Does porn = adultery?

[The Rambam]

It's irrelevant if an adult consents to it or not -- pornography is exploitation. If you are OK with the willful objectification and subjugation of emotionally and financially desperate adults then you are OK with pornography.

There is no art in pornography -- not even Robert Bateman levels of art.

All of you do realize though that the same money that creates, distributes and defends so called adult consensual pornography is the same money used to create, distribute and defend child pornography. They are part and parcel with one another. If you support so called adult pornography as a freedom of expression issue you will ultimately be forced to support Child pornography as a freedom of expression issue … as has happened in Canada. Currently it is legal to own child pornography in Canada.

This is crazy talk.

First of all we are all OK with the willful subjugation of emotionally and financially desperate adults because we shop at Wal-Mart, buy iPhones, and eat industrially-produced food (each of which supports the subjugation of emotionally and financially desperate adults). If you have any doubts, visit a factory in China producing products for Wal-Mart or Apple or stop by the produce fields in central California and talk to the workers. Emotionally and financially desperate is right. And, to preempt your response, it isn't less humiliating to be yelled at all day and denied sick days or overtime pay and be subject to corporal punishment from your employer than to work in porn. And the pay is a whole lot better in porn.

Second. Adult porn is not "part and parcel" with child porn. It is not the "same money" behind both in all cases (or even often--although I'm sure there is an exception you could data mine for me). If you hate pornography, fine. Hate it. But don't pretend that it is because looking at titties on Brother Marriott's tv on your next business trip (because you are too isolated sexually to know the free porn websites) makes one personally culpable for the rape of a 4 year old. This is silly.

Third, you argue that child porn is legal to possess in Canada and you imply that this is a very very bad thing. I agree that having sex with prepubescents is a very very bad thing. But look at what the data say about sexual assault/rape and porn--more access to porn equals fewer assaults by sex hungry men. It is logical to assume that the same would hold true for pedophiles. If you want to keep your kids safe, maybe the best thing to do is allow people to possess child porn? Because of the damage it does to kids, I'm not advocating creating child porn--buy maybe computer generated child-like porn or porn with girls that look younger than they really are would actually decrease incidents of child molestation. It should be looked at. So maybe evil Canada with permissive laws regarding child porn is actually a safer place to be a kid.

Fourth, you say there is no art in pornography. There was a recent op-ed that argued this in the Deseret News. I'll dig up the cite tonight and post it later. The op-ed said pornography should be illegal and there should be no artistic expression carve out. It is this mindset that would set to Michelangelo's David with a sledge, attack the Sistine Chapel with buckets of paint, and drive Anne Hathaway into hiding.

Those that hold this view are cultural neanderthals, slobbering barbarians, and ignorant unterpoons. They spend most of their time commuting from their home-school haven in Hanna or Mona. They accost BYU students for not wearing socks when visiting campus. They get into physical altercations during arguments with fellow Republicans at Utah County party meetings over whether Ezra Taft Benson or Reagan deserves more credit for destroying communism. They equate shoulder-straps snuggled between boobs with pornography and pornography with child rape--yes, in their minds many BYU coeds (probably the slutty ones from Arizona who kiss with tongue) are thus directly culpable for child rape. We can only hope that these stalwarts will stumble onto some old issue of Sunstone with the cover ripped off (they would never touch it if they knew what it was). Their sexual repression and frustration are boiling, ready to blow the top off the pressure cooker of the hate they call their religion.

I am probably misunderstanding tooblue completely. He probably didn't intend his comment in the way I took it. Sorry in advance.

[UtahDan]

If there a tooblue summon card? There should be.

EDIT: Also, unterpoons. You have added a new word to my lexicon.

[Non Sequitur]

This is crazy talk.

First of all we are all OK with the willful subjugation of emotionally and financially desperate adults because we shop at Wal-Mart, buy iPhones, and eat industrially-produced food (each of which supports the subjugation of emotionally and financially desperate adults). If you have any doubts, visit a factory in China producing products for Wal-Mart or Apple or stop by the produce fields in central California and talk to the workers. Emotionally and financially desperate is right. And, to preempt your response, it isn't less humiliating to be yelled at all day and denied sick days or overtime pay and be subject to corporal punishment from your employer than to work in porn. And the pay is a whole lot better in porn.

