[POLL] Are lewd games, text and art the most moral way to consume pornography?

[anne O'nymous]

1) Why would/should it be unmoral to consume porn in any way? In the US nudity is far more controversial then in other (western) countries. While (being in) porn isn't fully accepted anywhere to my knowledge there are levels of acceptance.

In the same time, from the point of view of countries where consuming pornography is a crime and can lead to death sentence, why should it be moral to consume it ?

2) Does subject matter of the work matter? What if the drawing/text/VN is of the most gruesome sexual depiction you can imagine while the porn movie is just a couple in their 30's having 'boring' regular sex.

Good question.
Is a fully consenting porn movie (therefore with payed actors) presenting vanilla sex, more or less moral than RapeLay ? Is it more moral because it's vanilla sex, or is it more moral because it's not real persons ?

3) How should a viewer be able to discern between a consenting and non-consenting adult?

If it's a German movie and the girl is whispering, in French, "what a bore", while being fucked hard (true story) it's consenting.
But more seriously the question is perfectly legit.
What tell us that the girl isn't consenting ? Or course, she protest, but she can have a rape fetish and like it rough ? Perhaps is it her partner who like it when she fake to resist ? Or, more certainly, since nowadays homemade porn is a business, perhaps are they just faking it for the public ?
Breaking news, most of the sisters and mothers aren't related to the guy who fuck them.

4) for some porn is pretty much the only sex-ed they have access to you. This is more of a failing of the system as a whole but it might still be important for them to view porn as it might help them in some way.

And help them better than a corruption game or a trainer. No, Kevin, drugging her and raping her in her sleep isn't how sex is done.

5) Does it matter if the viewer is paying for porn while not paying for VN/Art/Text?

Well, it's more moral to pay than to pirate.
But is it more moral if you pirate without knowing that you should in fact pay for the content ?

6) Does it matter that through savvy marketing, business decisions, licencing etc the porn star is now a multi millionaire (there are a few even if unlikely on the whole) while the viewer is living under the poverty line?

And it's counter part, does it matters that most porn stars are abused and payed few buck before being kicked out of the studio ?

8) Also what is consenting? I mean how much consent are you able to give if you live in the US and have 500K or more in student and medical debt combined?

Or live anywhere, have divorced from your bastard husband, and have to raise three kids.
There's married women who engage in occasional prostitution, searching for clients through internet and having payed sex once in a while to help to pay the bills.
Would it be more moral if they were doing porn instead ? Would it be even more moral if they were doing homemade porn with their husband ?

9) does intelligence come into play anywhere? Is someone with an IQ of over 130 better able to consent than someone with an IQ just above 80?

Alas yes.
The smarter you are, the better you'll to fully oversee the consequences of your actions. Not that an high IQ make you necessarily smarter, but in such context a low one would prevent you to looks further than what you'll be able to do with the money.
It's what make the difference between, "In one hand I get 2K, but in the other I can be fired if someone discover it", and, "with 2K I'll be able to buy those things I want".

10) Does education come into it? Is someone better able to oversee the consequences when they have a PHD as opposed to someone having only finished primary school?

Not the PhD, but the way your parents raised you can possibly change the way you look at it.
In the same time, depending on the country (because in the US it mean a bigger student loan), having a PhD will still play a role regarding your consent. You normally don't need the money, and therefore are doing it willingly. This while someone who dropped out after primary school would do it under constraint, they need this fucking money, whatever it cost them to get it.

Thank you for listening to my ramblings.

But not for answering it ? I'm disappointed

 

[morphnet]

They are both. Also not mutually exclusive.

But you failed to cover the moral side only the legal and economic one. Also they can be mutually exclusive depending on the morality applied.

Or you could perhaps read between the lines and understand we're talking about drawings, animations, text and audio here.

Or you could stop being vague. You still have not clearly stated which moral standard you want people to use and it's not hard to add "except games that use real porn".

And, no I wouldn't be okay with her camming and revealing her intimate parts to the public community. You would?

Yes I would not have a problem with her camming, as long as she was safe, happy and healthy I would be happy.

I have no problem if you want to jerk off to porn/cams but have no problem with your daughter/mother doing porn/cams. That's not hypocritical.

I'm not sure what this means.

I disagree, GTA5 has brought more good than bad in this world, millions of millions of players were entertained at high level.

You would be wrong then, violence is glorified and sex is at best frowned on so comparing sex and violence is not a good example.

Assuming you claim porn is immoral, of course, corporations are known to be efficient.

Porn is NOT immoral and efficiency has nothing to do with it. If all porn reached the corporate level it would be subject to the system for that level, meaning money over people and violations only end in fines and many more would fall between the cracks.

People can be educated on safe sex with a few images and text, there is no need for people to be showing their intimate parts to the community.

Sure they can be BUT they are not. In reality the sad fact is many do not get a proper education when it comes to sex and have to reply on outside sources for information. As for using "a few images and text", just google nipslip to see how poor people understanding of the body is.... the more pictures with bug labels the better.

