Ethical Pornography

[The Reality Denialist]

Well, if we say relations are above we all should probably become unemployed.

[marooned]

Horrifying, and not uncommon. And it's people that create the increasing demand--semantics maybe, but an important distinction. But yeah, with the rise of the internet it's widespread and there's instant access so it's become big business for sure.

aaaah if we're harping... I was trying to say the internet probably changed the game, it allows for acceleration in demand (and yes it's ppl who click things online obviously... demand can be measured by clicks), and because the porn industry is linked to sex trafficking, that means they will ramp up the demand for that, which means there will be more of it ... It's a cycle... A feedback... And I suspect acceleration over time

And so the same tree that above the canopy blooms in the sun, a paradise for the first person I posted their story (porn saved my life), beneath the canopy where shadows play and bugs feed is full of stories like the second one I posted. The tree is dark and light, demons and angels, for really the demon and the angel are the same creature.

anyway the worker's rights argument only could possibly work above the canopy... and sometimes i am so cynical... like i will think all life thrives on death, and how many people have died for everything that is easily accessible to me... how does one deal with this tree.

[ouronis]

If porn made Hilter shoot cum through his brain and kill him it could be ethical

The only way I can think of a non-copout answer to this (besides like saying "oh little jimmy would have shot the school up if he couldn't access hentai on 4chan") is to say that porn can be paired with things that are ethical goods, and by doing so, be lifted into "ethical" status. For example, pairing porn with a poignant piece of art that is able to get a humanistic message across would make the porn "good" or "ethical".

[FreelancePoliceman]

For the same reason it should try to ban most addictive substances to the most plausible degree, maybe prohibition leads to black markets and organized crime rising because addiction and consumption is too generalized and strong, but with regulations of soft drugs being built on progressive steps, we could regulate them at will without impacting society as deeply as direct legalization and prohibition could.

In the case of pornography, it probably leads to erectile dysfunction, unhealthy fetishes and sexual disorders that difficult even more the creation of relationships, which would later develop into family units, something most western post-industrial countries should be focusing on. The same happens with alcohol, with alcoholics spending a huge chunk of their income in drinking, being unable to form healthy relationships, often becoming abusive husbands and fathers...

I imagine you come from the perspective that such decisions should be made on an individual level, and depend on individual freedom. I personally think most of the population is adaptable, obedient and non-questioning, and the human brain has enough plasticity for humans to depend exclusively on individual free will.

Human beings are distinguished by their social instincts as we are predominantly social creatures, who need a social structure to survive. Most will say, do, and act according to a specific ethos and decorum to survive and integrate within a community, be it the primary community (society proper) or a subcommunity (ideological, religious or even consumption groups [Fandoms]) and if there's no main institution or authority to regulate and establish social order within the collective, then soon a new authority will establish itself. Look at the fashion industry, and you'll realize how a lot of the times markets don't fullfill the needs of free thinking individuals but rather create marketing campaigns to manufacture demand on a certain collective, usually manipulating the social instincts of human beings. Some even go as far as to think of themselves as undesirable or worthless because of lacking qualities the collective establishes as positive (for example, anorexia is a case of this gone too far). With porn I think it's evident that producers, shareholders and financiers are fully knowledgeable of it's effects, the same way alcohol or tobacco manufacturers are.

With time new and better tactics for social engineering and coertion have been developed, to the point most wouldn't notice them if they don't directly hit them, but they still exist and will continue to exist until human beings go extinct.

We can use them and push for better living standards for the population, higher education, wealth, or lifestyle, in a similar way we can advocate for a traditional farm over industrial farms to better the living conditions of the livestock, but If we leave it be, probably the livestock, only knowing industrial farming, and afraid of being ostracized, will continue living in the industrial facility.

Don't get me wrong, I don't shun individuality nor I think it should be repressed, quite the contrary, but as I think individuality is compartmental in most and if not compartmental in someone then the exception and the geniality, I comprise individuality more like a qualitative characteristic, and I think of "individualist" as personalities, not individuals.

The ones who rather flee, reject the collective ethos, question the proper authorities and build their own individual ethics, needs and ideals are not born to be ostracized, but for rising into the leadership.

