The Ethics of Sexual Behaviour and Pornography
Someone's sexual behaviour and their ethical concerns therein are always difficult to assess, since it may involve reading their mind and considering their thoughts as well as their actions; and their actions alone would involve watching their every move, twenty-four hours a day, seven days a week. That “someone's” personal collection of pornography on the other hand is easy to assess and may provide a window into their sexual thoughts and actions, modified only by their deliberate editing to fool a potential assessor, which would require them to have been tailoring the record of their porn from the outset.
The internet is full of the most dreadful material showing the second parties in the act to be, and to be seen to be, objects; to be somehow sub-human, unfit to be dealt with as friends or loved ones. Fit only to be hurt, dominated and humiliated (and this does not exclusively apply to the treatment of women and c h i l dren). Because of improvements and tightening of the law, most of the internet porn involving c h i l dren, and “snuff-porn” is now hidden from general view on the net, being directly transmitted only between principles, and then using methods that leave no trail. The net however is still full of easily accessible images of women being bound, shackled, tied up, tied down, gagged and *******d, with looks of horror, terror and pain on their faces; being beaten, bruised, arms twisted, hair pulled; during, or in waiting, for sex. Many of the “snuff movies” involving murder and mutilation may be merely enacted for the camera; as may many of the ******* and beating scenarios, even with bruises and other injuries applied with make-up; but this in no way changes the intent of the person downloading them, nor the morbid and cruel titillation they gain from viewing them. These images are deliberately aimed at an audience of cruel control freaks, who would expect to spend a significant amount of time in jail if they attempted the acts for real. There being a “Sub-Dom” subculture out there with fantasy dungeons is no excuse for publicly depicting such treatment of women (nor indeed of some of the dominatrix scenes with men either).
No matter that some proportion of women actively seek to subordinate themselves to men, to have all their decisions made for them; to be “enslaved” or “collared” and even to demonstrate this inferiority to their menfolk in public places; Nor that some men seek the services of a dominatrix to enslave and humiliate them. At best these scenarios should be between loving people, into dress-up and fetish enactments complete with “safe-words”, where no one gets hurt, and where it is not being publicly demonstrated as “normal behaviour” in case it is misinterpreted as such.
The United Kingdom guidelines for pornography are a good starting point. Proscribing as they do, all subjects that involve or demonstrate u n d e r a g e participants, unwilling participants, pain, bondage, humiliation and potentially life-threatening behaviour. (They only seem to overstep the mark with the prohibition of “face-sitting” as a position for cunnilingus where there is no evidence of it being a form of “breath-control” or “erotic suffocation”; only the latter being potentially dangerous.) Iceland appears to be the only nation proposing that all pornography be categorised and certified before being being made available to the public. Elsewhere the courts have created non-statutory categories for c h i l d pornography alone, to facilitate sentencing regimens; and there is no real control over anything else.
It has to be possible to drive the cruel abusive material at least as far underground as the paedophile and snuff stuff.
It has to be entirely wrong to tar all pornography with the one brush, what is or isn't porn is a matter of definition, In some cultures showing a woman's face may be pornographic, in others naked and copulating images may be as easily available as online music. Surely we should be acceptant of images that glorify our loved ones and ban only the ones which denigrate them.
Strangely, this largely male orientated, female controlling phenomenon promotes fellatio to such an extent that we might think that women prefer to have penetrative sex in the only bodily orifice that doesn't have orgasms. Promotes male masturbation with oral, facial and body ejaculations in preference to internal vaginal ones. Seems to promote Anal Sex as the ultimate achievement, rather than the sad affliction of men who haven't come out of the closet, or even sadder, the practice of “contraception” in poor catholic countries. Promotes voyeurism of lesbian sex even over voyeurism of couples and groups. And images in the cuckold ethos somehow seem to have to be inter-racial, where the “big buck ****er” has to be seen to be despoiling the pure white woman! All this with little concern for the woman's enjoyment of it all, even if the cuckold stuff is supposed to be about the women preferring their “bull's” big cock over their husband's little one. Certainly foreplay and cunnilingus, which can enable the woman to have multiple orgasms both before and after as well as during coitus, comes a long way down the preferred list; whereas if we loved the women we might be eating their pussies, guiding the cocks into them and cheering them on.