How do you even function in your daily life without a moral compass?

Who do you ask before making a decision on what the moral standard is?

Or you have a moral compass? If you do then you can perhaps answer the Qs.

This is why I keep saying you need to tell us which moral standard you are using or expect us to apply to answer you.
Most people have a personal moral standard BUT alot of those will apply the moral standards of others / factions / religions / groups over their own in different situations.

A guy might watch porn every day but forbid it being watched by his children (even if adults) while in his house. Here two sets of morals are being applied.

So in the above example are you asking the user as a father banning ALL porn or as a man who watches porn himself?

See this can't be immoral (by their own rationale) cause online pirates aren't taking food from anyone.
Solid case can be made is that they bring food to the creator.

Because the Q is whether overall pirates dissuade people from financially supporting the creator or actually help the creator in finding more people to support him.

And as I already said, pirates are giving free advertisement for the product.
That free advertisement is worth more than the money lost from actual buyers who would be dissuaded from paying for the product.

Of course it can be immoral, yours are not the only moral standards out there and there are many that consider pirating to be immoral.

You're a poster on f95 zone, you see creators get money from Patreon, and you get money there from exposure, not from your product being hidden behind a paywall.

Except most of those patreon games do NOT have the product behind a paywall. The paywall as you put it only gives access to the game early. You also missed the point which is the are different morals applied to pirating, not just yours.

For all the reasons to pirate this is the most wrong one and hypocritical.
If you're dissatisfied with the product you should boycott it not consume it.

In most of those cases it's not the product that is the problem but how it is being sold. Not sure how it's hypocritical?

 

[besre]

But you failed to cover the moral side only the legal and economic one. Also they can be mutually exclusive depending on the morality applied.

Really? This was in my first reply to that one:

"...and supply means more women getting bad treatment in the porn industry, never mind the alleged immorality of renting your intimate body parts to the public for money."

You can't extrapolate from here?

Yes I would not have a problem with her camming, as long as she was safe, happy and healthy I would be happy.

Sure, then you watching other people showing their intimate parts to the public doesn't make you a hypocrite then.
Unless you watch actual real porn but wouldn't want your daughter to do porn.

You would be wrong then, violence is glorified and sex is at best frowned on so comparing sex and violence is not a good example.

What do you mean by violence is glorified? And why is violence automatically immoral? Is it immoral in self-defense?

Porn is NOT immoral and efficiency has nothing to do with it. If all porn reached the corporate level it would be subject to the system for that level, meaning money over people and violations only end in fines and many more would fall between the cracks.

Ok you finally imply that any porn between consenting adults is moral, and yet you previously implied you won't be okay with your daughter doing porn. (Just keeping track)

Now on the corp claim. Corporations are first to be tightly regulated, whereas small - mid businesses can more often evade the law and regulations. Women would be safer under corporation setting because corporation are under the microscope compared to small companies that actually fall between the cracks and don't follow the law.

Sure they can be BUT they are not. In reality the sad fact is many do not get a proper education when it comes to sex and have to reply on outside sources for information. As for using "a few images and text", just google nipslip to see how poor people understanding of the body is.... the more pictures with bug labels the better.

This frankly is asinine, sex education is just a google search away. Just because people don't do it doesn't mean they have to resort to porn to understand it. How about we teach history using porn and every other subject? It's asinine.

Here two sets of morals are being applied.

"Killing is immoral but killing in self defense is moral" isn't two sets of morals, it's just one moral system that is expansive enough moral to cover more circumstances.

Of course it can be immoral, yours are not the only moral standards out there and there are many that consider pirating to be immoral.

But you need another rationale for your morality, if your rationality was that "it steals food from creator" but it's proven that it's actually the opposite, that means it's either moral or you need another rationale for you to claim it's immoral.

Except most of those patreon games do NOT have the product behind a paywall. The paywall as you put it only gives access to the game early. You also missed the point which is the are different morals applied to pirating, not just yours.

For a good reason.

And for the different morals regarding to pirating sure, but you need to say on what they're based on, they can't be based on something illogical without people noting the paradox. If they're based on something logical than sure, we can always agree to disagree there.

In most of those cases it's not the product that is the problem but how it is being sold. Not sure how it's hypocritical?

The price of the product and DLCS and similar are a part of the product. It's hypocritical in the way that you claim the product sucks and want to punish the producers but you end up consuming it while helping them by pirating it and talking about it.

 

[besre]

You put practically no effort into the OP

I didn't want to influence the voting at all, I'm most curious about what the community thinks as a whole unswayed. I have a part of my reasoning in the comments anyway.

 

[anne O'nymous]

Sure, then you watching other people showing their intimate parts to the public doesn't make you a hypocrite then.
Unless you watch actual real porn but wouldn't want your daughter to do porn.