Is "probably" enough of a reason to ban something?

I agree that certain drugs should be regulated because they're chemically addictive. However, anything can be psychologically addictive, and porn isn't an exception. Just because someone can misuse something is no reason to ensure that no one can do something, unless it directly hurts others. With something like porn, no one is going around saying "I watch porn and I'm perfectly fine;" you only hear stories from people who become enslaved to it. In the cases of psychological addiction there's usually something deeper at work, and I don't think trying to relieve people's outlets to harm themselves is going to be a successful battle; if the drive is to do something destructive, they'll find a way to do it.

I say "directly" because as soon as you start arguing that ideas and communication are harmful you start down a path you can't return from. There's nothing meaningfully different about a computer's ability to store and replicate data than a human's ability to do so mentally and verbally. If the production of pornography is banned -- and I think this would only be justifiable under the assumption that such working conditions are almost intrinsically exploitative, meaning you couldn't restrict someone's ability to post nudes of themselves online/send them to someone -- it still shouldn't be illegal to possess pornography or send it to someone else. At most, maybe, you could restrict commercial publishers from posting porn, especially involuntary porn, for the same reason newspapers can be sued for publishing libel.

[AWellArmedCat]

What does this question mean exactly? Porn is both an entire industry and a realm of artistic expression, and being so broad will have both ethical and unethical people/practices/etc. in it. I think a much more pressing issue is the religious mind control driving people to think of an entire aspect of our humanity (sexual expression, namely) as somehow potentially "unethical" in its entirety. Of course it's unethical if people are being harmed, coerced, or abused, but that's because harming, coercing, and abusing people is unethical, not because porn somehow is

[xerx]

Liberals should grant that sex work is harmful to many of the women who do it, even the ones that signed up willingly. It's a psychologically risky business, as evidenced by the testimonies of many former sex workers.

But it's hard not to admit that many sex workers do enjoy what they're doing, have no regrets, like their clients, and are living out a lifestyle that's interesting and fulfilling to them. However much conservatives may try, they're not going to stamp out the desire to live a bohemian lifestyle. They're not going to stamp out libertinism, exhibitionism, and radical self expression. They're also not going to erase the demand for sexual services or the thrill of engaging in sinful activities.

The middle course here, if middle courses are worth considering, would be to gentrify the profession by legalizing it, and by adopting strict requirements for who can become a prostitute (perhaps the completion of a college degree). Prostitutes should have full authority to vet their clients, which is something that high class escorts already do, and which sounds less awful than some random drunk hookup. Pimping should be illegal and carry a heavy sentence.

There's a German study which concluded that legalized prostitution actually increases sex trafficking. If that's confirmed, the only real solution would be to strengthen the police.

[AWellArmedCat]

There's a German study which concluded that legalized prostitution actually increases sex trafficking. If that's confirmed, the only real solution would be to strengthen the police.

I think it's important to be careful when looking at this kind of thing. Legalized prostitution is unlikely to be the cause of sex trafficking, but more likely something about the way in which it was legalized and regulated is making sex trafficking easy and profitable enough. I doubt the legalization itself is the problem, but suspect the implementation is. I also think it's quite simply your fundamental right as a human to sell your services if you want (if not then it would imply that you somehow don't own your body), so if we are going to regulate things we should only punish the consumer-side in one-on-one transactions or the traffickers if traffickers are involved of course. Basically whatever we do we shouldn't punish sex workers themselves.

Personally I favour minimal regulation across the board, not only with regards to sexual services, but I also understand the vital importance of protecting sex workers (not to mention minors being trafficked), so I'd support a handful of efficient regulations that don't involve too much interference which were shown empirically to be highly effective at controlling abuse. I'd be very curious to know more about the interplay between legalizing prostitution and the increase of sex trafficking though. The one thing I definitely can't support though is punishing sex workers themselves. Regardless of however things are handled I wouldn't ever fault them since it's they who we're trying to protect ideally (as opposed to trying to protect some silly conservative notion to do with societal "morals" or other such nonsense; I have no interest in regulating morality)

[marooned]

the issue is it probably is innately exploitative. how can it not be when it was since its very ancient conception, and so this is just the modern iteration of its nature. and when we like the darkness but don't wanna look at what it means... and the screams from the darkness go unheard because it's just that ppl scream in hell, so what is there to pay attention to... and when all the pain and all the pleading is ignored, it's just a mere step away from a snuff film. for life isn't valued, if she dies by accident they still have their product, and now it's probably of an even higher monetary value. her life was already considered forfeit, for the damage done is of a kind that can destroy someone, permanently. the ugliest most meaningless sacrifice. so transformation is needed.

it's difficult to reconcile fantasy with reality when they mingle here...