Almost all twelve to f o r t e e n year-old young men now receive their first introduction to sex via pornography on their computers. They are highly suggestible and have minds like blotting paper, soaking up every menacing cruel controlling nuance, until they believe that this is the right way to treat women.
We can't abolish pornography, since we can't even properly define it. The Sun Newspaper says topless is good (page three girls), Islamic extremists accuse us of “allowing our women to parade like whores on the street” and want them all in burkas. Someone somewhere has to create a system for grading pornography so we can all see what we are dealing with before we watch it. So that more of the readily available vicious stuff gets driven into virtual oblivion, and “Net Nannies” are not restricted to banning pictures because they show more than three square inches of skin.
And because there is nothing wrong with good sex where no one gets hurt and no one is damaged.
And because our rights to freedom of sexual expression and orientation have to include the right to chose to be celibate, monogamous, polyamorous or promiscuous, or indeed to be exhibitionits and voyeurs.
Part of the thrill of multi-partner sexual relationships is the risk factor. Some of these risks involve careful subterfuge and sneaking around to avoid being “found out”, where the sneaking around is part of the fun. Other risks are actively courted, “being caught” having sex in car-parks and public places, the risk adding to the thrill. Sex with strangers, particularly with strangers who you know or suspect of having many other partners, is another major risk factor often actively courted. Some of us may indeed seek unprotected sex with strangers, going at it like gladiators, approaching the shrine of Venus Veneris with our weapons held proudly erect, raising our right hands with the immortal words “we who are about to die salute you”. Those that do, know the risks they are taking. However, much of sex, and all of porn is fantasy, and we indulge in pornography to allow our imaginations to run away with us. We fantasise about sex with “bad girls”, “dirty girls”, whose sexual skills and desires are directly proportional to the sheer numbers of partners they've had. We fantasise about “studs” and “bulls” with big cocks whose skills in satisfying women have likewise been honed with practice and multiple partners. The one thing we don't fantasise about is using condoms. We may very well use them ourselves in a real situation with a real stranger, most people do; but we don't want to see our alter-egos on the small screen using them. It is our alter-egos who take the big risks for us, risk of being caught, risk of arrest, pregnancy risk, immersing themselves in the filthy sexual history of the tarts, trollops, whores and whore-masters with whom they are seen to have indulged. No matter that we know, in reality, that many are actors meticulously screened for STIs; that the simple creampie pics have been supplied by husbands and partners; that the “strangers” are in reality the best friend or regular lover: that the penetration shots with strangers are carefully obscured so as not to see the condom and the close-ups are of the husband or partner as body double. The descriptive posts accompanying these pics are designed to belie the careful risk management and engage the reader and viewer in the whole vicarious ethos of dangerous sex. We secretly want to take all these risks, because we know in our hearts that there are real people out there doing so and we really want to be one of them, even if we don't ever dare do it ourselves; certainly we don't want to see condoms being used on screen, nor made a requirement of making or distribution of porn. And finally we know (even when we use them) that condoms are not safe – just safer! (98% safer for contraception under perfect conditions; 72% safer for contraception under real conditions - hurried and careless use; and up to 33% of condoms, while they will prevent the passage of sperm, have micropores which will allow sufficient number of bacteria and viruses through to cause a cross infection.)
Maybe everyone should be encouraged to have a personal porn collection to be judged on!