So, since you clearly said that yourself wouldn't be okay with it, what is there to understand here ?
Is it that you are a hypocrite who will pretend to never have watched porn, or is it that you are hypocritically watching porn ?

So what ? Is it what you mean with your poll ? Like they aren't real persons, you don't feel as hypocrite when playing games, than you fell while watching porn ?
Of course, this would have nothing to do with morality, but it would already be a starts. Yet there's a problem.
We are on a forum mostly centered on porn and piracy, and you're asking their opinion to people who, on top of this, are ready to not just consume, but also talk about this. Our moral compass is far to be unbiased.
It's like going anywhere in France and randomly asking people if they think that they should go on strike. The answer is highly predictable.

What do you mean by violence is glorified? And why is violence automatically immoral? Is it immoral in self-defense?

Self-defense isn't violence, it's strength. Violence is what caused you to rely on self-defense.

Ok you finally imply that any porn between consenting adults is moral, and yet you previously implied you won't be okay with your daughter doing porn. (Just keeping track)

And where exactly did he said this ? If you want to keep track, at least keep track of the fact, not of what you make up in your mind.

He said that he would have no problem with her caming, and never had to address what would be his position with her doing porn ; my guess is that he would say the same, therefore something along the line of, "as long as it's what she want and she's safe, it's her life".

Now on the corp claim. Corporations are first to be tightly regulated, whereas small - mid businesses can more often evade the law and regulations. Women would be safer under corporation setting because corporation are under the microscope compared to small companies that actually fall between the cracks and don't follow the law.

Yet it's the biggest corporations who are evading law, lie to the public, do false advertising, public falsified reports, pay scientist to publish falsified studies, have the higher rate of sexual harassment by number of female employees, and so on.

As for being under the microscope... Am I wrong to think that Hollywood is the place where there's the more microscopes by inch square, yet also where the two biggest sexual abuse scandals happened ?
I don't think I'm wrong while saying this, but I wonder what it make your argumentation smell like...

This frankly is asinine, sex education is just a google search away. Just because people don't do it doesn't mean they have to resort to porn to understand it. How about we teach history using porn and every other subject? It's asinine.

Hmm, it seem to me that sex is closer to sexual education than to history or math, what make it a more legit teaching material for the first, than for the two others.
But, well, I'm just human, so I may be wrong. And you're just human too, so you may not be hypocritical and voluntarily using absurd arguments in order to get the greatest achievement one can seek for, "I won an Internet argument".

"Killing is immoral but killing in self defense is moral" isn't two sets of morals, it's just one moral system that is expansive enough moral to cover more circumstances.

Except that killing is immoral even in case of self-defense.
In law (well, perhaps not in the USA), the notion of self-defense is bounded to the notion of proportional response. And there's a really limited number of situation where killing is the only way to neutralize the threat.
To be more clear, there's only in countries like the USA, Mexico or Brazil, therefore countries where violence reach extremes, that killing could possibly be seen as an effective case of self-defense. But in more civilized and developed countries, it would be, and is, classified as murder.

Plus, of course, you answer totally out of his words.
He was addressing the double standard applied to the exact same situation. And, in your attempt of demonstration, "going after someone with the intent to kill him", and, "killing someone while defending yourself", aren't the same situation.

But you need another rationale for your morality, if your rationality was that "it steals food from creator" but it's proven that it's actually the opposite, that means it's either moral or you need another rationale for you to claim it's immoral.

Do this even mean something ? I mean outside of the obviously absurd example.

Morality isn't a question of justification, and justifications are precisely the proof of a biased morality.
You start using justification when you know that what you're doing isn't legal/moral and need to find an excuse for doing it. It's just that, justifications are excuses one use to still looks moral in his own eyes and in the eyes of others.
Therefore, in your claim, what make thing being immoral is precisely the fact that you need to justify them.

And for the different morals regarding to pirating sure, but you need to say on what they're based on, they can't be based on something illogical without people noting the paradox. If they're based on something logical than sure, we can always agree to disagree there.

It's legal in South Africa to use brevets in order to produce medicine without the consent of the brevets right owner, and without having to pay him for the use of his brevet. It's piracy, there's a purely logical and rational reason behind this, and it's fully moral.

The price of the product and DLCS and similar are a part of the product.

What the fuck ?
With such logic, if I buy a game 50% less because there's a special operation, I don't get the same product than those who payed the full price.
It's mandatory. You claim that the price is part of the product, therefore if the price change, the product change too.

It's hypocritical in the way that you claim the product sucks and want to punish the producers but you end up consuming it while helping them by pirating it and talking about it.

Yeah... You know what ? The more I read you, the more I'm convinced that the only thing you expect from your poll is to get a majority of "yes", because you don't want to know our opinion, you just want to see yours being confirmed.

 

[morphnet]

Really? This was in my first reply to that one:

"...and supply means more women getting bad treatment in the porn industry, never mind the alleged immorality of renting your intimate body parts to the public for money."

You can't extrapolate from here?

