Pornography's moral dilemma; solution?

[Riddil]

I had an interesting chain of thoughts this morning. I stumbled onto this humorous vid: http://current.com/items/89298493_internet_porn_you which makes light of pornography. In the comments thread of that video, someone posted a youtube clip from an interview with Noam Chomsky decrying pornography: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SNlRoaFTHuE

In the interview Chomsky basically declares pornography as one of the vilest creations thrust upon women. Of course, on the other side of the argument you have Jenna Jameson, who had a self-declared victory in a "porn debate" at Oxford. http://www.esquire.com/features/what...a-jameson-0808

Currently I live in China, and pornography is completely illegal, in all forms. Art galleries even need to be careful with the pieces they choose to show. But this debate is nothing new, it's been raging for hundreds of years. I'll be lazy and won't check my sources, but I'm willing to bet that the porn debate first got moving with the on-set of the printing press. It likely picked up steam with photography, then with movies, then TV, then recorded media (VCR, etc). It seems every new leap forward in communication brings on a new battle between porn supporters, and detractors. The internet has revived the debate, primarily because for the first time you can gain access to porn without any real effort.

I actually don't want to concern myself with debating the appropriateness for the existence of porn. That's gone on for a long long time, and I don't think there's any easy answer there. However, it seems to me that the primary argument against porn is that it debases the women who make porn. If that really is the cornerstone of the debate (it seems to be Chomsky's top concern, the center point of the argument the Chinese government uses against pornography, and even Jenna Jameson admits it can be a problem), then does the computer age hold a solution?

There are already "simulation" pornography games. How long can it be until you get some new 3D porn company (Dixar?) to come along and make porno's entirely with CGI characters? If suddenly you can make porno's without any actual sex, no one physically involved in the action, then is this "cornerstone problem" completely resolved?

Normally if I post something in the Philosophy forum, I proceed to offer my opinion. This time I honestly don't have an opinion yet, I'm still undecided about the veracity / usefulness of this argument.

Is it a non-starter? Or does it really deflate this point?

Addendum: I won't argue that the entire issue could be resolved through CGI. Even if you resolve the issue of "debasement of the porn actress", you're still left with the other two pillars of the argument against porn:
1) It objectifies all women
2) It gives men an unrealistic view of women, and of sexual relationships in general

This point doesn't address either of those points, and it's possible you could argue it would even make those worse. However, I still think it's a useful topic, since those issues are conceptual topics, but the issue of "debasement of the actress" is a real, physical concern. You can argue that a 15 year-old boy isn't harming his psyche by watching donkey porn. But you can't argue that a 17 year-old runaway girl who is hooked on coke and making donkey porn isn't harming herself.

[footfootfoot]

The answer is in the question.

[Aliantha]

If porn objectifies women, the same must be said of men. I haven't seen a whole lot of porn that doesn't feature a cock somewhere or other.

Porn stars, just like stars of most other fields, are paid very well.

I don't believe people (in general) get involved in porn unless they want to. The evidence of this to me - and like you, I have no sources - comes from the number of people who are willing to post pornographic pictures of themselves on the net for free just because they like knowing people like looking at them. There's a voyeur and an exhibitionist in most of us. It's just that some people are brought up to think it's wrong or dirty to allow yourself to be turned on by watching or showing.

There are plenty of anime versions of porn out there which some people find a turn on. I suppose that's the start of the whole online CGI porn, although there have been cartoon porn figures ever since ink went to print as you say.

I can't speak for anyone else, but for myself, I much prefer real images of people rather than cartoons or created images. For people like me, I don't think CGI would ever do, but I'm sure there'll be a market for it. That being said, I don't think it affects or improves the argument about objectification at all unless people are somehow going to suddenly start being turned on most often by non-human porn.

[Riddil]

Aliantha... Wow, somehow I had completely forgotten about anime. But even considering anime, I don't think that cartoon-porn will ever be truly main-stream. But I do have faith that one day CGI will be indiscernible from the real thing. So while you say, "I don't think CGI will ever do it for me"... my thought is that some day you won't be able to tell the difference between RL and CGI. In that case it becomes theoretically possible for a "real porn experience", without any actors being involved. You could have a world covered in smut, without a single person getting in front of the camera.

