Pornography. Shameful Pleasure, or Perfectly Natural?

[Chiki]

Here's an easy way to determine whether casual sex is immoral or not:

Imagine an Earth in which people only have sex during marriage. And imagine another Earth in which people only have casual sex. That's how they make babies and keep the species going. They are the same in every other respect.

Which world is more valuable?

[Dwalin2010]

Here's an easy way to determine whether casual sex is immoral or not:

Imagine an Earth in which people only have sex during marriage. And imagine another Earth in which people only have casual sex. That's how they make babies and keep the species going. They are the same in every other respect.

Which world is more valuable?

I personally would feel comfortable only at the planet from the first example. The other one would horrify me and I am happy I am not born on such an earth. It somehow reminds me of some anti-utopian fiction.

But, concerning the first example, I am not saying that sex should be only during marriage. I am not bothered at all if people have it before marrying, if they love each other.

Edited May 15, 2014 by Dwalin2010

[Phoenix Wright]

Because I believe that there should be at least a slightest difference between humans and animals. We have been given feelings by the nature, not just the body. Ignoring feelings at advantage of the body makes such a relationship incomplete.

Anyway, I don't see what's the point of saying anything on my part, since you and Dondon151 have already decided to dismiss whatever I say as "inconsistent" even before hearing it.

quote me wherever i have dismissed your beliefs.

i'm having issues figuring out exactly what you're trying to say--you think it is primitive to have sex without some romantic attachments, and to succumb to our more primal ways is to be immoral?

i don't think i can agree with that. humans are animals too. though we are far more intelligent that any other animal, we still have primitive instincts that are important to our survival.

[Dwalin2010]

quote me wherever i have dismissed your beliefs.

i'm having issues figuring out exactly what you're trying to say--you think it is primitive to have sex without some romantic attachments, and to succumb to our more primal ways is to be immoral?

i don't think i can agree with that. humans are animals too. though we are far more intelligent that any other animal, we still have primitive instincts that are important to our survival.

That was just an assumption, that you would dismiss beforehand what I say.

As for morality, I can only say what I already said. I am a romantic type and classify as "immoral" whatever would provoke remorse and a feeling of guilt in me if I did that. You may think this logic is flawed, but that's the only reason I can give you for my ideals. I understand this is not enough for you, but I didn't want to join the argument initially at all, I just was offended how Dondon151 called "conservative nonsense" what FionordeQuester said, who explains those things far better than me.

EDIT: I really don't want to offend anyone or transform this into a war, but please understand that I have grown up in a setting where people love each other and never consider the possibility to just use each other for sex or whatever else.

Edited May 15, 2014 by Dwalin2010

[dondon151]

EDIT: I really don't want to offend anyone or transform this into a war, but please understand that I have grown up in a setting where people love each other and never consider the possibility to just use each other for sex or whatever else.

that's irrelevant. i grew up in the same kind of setting, and i have never intimately known anyone who has "used" someone of the opposite sex for pleasure (your choice of word here tips your hand). at least i have the capacity to acknowledge a spurious argument when i see one.

Edited May 15, 2014 by dondon151

[Dwalin2010]

that's irrelevant. i grew up in the same kind of setting, and i have never intimately known anyone who has "used" someone of the opposite sex for pleasure (your choice of word here tips your hand). at least i have the capacity to acknowledge a spurious argument when i see one.

Ok, I surrender. If feeling superior compared to me and people who think like me in this case increases your self-confidence and makes you happy, good for you. I have nothing else to say apart from that I will continue to lead my life following the "spurious" arguments and "flawed" logic, but this shouldn't matter to you I think.

[Rehab]

One of the things that's getting your position chewed out is that you're attaching morality to the question, and not just that, but effectively labeling anybody who doesn't take your position immoral. That's a fantastic way to jam a stick in someone's craw before a discussion really begins.

I'd imagine most people who willfully have casual sex* don't attach any more moral aspect to having sex with their partner(s) than they would to, say, going out running with their partner. It's merely a physical activity that both of them enjoy, and which they are mutually agreeing to take part in together. It'd have no bearing in their minds on their ability to have a committed, monogamous relationship, because it's an entirely different sort of arrangement, and one which isn't necessarily intended to supplant, say, a sort of relationship where the partners raise a child together. Caring about each other's feelings is still part of an ideal casual sex relationship, though, because it's not healthy to have one person be enjoying it as it is while the other person either wants out or wants committed monogamy, and of course the idea is to have sex because the both of them enjoy it.