Since when was "bad treatment" at work immoral? Plus stating that prostitution is immoral is not covering a moral side, it's stating a stance some people take.

Sure, then you watching other people showing their intimate parts to the public doesn't make you a hypocrite then.
Unless you watch actual real porn but wouldn't want your daughter to do porn.

I think you confused yourself on the point you were trying to make here.

What do you mean by violence is glorified? And why is violence automatically immoral? Is it immoral in self-defense?

Wow, you are all over the place... you went from using the examples of serial killer and mass murderer to self defense.

As to what do I mean by violence is glorified AND sticking to your original reply about GTAV and being a serial killer and mass murderer, the number of news stories, movies (based on real events), movies (fictional), books, documentaries etc. where family members have killed people as revenge for rapes/ murders etc. You can find these kinds of stories all over the world, these people often get community support, have had their actions called moral and been hailed as heroes.

Ok you finally imply that any porn between consenting adults is moral, and yet you previously implied you won't be okay with your daughter doing porn. (Just keeping track)

Quote me, you can't because I never said OR implied that in ANY of my replies.... also look bottom left of each reply you'll see no edit message!

Now on the corp claim. Corporations are first to be tightly regulated, whereas small - mid businesses can more often evade the law and regulations. Women would be safer under corporation setting because corporation are under the microscope compared to small companies that actually fall between the cracks and don't follow the law.

"Corporations are first to be tightly regulated,"???? On which reality are you basing this off of because cartoons do NOT count.
You might want to catch up on the last few decades of news, try starting with oil / mining and move on to finance and the tech sector....

This frankly is asinine, sex education is just a google search away. Just because people don't do it doesn't mean they have to resort to porn to understand it. How about we teach history using porn and every other subject? It's asinine.

When was the last time you googled sex education?

As for using it to teach history and every other subject and your continued used of the phrase "intimate parts" sounds more like you are one of those creationists trying to get sex ed banned from schools.

"Killing is immoral but killing in self defense is moral" isn't two sets of morals, it's just one moral system that is expansive enough moral to cover more circumstances.

I never said anything about killing in that example so not sure why you are using that, maybe because you couldn't refute my example?
Also DEPENDING on the morals used killing even in self defense is immoral to some.

But you need another rationale for your morality, if your rationality was that "it steals food from creator" but it's proven that it's actually the opposite, that means it's either moral or you need another rationale for you to claim it's immoral.

First, rational and moral almost NEVER go hand in hand.
Second, nothing was PROVEN, you simply stated your opinion. Opinions are NOT fact.

For a good reason.

And for the different morals regarding to pirating sure, but you need to say on what they're based on, they can't be based on something illogical without people noting the paradox. If they're based on something logical than sure, we can always agree to disagree there.

Morals can't be based on something illogical??? Are we even discussing the same thing here? Most morals are illogical that is why there are sooooo many loop holes added.

The price of the product and DLCS and similar are a part of the product. It's hypocritical in the way that you claim the product sucks and want to punish the producers but you end up consuming it while helping them by pirating it and talking about it.

First, having a price tag of $50 does not mean the product sucks, it means the price sucks, they are not the same thing.
Second, you stating it help as if that is a fact does NOT make it a fact, it makes it your opinion and others DO NOT agree with your opinion.

Plus you still seem to be missing the point, which is people have different moralities and some of those people put 3rd party moralities above their own so without stating which morality standard you are looking for OR using you are never going to get a proper answer because they will be mixed no matter how much to switch examples between replies and twist words.

 

[Mr_Ainz]

Porn is NOT immoral

I don't want to discuss you on this but, if you are open to it, could you expand on this point? Where people place the divide between moral and immoral varies. I'd say that more than 80% of all pornographic material is immoral but there is some that I'd consider moral.

Just want to hear your view on this point.

 

[besre]

Since when was "bad treatment" at work immoral? Plus stating that prostitution is immoral is not covering a moral side, it's stating a stance some people take.

Since always. And in the porn business bad treatment often equals to sexual exploitation.

Animated games solve this problem.

Wow, you are all over the place...

Not quite an argument.

As to what do I mean by violence is glorified AND sticking to your original reply about GTAV and being a serial killer and mass murderer, the number of news stories, movies (based on real events), movies (fictional), books, documentaries etc. where family members have killed people as revenge for rapes/ murders etc. You can find these kinds of stories all over the world, these people often get community support, have had their actions called moral and been hailed as heroes.

Are you implying GTA5 controlled people in committing murder? I don't understand.

Interesting of you to drop the point about violence in self defense there. So not all violence is bad?

Quote me, you can't because I never said OR implied that in ANY of my replies.... also look bottom left of each reply you'll see no edit message!

When I said "I have no problem if you want to jerk off to porn/cams but have no problem with your daughter/mother doing porn/cams. "

You replied with that you wouldn't have a problem with her camming.

