Watching adult's movies
- Thread starter Saint
- Start date
- Status
RainbowSingularity
Valued Senior Member
ive watched hundreds of hours of them
dont watch them any more
i think they are great & i really admire the good actors
huge difference between the good quality & the cheap nonsense stuff
generic mainstream hard core genre' i dont get into any of the fringe stuff but have chatted quite a bit with Mistresses, Sub & doms etc who get into all sorts of things bdsm & trans bi gay etc etc
lots of people have a lot of deep seated big issues around sex
& its some twisted shit even though they claim to be "normal" & "conventional" or
"ok with what ever people choose"
ive chatted with many different sexual orientations & gender constructs
i try to avoid getting too technically specific
https://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/types-of-sexuality#types
i like to think im fairly well rounded
pron/adult movies is all about sexuality
& thus sexual attraction etc
& i dont believe in binary sexual orientation or binary sexuality
regardless of what many people claim to think they know about others or themselves
business must be quite difficult with covid
possibly more potential customers but less ability to produce their own new material
& new material is EVERYTHING
personally i am Pansexual/omnisexual
so i am attracted more to people rather than to a gender
lots of psychos out there who see sex as a power & sexual attraction as a power
looking to twist sex into evil shit
so i tend to avoid discussing the subject with anyone except the professionals
(producers, actors, sex workers(prostitutes), strippers psychologists etc)
Last edited:
There is no objective answer to this. It is immoral for you if you think it is. For someone else, they may not consider it immoral.
Is it immoral to star in adult movies?
RainbowSingularity
Valued Senior Member
pornography is illegal in Muslim countrys
islamism dictates that porn is evil & that a sexual personality is evil
which is one reason why they hate westerners soo much
but they have massive amounts of drug addicts
which is why they hate them soo much because it shows they are the same
"it shows they are the same"
of the picture they have of what being a orn user is to them in thier own image"
looking at their own demons in the mirror while calling the mirror a demon
moral superiority as an ego virtue
a vast number of indian ,ales watch porn
indian males are HUGE online porn consumers
but because it is also illegal i Hinduism
they have created an entire new fashion industry of music online that is soft to heavy porn with music attached
unfortunately they do this as a process of validating the undermining of women being equal.
so the indians & muslims are happy to maintain that undermining of womens rights to use as a form of validation to why porn is evil
but its not the porn
its the culture & religion
porn is not evil
watching porn is not evil
porn is not immoral, porn has morals
but people are programmed to believe porn has a moral value
like a lynch mob is set to lynch anyone who looks a certain way
young indian males are probably the largest fastest growing group of online porn consumers
its HUGE busines but mostly they watch free porn so its all about the advertising channels & access click value
porn does not undermine the rights of women
equal opportunity is the principal
big female porn stars make good money
female power of financial ability is despised by those who hate women & hate equality
people who dont like porn generally dont like porn because they have sexual psychological problems
those are deep seated problems in their personality
however different sexual orientations have different likes & dislikes
(suddenly lost track of what i was going to say)
a different example since i cant seem to remember what i was thinking about
prostitution
legalised gives power back to women
& protection
making it illegal makes women the victim
keeping it illegal makes women & children a victim
as soon as prostitution is legalized it allows the adults to chase out the underage by reporting the pimps
AND customers can report a worker who appears to be underage
or if something looks weird in a brothel
& police can go in & look at the books & security cameras & identifications Credit cards etc etc
Last edited:
Perhaps that's more a question of whether it's immoral to be bored to death by watching something worse than Monster a Go Go. I don't think so, as long as that's not the desired/expected outcome beforehand (i.e., suicide).
You're not missing anything if you're prohibited to there. Perhaps that's even a marketing strategy -- making an inferior product seem salient by forbidding it.
sculptor
Valued Senior Member
Not as long as everything is voluntary.
(Fun fact - in most places in the US it is illegal for a someone to directly charge for sex. However, due to the First Amendment, as long as they are making a movie, they can charge whatever they like.)
Bells
Staff member
Not just immoral.Is it immoral to watch in front of children below 12 years old?
It's also a crime in many parts of the world. It's a form of child abuse.
Frankly, the thought that you're asking this makes me concerned about any children in your care.
exchemist
Valued Senior Member
Kidding is exactly what we are afraid of......
That's not quite right.
Objective doesn't mean that absolutely everybody has to agree. For example, anti-vaxxers believe that vaccines cause autism. Objectively, that is not true, despite the fact that some small but not insignificant portion of the population believes the opposite.
It is the same with morals. If you think it's just fine to do something that 99% of other people disapprove of, on moral grounds, then you're the outlier, and we can say that, objectively, it is immoral.
If you're going to subscribe to an extreme form of relativism when it comes to morals, such that anything goes as long as it's "true for you", then I puzzle over why you don't equally regard all your other beliefs (and - importantly - those that other people hold, which disagree with yours) as just as valid, as long as they are "true for you".
I think that people who assert that all of morality is relative are usually wanting to make excuses for something they know most people would disapprove of.
Please point to where I have said that it does? Whether something is objective or subjective, greement is irrelevant. Objective/subjective is about the reality, not about what is believed about the reality. If something is objective then the reality is the same for everyone, irrespective of perspective. If X is objective then X is the reality for everyone. If people don't believe X to be the case then X doesn't stop being objective.
You're very good at raising strawmen, JamesR. Maybe you should spend more time actually reading and understanding what people have written. It will save you time typing out irrelevancies.