*(ideally. this is assuming nobody ever gets taken advantage of, which isn't the whole truth, but that's also something that happens a lot in steady monogamous relationships, so one can't really blame it on the concept of casual sex)

Not everybody does "having sex without forming emotional attachments they want to make more serious" well enough to enjoy a relationship with casual sex, admittedly. I don't actually know where I'd fall on the issue, personally. But I'm still aware that the people who do aren't hurting anybody.

And I just can't see the point in calling any act that doesn't hurt anybody "immoral."

That's part of what gets some people about "social conservatism;" even when somebody who says that's what their beliefs are also says that other people are free to do whatever, they're (perceived as) elevating themselves above whoever doesn't agree with them.

It'd probably be much more easily accepted (by non-jerks) if you said something like, "I don't think I would enjoy an arrangement with casual sex," and left it at that.

Edited May 16, 2014 by Rehab

[Phoenix Wright]

That was just an assumption, that you would dismiss beforehand what I say.

As for morality, I can only say what I already said. I am a romantic type and classify as "immoral" whatever would provoke remorse and a feeling of guilt in me if I did that. You may think this logic is flawed, but that's the only reason I can give you for my ideals. I understand this is not enough for you, but I didn't want to join the argument initially at all, I just was offended how Dondon151 called "conservative nonsense" what FionordeQuester said, who explains those things far better than me.

EDIT: I really don't want to offend anyone or transform this into a war, but please understand that I have grown up in a setting where people love each other and never consider the possibility to just use each other for sex or whatever else.

a poor assumption.

i understand if you choose not to partake because it makes you feel guilty, but as rehab explained quite clearly, if every party is a consenting adult, i don't see a huge deal with it. as an example--swinger's parties (which don't really happen anymore as far as i can tell). to me, they're kinda gross, but hey, if they're all up for it who am i to stop them?

Ok, I surrender. If feeling superior compared to me and people who think like me in this case increases your self-confidence and makes you happy, good for you. I have nothing else to say apart from that I will continue to lead my life following the "spurious" arguments and "flawed" logic, but this shouldn't matter to you I think.

please stop acting like a child.

[Dwalin2010]

please stop acting like a child.

What's worse: acting allegedly like a "child", or elevating yourselves above whoever doesn't agree with you? Because you and especially Dondon151 put it that way: it's either "agree with everything we say or don't say anything at all". The possibility of a compromise isn't even considered by the 2 of you.

Edited May 16, 2014 by Dwalin2010

[dondon151]

What's worse: acting allegedly like a "child", or elevating yourselves above whoever doesn't agree with you? Because you and especially Dondon151 put it that way: it's either "agree with everything we say or don't say anything at all".

i have neither said, nor implied, any such thing. my requests for actual debate (as in, where is your evidence) have been met with nothing but passive aggression of the sort above on your part.

The possibility of a compromise isn't even considered by the 2 of you.

the spirit of compromise is not to simply take two opposing viewpoints and split them down the middle. say that chiki and i had an argument where i proposed that we eat babies and he decried baby consumption as barbaric. the possibility of a compromise would be laughable.

[Dwalin2010]

If the 2 viewpoints are the complete opposite, they can't just be split down the middle, but my initial point was that you shouldn't insult the points of view of others even if they are completely different from yours. I completely disagree with you, but I wouldn't even dream of forcing you to change it or change your way of living even if I had the possibility. You, on the other hand, have a rather convenient position of labeling people who disagree as "conservatives" (as if being conservatives was a position not worthy of existing) and calling what you yourself say "factual evidence" by default. If I interpreted you wrong again, I am sorry, but I personally can't help but get the impression that you perceive people who disagree (not just me) as "inferior" in their points of view.

It's the attitude that bothers me, not your point of view.