Second. Adult porn is not "part and parcel" with child porn. It is not the "same money" behind both in all cases (or even often--although I'm sure there is an exception you could data mine for me). If you hate pornography, fine. Hate it. But don't pretend that it is because looking at titties on Brother Marriott's tv on your next business trip (because you are too isolated sexually to know the free porn websites) makes one personally culpable for the rape of a 4 year old. This is silly.

Third, you argue that child porn is legal to possess in Canada and you imply that this is a very very bad thing. I agree that having sex with prepubescents is a very very bad thing. But look at what the data say about sexual assault/rape and porn--more access to porn equals fewer assaults by sex hungry men. It is logical to assume that the same would hold true for pedophiles. If you want to keep your kids safe, maybe the best thing to do is allow people to possess child porn? Because of the damage it does to kids, I'm not advocating creating child porn--buy maybe computer generated child-like porn or porn with girls that look younger than they really are would actually decrease incidents of child molestation. It should be looked at. So maybe evil Canada with permissive laws regarding child porn is actually a safer place to be a kid.

Fourth, you say there is no art in pornography. There was a recent op-ed that argued this in the Deseret News. I'll dig up the cite tonight and post it later. The op-ed said pornography should be illegal and there should be no artistic expression carve out. It is this mindset that would set to Michelangelo's David with a sledge, attack the Sistine Chapel with buckets of paint, and drive Anne Hathaway into hiding.

Those that hold this view are cultural neanderthals, slobbering barbarians, and ignorant unterpoons. They spend most of their time commuting from their home-school haven in Hanna or Mona. They accost BYU students for not wearing socks when visiting campus. They get into physical altercations during arguments with fellow Republicans at Utah County party meetings over whether Ezra Taft Benson or Reagan deserves more credit for destroying communism. They equate shoulder-straps snuggled between boobs with pornography and pornography with child rape--yes, in their minds many BYU coeds (probably the slutty ones from Arizona who kiss with tongue) are thus directly culpable for child rape. We can only hope that these stalwarts will stumble onto some old issue of Sunstone with the cover ripped off (they would never touch it if they knew what it was). Their sexual repression and frustration are boiling, ready to blow the top off the pressure cooker of the hate they call their religion.

I am probably misunderstanding tooblue completely. He probably didn't intend his comment in the way I took it. Sorry in advance.

You seriously need to post more often.

[DU Ute]

It's irrelevant if an adult consents to it or not -- pornography is exploitation. If you are OK with the willful objectification and subjugation of emotionally and financially desperate adults then you are OK with pornography.

There is no art in pornography -- not even Robert Bateman levels of art.

All of you do realize though that the same money that creates, distributes and defends so called adult consensual pornography is the same money used to create, distribute and defend child pornography. They are part and parcel with one another. If you support so called adult pornography as a freedom of expression issue you will ultimately be forced to support Child pornography as a freedom of expression issue … as has happened in Canada. Currently it is legal to own child pornography in Canada.

Where do you come up with this bullshit?

[Topper]

This is crazy talk.

First of all we are all OK with the willful subjugation of emotionally and financially desperate adults because we shop at Wal-Mart, buy iPhones, and eat industrially-produced food (each of which supports the subjugation of emotionally and financially desperate adults). If you have any doubts, visit a factory in China producing products for Wal-Mart or Apple or stop by the produce fields in central California and talk to the workers. Emotionally and financially desperate is right. And, to preempt your response, it isn't less humiliating to be yelled at all day and denied sick days or overtime pay and be subject to corporal punishment from your employer than to work in porn. And the pay is a whole lot better in porn.

Second. Adult porn is not "part and parcel" with child porn. It is not the "same money" behind both in all cases (or even often--although I'm sure there is an exception you could data mine for me). If you hate pornography, fine. Hate it. But don't pretend that it is because looking at titties on Brother Marriott's tv on your next business trip (because you are too isolated sexually to know the free porn websites) makes one personally culpable for the rape of a 4 year old. This is silly.

Third, you argue that child porn is legal to possess in Canada and you imply that this is a very very bad thing. I agree that having sex with prepubescents is a very very bad thing. But look at what the data say about sexual assault/rape and porn--more access to porn equals fewer assaults by sex hungry men. It is logical to assume that the same would hold true for pedophiles. If you want to keep your kids safe, maybe the best thing to do is allow people to possess child porn? Because of the damage it does to kids, I'm not advocating creating child porn--buy maybe computer generated child-like porn or porn with girls that look younger than they really are would actually decrease incidents of child molestation. It should be looked at. So maybe evil Canada with permissive laws regarding child porn is actually a safer place to be a kid.