[End]

Ehhh... I hate to call it ethical but rather an instance of if you're going to do something wrong do it right but I think the "Weebs" are onto something. Say what you will about it "Hentai" or most "doujinshi" sold at Comiket they don't really victimize any living breathing person directly no matter how sick and twisted it gets.

Indirectly? Not entirely sure. However, at least the "victims" of tentacle monsters don't really exist. At least I pray they don't. I haven't read many of the "cursed" doujins nor pursued said "tags" during my days as an utter degenerate but I know they exist and they are probably just as bad if not worse than what such people who read them would have me believe.

[xerx]

I'd be very curious to know more about the interplay between legalizing prostitution and the increase of sex trafficking though.

Basically, the more legal it is, the more sex trafficking there is. The more democratic the country, the more trafficking there is. Sex trafficking to richer countries is higher because clients there have more money to spend. That's the gist of it.

https://orgs.law.harvard.edu/lids/20...n-trafficking/

* Countries with legalized prostitution are associated with higher human trafficking inflows than countries where prostitution is prohibited. The scale effect of legalizing prostitution, i.e. expansion of the market, outweighs the substitution effect, where legal sex workers are favored over illegal workers. On average, countries with legalized prostitution report a greater incidence of human trafficking inflows.

* The effect of legal prostitution on human trafficking inflows is stronger in high-income countries than middle-income countries. Because trafficking for the purpose of sexual exploitation requires that clients in a potential destination country have sufficient purchasing power, domestic supply acts as a constraint.

* Criminalization of prostitution in Sweden resulted in the shrinking of the prostitution market and the decline of human trafficking inflows. Cross-country comparisons of Sweden with Denmark (where prostitution is decriminalized) and Germany (expanded legalization of prostitution) are consistent with the quantitative analysis, showing that trafficking inflows decreased with criminalization and increased with legalization.

* The type of legalization of prostitution does not matter — it only matters whether prostitution is legal or not. Whether third-party involvement (persons who facilitate the prostitution businesses, i.e, “pimps”) is allowed or not does not have an effect on human trafficking inflows into a country. Legalization of prostitution itself is more important in explaining human trafficking than the type of legalization.

* Democracies have a higher probability of increased human-trafficking inflows than non-democratic countries. There is a 13.4% higher probability of receiving higher inflows in a democratic country than otherwise.

Now I wonder whether the same thing applies to drug decriminalization and legalization..........

[AWellArmedCat]

Basically, the more legal it is, the more sex trafficking there is. The more democratic the country, the more trafficking there is. Sex trafficking to richer countries is higher because clients there have more money to spend. That's the gist of it.

https://orgs.law.harvard.edu/lids/20...n-trafficking/

This is very interesting, thank you for sharing the link! It seems the authors mention the same concern I have though, which is that we really shouldn't be making laws which criminalize the sex workers themselves. They also mention the issue of legalization+regulation improving the working conditions of sex workers who are legally employed, and I find those benefits to be hard to ignore. That said, it is very concerning to see that legalization seems to increase human trafficking regardless of other factors. It makes a lot of sense to me that it'd be tied with wealth though. It's pretty hard to sell sex to people who don't have the money to buy it.

One thing I wonder is if legalization of prostitution in a given country will increase the number of people being trafficked in total or if it simply shuffles around the supply so to speak. It would make sense to me if when traffickers are looking at which country to try to operate in they naturally will gravitate towards the ones where prostitution is legal because it may be easier for them to cover their tracks and make it look like they're operating legitimately. Does this actually increase the total number of people being trafficked though, or does it simply divert operations that would be going on anyways in countries where prostitution was illegal all to the few countries where it is legal? The article mentions that legalizing prostitution increases demand, but I don't believe it said that there was necessarily evidence that the total number of people being trafficked in general increased because of legalization; just that those countries which legalized saw a higher incidence of trafficking.