You didn't mentioned the 'porn' aspect, so I took it you're implied you'd have a problem with her doing porn.

You can correct the record here, would you have a problem with your daughter/mother doing gang bangs?

"Corporations are first to be tightly regulated,"???? On which reality are you basing this off of because cartoons do NOT count.
You might want to catch up on the last few decades of news, try starting with oil / mining and move on to finance and the tech sector....

I disagree since yeah they are, lawyers often go pro-bono when corporations mistreat their employees because the payoff is huge. Small companies like the phrase you used "fall between the cracks"/stay below he radar, can easily declare bankruptcy etc and etc

When was the last time you googled sex education?

When I was curious about safe sex as a teen and was researching it on the internet.

As for using it to teach history and every other subject and your continued used of the phrase "intimate parts" sounds more like you are one of those creationists trying to get sex ed banned from schools.

You're literally saying that sex education needs to be taught with actual porn. Yes, I'd vote to ban that from schools. Problem?

First, rational and moral almost NEVER go hand in hand.
Second, nothing was PROVEN, you simply stated your opinion. Opinions are NOT fact.

False on the first, if a moral claim's premise is disproven it stops being the moral norm. Unrelated to the fact that sometimes you need a leap of faith for morals. "It's immoral because it steals bread", if it's proven it doesn't actually steal bread than the moral claim automatically loses its meaning, logically it doesn't make sense.

Kind of false on the second, I gave proof on the notion of exposure and how piracy helps producers get exposure from which they profit from, with thousands of examples on this site. I also gave an evidence on how a pleb from a second world country who cannot in 1000 years afford the product can still contribute positively by giving free advertisement of the product in the form of word of mouth.

And if you don't believe this evidence is sufficient just add an 'if', if that is true, your moral claim is disproven. You're also free in disproving the claim I made. You didn't so far.

Morals can't be based on something illogical??? Are we even discussing the same thing here? Most morals are illogical that is why there are sooooo many loop holes added.

If their premise goes against their claim, they just don't pragmatically make any sense, as the e.g I outlined above.

First, having a price tag of $50 does not mean the product sucks, it means the price sucks, they are not the same thing.

The price is part of the product it can indeed make the product to 'suck', if the 4070 gpu was $5000 everyone would say it sucks, but it was $20 everyone would say it's awesome. You can't just say X, Y is not the product to dismiss something that allegedly made you pirate the product.

Plus you still seem to be missing the point, which is people have different moralities and some of those people put 3rd party moralities above their own so without stating which morality standard you are looking for OR using you are never going to get a proper answer because they will be mixed no matter how much to switch examples between replies and twist words.

As I said, I'm merely curious what people feel is moral, but if you insist on actually saying why something is immoral but your premise is wrong than your whole moral claim falls apart logically. Unrelated to the fact that I'm not here to try to change your morals.

 

[besre]

So, since you clearly said that yourself wouldn't be okay with it, what is there to understand here ?
Is it that you are a hypocrite who will pretend to never have watched porn, or is it that you are hypocritically watching porn ?

So what ? Is it what you mean with your poll ? Like they aren't real persons, you don't feel as hypocrite when playing games, than you fell while watching porn ?
Of course, this would have nothing to do with morality, but it would already be a starts. Yet there's a problem.
We are on a forum mostly centered on porn and piracy, and you're asking their opinion to people who, on top of this, are ready to not just consume, but also talk about this. Our moral compass is far to be unbiased.
It's like going anywhere in France and randomly asking people if they think that they should go on strike. The answer is highly predictable.

Never in a million years I said I'm a sinless person lol

This is the perfect place to ask this, because this is a niche community, you don't just go starting posting on a forum about lewd games out of nowhere.

Self-defense isn't violence, it's strength. Violence is what caused you to rely on self-defense.

I don't think any violence definition supports that.

Yet it's the biggest corporations who are evading law, lie to the public, do false advertising, public falsified reports, pay scientist to publish falsified studies, have the higher rate of sexual harassment by number of female employees, and so on.

As for being under the microscope... Am I wrong to think that Hollywood is the place where there's the more microscopes by inch square, yet also where the two biggest sexual abuse scandals happened ?
I don't think I'm wrong while saying this, but I wonder what it make your argumentation smell like...

You have a point in your first part, but the greater point is that smaller companies more often than not do not even need to do those things because they're flying below the radar.

Regarding Hollywood yeah those scandals indeed happened, but we're naive to think that any sizable sexual misconduct around the country was revealed after it.

Except that killing is immoral even in case of self-defense.
In law (well, perhaps not in the USA), the notion of self-defense is bounded to the notion of proportional response. And there's a really limited number of situation where killing is the only way to neutralize the threat.
To be more clear, there's only in countries like the USA, Mexico or Brazil, therefore countries where violence reach extremes, that killing could possibly be seen as an effective case of self-defense. But in more civilized and developed countries, it would be, and is, classified as murder.