Fourth, you say there is no art in pornography. There was a recent op-ed that argued this in the Deseret News. I'll dig up the cite tonight and post it later. The op-ed said pornography should be illegal and there should be no artistic expression carve out. It is this mindset that would set to Michelangelo's David with a sledge, attack the Sistine Chapel with buckets of paint, and drive Anne Hathaway into hiding.

Those that hold this view are cultural neanderthals, slobbering barbarians, and ignorant unterpoons. They spend most of their time commuting from their home-school haven in Hanna or Mona. They accost BYU students for not wearing socks when visiting campus. They get into physical altercations during arguments with fellow Republicans at Utah County party meetings over whether Ezra Taft Benson or Reagan deserves more credit for destroying communism. They equate shoulder-straps snuggled between boobs with pornography and pornography with child rape--yes, in their minds many BYU coeds (probably the slutty ones from Arizona who kiss with tongue) are thus directly culpable for child rape. We can only hope that these stalwarts will stumble onto some old issue of Sunstone with the cover ripped off (they would never touch it if they knew what it was). Their sexual repression and frustration are boiling, ready to blow the top off the pressure cooker of the hate they call their religion.

I am probably misunderstanding tooblue completely. He probably didn't intend his comment in the way I took it. Sorry in advance.

If Mormons were more like this guy, more people would like Mormons. Topper likes the posts by Sleeping in Elder's Quorum and Rambam. They are the most interesting. Not that Topper could write what they wrote.

[taekwondave]

Who you are and how you are “situated” to a sexual craft has everything to do with the meaning of that craft. Industrial, mass produced spectacles of sex are fascist, fetishized objects to the degree that they have been reduced to a singular, sexual and controllable identity. There is a continuum for all sexual objects—from unique, interpersonal craft to industrialized, mass produced sex commodites—but I think a natural (and as I’ve implied, moral) line is crossed as soon as a commodity is manufactured or distributed as spectacle. Ideological tension is a good thing, and on the level of sexual relationships, is divine.

I am WAY too stupid to understand or address your entire post, but it seems to me, and I could totally be wrong here, that your argument about watching porn (and I assume, masturbation?) vs. having sex can lead us down similar logical paths for sports, music, and even sitting at church and watching someone else give a talk instead of giving one yourself.

I mean, isn't watching porn to sex as watching a football game is to actually playing football? Or as listening to music is to actually playing music? You bring up spectacle and fascism and...I'm just not sure those terms belong together within the scope of this discussion. Am I wrong here? I mean, that's fine if so. I will not deny that watching a football game is NOWHERE as satisfying as actually playing in one, that listening to a talk is nowhere near as exhilarating as standing up and giving one, and that watching the cooking channel is just plain retarded but... just because these activities have their superiors in the realm of actual participation, does that make them really bad in your mind?

I mean, it sounds like you're ready to say that about porn, but are you also ready to say that about these other things? If so, cool. I really am just curious. I see little value in entertainment, although you wouldn't know it from my daily habits, but I really do see very little value in them. I just want to see if I sound like I picked up what you're puttin down or not.

[taekwondave]

Those that hold this view are cultural neanderthals, slobbering barbarians, and ignorant unterpoons. They spend most of their time commuting from their home-school haven in Hanna or Mona. They accost BYU students for not wearing socks when visiting campus. They get into physical altercations during arguments with fellow Republicans at Utah County party meetings over whether Ezra Taft Benson or Reagan deserves more credit for destroying communism. They equate shoulder-straps snuggled between boobs with pornography and pornography with child rape--yes, in their minds many BYU coeds (probably the slutty ones from Arizona who kiss with tongue) are thus directly culpable for child rape. We can only hope that these stalwarts will stumble onto some old issue of Sunstone with the cover ripped off (they would never touch it if they knew what it was). Their sexual repression and frustration are boiling, ready to blow the top off the pressure cooker of the hate they call their religion.

Awesome :clap:

[creekster]

Just to make sure it is clear, all posts beofre #157 are at least a year old.

[Topper]

Just to make sure it is clear, all posts beofre #157 are at least a year old.

Thank you, Mr. Gibbon. So before that, nobody needs to read?

[taekwondave]

Just to make sure it is clear, all posts beofre #157 are at least a year old.

You're shittin me. Now I just feel silly.