No, we can't. A shared subjectivity is not the same as something being objective. If, in any world, one can come up with a different viewpoint such that X is no longer the reality, then it is not objective, even if every person holds, due to their own perspective, X to be the reality.
I'm not even sure it's worth unpacking this mess of strawman and unsupported accusations. But heck, it's an otherwise lazy Sunday morning...
1. I don't subscribe to any extreme form of relativism - unless, of course, you're trying to assert (a) that I hold to moral relativism, and (b) that moral relativism is itself an extreme philosophy? If you do, perhaps you want to justify them further, and show your evidence, so that we can at least be sure you have a reasonable grasp of that which you criticise, beyond what would seem to be your rather naive interpretation of it thus far here.
2. Where do you get the idea that I don't equally regard all other beliefs as just as valid? I'm not saying this is true about me, but you have claimed that I don't, and I want you to support that accusation, and when you do you should consider the following point:...
3. People can believe things that are objectively false, whether through stupidity, ignorance, delusion etc. Moral relativism doesn't mean that you hold every belief to be subjective, that everything one believes is somehow valid as long as it's "true for you". If what is "true for you" is objectively false, then the belief is false. Moral relativism is the viewpoint that morals are subjective - i.e. that what one considers to be moral is open to change, is likely based on the culture in which you grow up etc, and that there are no morals that are not open to such debate.
First, and unsurprisingly, yet another strawman from you. Where have I said that all morals are relative? The answer I gave, if you read it carefully, is in response to a specific question. Did I say "there is no objective answer 'cos all morals are subjective"? Or did I, to the specific question about watching adult movies, say that [in my view, clearly] there was no objective answer to it, and that I thus considered this specific moral question to be subjective?
Now, if you want to take an answer to a specific question and assume that one holds it true of all moral question, then you are creating a strawman. Please try not to do that.
For the record, though: had you asked, rather than just assumed and created your strawman, I would have confirmed that yes, I consider all morals to be relative. I am a moral relativist. I do think that there are many morals that we, as a population, share a subjective view of, but, to stress again, popularity does not make something objective.
Second, most Americans, per this article at least, are moral relativists. I would wager that even you are, once you realise what it actually means and entails, rather than your naive characterisation thus far presented.
In fact, I would wager that even you are a moral relativist, and that you will realise that once you get to grips, for example, with the difference between a popular shared subjectivity and something being objective. I.e. once you are not clearly so ignorant of that which you criticise (now where have I heard that said of you before?
).
Sarkus:
Let's put this in context for a moment, shall we?
The OP question was "Is it immoral to watch adult movies?"
Later, another question was put: "Is it immoral to watch in front of children below 12 years old?"
Now, your response to the first question was "There is no objective answer to this. It is immoral for you if you think it is."
Your answer avoids giving moral advice to the opening poster, who was, after all, asking for a specific question of application of morality, not for a meta-discussion of morality itself. It strikes me as a strange response.
I wonder: would your response have been the same if the second question had been asked in the opening post?
Are you really more concerned about having a discussion about the subjectivity of morals than you are about giving some moral guidance to somebody who seems to sorely need some?
I will address the content of your reply to me next.
Let's put this in context for a moment, shall we?
The OP question was "Is it immoral to watch adult movies?"
Later, another question was put: "Is it immoral to watch in front of children below 12 years old?"
Now, your response to the first question was "There is no objective answer to this. It is immoral for you if you think it is."
Your answer avoids giving moral advice to the opening poster, who was, after all, asking for a specific question of application of morality, not for a meta-discussion of morality itself. It strikes me as a strange response.
I wonder: would your response have been the same if the second question had been asked in the opening post?
Are you really more concerned about having a discussion about the subjectivity of morals than you are about giving some moral guidance to somebody who seems to sorely need some?
I will address the content of your reply to me next.
Is it immoral to watch in front of children below 12 years old?
You mean, what _X_ deified celebrity allegedly did as part of an even a broader area of alleged prosecutable issues that _X_ deified celebrity eluded over the years? (And even _X_ celebrity's companies being declared immune from litigation after _X_ celebrity's demise?)
While it is immoral, there are further types of ironies than just the above...
Transcribed excerpt from The Dissenters (interviewers: Debra Messing and Mandana Dayani)
Ali Wentworth: The Mental Health Champion, on Parenting and Activism (podcast episode - July 16, 2020)
https://podcasts.google.com/feed/aH...d=0CAUQkfYCahcKEwjg846Soc30AhUAAAAAHQAAAAAQFQ
DEBRA MESSING(?): I was so blown away at that panel that you did about how every kid watches porn. There was some study, and they couldn't even find a control group for the study because every single child had seen porn at one point or another. [...] How do you stop kids from looking at porn 24/7?
ALI WENTWORTH: You can't stop them. [...] If they're looking at porn, I would look at the porn with them.
[A paraphrased summary of her elaboration: And explain what was truly going on, that these are performances and not a reflection of real life. Especially that women are not objects and don't want to be regarded slash treated that way 99% of the time.]
- - - - -
Ali Wenthworth
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ali_Wentworth
sculptor
Valued Senior Member
Laws on production of pornography: (green)Generally legal with certain extreme exceptions (yellow)Partially legal, under some broad restrictions, or ambiguous status (red)Illegal
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pornography_laws_by_region#/media/File:Pornography_laws.svg
- Status