The Morality of Adult Films

[LeMansAid]

I think that @Danoff planned to have a "post-enlightenment" discussion about the ripples still evident from "pre-enlightenment". Instead we've stuck dealing with what feels like a time warp back to when views were adopted largely based on the un-thought, and religion.

Back on a more progressive sub-topic.....

Well..... possibly with a twist.....

You're over-simplifying quite a bit. There are lots of things I don't let my kids see. At my kids' age (3.5 and 1) I don't want my kids seeing people in terrible pain, having fun doing unsafe things, having tattoos, getting killed, killing others, being beaten, having sex, giving birth, having surgery, being mutilated, breaking a bone.

I also try to avoid exposing them to really scary imagery, like overly angry menacing imagery, or even just people being terrified. For example, I've been a bit judicious about the angler fish scene in finding nemo, even the shark scene in that one is a bit beyond what I like for a 3.5 year old. I would not sit my kids down and put on The Shining, despite the fact that most of what is scary about it would go over their heads. I remember that as a child I thought the movie Ghostbusters was a legitimately scary movie at one point.

Basically, anything that their brains need maturity to fully understand I try to dispense when I think they're ready for it. Naughty language, sex, certain depictions of nudity (but not necessarily just any depiction of nudity), violence, irresponsible behavior, gory imagery - even medical, scary imagery, and psychological trauma.

I also hold back certain kinds of music, and music with certain mature lyrics.

Someday I'll expect them to engage in naughty language, sex, viewing sexualized nudity, I'll teach them when violence is appropriate, how to judge when behavior is irresponsible, how to assess gore, I'll expect them to be scared, and they'll even likely suffer some psychological trauma and have to comfort others that suffer it.

So I shield them from all of it, and someday I expect them to encounter and/or participate in all of it. That's the job of the parent, to prepare your children for adulthood through teaching and exposure. On a side note, this is also how other things like mathematics and physics are taught. Someone once described teaching math or physics as teaching a system of lies and slowly, over time, removing the lies. Good teachers know how and when to introduce the next level of complexity.

Ok, let's take basic pornographic sex (I'll assume we're assuming similar here). Where's the "level of complexity" that would inspire you to bring up the teaching of physics as an analogy? As @Imari has already suggested, younger kids are likely to be completely uninterested anyway, once the taboo vibe is removed. Nothing I said suggests that parents should allow or encourage kids to watch material that unnecessarily distresses them. Rather, I think the knee jerk objection has more to do with an ingrained subconscious thought process that is ultimately much more about parents' distress at the idea of their little human viewing the "adultly sacrosanct", than any actual distress for the child. It would be ironic, since the inspiration for you starting this thread seemingly came from observing an illogical hangover from ye olde times of prudishness.

Further, I'm also finding it a bit curious that you chose this moment to take the conversation away from all-pervasive philosophical ruminations, and put forward your own practices in place of that. I can't help but wonder if on some level you realised that presenting those views as philosophical rights and wrongs would create a conflict between the logical you and the experiential you - so you packaged it as "this is what I do" instead of what you see as ok and not ok, in principle. So, bluntly - do you think that it is wrong for a parent to allow their child to view "basic" (assuming again) porn?

Re-hashing to an extent, but the way I see it - Horror movies..... "I'm worried that my kid might think that torturing people is normal". Car chase scenes.... "I'm worried that my kid might think that driving dangerously is normal". Scenes of kissing, groping, fellatio, cunnilingus, masturbation, penetration, ejaculation.... "I'm worried that my kid might think they're normal". The last examples are of normal and healthy behaviour in real life (albeit some of it legally age restricted), and the previous stuff is not, and never will be. For that reason, they're pretty awkward pairings for forming a rationale, I think.

Also, the analogy with driving a car is nonsensical imo. A better analogy would be with really heavy horror movies. Are they immoral? Of course not. Is it something a 6 or 8yo kid is able to cope with and capable to watch by him/herself and understand it as a mere work of fiction? That's why we have some arbitrary age restricting lables for diff kinds of movies or games.

Same deal, let's start with basic porn - why is it somehow more dangerous to have a kid see "rude" bits and sex acts than have them see a kid fly off on an adventure using only an umbrella? The former will likely end in de-mystification and subsequent disinterest for younger kids, with the latter possibly ending in broken bones, or worse.

 

[Danoff]

I think that @Danoff planned to have a "post-enlightenment" discussion about the ripples still evident from "pre-enlightenment". Instead we've stuck dealing with what feels like a time warp back to when views were adopted largely based on the un-thought, and religion.

Back on a more progressive sub-topic.....

Well..... possibly with a twist.....