Let's not mix legality and morality. It was legal to gas the Jews, it was illegal to shelter them.
Nonetheless, I disagree that killing is immoral in self-defense. (in vacuum).

He was addressing the double standard applied to the exact same situation. And, in your attempt of demonstration, "going after someone with the intent to kill him", and, "killing someone while defending yourself", aren't the same situation.

I disagree "Killing is immoral but killing in self defense is moral" isn't two sets of morals, it's just one moral system that is expansive enough moral to cover more circumstances. "

It's not a double standard.

Do this even mean something ? I mean outside of the obviously absurd example.

Morality isn't a question of justification, and justifications are precisely the proof of a biased morality.
You start using justification when you know that what you're doing isn't legal/moral and need to find an excuse for doing it. It's just that, justifications are excuses one use to still looks moral in his own eyes and in the eyes of others.
Therefore, in your claim, what make thing being immoral is precisely the fact that you need to justify them.

The problem is the moral claim premise is wrong, so it automatically doesn't make sense. It doesn't matter what the moral claim concludes.

Since it's "X" it's immoral. But since we can prove it isn't X, the conclusion doesn't matter at all.

It's legal in South Africa to use brevets in order to produce medicine without the consent of the brevets right owner, and without having to pay him for the use of his brevet. It's piracy, there's a purely logical and rational reason behind this, and it's fully moral.

I don't know the case, but circling back to legality = / = morality. If your claim is true, it doesn't matter if it's legal, it would still be moral.

What the fuck ?
With such logic, if I buy a game 50% less because there's a special operation, I don't get the same product than those who payed the full price.
It's mandatory. You claim that the price is part of the product, therefore if the price change, the product change too.

I mean yes, you got a cheaper product. Cheaper product with the same quality = better product by default.

Yeah... You know what ? The more I read you, the more I'm convinced that the only thing you expect from your poll is to get a majority of "yes", because you don't want to know our opinion, you just want to see yours being confirmed.

I swear I didn't expect anything was feeling it could go either way because reasons.

 

[morphnet]

I don't want to discuss you on this but, if you are open to it, could you expand on this point? Where people place the divide between moral and immoral varies. I'd say that more than 80% of all pornographic material is immoral but there is some that I'd consider moral.

Just want to hear your view on this point.

First let me just say that the part you quoted was my own personal opinion. I don't think porn is immoral as it is just people acting out fantasies that are photographed or filmed for others to enjoy. As with everything else as long as people understand the difference between fantasy and reality porn is just entertainment. Some people masturbate to it, some use it for ideas of things to try in the bedroom or other locations, others enjoy it with their partners etc.

I think like most things, it's how people use it, go into it (as in search and play ), what they take away from it that makes the difference. I think it's also important to be able to separate making porn and watching / playing porn.

snip

Ok you and I clearly live in two VERY different realities or universes
you do you...

 

[besre]

Ok you and I clearly live in two VERY different realities or universes
you do you...

This was always allowed, thanks for the talk

And you could've just picked the 'No' option, I wouldn't have held it against you

 

[GNVE]

1) More demand for real porn = more supply, and supply means more women getting bad treatment in the porn industry,

Is this an issue from lack of regulation or inherent of the porn industry? A lot of people want to be actors in Hollywood but due to heavy unionization they still have a lot of benefits and get a decent pay.
Waitresses in the US are exploited however and get 'paid' a wage of a literal few bucks. So maybe in their case the government is failing workers who do not have an amoral job in way shape or form.
While I do not deny or want to minimize the exploitation and other problems in the porn industry it is far from the only place of work where exploitation is an issue.

never mind the alleged immorality of renting your intimate body parts to the public for money.

While more myth than truth what about people hooking up with superiors to gain promotions or other favours. (I say more myth than truth because a lot of -mostly- women who are accused of this are just good at their job but some disgruntled asshole can't handle that).

In lewd games and art you don't have this problem. I won't have a problem if my hypothetical daughter did erotic voice over for a lewd game, but I'd have a problem if she was getting gang banged for a living.

Well this is true for you. I'm guessing a lot of people would draw the line differently. Since I don't have a daughter it is hard to answer truthfully how I'd feel one way or another. I can imagine but unless there is that actual connection to a person it is only a guesstimation.

2) I don't think it matters (but I'm leaving door open for exceptions), take GTA5 for example where you can be a literal serial killer and a mass murderer.

There is a lot of weird shit out there. Don't underestimate the depravity of man.

3) As any other business, regulations and law, and trust in the law.

Well the law has an awful track record of protecting women in general. But it isn't like a man or women acts entirely differently when consenting or not. People are very good at hiding their true feelings. We are terrible at detecting if someone is lying or not.
Also in cases of revenge porn a woman or man might have consented to and been enthusiastic about the making of the film but did not consent to its distribution.

4) I don't think this makes any sense in practice, if you can watch porn which is video heavy, you can google text and/or images.

