Am I Being A Prude, Or Overly Sensitive?

[Pencil]

Can you paraphrase Violet Blue's views on Pornography and women for us?

No, I couldn't, unfortunately, but here is an interesting read:

https://medium.com/@pandorablake/can-porn-empower-women-4d1f3086206f

 

[Ronin]

The premise of my argument is that in the final analysis, when you tally the pros and cons, doing sex work is always, categorically a negative thing. I also contend that most if not all people who consume sex work wouldn't want anything to do with the providers in real life.

It's often sex workers who push the most for social change, and who most often have something to lose, plain for the views you advocate are 'natural and unchangeable' - which designate sex workers as easy targets - and which is optics I disagree is inevitable, because to make it so is a choice of a person.

That negativity you speak of is man made. Not natural. Not something that can't be worked with.

 

[shimmerz]

But if you jump into something expecting the exception, prepare to be slapped in the face with the rule--in other words, I would strongly discourage anyone getting into sex work knowing what the rule is.

And what is the rule. I am feeling like I either missed it or it was left out. I do want to hear you Dana.

 

[scout86]

The gray matter you're referring to evolved because it conferred a reproductive advantage in challenging environments.

I wouldn't disagree with that at all. Over time, the nature of the challenges change. Over time, the skill set that best deals with the challenges changes too.

when you tally the pros and cons, doing sex work is always,

Are we tallying pros and cons for all of humanity, or for individuals as individuals? In other words, if, for 60% of the people involved in "sex work" it's "always a negative thing" then it meets your premise? And the 40% aren't relevant? Or are you saying it's negative for 100% of the people involved? "Sex work" covers a huge range of things, unless you want to give it a narrow definition (and then you should give the definition).. "Categorically a negative thing" is actually a bit vague. How negative does something have to be to be a , "categorically negative thing"? I shoe horses for a living. Like most things, it has pluses and minuses. Does the fact that it has minuses make it a "negative thing"? If something is the "least positive thing" available, does that make it negative? What exactly IS a "categorically negative thing"?

There are a lot of minuses to working in an aspect of the sex industry. I couldn't do it, for a lot of reasons. But that doesn't make me sure I'm in a position to make the choice for someone else. The thing is, I think it SHOULD be a choice. The stigma involved? Yeah, I can see where that's a problem, or maybe it's a challenge. The thing is, unless you're a person who hits the middle of every bell shaped curve out there, someone's going to stigmatize you about something. (Speaking as someone who probably doesn't hit the fat part of very many curves!) We can chose to fret about it or not.

We all have our approach to life. Mine is, I have a concept of "right and wrong/ good and evil" I have an opinion on where that "evolved" from and why. Others have their own opinions and that's what makes the world an interesting place. Personally, I think we have to potential to use the resources available, including our brains, to increase fairness and understanding and decrease stereotyping and prejudice. Among other things we can chose to do. I can't see any benefit to thinking I'm trapped by my evolutionary biology.There's hypocrisy because SOME people are hypocrites. No reason we can't work to lower the over all level of hypocrisy. There's injustice because SOME people are unjust. Doesn't mean we have to let it slide.The surest way to ensure there is no change is to decide that change is impossible. Like @Eleanor was saying, that seems like kind of a defeatist attitude.

 

[Pencil]

To get back to the OP. I can't help wondering if the girl on the cover (or wherever) 'pays a price', was 'objectified', etc. How do we know what her experience is? I have no strong feelings for or against 'standard' porn, and I have no idea what goes through a man's head when he looks at a pic of a naked / near naked woman. In all honesty, I find it faintly ridiculous. But what if the girl with the low panty line just LOVED doing it? What if she has an attitude of 'this is my body, and then answer is 'no'. '? Why do we automatically assume that she is allowing herself to be objectified, used, abused? I think those assumptions are presumptuous.

 

[Dana1010]

@shimmerz, you should go back through my posts on this thread. The rule is that sex workers are made pariahs, marked with a scarlet letter, and have extreme problems being taken seriously by men who see them as damaged goods, and not fit for relationships. Some among you will clamor to say, "Not all!" to which I reply, "Happy unicorn hunting to you."

That negativity you speak of is man made.

And nature made man.

 

[Anarchy]

...delaying gratification, all evolved because they conferred a reproductive advantage.

I'm pleased that you wrote that.

I suspect that any high time preference activity is an off putting signal for a person who is looking to make a large and long term commitment.

It's not the society, it's the species. There's hypocrisy because people are hypocrites. There's injustice because people are unjust.

Humans are individuals with different, subjective likes, dislikes and abilities. Humans are not a homogeneous aggregated whole.

I know that the mainstream media is full of the use of aggregates: "America wants...", "Russia has said...", "Women are...."

At best it is sloppy, lazy and leads to confusion. At worst, it is intended to confuse and mislead.

With all due respect, I think you would find it much easier, and run into fewer mis understandings from others here, if you applied some methodological individualism in your reasoning.

Edit: @scout, you beat me to the methodological individualism.

 

[Dana1010]

@Anarchy, sexuality is biological, so you can make some assumptions about basic features. All men, except gay men, and attracted to women, right? That is a feature of remarkable predictability you can gauge just by looking at someone. They tend to be most attracted to women of child bearing age--another remarkably predictable feature. Maybe there are some other very predictable features to human sexuality, and maybe the evolutionary psychologists are on to them. Your favorite color is not biologically based, and therefore not predictable. But things that are biologically based tend to operate with some predictability.

 

[Pencil]

You cannot look at all of humanity from one theory or model or school of thought alone. Mistake #1, 2, 3 and 17.

 

[Dana1010]

You cannot look at all of humanity from one theory or model or school of thought alone. Mistake #1, 2, 3 and 17.

If you can use biology and natural science to predict the migration patterns of seagulls, why not the behavior of humans?

 

[Pencil]

Okay, so let's use the Bible to look at all of humanity and call porn the work of the devil.

Is that valid?

 

[shimmerz]

not fit for relationships

Got it! Thank you Dana. I did miss it.

I have to be honest with you. I don't think this is just a male thing. I would not entertain the notion of having a relationship with someone who was a sex trade worker. All sorts of reasons, not primal but societal. I don't need the drama of diseases, watching him go out to 'work', issues with him being a kid in a candy store, thinking about my potential children etc. Can men not have these issues as well rather than saying that it is simply a nature thing. I feel like there is a hyper focus here on the 'nature' aspect. I feel that there are real issues that would be just as relevant to women which are societal by nature. I can't imagine that men don't think these things through as well.