Ok, let's take basic pornographic sex (I'll assume we're assuming similar here). Where's the "level of complexity" that would inspire you to bring up the teaching of physics as an analogy? As @Imari has already suggested, younger kids are likely to be completely uninterested anyway, once the taboo vibe is removed. Nothing I said suggests that parents should allow or encourage kids to watch material that unnecessarily distresses them. Rather, I think the knee jerk objection has more to do with an ingrained subconscious thought process that is ultimately much more about parents' distress at the idea of their little human viewing the "adultly sacrosanct", than any actual distress for the child. It would be ironic, since the inspiration for you starting this thread seemingly came from observing an illogical hangover from ye olde times of prudishness.

Further, I'm also finding it a bit curious that you chose this moment to take the conversation away from all-pervasive philosophical ruminations, and put forward your own practices in place of that. I can't help but wonder if on some level you realised that presenting those views as philosophical rights and wrongs would create a conflict between the logical you and the experiential you - so you packaged it as "this is what I do" instead of what you see as ok and not ok, in principle. So, bluntly - do you think that it is wrong for a parent to allow their child to view "basic" (assuming again) porn?

Re-hashing to an extent, but the way I see it - Horror movies..... "I'm worried that my kid might think that torturing people is normal". Car chase scenes.... "I'm worried that my kid might think that driving dangerously is normal". Scenes of kissing, groping, fellatio, cunnilingus, masturbation, penetration, ejaculation.... "I'm worried that my kid might think they're normal". The last examples are of normal and healthy behaviour in real life (albeit some of it legally age restricted), and the previous stuff is not, and never will be. For that reason, they're pretty awkward pairings for forming a rationale, I think.



Same deal, let's start with basic porn - why is it somehow more dangerous to have a kid see "rude" bits and sex acts than have them see a kid fly off on an adventure using only an umbrella? The former will likely end in de-mystification and subsequent disinterest for younger kids, with the latter possibly ending in broken bones, or worse.

So we're getting far a-field here. Your original premise was that anything that is moral should be show-able to your children - which is wrong. It's moral for you to masturbate but that doesn't make it ok to do in front of your children. It's moral for you to kill someone in self-defense, but not an awesome idea to do it in front of your kids.

It depends, of course, on the act and on the kid. When the kid is ready to process what they see, show it to them (but not their parents engaging in it, that's gross, nobody wants to see that). It's not moral or immoral to show video of people having sex to an 11 year old. It's a judgement call. That's why I shifted to conversation toward examples rather than absolutes. It depends on the material and the kid. If your kid is torturing animals, maybe don't teach them to shoot a gun as early.

It is wrong for parents to expose their children to imagery/content that will psychologically damage their child. That's not to confuse "psychologically damage" with "make them upset". But if you're showing them texas chainsaw massacre at age 5, you're abusing your child. Plain and simple. No 5 year old has the faculties to process that kind of imagery in a healthy way.

Porn has a lot of varieties to it. I'd be ok with showing children educational sex videos at a fairly early age. Even videos which are pornographic in nature but lack violent, or demeaning content that shouldn't traumatize the child are ok.

It's not about what is "normal", it's about what is "damaging" if improperly understood. It's also not really about what will be ultimately engaged in adulthood, I'd expect that just about everything imaginable will be dealt with to some degree or in some fashion in adulthood. The role of the parent is to get the kid there - and that means judging the kids' emotional readiness for imagery.

The "level of complexity" is everywhere. A difficult subject to put into context is the notion that people can enjoy pain. Right now I'm still teaching my kids that they can even cause pain, and that doing so is wrong. My kids have absolutely zero chance of understanding when pain can be acceptable or even desired. My kids have to learn not to choke their friends before ultimately learning that a little bit of choking can be ok in the right situation. They have to learn not to hit before they can learn what self-defense is. You teach them not to fight before you teach them how to fight back. You teach them to be nice to their friends before they can judge when it's ok to not be nice. You teach them to respect others before they can learn when people do not deserve respect. You teach them to respect alcohol before they can judge how to enjoy alcohol. You teach them to manage their responsibilities before they can judge how and when to goof off for themselves. You teach them that monsters aren't real before they can enjoy a scary movie with fake monsters. First you teach them to not be afraid of strangers, then you teach them to be wary of strangers, then you teach them to assess their circumstances with strangers, then you send them out into the world to do nothing but interact with strangers.

The notion that you can throw a kid into the emotional/intellectual/psychological deep end and expect them to come out swimming is ultimately a disrespect and misunderstanding of the job of parenthood. To pretend that parents can filter everything for their kids is an over-simplification of the job. Likewise it is an equally bad over-simplification to pretend that there is no job, that kids should raise themselves.

 

[Northstar]

The former will likely end in de-mystification and subsequent disinterest for younger kids, with the latter possibly ending in broken bones, or worse.

Or, and this is probably more likely as it's already slowly happening with girls getting pregnant at earlier ages. They see porn at the age of 10, decide it looks like a grand old time and 9 months later you have a 10 year old mother (if she survived that is).