EDIT: is there any way we can conclude the discussion peacefully? If you or Phoenix Wright feel personally offended by what I previously said, I apologize for that except for my phrase that it was childish to call FionordeQuester's view "conservative nonsense". Even though I am maintaining that I won't change my views on the moral part of the issue, but I am in no way trying to force you to change yours. The world is big enough for different points of view. I realize I am not good at debating, I just don't like it when people who agree with me at least partially get insulted.

Edited May 16, 2014 by Dwalin2010

[Rehab]

"I no longer view casual sex as immoral" would probably do the trick.

Here's the thing: it can still be "not for me" without being "immoral." A large part of calling something immoral is making a value judgement. Again, that pisses people off. If you stick to calling your view more moral than its opposite, you're not really trying to end the discussion on even terms, you're asking people to be fine with you thinking of yourself as better than them. It's kind of a pointless thing to ask.

[Dwalin2010]

"I no longer view casual sex as immoral" would probably do the trick.

Here's the thing: it can still be "not for me" without being "immoral." A large part of calling something immoral is making a value judgement. Again, that pisses people off. If you stick to calling your view more moral than its opposite, you're not really trying to end the discussion on even terms, you're asking people to be fine with you thinking of yourself as better than them. It's kind of a pointless thing to ask.

Then I guess it can't end in a peaceful way. I don't view myself as better than them, but I still don't view casual sex as normal. Sure, I can say that I do, but then I wouldn't be honest about what I feel. According to their morality, it's normal. According to mine, it's not. We probably follow different sets of morals. Again, I don't want to part on bad terms, but if the only way to do so is to say that I don't view casual sex as immoral, then I guess unfortunately it's not possible.

[Phoenix Wright]

What's worse: acting allegedly like a "child", or elevating yourselves above whoever doesn't agree with you? Because you and especially Dondon151 put it that way: it's either "agree with everything we say or don't say anything at all". The possibility of a compromise isn't even considered by the 2 of you.

i have yet to insult your point of view. my previous request is not due to the way you think or who you are, but because of how you're behaving in this particular topic.

you shouldn't insult the points of view of others even if they are completely different from yours. I completely disagree with you, but I wouldn't even dream of forcing you to change it or change your way of living even if I had the possibility. You, on the other hand, have a rather convenient position of labeling people who disagree as "conservatives" and calling what you yourself say "factual evidence" by default. If I interpreted you wrong again, I am sorry, but I personally can't help but get the impression that you perceive people who disagree (not just me) as "inferior" in their points of view.

It's the attitude that bothers me, not your point of view.

EDIT: is there any way we can conclude the discussion peacefully? If you or Phoenix Wright feel personally offended by what I previously said, I apologize for that except for my phrase that it was childish to call FionordeQuester's view "conservative nonsense". Even though I am maintaining that I won't change my views on the moral part of the issue, but I am in no way trying to force you to change yours. The world is big enough for different points of view. I realize I am not good at debating, I just don't like it when people who agree with me at least partially get insulted.

the null hypothesis is in fact the default position, unless some [valid] correlation is found between poor health and casual sex, there is no reason to believe it is unhealthy. it is not, however, "factual evidence." it is not meant to be evidence. i think you are misunderstanding what we mean by the null hyopthesis.

what is particularly wrong with non-romantic sex? i understand that you would feel guilty about it, but why? i feel that murder is immoral because i think that every man and woman has a right to life once born, and that no one should have the authority to forcibly take it away. so why is casual sex wrong?

Edited May 16, 2014 by Phoenix Wright

[Dwalin2010]

i have yet to insult your point of view. my previous request is not due to the way you think or who you are, but because of how you're behaving in this particular topic.

the null hypothesis is in fact the default position, unless some [valid] correlation is found between poor health and casual sex, there is no reason to believe it is unhealthy. it is not, however, "factual evidence." it is not meant to be evidence. i think you are misunderstanding what we mean by the null hyopthesis.

what is particularly wrong with non-romantic sex? i understand that you would feel guilty about it, but why? i feel that murder is immoral because i think that every man and woman has a right to life once born, and that no one should have the authority to forcibly take it away. so why is casual sex wrong?

I can't give you an explanation you would accept. If we put everything on the abstract philosophical point of view, then I guess I would agree with what you say. The problem is that I don't like to look at the world from that perspective. I just follow my heart.