As for your comment about voyeurism... personally I agree with you 100%. But (to play devil's advocate), the argument basically declares that even if someone wants to be a porn star, it doesn't matter because in reality they are harming themselves. This argument normally comes from sexual prudes, who believe sex is a holy thing only between a married couple. Therefore, anyone in porn must be destroying themselves, regardless of their own feelings on the subject. (They may enjoy it today, but they'll regret it tomorrow!)

Which is one reason I started the thread in the first place... *if* CGI could be a 100% replacement, and *if* 100% of all porn could be declared "human free", then does it take the wind out of the argument that porn is evil because it debases the people in it?

Actually, my theory is that these prudes have chosen this argument not for any real concern, but rather because it's an easily defensible stance. Now you're not arguing that porn is icky. You're a champion of the poor deluded saps that are destroying their lives! If the CGI solution became a reality then the prudes of the world would simply invent an entirely new argument to take it's place.

[Aliantha]

Exactly. They don't care about the individuals anyway. It's the fact of the women depicted in the porn that they'll still argue about. It doesn't matter if they're real or not, because if the porn is that 'real' it's still giving an impression of a real woman and it's that impression that apparently harms women in the community according to those who are against porn.

I don't think they've chosen their stance. I think they actually do believe that porn causes harm to women in particular.

[Number 2 Pencil]

CGI? A painter can create an idealized person, no need for computers. The painter could create an orgy that never happened.

[DanaC]

CGI porn is already out there. It's called 'poser art' and uses 3d models and environments. Available for whatever peculiar fetish you may have....

And yes, it is heavily connected with anime, as hentai is what really started the erotic artscene on its current trajectory.


*blinks*

I have mixed feelings on the whole anti-porn thing. I think the topless glamour models in magazines and the heavily idealised, sexualised and fundamentally quite limited view of women and girls which permeates modern society at pretty much every level, is far more dangerous than pornography. It's true a lot of exploitation exists within that industry and not all of what is seen is entirely consensual...but there's also a huge subculture (well, series of subcultures) of people who want to be involved in it, men and women.

[piercehawkeye45]

Porn is too diverse to be classified as sexist or not. There is some porn where men and women share an equal role and the basis is purely art and there is porn that completely objectifies women to the point where they are seen no differently then a dog.

I would like to also point out there is a big difference between sexist generalizations and individual preference. If a individual woman gets turned on by being put in a very submissive state or wants to satisfy a mans dominance streak, go for it. But when someone start generalizing women as being naturally submissive, then the sexist line is crossed in my opinion.


I do not call for a banning of sexist and violent porn but I am personally against it.


Solution: Ha, just as easy as finding a solution for gun violence, drug abuse, and unwanted pregnancies.

[Flint]

CGI porn could create the appearance of actual porn; but, knowing that there isn't an actual female being debased, would you really be able to enjoy it? I mean, who cares if you go ass-to-mouth on an animated character?

Porn is for stuff that you wouldn't do to your wife. I mean, after you get married and pretty much the worst things you ever did with strippers or waitresses at strip clubs is all you've got to live with.

[Aliantha]

Geez Flint, I didn't think you'd be 'one of those people' who hide their sexual desires from their wife. lol

[SteveDallas]

Originally Posted by Aliantha

Geez Flint, I didn't think you'd be 'one of those people' who hide their sexual desires from their wife. lol

He didn't say he was hiding them... just that he wouldn't do them!

[Riddil]

Flint... well played.

It is rather disheartening, now that I consider it. When I first thought of this point I thought it had some real value. It coulda been a solution to one of the basic arguments against porn... unfortunately it doesn't hold any water since the argument is based on a poor excuse, rather than any real concern.

*shrug* ah well.

[Juniper]

Could it be that the moral dilemma is simply that extramarital sex is sinful, separating sexual intercourse from the existence of love and a committed relationship is a bad thing, and those are the anti-values that porn celebrates?

Just a thought. Sometimes complicated things are really quite simple.

[Aliantha]

The problem is, the prudes think that chicks aren't supposed to like sex enough to want to do it as often as they do in porno's.

I don't think they've ever had an orgasm. They should try it some time. Maybe then there'd be no more porn is bad talk.

[Juniper]

I like to eat ice cream. I could eat it all the time for every meal. Well, maybe not every meal, but a lot more than I do. Does that mean it's OK to eat all that ice cream? If someone told me I shouldn't eat all that ice cream, should I just tell him that he's an idiot who has no idea how good ice cream tastes?

That logic seems a little bit flawed IMO, Ali.