 

[Lain]

Or, and this is probably more likely as it's already slowly happening with girls getting pregnant at earlier ages. They see porn at the age of 10, decide it looks like a grand old time and 9 months later you have a 10 year old mother (if she survived that is).

...Fascinating. Because here, it states: "After a steady increase between 1960 and 1990, [pregnancy] rates for younger girls (ages 10-14) also decreased in the past two decades, more or less steadily, from 1.4 per 1,000 in 1991, to 0.3 per 1,000 in 2014 (preliminary estimate)"

All in spite of the fact that porn is far more readily available today, thanks to the ubiquity of the internet. Hmm.

 

[polysmut]

...Fascinating. Because here, it states: "After a steady increase between 1960 and 1990, [pregnancy] rates for younger girls (ages 10-14) also decreased in the past two decades, more or less steadily, from 1.4 per 1,000 in 1991, to 0.3 per 1,000 in 2014 (preliminary estimate)"

All in spite of the fact that porn is far more readily available today, thanks to the ubiquity of the internet. Hmm.

I suspect that better education & increased availability of contraception could be bigger factors than porn's availability/ubiquity in that.
Which still supports the idea that more porn doesn't mean more teenage pregnancy.

 

[Lain]

I suspect that better education & increased availability of contraception could be bigger factors than porn's availability/ubiquity in that.
Which still supports the idea that more porn doesn't mean more teenage pregnancy.

Right. I said in spite of, not because of.

 

[Northstar]

...Fascinating. Because here, it states: "After a steady increase between 1960 and 1990, [pregnancy] rates for younger girls (ages 10-14) also decreased in the past two decades, more or less steadily, from 1.4 per 1,000 in 1991, to 0.3 per 1,000 in 2014 (preliminary estimate)"

I wasn't really basing what I said on solid numbers, just by what I see on the streets so consider me corrected.

 

[LeMansAid]

Likewise it is an equally bad over-simplification to pretend that there is no job, that kids should raise themselves.

I suppose that's where we differ with views on complexity of issues. Distressingly or dangerously complex needs to be managed in a different way to just complex. In the latter's realm, kids actually do raise themselves to a large degree. Without the prohibition psychology in play, scenes of nudity and sex will be the bits that most 5 year olds will just want to skip, because they're boring. Gradually though, those bits become interesting, and again, without the prohibition psychology in play, there's no reason not to talk completely openly about the ins and outs (ahem) of how it works in the real world. It's the taboo side of it for kids that creates an interest in things that would otherwise go straight over their heads and/or not be of any interest.

So we're getting far a-field here. Your original premise was that anything that is moral should be show-able to your children - which is wrong. It's moral for you to masturbate but that doesn't make it ok to do in front of your children. It's moral for you to kill someone in self-defense, but not an awesome idea to do it in front of your kids.

Ultimately my point was that a lot of people would be taking hypocritical stances without realising it. They expect kids to respect "only for adults" in certain areas, but use arguably heavy-handed censorship relative to that in the areas of nudity and sex. It just looks to me like even the people that claim to have dissolved the stigma, haven't entirely.

Explain the objection to the masturbation example for me. Then explain it without any consideration to the outside world - ie. not being concerned about a how a kid may have themselves perceived "out there". My un-thought reaction is that it's not ok, but I'm not sure I can justify that reaction beyond protecting the child from that outside world. Is it the nudity that's an issue for you? That the parent is enjoying something that the the child would be uninterested in? (younger child) That the parent is enjoying something that the child would be interested in? (older child) A social norm aspect is absolutely valid in practice, but what of the purely philosophical?

The self-defense one is not a very sensible example, since we should be talking about things that would have some sort of repetition value to them. Suddenly kill an animal for food in front of an eight year old, and there will likely be distress, despite many kids completely understanding and being at peace with the dynamics of hunting when it's been a part of their lives from an early age.

Interesting conversation this though. Note, I'm just making it all up as I go, as I've never really considered these things in detail previously. There's every chance I have made, or will make, a wrong turn.

 

[Danoff]

I suppose that's where we differ with views on complexity of issues. Distressingly or dangerously complex needs to be managed in a different way to just complex. In the latter's realm, kids actually do raise themselves to a large degree. Without the prohibition psychology in play, scenes of nudity and sex will be the bits that most 5 year olds will just want to skip, because they're boring. Gradually though, those bits become interesting, and again, without the prohibition psychology in play, there's no reason not to talk completely openly about the ins and outs (ahem) of how it works in the real world. It's the taboo side of it for kids that creates an interest in things that would otherwise go straight over their heads and/or not be of any interest.

Ultimately my point was that a lot of people would be taking hypocritical stances without realising it. They expect kids to respect "only for adults" in certain areas, but use arguably heavy-handed censorship relative to that in the areas of nudity and sex. It just looks to me like even the people that claim to have dissolved the stigma, haven't entirely.

