you can again deflect the focus away from your lack of introspection and out onto how awful other people are because of something to do with gammon jerking.

Ultimately this leaves us at the position I expressed a few posts ago...

You view porn as 'immoral', because you view sex as something that adults should do in private for free. The questions people have been asking you relate to other forms of sex, privacy and employment to challenge that - and your responses indicate that you don't want it challenged, which begs the question of why you posted in the first place...

 

[ryzno]

You view porn as 'immoral', because you view sex as something that adults should do in private for free. The questions people have been asking you relate to other forms of sex, privacy and employment to challenge that - and your responses indicate that you don't want it challenged, which begs the question of why you posted in the first place...

How? I gave my view on said questions, I got defensive after being asked the same question again just worded differently, this seems like a 100 question test for a job that's set up for failure if you miss one question. I'm not going to answer the same question 10 times so y'all can catch me slipping up somewhere. I posted my views, I'm sorry I can't explain why I have them, I also don't think I need to change them, I've gotten by 31 years now, I must be doing something right, even if I'm wrong or crazy.

Now my breakfast/lunch time is over, I'm hitting the road again, so I will say goodbye for now.

 

[Famine]

We are done now

Uh-huh.

How?

Simply because every time something was posed that would be covered by your very large original umbrella, you reacted by saying it's different or silly. For example, you said that you never see exposed breasts in public unless it was "Hollywood or Kim K". I pointed out nursing mothers and you dismissed it without any further comment because you've only seen it three times (which is three occasions more than never).

I gave my view on said questions, I got defensive after being asked the same question again just worded differently

That'd be a different question then...

this seems like a 100 question test for a job that's set up for failure if you miss one question.

And that's exactly how knowledge is gained.

If a theory can answer 99% of questions but not 1%, the theory is missing a detail. Knowledge is gained not by believing oneself to be right and dismissing everything that doesn't suit, but by trying to find out how wrong you are and adapting the view to suit.

If it's a sufficiently robust theory, it will stand up to any number of questions. If you need to start dismissing questions, it's not robust.

Your belief that "porn is immoral" is just that - a belief. Your reactions throughout have been that of someone who wants to state and spread their belief and not have it questioned or challenged. Unfortunately you've chosen to post it in a discussion forum and put it up for challenge...

I'm not going to answer the same question 10 times so y'all can catch me slipping up somewhere.

Then don't. You're not helping yourself or anyone else by repeatedly saying you're done then coming back to say why. If it's not going where you want it to, use your words to guide it back where you want it to or actually stop this time.

I posted my views, I'm sorry I can't explain why I have them

The first challenge is to explain why you have them to yourself. If you can do that, you can explain it to other people. If you can't, perhaps you should think harder about them until you can explain it to yourself.

If at any point in the explanation to yourself you need to think the phrase "I just do, okay", that's the part you need to look at.

I also don't think I need to change them

The fact that they don't stand up to scrutiny and you need to dismiss questions and evidence to suit suggest otherwise.

I've gotten by 31 years now, I must be doing something right, even if I'm wrong or crazy.

That's a dangerous path to take, as it implies that how long something remains dogma is key to its truth. It also suggests that anyone older than you is automatically more right.

For reference I'm older than you.

I will say goodbye for now.

We are done now

 

[Imari]

How? I gave my view on said questions, I got defensive after being asked the same question again just worded differently, this seems like a 100 question test for a job that's set up for failure if you miss one question. I'm not going to answer the same question 10 times so y'all can catch me slipping up somewhere.

You apparently ignored that I explained several times what I hoped to help you accomplish by getting at the answers to these questions. They were designed to help you question certain aspects of why you felt porn was immoral, and I even told you how you how you might find your own questions to ask yourself if ours were too much for you to stomach.

It's not about us catching you slipping up somewhere. That's easy, you can't explain why you feel the way you do. Helping you to understand and explain why you feel that way was the goal, so that you wouldn't be tripped up by simple questions.

It's not us setting you up for failure. You're setting yourself up for failure by refusing to understand your own emotions and opinions.

I posted my views, I'm sorry I can't explain why I have them, I also don't think I need to change them, I've gotten by 31 years now, I must be doing something right, even if I'm wrong or crazy.

Getting by doesn't mean that you're doing things right. Heroin addicts get by OK.

A wise man isn't wise because he knows what's right. He's wise because he can recognise what is wrong. You're apparently not ready for that yet.

 

[Danoff]

I'm tired of answering questions that have nothing to do with porn.

Mostly the questions are designed to explain to you the arbitrary nature of your more restrictive moral statements - such as not showing one's body for money. It's pretty readily relatable to porn.