True but a lot of people learn about regular porn before they learn about other forms (maybe excluding romance novels). Also main stream porn is very prolific and in many cases less extreme than what is made into games etc.

5) No. Or you mean piracy? I'll talk about this in a reply to the below poster.

Not perse.

6) That's 0.00001% of porn actresses, but a fair question, needs pondering for this outlier of cases.

Of course it is only true for a very small number of actresses but it is important to look at the edge cases to make up ones mind on the topic as a whole.

7) Outliers don't matter here really, and if they do they can be addressed.

I do think it matters. Teens are more likely to make rash decisions and not think true the consequences of their actions. So a case could be made that you should not be able to star in porn before the age of 25 when the brain has stopped developing. (Good decision making is one of the last things to develop).

8-10) Those really don't matter, unless you want to make the case that if the most mature and intelligent person consented to doing porn it would actually be moral to consume that porn.

As anne O'nymous states, there are reasons this does matter.

In the same time, from the point of view of countries where consuming pornography is a crime and can lead to death sentence, why should it be moral to consume it ?

I agree. Morality is fluid. There are few objective rights and wrongs. Even something as the taking of a human life has it's grey area's. Euthanasia to me is a way to end the suffering of someone who has a serious illness (and yes that may include metal illness) while others say it is straight up murder. The death penalty to me is wrong on so many levels to me and pretty much state sanctioned murder (a lot of innocent people have been killed by states with the death penalty). There are ardent defenders though who feel there are crimes so heinous that a person should not be allowed to live anymore and accept an innocent life may be taken in order to do justice.

Well, it's more moral to pay than to pirate.
But is it more moral if you pirate without knowing that you should in fact pay for the content ?

True.

And it's counter part, does it matters that most porn stars are abused and payed few buck before being kicked out of the studio ?

Yeah sorry should have included the more obvious one

Or live anywhere, have divorced from your bastard husband, and have to raise three kids.
There's married women who engage in occasional prostitution, searching for clients through internet and having payed sex once in a while to help to pay the bills.
Would it be more moral if they were doing porn instead ? Would it be even more moral if they were doing homemade porn with their husband ?

Exactly. On the one hand we believe a person should have the right to self determination while also getting pissed off when they use their self determination to do things we don't agree with.

Alas yes.
The smarter you are, the better you'll to fully oversee the consequences of your actions. Not that an high IQ make you necessarily smarter, but in such context a low one would prevent you to looks further than what you'll be able to do with the money.
It's what make the difference between, "In one hand I get 2K, but in the other I can be fired if someone discover it", and, "with 2K I'll be able to buy those things I want".

Not the PhD, but the way your parents raised you can possibly change the way you look at it.
In the same time, depending on the country (because in the US it mean a bigger student loan), having a PhD will still play a role regarding your consent. You normally don't need the money, and therefore are doing it willingly. This while someone who dropped out after primary school would do it under constraint, they need this fucking money, whatever it cost them to get it.

It is not exactly black and white. Someone without a formal education for some reason might still become successful and someone with a PHD may still wash out. But the chances are different.

 

[Thin Bastard]

While I do not deny or want to minimize the exploitation and other problems in the porn industry it is far from the only place of work where exploitation is an issue.

This is why I strongly reject the notion that porn is immoral because the people who produce it are poorly treated. It’s not a moral standard that we usually hold ourselves accountable to, yet this is almost always the excuse that modern moral guardians use.

 

[anne O'nymous]

This is the perfect place to ask this, because this is a niche community, you don't just go starting posting on a forum about lewd games out of nowhere.

And therefore, as I said, it's people who don't have the moral compass needed to answer the question.

Regarding Hollywood yeah those scandals indeed happened, but we're naive to think that any sizable sexual misconduct around the country was revealed after it.

What one have to do with the second ?
It happen that, unlike what you claimed, being under a microscope to not prevent bad things to happen in (relative) secret for years. And if there isn't sizable sexual misconduct that have been revealed after this, perhaps is it because there isn't really sizable sexual misconduct that happen except those two.
Sexual misconduct are mostly the fact of individuals, and really few have as much power over as many people, than those two guys had.

Nonetheless, I disagree that killing is immoral in self-defense. (in vacuum).

But looking at two people fucking is... Congratulation, you have a moral compass way more fucked than many here.

I disagree "Killing is immoral but killing in self defense is moral" isn't two sets of morals, it's just one moral system that is expansive enough moral to cover more circumstances. "

Good thing then that I never said that they are "two sets of morals", but that they "aren't the same situation".
Since you're here, you're also 18+, so I guess that you know the difference between the two.

The problem is the moral claim premise is wrong, so it automatically doesn't make sense. It doesn't matter what the moral claim concludes.

Since it's "X" it's immoral. But since we can prove it isn't X, the conclusion doesn't matter at all.

What the fucking fuck logic is this ?

Morality isn't a question of being "X" or not being "X". To keep your example, piracy is immoral, period. The fact that it prevent the creator to earn some money is the consequences of this immorality, not the reason why it is immoral.