Explain the objection to the masturbation example for me. Then explain it without any consideration to the outside world - ie. not being concerned about a how a kid may have themselves perceived "out there". My un-thought reaction is that it's not ok, but I'm not sure I can justify that reaction beyond protecting the child from that outside world. Is it the nudity that's an issue for you? That the parent is enjoying something that the the child would be uninterested in? (younger child) That the parent is enjoying something that the child would be interested in? (older child) A social norm aspect is absolutely valid in practice, but what of the purely philosophical?

The self-defense one is not a very sensible example, since we should be talking about things that would have some sort of repetition value to them. Suddenly kill an animal for food in front of an eight year old, and there will likely be distress, despite many kids completely understanding and being at peace with the dynamics of hunting when it's been a part of their lives from an early age.

Interesting conversation this though. Note, I'm just making it all up as I go, as I've never really considered these things in detail previously. There's every chance I have made, or will make, a wrong turn.

Well... masturbating in front of children would be a wrong turn... just fyi. That one gets you an ankle bracelet. It's not the nudity, it's not the interest level, it's not the social norm. It's the potential to do psychological damage. You might say that thousands of years ago it was common practice, but thousands of years ago it was also common practice to for older men to marry young girls (without really any say on their part). It was also common practice to offer people for sacrifice.

I take a very consistent view on this - across all areas, not just sex. Depending on the child and the act (and the way the act is presented), just about anything is ok and just about anything is not ok. For the child who is torturing animals, maybe don't take them hunting just yet. For the child who is jumping off of your roof into the pool, maybe don't give them car keys. It's all about what responsibility they're ready for and what concepts they're ready to process in a healthy way.

You're right to point out that if you introduce something early enough it will have essentially no effect - that kids can be too young to even be damaged by some imagery. That's fine, but it doesn't take long for them to have permanent memories, and imagery that they weren't affected by when first introduced can be remembered later and have a damaging affect then.

There is no such thing as inherently dangerous or distressingly complicated issues. There are simply realities that they'll have to, at some point, come to terms with. The question is when and how to unfold that reality - that complexity. You don't try to teach a kid multiplication before addition, because multiplication builds on addition. The notion that the golden rule doesn't always apply builds on the golden rule in the first place. Try teaching it all at once and you've lost the message.

 

[LeMansAid]

Well... masturbating in front of children would be a wrong turn... just fyi. That one gets you an ankle bracelet. It's not the nudity, it's not the interest level, it's not the social norm. It's the potential to do psychological damage. You might say that thousands of years ago it was common practice, but thousands of years ago it was also common practice to for older men to marry young girls (without really any say on their part). It was also common practice to offer people for sacrifice.

I know you don't subscribe to "because laws". I'm sure that you don't actually think that marriage without consent, and sacrifice without consent, are anywhere near equal to masturbating in front of one's own child - especially since the other things clearly go against natural human rights. As far as I can see, the only possibly valid argument, by your own standards, is "potential to do psychological damage". That one, you're going to have to explain to me. How does that play out in your mind, or in an example, if you have one? It seems off to me as well, but I'm not going to condemn without being able to offer something logical and impartial against it.

You're right to point out that if you introduce something early enough it will have essentially no effect - that kids can be too young to even be damaged by some imagery. That's fine, but it doesn't take long for them to have permanent memories, and imagery that they weren't affected by when first introduced can be remembered later and have a damaging affect then

Like when a teen is raped by a 48 year old, and instead of it being fun for them like it was at the time, and funny like it was to some others, it comes back to haunt the victim later in life?

I know, I know.... "Build a bridge...."

This comes back to the same thing though. You're using the word damage, but I don't know how you see that playing out. Kids see things all the time that they don't understand, and we don't automatically think that they'll be potentially damaged by seeing them. Omitting the slant of it simply being counter to what we've grown used to having as acceptable, I'm not understanding the separation from so many other things that people don't fuss at all about their kids seeing and not comprehending.

 

[Danoff]

I know you don't subscribe to "because laws". I'm sure that you don't actually think that marriage without consent, and sacrifice without consent, are anywhere near equal to masturbating in front of one's own child - especially since the other things clearly go against natural human rights. As far as I can see, the only possibly valid argument, by your own standards, is "potential to do psychological damage". That one, you're going to have to explain to me. How does that play out in your mind, or in an example, if you have one? It seems off to me as well, but I'm not going to condemn without being able to offer something logical and impartial against it.

The short answer is I don't know. Psychology is one of those areas of knowledge that lags a bit. There is evidence that suggests that early exposure to sexual imagery increases chances of developing violent sexual behavior. Better understood seems to be that it encourages children to interact in sexual behavior at an earlier age (which makes sense), which would be fine except that early sexual experiences can have a lasting effect on psyche. If your early sexual experiences are with 12 year old girls, for example, you can develop a lasting fondness for 12 year old girls. I don't have the evidence to back that up, and I don't particularly want to put that in my search history on this computer. I do know that pedophilia is far more likely in people who have been victims of pedophilia. An adult masturbating in front of children is a form of pedophilia, which itself appears to be a form of psychological damage - perpetuated via trauma.