Another thought I have is that we may be seeing an effect of the stigmatization of the sexual services industry. If legalization of prostitution increases demand beyond what people are willing to provide legally, I wonder if this is a problem of most people being unwilling to work in prostitution or porn studios because of the stigma. I wonder if what we're really seeing is stigma against sex work PLUS legal prostitution FURTHER exacerbated by it being illegal in neighboring countries leads to increased incidence of human trafficking to a country. It may also just be that it takes time for legal markets to "catch up" to where the illegal ones in countries which have recently legalized sex work.

Anyways, I have a hard time believing that it's as simple as legalization -> increased human trafficking, but this article has given me some pause at least. It's clearly a complex issue

Now I wonder whether the same thing applies to drug decriminalization and legalization..........

Lol I feel like that's pretty demonstrably different given that we're not dealing with people being potentially trafficked in this case. I'm also able to grow weed in my own garden without hurting anyone so I KNOW that's ethical

[xerx]

One thing I wonder is if legalization of prostitution in a given country will increase the number of people being trafficked in total or if it simply shuffles around the supply so to speak. It would make sense to me if when traffickers are looking at which country to try to operate in they naturally will gravitate towards the ones where prostitution is legal because it may be easier for them to cover their tracks and make it look like they're operating legitimately. Does this actually increase the total number of people being trafficked though, or does it simply divert operations that would be going on anyways in countries where prostitution was illegal all to the few countries where it is legal? The article mentions that legalizing prostitution increases demand, but I don't believe it said that there was necessarily evidence that the total number of people being trafficked in general increased because of legalization; just that those countries which legalized saw a higher incidence of trafficking.

Those are interesting points. I don't know the answer.

Another thought I have is that we may be seeing an effect of the stigmatization of the sexual services industry. If legalization of prostitution increases demand beyond what people are willing to provide legally, I wonder if this is a problem of most people being unwilling to work in prostitution or porn studios because of the stigma. I wonder if what we're really seeing is stigma against sex work PLUS legal prostitution FURTHER exacerbated by it being illegal in neighboring countries leads to increased incidence of human trafficking to a country. It may also just be that it takes time for legal markets to "catch up" to where the illegal ones in countries which have recently legalized sex work.

To be honest, I believe that there will always be a stigma towards sex work, mainly because it provides a discrete and effective outlet for people to cheat on their significant others. It will always be looked down on: Many women will always mistrust sex workers, and few men would consider getting married to one. And before someone points it out: Yes, there are obviously many exceptions.

[AWellArmedCat]

Those are interesting points. I don't know the answer.

It should be possible to determine with a comprehensive study like this one, but I didn't see anything about it mentioned. If, say, there are neighboring countries A, B, C, D, and E, which all consider sex work to be illegal, then countries B and C legalize, then if my hypothesis has any basis in reality we should see a decrease in trafficking in countries A, D, and E, while B and C increase near-proportionally. It's possible though that this effect is only partial. If the demand shoots up enough, then perhaps we would still see the decrease in trafficking to the countries which banned sex work, but not enough of a decrease to make up for the increase in B and C. While an increase in sex trafficking is obviously bad either way, if this effect is strong enough then it might not be quite as grim as it looks because it wouldn't be as though the total amount of trafficking in the world increased, but just that where it was happening got moved around. If the effect wasn't observed or wasn't particularly strong however, then that would be a very real cause for concern as legalization could then be understood to be contributing to an overall increase in the number of people being trafficked. As it stands though, I don't think we know where this increase in Germany, Denmark, and Sweden is coming from.

To be honest, I believe that there will always be a stigma towards sex work, mainly because it provides a discrete and effective outlet for people to cheat on their significant others. It will always be looked down on: Many women will always mistrust sex workers, and few men would consider getting married to one. And before someone points it out: yes, there are obviously many exceptions.