I mean yes, you got a cheaper product. Cheaper product with the same quality = better product by default.

God, I'm sure I lost at least a dozen neurons by just reading this...

 

[anne O'nymous]

Exactly. On the one hand we believe a person should have the right to self determination while also getting pissed off when they use their self determination to do things we don't agree with.

Totally. And we are pissed of based on our own belief.

To stay on my occasional prostitute Vs doing porn example, perhaps is it mentally easier for her to sleep with a stranger time to time, than to face the idea that millions stranger will see her having sex, even if it's with her husband.
People who will judge her will base their opinion on the fact that she's somehow cheating. She base her opinion on the fact that she don't want to expose the most intimate part of herself to the world.

It is not exactly black and white. Someone without a formal education for some reason might still become successful and someone with a PHD may still wash out. But the chances are different.

I based my answer on the average, and globally there's more PhD with a decent salary, than successful drop out. But your point stay, and I've been caught judging the book on its sole cover.
Someone with a PhD can still do it under the pressure due to a need for money, while a drop out can perfectly do it just because she want it, and give away the money to some charity.

 

[GNVE]

I based my answer on the average, and globally there's more PhD with a decent salary, than successful drop out. But your point stay, and I've been caught judging the book on its sole cover.
Someone with a PhD can still do it under the pressure due to a need for money, while a drop out can perfectly do it just because she want it, and give away the money to some charity.

I was just making a clarification of/expansion on your point. I didn't intend to imply you saw it as black and white

 

[coffeeaddicted]

I don't understand the question.
As i object to some forms, there isn't a clear answer.
Porn can be moral but it also can be immoral.
It really depends what it is or what is shown.

 

[anne O'nymous]

I was just making a clarification of/expansion on your point. I didn't intend to imply you saw it as black and white

I know, but it's my "recognize your flaws" day of the year, and I haven't seen another place to do it

 

[balitz Method]

You can make a case for that. It's not exploiting real people, nor is anyone harmed by it, so it can also explore more depraved subject matter that would be terrible to put anyone through even if it's just pretend.

On a personal note I prefer it just because setting is important to me for this stuff. I can look at a picture and think yeah, that looks really nice, but it's tough to get going from that alone. Plus the people who make porn always look gross and trashy to me. I'd much rather read something or have drawn visuals.

So it works on both those levels for me.

 

[besre]

And therefore, as I said, it's people who don't have the moral compass needed to answer the question.

That's a pretty low view of the members of community here, that they don't act out on what they feel is right or wrong.

What one have to do with the second ?
It happen that, unlike what you claimed, being under a microscope to not prevent bad things to happen in (relative) secret for years. And if there isn't sizable sexual misconduct that have been revealed after this, perhaps is it because there isn't really sizable sexual misconduct that happen except those two.
Sexual misconduct are mostly the fact of individuals, and really few have as much power over as many people, than those two guys had.

Yes, Weinstein which had a small media company, for decades was sexually abusing and raping women precisely because he could fly below the radar.

But looking at two people fucking is... Congratulation, you have a moral compass way more fucked than many here.

Who would say that the life of an attempted murderer/beater is more important than the life of the innocent? That is deprived moral compass one would say.

Morality isn't a question of being "X" or not being "X". To keep your example, piracy is immoral, period. The fact that it prevent the creator to earn some money is the consequences of this immorality, not the reason why it is immoral.

^ you now, but you two replies ago:

It's legal in South Africa to use brevets in order to produce medicine without the consent of the brevets right owner, and without having to pay him for the use of his brevet. It's piracy, there's a purely logical and rational reason behind this, and it's fully moral.

You now: "piracy is immoral, period", you two posts ago: "It's piracy, there's a purely logical and rational reason behind this, and it's fully moral."

See how you actually need X? And the previous poster had X, his X was that piracy is immoral cause "it steals bread"(X), but since we evidenced that piracy doesn't necessarily steal bread his moral premise broke his moral claim.

God, I'm sure I lost at least a dozen neurons by just reading this...

Why would you lose neurons over the fact that cheaper product with the same quaility are better products than more expensive products with the same quality?

Alas yes.
The smarter you are, the better you'll to fully oversee the consequences of your actions. Not that an high IQ make you necessarily smarter, but in such context a low one would prevent you to looks further than what you'll be able to do with the money.
It's what make the difference between, "In one hand I get 2K, but in the other I can be fired if someone discover it", and, "with 2K I'll be able to buy those things I want".

Exactly. On the one hand we believe a person should have the right to self determination while also getting pissed off when they use their self determination to do things we don't agree with.

It is not exactly black and white. Someone without a formal education for some reason might still become successful and someone with a PHD may still wash out. But the chances are different.

I'm confident you both mean well, but your arguments can be taken as "you low iq poor peasants don't have the capacity and free will to consent to sex work like we educated high iq successful elites have".