What I know is that the human mind is terribly tricky, and that lessons that get learned wrong are hard to fix. We reinforce our beliefs a lot more readily than we reject them. I have a friend who is a rocket scientist who told me that he once found himself running in circles around his couch holding a lucky bolt with no shirt on because he believed it would help his baseball team win. Our brains find patterns, build relationships, and reinforce those relationships. The key, then, is to help get the groundwork for understanding in in a logical fashion.

Like when a teen is raped by a 48 year old, and instead of it being fun for them like it was at the time, and funny like it was to some others, it comes back to haunt the victim later in life?

If we're talking about a 16 year old boy and a 48 year old NFL cheerleader, and the rape is not violent or forcible (which really should be called something else... this is why we say "statutory rape" instead of rape... because it's a catch-all that doesn't accurately describe the crime), then, depending on the kid, that kid just needs to be tracked down to get his luckiest boy of the year award. Your example actually reinforces what I'm saying far better than it reinforces what you're saying. My thesis is that it depends on the act and depends on the kid.

This comes back to the same thing though. You're using the word damage, but I don't know how you see that playing out. Kids see things all the time that they don't understand, and we don't automatically think that they'll be potentially damaged by seeing them. Omitting the slant of it simply being counter to what we've grown used to having as acceptable, I'm not understanding the separation from so many other things that people don't fuss at all about their kids seeing and not comprehending.

It's not specifically about a lack of comprehension. For example, a total lack of comprehension is irrelevant at the time and can be irrelevant altogether. I can discuss refinancing my mortgage with my wife to save tax-deductible interest and compare equity contributions for reducing loan term with various mortgage packages in front of my 3 year old and she won't comprehend it and it will never matter to her that we talked about it.

But if you show a 5 year old a UFC fight, they're not going to be comprehending what they see from the perspective of a healthy context. These men or women voluntarily agreed to fight each other. They want to do it. A 5 year old doesn't even know what voluntarily agreeing is. Heck, that's how you get them to do stuff half the time is by tricking them into thinking they voluntarily agreed to do something. "Get dressed Timmy." "No!" "Timmy do you want the truck shirt or the dinosaur shirt". "Dinosaur!". When a kid is presented with the prospect of not being able to play with a toy until something is done, that's not volition, that's a threat. "You have to pick one of these three" is another non-voluntary proposition.

So if you put on the UFC fight, all Timmy sees is that fighting is encouraged. People are cheering and the parents are watching this violent behavior. Timmy lacks "context" for the fight. That context is impossible to convey to Timmy at his current age. In short, there is no way Timmy can have a healthy experience watching a UFC fight at age 5. It is not possible. He will be taught the wrong thing, it will be reinforced by the acceptance from his parents and the audience, and because he cannot process the key ingredient (volition) he has no chance of avoiding physiological conditioning (however minor) toward immoral violent behavior.

 

[ryzno]

I'll try this again since I'm not the only person with conflicting views.

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

Besides watching people do it, after trying it I said to myself, this ain't what they make it out to be.

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".

I think pasties leave nothing to the imagination, and the breast is just out there for all to see. And I think that is where I get my views from. Your private bits shouldn't be on full display for all to see. And bikinis do push the limit but they do cover things up also. I'm not saying everyone should wear a burkini, but have some self respect and cover the private areas. Now the part I italicized. Why do I have draw a line? Why do I have to fit into the normal box? I don't define it by percentage, even though local police do have a percentage limit, go figure. Clevage, sideboob and underboob are all things that happen in clothing, my point is it's still covered.

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.

Well for starters you have people like @Lain who have odd perversions and get off on that. I haven't watched it and I don't plan too. That said, yes they are. The producer could have easily used 3-D animation for education. They have mastered it now to where it looks almost real.

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

I most certainly can. I can have my views and go about doing what I do everyday. It's not my fault y'all question every little detail in life, instead of enjoying it. I don't find my views odd. Even if I do disagree with porn, I find the sight of a naked woman as a turn on. So I can have my cake and eat it too.

I think that @Danoff planned to have a "post-enlightenment" discussion about the ripples still evident from "pre-enlightenment".

Why do y'all feel the need to enlighten me? Why does one have to fit the popular vote? I have my views I don't see anything wrong with them and I can do what I want. Sorry I'm not a sheep y'all are going to change to fit in this flock.

Edit:

So if you put on the UFC fight, all Timmy sees is that fighting is encouraged. People are cheering and the parents are watching this violent behavior. Timmy lacks "context" for the fight.

This comment solidifies my point earlier. Children don't need to be exposed to porn or nudity at a young age. They'll run around thinking it's okay to walk around naked and have sex wherever they want. My son watched some WWE and was fling around on his bed acting like a luchador later that day, he was even hitting his toys with his little folding chair. Something I put a halt to real quick and something he's not watched since.