I can see your point here, but I think it's important to keep in mind just how malleable culture can be over time. In Japan for example, when polled, many women say they don't consider their husbands soliciting sexual services to be cheating because it's "not real" and "he's just satisfying his needs". From what I understand, they are much more concerned about "emotional cheating". I don't think I'm wrong in saying that Japan is much more willing to view sex as a simple commodity than we tend to be in the west. Despite this though, I think you still may have a point because it IS still stigmatized here. I have a feeling though that such stigma has more to do with Japanese culture's somewhat concerning fascination with virginity and attitude towards women in general. I could see Japan as a culture which, with some progress in regards to how women are treated in society, might develop into a culture that manages not to stigmatize sex work to as great of an extent as much of the rest of the world. That's all very speculative though. Japan's pretty conservative in a lot of ways, and this may just be some wishful thinking on my part.

[Chthonic Daydream]

There is no such thing. If it's ethical which you desire, look into eroticism, not pornography.

[xerx]

It should be possible to determine with a comprehensive study like this one, but I didn't see anything about it mentioned. If, say, there are neighboring countries A, B, C, D, and E, which all consider sex work to be illegal, then countries B and C legalize, then if my hypothesis has any basis in reality we should see a decrease in trafficking in countries A, D, and E, while B and C increase near-proportionally. It's possible though that this effect is only partial. If the demand shoots up enough, then perhaps we would still see the decrease in trafficking to the countries which banned sex work, but not enough of a decrease to make up for the increase in B and C. While an increase in sex trafficking is obviously bad either way, if this effect is strong enough then it might not be quite as grim as it looks because it wouldn't be as though the total amount of trafficking in the world increased, but just that where it was happening got moved around. If the effect wasn't observed or wasn't particularly strong however, then that would be a very real cause for concern as legalization could then be understood to be contributing to an overall increase in the number of people being trafficked. As it stands though, I don't think we know where this increase in Germany, Denmark, and Sweden is coming from.

Very interesting thought. I agree that we need more information and to control for more variables.

I can see your point here, but I think it's important to keep in mind just how malleable culture can be over time. In Japan for example, when polled, many women say they don't consider their husbands soliciting sexual services to be cheating because it's "not real" and "he's just satisfying his needs". From what I understand, they are much more concerned about "emotional cheating". I don't think I'm wrong in saying that Japan is much more willing to view sex as a simple commodity than we tend to be in the west. Despite this though, I think you still may have a point because it IS still stigmatized here. I have a feeling though that such stigma has more to do with Japanese culture's somewhat concerning fascination with virginity and attitude towards women in general. I could see Japan as a culture which, with some progress in regards to how women are treated in society, might develop into a culture that manages not to stigmatize sex work to as great of an extent as much of the rest of the world. That's all very speculative though. Japan's pretty conservative in a lot of ways, and this may just be some wishful thinking on my part.

I didn't know that, but I don't know much about Japan in general. Sex still isn't fully accepted as a pure bodily function in North America (although attitudes do shift from region to region), and there are way more taboos. I don't see that changing soon, lol.

[Hot Scalding Gayser]

Most of the time when people use sexuality to hurt others it's because the sexuality was repressed not the other way around.... people usually have that backwards lol. It is very common for authorities to find child porn in "Christian" homes etc - not trying to come down on religion but I'm just saying. Sexual abuse in religious communities is so commonplace because of this- because light casts a shadow. There was that recent story in the news about nuns raping girls with crucifixes etc. The people who do abuse kids and traffic people for sex- or rape for real etc they are most likely twisting it in their brains that they are somehow still a good guy rather than seeing it for what it is. Or they are so repressed or have been brain-washed about their sexuality for so long that I might feel bad for them as much as I do their victims.

And okay I am coming down on religion somewhat. You white trash heterosexual "Christian" Debbies you. Show me you're a Christian, don't tell it. =p /insert obligatory Gandhi quote.

To be fair there is some fantasy porn out there that might give suggestible people the wrong idea perhaps. But it's much better for people to act out their dark fantasies with a consenting person of age and be honest about them and 'keep it as fantasy' than do something for real though so I would be hesitant to judge even that. Fantasy is obviously not reality anyway. Then you are getting in "thought police" territory which is meh.