Just being curious, why do you care about what I think? I already wanted out of the discussion, but you keep talking to me. I could stop answering, but still, why does the understanding of my point of view matter to you at all?

[Rehab]

For my part, I don't get why it's so hard to separate your feeling "I wouldn't do it" from your saying "it's wrong to do it."

And that does seem to be what you're saying, since the last time I saw you answer why you thought casual sex was wrong, you basically said it was animalistic. (an aside: lmao)

On that bit, a professional tip: some animals mate for life. For that matter, so, too, do people who at some point in their lives have casual sex. That's one of the things that makes your position on casual sex so weird to me- you don't seem to acknowledge that a relationship with casual sex isn't intended to be a romantic one, it's a friendly/platonic one. Chiki's proposition of a world where sex is only ever casual wasn't intended to replicate reality, as even people who do have casual sex also often have romantic sex. The sex just happens in a different context, with a different set of social agreements and expectations. (Ideally.)

And people continually question you because, for one, you always seem to avoid answering their questions directly (in favor of either comparing having casual sex to being like an animal, or just saying your answer wouldn't be accepted (which can make people wonder why you accept it)), and for another, you haven't stopped posting. That implies you'd like to somehow defend your viewpoint, or at least that you want other people to respect it. The problem with that is that in your viewpoint, your beliefs are morally superior to theirs, and it's not easy to make people respect you at all when that's what they're hearing.

If you really want to stop discussing it, this might sound harsh? but the closest thing to a graceful exit would literally be to stop. posting. You don't seem interested in actually substantiating your opinion that casual sex is immoral, (though that'd be a basis for discussion if you'd actually say why!), and I'm probably already repeating myself about why people are responding to that poorly.

Edited May 16, 2014 by Rehab

[deleted35362]

I partake in Porn.

no really, what do you mean "i partake in porn"?? O_o

[Phoenix Wright]

I can't give you an explanation you would accept. If we put everything on the abstract philosophical point of view, then I guess I would agree with what you say. The problem is that I don't like to look at the world from that perspective. I just follow my heart.

Just being curious, why do you care about what I think? I already wanted out of the discussion, but you keep talking to me. I could stop answering, but still, why does the understanding of my point of view matter to you at all?

does it matter if i accept? at least it's an explanation.

look at the top of this page: right under the calendar/chat buttons. that is why i'm here, and that's why i care. also, i really, really don't appreciate being treated like the bad guy for wanting to understand perspectives that differ from mine. i've never met anyone that saw that as a bad thing before.

Edited May 16, 2014 by Phoenix Wright

[Dwalin2010]

does it matter if i accept? at least it's an explanation.

look at the top of this page: right under the calendar/chat buttons. that is why i'm here, and that's why i care. also, i really, really don't appreciate being treated like the bad guy for wanting to understand perspectives that differ from mine. i've never met anyone that sees that as a bad thing before.

I will stop posting if that will be the only way to stop annoying people like Rehab suggested, but the fact that you want to understand my perspective never made you the bad guy in my mind. Also, when I say that I can't give an answer you would accept doesn't mean that I have some secret reason that I don't want to reveal, it only means that there probably isn't one, at least according to what you consider as "reason". On the contrary, I am grateful you are at least interested in understanding me, but I can't explain my view on morality logically or scientifically. I simply grew up in a setting with a determinate set of morals. It's simply a matter of taste. Explaining WHY for me is not easier that for example, say why do I like the green color more that the red color. Don't know if I explain myself. I simply am very touched by romantic things, sex without love seems gross to me. When I say it's immoral, it's for "my personal" set of values, I don't claim it's the "absolute" one, others are free to do what they want.

[Moira]

a relationship with casual sex isn't intended to be a romantic one, it's a friendly/platonic one.

That is the exact opposite of a platonic relationship.

[Snowy_One]

Firstly, nice pic of Useugi from Sengoku Rance TC.

Anyways, here is the way I see it. Keep in mind that I have not read the rest of this topic. When dealing with the question of if pornography is natural or not, one has already asked the wrong question. As with everything there is a way to, well, pervert it into a shameful pleasure. I'm sure that, even if porn was natural, something like tentacle porn would be far less likely to be actually 'natural' than porn two people having loving and intimate sex.