 

[Danoff]

I think pasties leave nothing to the imagination, and the breast is just out there for all to see.

...and imagination is a key ingredient in morality?

And I think that is where I get my views from. Your private bits shouldn't be on full display for all to see.

...because? You've asserted that before.

And bikinis do push the limit but they do cover things up also. I'm not saying everyone should wear a burkini, but have some self respect and cover the private areas. Now the part I italicized. Why do I have draw a line? Why do I have to fit into the normal box? I don't define it by percentage, even though local police do have a percentage limit, go figure. Clevage, sideboob and underboob are all things that happen in clothing, my point is it's still covered.

What makes a pastie not clothing and a bikini clothing? Where is the line between pastie and bikini? Exactly how much imagination is required for morality?

 

[ryzno]

...and imagination is a key ingredient in morality?

No, I look at morals as whats right and wrong. A woman can be beautiful and get plenty of attention without going into slut mode. Showing off your tits is wrong for money or attention, pastie or not, it's not something I want a kid to see. Mardi Gras much? They do it every year. And I think the women need to check themselves one time, instead of being the streets slut for the night just for some beads.
As you said we teach our kids, do you want your kid showing off her tits down there for 1000's of drunk men to see?

...because? You've asserted that before.

Because they are your private parts. Anyone with a little self respect, should have a problem showing it off. Before you say why again. We buy clothes to cover ourselves up right? Some people buy clothes to to show off every inch they can, good on them. I don't think it's right.

What makes a pastie not clothing and a bikini clothing? Where is the line between pastie and bikini?

Cause it's not clothing... Put on some pasties at a beach and you'll find out real quick.

Exactly how much imagination is required for morality?

Stop taking one word I use and try to say that's my overall view.

 

[Tornado]

I've never seen someone so definitively done with a thread before.

 

[Lain]

Well for starters you have people like @Lain who have odd perversions and get off on that. I haven't watched it and I don't plan too. That said, yes they are. The producer could have easily used 3-D animation for education. They have mastered it now to where it looks almost real.

I could get off on 3D animations too. Screw it, even 2D will do. Are those now immoral as well?

Also, if you consider getting off to a video of realistic (as opposed to exaggerated like traditional porn) consensual heterosexual intercourse an odd perversion, I have to wonder what kind of smut you look at.

 

[Danoff]

No, I look at morals as whats right and wrong. A woman can be beautiful and get plenty of attention without going into slut mode. Showing off your tits is wrong for money or attention, pastie or not, it's not something I want a kid to see. Mardi Gras much? They do it every year. And I think the women need to check themselves one time, instead of being the streets slut for the night just for some beads.
As you said we teach our kids, do you want your kid showing off her tits down there for 1000's of drunk men to see?

Because they are your private parts. Anyone with a little self respect, should have a problem showing it off. Before you say why again. We buy clothes to cover ourselves up right? Some people buy clothes to to show off every inch they can, good on them. I don't think it's right.
Cause it's not clothing... Put on some pasties at a beach and you'll find out real quick.

Stop taking one word I use and try to say that's my overall view.

You keep giving me reasons that you yourself admit are not reasons. Leaving something to the imagination you admit is not a key ingredient in morality. Whether something is legal is you have admitted is not a reason.

Why is it a lack of self-respect to show your body? Why does what I want to teach my kids dictate whether something is moral. I'll teach my kids not to over-eat, that doesn't mean it's immoral to over-eat.

If you've been following over the last few pages I've gone into significant depth to explain why there are things you do not want kids to see which are moral to do.

You've got nothing. You have absolutely zero rationale why it is immoral to get paid to show your body, because it isn't.

 

[ryzno]

I could get off on 3D animations too. Screw it, even 2D will do. Are those now immoral as well?
Also, if you consider getting off to a video of realistic (as opposed to exaggerated like traditional porn) consensual heterosexual intercourse an odd perversion, I have to wonder what kind of smut you look at.

No, they are not real people. I didn't mean it like that. Appoligies! It was more of the internal ejaculation that caught me off guard. That's the LAST thing I'm trying to do!
More traditional stuff, a little anal every now and then, FFM 3 way when I'm feeling freaky!/s

I guess I enjoy watching things I wish I could do.

I've never seen someone so definitively done with a thread before.

I was told to remove emotion and rethink my views. I did. And have tried to explain again. I've failed doing it. Shoot me for trying.

You have absolutely zero rationale why it is immoral to get paid to show your body, because it isn't.

Why do you think it is moral to show your body for money? I'm trying to play ball here. I'd like to see your answer so I can pick it apart and see where I might be going wrong.

 

[McLaren]

Well for starters you have people like @Lain who have odd perversions and get off on that. I haven't watched it and I don't plan too. That said, yes they are. The producer could have easily used 3-D animation for education. They have mastered it now to where it looks almost real.