[creekster]

It was just info. For example, I am not sure SIEQ is aware that this thread was 'bumped' and so posts to him may not be answered not because he is ignoring it but because this is a long forgotten conversation (although he might answer; who knows?). That is just an example, but I wanted to make sure everyone was aware. Read what you will and post what you want (within reason).

[Topper]

I am WAY too stupid to understand or address your entire post, but it seems to me, and I could totally be wrong here, that your argument about watching porn (and I assume, masturbation?) vs. having sex can lead us down similar logical paths for sports, music, and even sitting at church and watching someone else give a talk instead of giving one yourself.

I mean, isn't watching porn to sex as watching a football game is to actually playing football? Or as listening to music is to actually playing music? You bring up spectacle and fascism and...I'm just not sure those terms belong together within the scope of this discussion. Am I wrong here? I mean, that's fine if so. I will not deny that watching a football game is NOWHERE as satisfying as actually playing in one, that listening to a talk is nowhere near as exhilarating as standing up and giving one, and that watching the cooking channel is just plain retarded but... just because these activities have their superiors in the realm of actual participation, does that make them really bad in your mind?

I mean, it sounds like you're ready to say that about porn, but are you also ready to say that about these other things? If so, cool. I really am just curious. I see little value in entertainment, although you wouldn't know it from my daily habits, but I really do see very little value in them. I just want to see if I sound like I picked up what you're puttin down or not.

It didn't sound to Topper as if the learned gentleman was making a moral observation, but rather he was explaining how sex is the break down of control in a complex relationship, but pornography is a "commodity" as he put it, where the relationship is simplified and control is retained. Topper could be wrong as he is not smart like the author.

[Topper]

It was just info. For example, I am not sure SIEQ is aware that this thread was 'bumped' and so posts to him may not be answered not because he is ignoring it but because this is a long forgotten conversation (although he might answer; who knows?). That is just an example, but I wanted to make sure everyone was aware. Read what you will and post what you want (within reason).

And thanks for not using that third person crap, topper.

Mr. Gibbon dislikes Topper?

[woot]

I am WAY too stupid to understand or address your entire post, but it seems to me, and I could totally be wrong here, that your argument about watching porn (and I assume, masturbation?) vs. having sex can lead us down similar logical paths for sports, music, and even sitting at church and watching someone else give a talk instead of giving one yourself.

I mean, isn't watching porn to sex as watching a football game is to actually playing football? Or as listening to music is to actually playing music? You bring up spectacle and fascism and...I'm just not sure those terms belong together within the scope of this discussion. Am I wrong here? I mean, that's fine if so. I will not deny that watching a football game is NOWHERE as satisfying as actually playing in one, that listening to a talk is nowhere near as exhilarating as standing up and giving one, and that watching the cooking channel is just plain retarded but... just because these activities have their superiors in the realm of actual participation, does that make them really bad in your mind?

I mean, it sounds like you're ready to say that about porn, but are you also ready to say that about these other things? If so, cool. I really am just curious. I see little value in entertainment, although you wouldn't know it from my daily habits, but I really do see very little value in them. I just want to see if I sound like I picked up what you're puttin down or not.

While I'm not sure that SIEQ had it in mind, it does seem worth pointing out that a great many of our behaviors today are manipulations of evolutionary instincts. Porn is a manipulation of our drive to reproduce, just as sex with birth control is. Sports are a manipulations of our instincts for war and tribalism, religion is a manipulation of our instinct to trust our elders and to bond with kin and to defend the tribe, among others. Junk food is a manipulation of our cravings for sugar, fat, and salt left over from a time when such things were rare, and their consumption was of great benefit.

Porn has some downsides, to be sure, but manipulation of our primitive impulses, per se, isn't among them.

[wuapinmon]

While I'm not sure that SIEQ had it in mind, it does seem worth pointing out that a great many of our behaviors today are manipulations of evolutionary instincts. Porn is a manipulation of our drive to reproduce, just as sex with birth control is. Sports are a manipulations of our instincts for war and tribalism, religion is a manipulation of our instinct to trust our elders and to bond with kin and to defend the tribe, among others. Junk food is a manipulation of our cravings for sugar, fat, and salt left over from a time when such things were rare, and their consumption was of great benefit.

Porn has some downsides, to be sure, but manipulation of our primitive impulses, per se, isn't among them.

I'd like to point out that this is a biological interpretation of porn. It's not any more or less valid than other well-reasoned interpretations. The reductionist theory of the complexity of human behavior has its merits. I feel like this one merits more than one interpretation.