But let's put that aside for a moment. What is 'natural'? Is a male/female pair 'natural' or is it a social construct? Is it natural for a woman to with-hold sex the moment 'her man' gets found out sleeping with another woman, or is it natural for a man to gather a harem of mates? Is it natural for a man to desire young women? If so, how young until it is unnatural? What about homosexuals? Being incapable of reproduction so long as they subscribe to their sexuality are they unnatural despite likely having it encoded in their genes to desire the same sex? Is it fine to have two girls being intimate with each other so long as a guy is involved? This is ignoring the question of moral right and wrong, just focusing on what is biologically natural after all.

Personally, what I believe is that human beings are highly social beings and that the social constructs that surround us have a huge part in defining what is 'natural'. It is 'natural' to go with the social norm, but also natural to try and change the social norm. If I were to link an article about a woman being stoned to death for converting to Christianity in a muslim nation, I'm sure many of us would naturally be appalled, but so would many of the muslims in that nation at the idea of someone converting. Both are 'natural' reactions defined almost entirely by the social norm.

So what does that mean for porn? Well... while it would be VERY easy to point to how it's been shunned by most cultures and claim it is unnatural, doing so would be obtuse. Mainly because there is another notion that exists that, despite it's shunning, porn is widely available. Men get discovered watching dirty videos with friends, women have 'romance novels' with shockingly descriptive notions of what exactly is going on. That's far from everything too. So what is the 'natural' state for porn?

IMO, the natural state for porn is that it is what it is. An activity of fantasy that is immensely personal and not meant to be shared with others unless a strong and deep connection exists between them. For some people it serves as a stimulant with their lovers, for some a wish-fulfillment and harmless vice, and for others a way to release their darker desires. There is a natural aspect to porn, but there is also an unnatural aspect to it as well. Learning to separate the two and shun the latter is key to becoming a member of society.

Because the simple fact is that, short of complete and total sexual abstinence, sex itself will be around. Be it in men oogling women's hands, situational homosexuality, losing ones self in fantasy, or even having no idea what one is actually doing and just doing something that feels good and being confused by why their elders are treating them like demons. As such the fantasy of sex will always exist. However, keeping it under control and learning to handle it is important. By itself porn holds no power, it's just pictures and words, but when we ascribe our fantasy to it it gains something. If that something is good, natural, unnatural (not all unnatural things are bad), or harmful is up to you.

[Rehab]

That is the exact opposite of a platonic relationship.

I mean platonic, not Platonic :p

I know Plato held a very specific kind of nonsexual friendship in very high esteem, but didn't he also think that neither party could be a woman in this kind of idealized friendship, because they were literally inferior? His word got hijacked a long time ago, if that's what you were referring to

[FionordeQuester]

Alright guys, I'm back, and ready to debate again, now that finals have mostly passed. Rather a shame about how the conversation went. Dwalin was indeed kind of defensive, but I wouldn't ignore the condescending tone of Dondon either. In that way, both of you are acting less than ideal, at least, in my opinion.

Anyways though, let's continue where we left off, shall we Dondon?

you meet people every day, and then you go your separate ways... and then what? why does there have to be a follow-up? how is this activity petty compared to other mutual exchanges of goods?

The difference is that you're not demanding something so intimate as having carnal relations with them. By stating things the way you state here, it almost seems as though you don't believe sex is important at all, which I don't believe is the case.

you are supposing far more than anything i have ever said.

It's been several days, so for anyone who forgot, this was, in reference to me bringing up all of the possible risks associated with sleeping with a stranger, like accidentally banging someone's spouse, possibly making them feel unloved (just because you're clear on the fling being just that, doesn't mean they are), possibly affirming their belief that they're only good for their beauty (which they could believe, for all you know), etc...

Basically, my point was that I believe that until you actually KNOW the person you intend to sleep with, and know exactly how they'll feel after the fling is over, or whether or not they're already with someone else, you shouldn't be having casual sex with strangers.

So when Dondon asks...

Dondon151: what part of two adults engaging in consensual sexual behavior is disrespectful to either of them?