Nope, they're not. Nothing displays a better understanding of what the video is trying to teach than using actual people.

Hilarious you want to question how the video should have been made though, when you admit you wouldn't even watch it. Perhaps you're one of those people would get off to it as well.

I most certainly can. I can have my views and go about doing what I do everyday. It's not my fault y'all question every little detail in life, instead of enjoying it. I don't find my views odd. Even if I do disagree with porn, I find the sight of a naked woman as a turn on. So I can have my cake and eat it too.

Then, you're a hypocrite. No surprise.
"I think what you're doing is wrong but I like you doing it!"

Enjoying something you deem immoral and wrong makes you no better than the people involved. Otherewise, by your logic, if I think it's wrong to murder people, but enjoy watching videos of people getting killed, it's ok. That kind of thought speaks more of your own standards than what you're condemning.

So, no, you don't get to have your cake and eat it too. That's why your posts get picked apart; you think you get to pick and choose what is right and what is wrong, and it can't be questioned.

 

[huskeR32]

Your private bits shouldn't be on full display for all to see.

Why?

Children don't need to be exposed to porn or nudity at a young age. They'll run around thinking it's okay to walk around naked...

So?

...and have sex wherever they want.

Source required.

A woman can be beautiful and get plenty of attention without going into slut mode.

What, exactly, constitutes "slut mode?"

Showing off your tits is wrong for money or attention, pastie or not

Why?

Because they are your private parts. Anyone with a little self respect, should have a problem showing it off.

Why?

 

[ryzno]

Well remember to submit my name this year for the "Hypocritical Hypocrite" GTP Award this year.

I want to know why y'all think it is moral. Shine some light this way. Instead of just continuously saying I'm wrong cause y'all say so.

 

[huskeR32]

I want to know why y'all think it is moral. Shine some light this way. Instead of just continuously saying I'm wrong cause y'all say so.

As I'm reading it, nobody other than you has claimed anything that requires substantiation. We're just not accepting your claims of immorality at face value, and we're trying to get you to provide some reasoning for what you say.

 

[BobK]

Well remember to submit my name this year for the "Hypocritical Hypocrite" GTP Award this year.

I want to know why y'all think it is moral. Shine some light this way. Instead of just continuously saying I'm wrong cause y'all say so.

It's moral because it isn't immoral. "Moral" is the default condition. Sorta like "innocent until proven guilty". If no harm comes from it, it's moral.

 

[Danoff]

Why do you think it is moral to show your body for money? I'm trying to play ball here. I'd like to see your answer so I can pick it apart and see where I might be going wrong.

...because it does not constitute the initiation of force against another person. If I get naked (voluntarily) in exchange for a publishing company paying me money (voluntarily) and someone buys said publication (voluntarily) - there is no initiation of force. That's why it's moral.

Children are slightly different in that their "voluntary" is a bit poorly defined (as discussed above).

 

[Imari]

Why do y'all feel the need to enlighten me? Why does one have to fit the popular vote? I have my views I don't see anything wrong with them and I can do what I want. Sorry I'm not a sheep y'all are going to change to fit in this flock.

As I've said several times, it's not about trying to change your mind. You can't even explain why you think the way you do, it's all arbitrary pronouncements. This is good. This is bad. This is bad but I do it anyway.

For all the thought you've put into it you might as well just flip a coin to decide your position on it.

As you said we teach our kids, do you want your kid showing off her tits down there for 1000's of drunk men to see?

You keep saying these things as though everyone would automatically object.

Why would I object to my daughter showing her breasts to men if she wants to? She's having fun, they're having fun, seems good to me.

Children don't need to be exposed to porn or nudity at a young age. They'll run around thinking it's okay to walk around naked...

I was at a friend's house last week. They have a two year old son, who for some reason thinks I'm awesome. Sure, whatever. After dinner it's bath time, and he wants me to come sit with him while he has his bath. Someone has to in order to make sure he doesn't bump his head anyway.

I'm naturally a bit wary of this situation because of the social stigma about people and naked children, but his parents don't care (are encouraging me because they can sit and watch TV) and the kid thinks it's great fun. It's not like I haven't seen him naked when I used to babysit and change his nappies anyway. If they're cool then I'm cool. I went in and sat with him and we had fun playing with his toys in the bath, and it was exactly like playing with his toys anywhere else.

What's the problem?

 

[Tired Tyres]

Well remember to submit my name this year for the "Hypocritical Hypocrite" GTP Award this year.

I want to know why y'all think it is moral. Shine some light this way. Instead of just continuously saying I'm wrong cause y'all say so.

Care to show an animal not called Human that wears cloths? There is nothing immoral about nudity at all. Society, driven by religious dogma, doesn't change the nature of nature.

 

[ryzno]

Why would I object to my daughter showing her breasts to men if she wants to? She's having fun, they're having fun, seems good to me.