And since y'all are so gung ho on the dang boar, would any of y'all, masturbate a boar for your entertainment. If you would do that, please block me, cause I don't need friends like that.

Is this the question that you think went unanswered? I kinda thought that was rhetorical. @Famine answered it - nobody posting here is masturbating a boar for fun. Your point with this questions seems to be that as long as the farmer is not enjoying himself, it's ok. So what about if a prostitute masturbates a john and she doesn't enjoy it? Differentiate that from the farmer.

Here are some questions you missed.

What made you change your mind? Or what made you not accept what you were taught?

Then you're tacitly explaining that your answer "because it's illegal" is not really the answer. So what's the real answer?

...except you think it's immoral (as above). Why?

To summarize: bikinis and ankles are ok. Bikinis that show vagina are not ok. Pasties are not ok regardless of not showing the nipple.

So when you say "vagina" are we talking pubic hair here or actual lady parts. Are you ok with pubic hair showing (for money)? What about the same coverage but no pubic hair (for money)? Is that ok? This is the same bikini we're talking about, just a different level of grooming. Why are Pasties not ok when they don't show the actual lady part but a bikini is ok until it's so small that you see the lady part? Why is your son the determining factor in whether something is moral to do for money? We hire soldiers to kill enemy soldiers, would you show that to your son? If they get paid for it is it immoral? What size diameter becomes ok for a pastie? At what point is a bikini top too small? Is sideboob ok? How much sideboob? Is cleavage ok? How much cleavage? At what point does an amount of cleavage or sideboob (or both) result in an immoral act if they're paid for the photo?

Is it immoral to get paid for it if the person receiving does?

If you have your clients have to take off their clothes before getting their massage are you immoral for receiving money for it?

What about a husband and wife having sex with no nudity showing on camera for money?

What if they did, would that make it moral?

Once again, there is a point to these questions, as I mentioned in this quote:

The issue is, as you've drawn up morality, you're going to draw an arbitrary indefensible line in the sand* where on one side you have an act that's moral and on the other side you have almost the same act which is not moral and with absolutely zero rational reasoning with which to distinguish them.

*You already have really, I'm just narrowing the field slowly to show it to you.

For clarity, for example, you've said that bikinis in public are ok but pasties are not (moral). What is the difference? The strap? I doubt it. The amount of breast shown? There's no specific part of the breast that you're objecting to in this case, since any of it could be uncovered by a bikini. At some point you're going to have to draw a line along the lines of "50% of exposed breast is acceptable in the form of cleavage, sideboob, and underboob, while 51% is immoral".

 

[McLaren]

I look at porn a couple of times a week. I have nothing against it. I guess I'm immoral for watching it. If so oh well. Like I said I think what they do is wrong. They do it fine, I still think it's immoral. Just like I said when I said I threw some of my moral point out the window just trying to get in the damn industry we're talking about.

You most certainly are. You can't sit there and say what they do is wrong, and then turn around, getting off on it.

"Oh I hate how they kill animals for food! Yes, I'll have the steak, medium rare, please."

I guess cause I'm from the south I don't look at farm work like that. They are not breeding in porn.

Here's an interesting thought for you. You've already said people who get naked/have sex for money is immoral. But, what if it's done for educational purposes? See, there is a video on YouTube (I'm not linking it despite even YouTube allowing it) in which a researcher describes the act of breeding between humans. The video explains what happens to both a man's & a woman's bodies from start to finish. It displays 2 people having sex through out this, completely naked. Even has an odd scene showing the inside of a vagina as the man ejaculates, though there is the researcher explaining in detail how both bodies are reacting with 1 another, physically and chemically. It's an odd video, but it explains what the human body does and why it does what it does during sex. It even explains the age old question of why men fall asleep after sex.

Now, they were more than likely paid because someone not only had to film them, but use them as subjects to explain the act of breeding between humans. At first glance, it will look no different than porn at all, but the object of the video is to listen to the info in it. Thus, are they immoral as well? Or do they get a pass because it'd be awkward as hell trying to get off watching it.

 

[Lain]

I got off to that video no problem, @McLaren.

 

[huskeR32]

I think porn is immoral.

I look at porn a couple of times a week.

If you want to understand why others seem so curious about your views, might I suggest you start with a little internal reflection about the above quotes?

Those two statements conflict with each other in a way that should be striking to someone trying to stake out a moral position against porn; yet you seem utterly oblivious to it.

Take a moment and ask yourself by what reasoning could somebody think porn is immoral, yet watch it often without compunction?

If you're unsatisfied with the reasoning you come up with, then you'll understand why we all seem similarly unsatisfied with what you've been telling us.