That, is the reason why. Because you're treating them really carelessly by not taking more time to get to know them first. And yes, technically that "consensual sexual behavior" includes even sex within marriage, but I felt like what Dondon was trying to ask was "why is it bad when strangers have sex with each other?" If that is incorrect, feel free to tell me.

despite strong cultural prohibitions against doing so, people still find ways to hook up. adultery is a serious offense in islam, but the practice of nikah mut'ah offers a convenient workaround! (http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-22354201) and i need not provide more than a passing mention of nominally celibate catholic priests who make a lifestyle out of molesting young boys to show that cultural prohibitions are not effective at successfully curtailing human sexual nature.

Well sure. And, despite strong cultural prohibitions against violence, sex trafficking, stealing, and cruelty, there's still a pretty decent chunk of people who still find ways to do those things as well! I don't suppose you would wish to argue that those activities are, therefore, perfectly natural and ok? That's the problem I see in this example here.

it's not just my opinion, it's the null hypothesis. unless you can prove to me non-romantic sexual interactions are necessarily unhealthy, then i will not reject the null hypothesis.

For the record, I think you're misusing the word "null hypothesis". The null hypothesis is the hypothesis that means the opposite of what you believe. I mean, I know what you're trying to say, but I believe the word "claim" would work better in describing what you think of Dwalin's argument...

I know this is extremely nitpicky, but I'm very OCD about things like that.

if you wish to imply that my way of thinking is immoral, then you must provide the reasons for why that is. otherwise, i demand an apology.

What if you don't believe his reasons? Would you still look for an apology then? If so, where's my apology from you?! You said some pretty nasty things to me too !!

Edited May 20, 2014 by FionordeQuester

[Phoenix Wright]

The difference is that you're not demanding something so intimate as having carnal relations with them. By stating things the way you state here, it almost seems as though you don't believe sex is important at all, which I don't believe is the case.

nothing in this natural world implies that sex is always as emotionally intimate as you and many others think it is. do you think that it is possible that you simply put too much baggage on sex?

For the record, I think you're misusing the word "null hypothesis". The null hypothesis is the hypothesis that means the opposite of what you believe. I mean, I know what you're trying to say, but I believe the word "claim" would work better in describing what you think of Dwalin's argument...

I know this is extremely nitpicky, but I'm very OCD about things like that.

from wolfram mathworld:

A null hypothesis is a statistical hypothesis that is tested for possible rejection under the assumption that it is true (usually that observations are the result of chance). The concept was introduced by R. A. Fisher.

The hypothesis contrary to the null hypothesis, usually that the observations are the result of a real effect, is known as the alternative hypothesis.

from wikipedia:

In statistical inference of observed data of a scientific experiment, the null hypothesis refers to a general statement or default position that there is no relationship between two measured phenomena,^[1] or that a potential medical treatment has no effect.^[2] Rejecting or disproving the null hypothesis – and thus concluding that there are grounds for believing that there is a relationship between two phenomena or that a potential treatment has a measurable effect – is a central task in the modern practice of science, and gives a precise sense in which a claim is capable of being proven false.

i think the misunderstanding is more likely on your end. it has nothing to do with what one may believe. i would keep this in mind for the future, because i cannot think of any sort of hypothesis that depends on what a person believes and what actually is. science (ie, nature) doesn't care what one may think.

Edited May 20, 2014 by Phoenix Wright

[FionordeQuester]

nothing in this natural world implies that sex is always as emotionally intimate as you and many others think it is. do you think that it is possible that you simply put too much baggage on sex?

Sure it is. It's also possible that whoever you sleep with might ALSO put way too much baggage on sex. Again, You. Don't. Know. Not unless you know them really well.

i think the misunderstanding is more likely on your end. it has nothing to do with what one may believe. i would keep this in mind for the future, because i cannot think of any sort of hypothesis that depends on what a person believes and what actually is. science (ie, nature) doesn't care what one may think.

Huh, well darn then. In my Experimental Psychology class, my teacher emphasized it being the opposite of your hypothesis, so, I got it in my head that it was more a figurative concept than a physical one. And of course, I just sort of assumed that my first impression was correct, and never bothered looking it up again. Thanks for setting me on the right track Phoenix!

Edited May 21, 2014 by FionordeQuester