You must not look at your daughter as daddys little girl. Cause I'll tell you this, if I had a daughter and I caught her doing that, I'd literally kill someone.

You keep saying these things as though everyone would automatically object.

Not everyone, but a lot of people agree porn's immoral, just not around here for some odd reason.

I was at a friend's house last week. They have a two year old son, who for some reason thinks I'm awesome. Sure, whatever. After dinner it's bath time, and he wants me to come sit with him while he has his bath. Someone has to in order to make sure he doesn't bump his head anyway.

I'm naturally a bit wary of this situation because of the social stigma about people and naked children, but his parents don't care (are encouraging me because they can sit and watch TV) and the kid thinks it's great fun. It's not like I haven't seen him naked when I used to babysit and change his nappies anyway. If they're cool then I'm cool. I went in and sat with him and we had fun playing with his toys in the bath, and it was exactly like playing with his toys anywhere else.

Even though I still don't see how this is relevant to the subject at hand, I can kinda relate.
My friend who's been helping me work for the last few years(my road dogg) sees my son naked all the time around bath time. He stays next door so when we get home we'll have a few beers and a smoke session, while wifey deals with Jr. It's not that I want him to, but the way the apartment is designed if you sit in the living room you can see down the hall and see his room and the bathroom, he sees him darting all the time in between rooms. That said I could care less cause I know he ain't into that and it's not like he sees much anyways, its over 15 feet away and Jr. moving at warp speed between rooms, there ain't much to see even when he is naked.
I keep trying to tell y'all I do look at things differently and I do asses the situation. In this situation I see no harm, now in another year or two that's going to be another story.

In this case it's pure innocence. In porn it's not.

What's the problem?

I really don't 🤬 know...

 

[Famine]

You must not look at your daughter as daddys little girl. Cause I'll tell you this, if I had a daughter and I caught her doing that, I'd literally kill someone.

Who?

If it's her choice to get her norks out, who are you going to literally kill? She's the only guilty party, so either you're looking at honour-killing or just murdering an innocent person.

For someone who chucks the word "moral" around like crockery at a Greek wedding, neither option seems particularly fair, just or moral.

 

[ryzno]

Who?

If it's her choice to get her norks out, who are you going to literally kill? She's the only guilty party, so either you're looking at honour-killing or just murdering an innocent person.

For someone who chucks the word "moral" around like crockery at a Greek wedding, neither option seems particularly fair, just or moral.

Oddly enough I never used the word moral till this thread I, always looked at it as right or wrong, good or bad. I regret posting in here cause it seems I don't know what I'm talking about lol. Actually might not be that bad, I've learned I'm wrong.

Edit: I doubt I'd actually kill someone but I'd defiantly throw a punch or two with whoever prompted her to do it. There's nothing to show if you don't have an audience. Then I'd give her an ear full about hanging out in the wrong crowds/places.

So as much as y'all don't get me, I don't get y'all.

 

[Imari]

You must not look at your daughter as daddys little girl. Cause I'll tell you this, if I had a daughter and I caught her doing that, I'd literally kill someone.

And so which view do you think is more civilised then? The one that murders, or the one that lets grown adults choose their own actions?

If you have a daughter flashing her chest from a balcony of her own free will, who do you kill? The daughter who chose to do it? Or the innocent bystanders who just happened to be caught in visual range while your daughter is doing her show?

I'm guessing it's not the daughter, given the overprotectiveness that would spawn a statement like "I'd literally kill someone".

Not everyone, but a lot of people agree porn's immoral, just not around here for some odd reason.

Not around a lot of places actually, it really depends on the crowds you move in. You seem to find yourself in a crowd here that doesn't necessarily share all your viewpoints.

Besides, just because a lot of people think it doesn't make it correct. Lots of people agree that we evolved from monkeys, and that's wrong too.

Even though I still don't see how this is relevant to the subject at hand, I can kinda relate.
My friend who's been helping me work for the last few years(my road dogg) sees my son naked all the time around bath time. He stays next door so when we get home we'll have a few beers and a smoke session, while wifey deals with Jr. It's not that I want him to, but the way the apartment is designed if you sit in the living room you can see down the hall and see his room and the bathroom, he sees him darting all the time in between rooms. That said I could care less cause I know he ain't into that and it's not like he sees much anyways, its over 15 feet away and Jr. moving at warp speed between rooms, there ain't much to see even when he is naked.
I keep trying to tell y'all I do look at things differently and I do asses the situation. In this situation I see no harm, now in another year or two that's going to be another story.

And yet this gets to the heart of the matter. What's the difference between seeing a child naked and seeing an adult naked?

In this case it's pure innocence. In porn it's not.

Really? What does innocence mean in this case? Explain it like I'm five, what's the actual difference between your friend seeing your son running around naked and your friend seeing an actress running around naked.

I really don't 🤬 know...

Now we're getting somewhere. Do you want to know?

Because I can't tell you. But you could maybe find out if you ask yourself the right questions.