Note should be made of the web site <<http://devotionalsex.com/>> and the Ethical Porn Partnership at <<http://ethicalporn.org/>>
(The EPP wants to challenge the notion that all porn is exploitative. Instead, they want to collectively establish best practice for the industry, while proving that it is possible to advocate the health, welfare and working rights of those involved in its production, and offer consumers high-quality, original content made to certain ethical standards.
The EPP will also channel funds to anti-***********, anti-sexual ******* e n c e and sex education initiatives, as well as taking an unequivocal stand on condemning c h i l d abuse imagery, and all non-consensual sexually explicit material, such as so-called '************'.
They believe that consenting adults should be able to watch and enjoy adult content depicting sexual acts made by other consenting adults, without fear of reprisal, shame or censorship.
They also believe there need not be any contradiction between exercising erotic imagination and making and watching consensual content that reflects deeper desires, even desires people may not choose to explore in their day to day sexual interactions with others.
They want to champion the porn entrepreneurs; the independent producers and performers who are creating more imaginative, innovative adult content and expanding online porns erotic potential.)
Research from Nicole Prause, a researcher in UCLA’s division for neuroscience and human behavior, found no significant link between watching porn and sexual dysfunction. There’s also no evidence that porn can be “addictive” in any sort of biological sense. And studies on porn and aggression show, at best, that people who watch the most porn may also show signs of aggression, not that porn somehow triggers problematic anger—it could just as well be that watching porn serves to stop some individuals from acting on aggression more in the real world. A rise in the easy availability of free porn online has, at any rate, coincided with a decrease in all manner of sex crimes. - See more at: http://www.patheos.com/blogs/progressivesecularhumanist/2016/04/utah-governor-declares-pornography-a-public-health-crisis/#sthash.FPoioo7Y.dpuf
The internet is full of the most dreadful material showing the second parties in the act to be, and to be seen to be, objects; to be somehow sub-human, unfit to be dealt with as friends or loved ones. Fit only to be hurt, dominated and humiliated (and this does not exclusively apply to the treatment of women and c h i l dren). Because of improvements and tightening of the law, most of the internet porn involving c h i l dren, and “snuff-porn” is now hidden from general view on the net, being directly transmitted only between principles, and then using methods that leave no trail. The net however is still full of easily accessible images of women being bound, shackled, tied up, tied down, gagged and *******d, with looks of horror, terror and pain on their faces; being beaten, bruised, arms twisted, hair pulled; during, or in waiting, for sex. Many of the “snuff movies” involving murder and mutilation may be merely enacted for the camera; as may many of the ******* and beating scenarios, even with bruises and other injuries applied with make-up; but this in no way changes the intent of the person downloading them, nor the morbid and cruel titillation they gain from viewing them. These images are deliberately aimed at an audience of cruel control freaks, who would expect to spend a significant amount of time in jail if they attempted the acts for real. There being a “Sub-Dom” subculture out there with fantasy dungeons is no excuse for publicly depicting such treatment of women (nor indeed of some of the dominatrix scenes with men either).
No matter that some proportion of women actively seek to subordinate themselves to men, to have all their decisions made for them; to be “enslaved” or “collared” and even to demonstrate this inferiority to their menfolk in public places; Nor that some men seek the services of a dominatrix to enslave and humiliate them. At best these scenarios should be between loving people, into dress-up and fetish enactments complete with “safe-words”, where no one gets hurt, and where it is not being publicly demonstrated as “normal behaviour” in case it is misinterpreted as such.
The United Kingdom guidelines for pornography are a good starting point. Proscribing as they do, all subjects that involve or demonstrate u n d e r a g e participants, unwilling participants, pain, bondage, humiliation and potentially life-threatening behaviour. (They only seem to overstep the mark with the prohibition of “face-sitting” as a position for cunnilingus where there is no evidence of it being a form of “breath-control” or “erotic suffocation”; only the latter being potentially dangerous.) Iceland appears to be the only nation proposing that all pornography be categorised and certified before being being made available to the public. Elsewhere the courts have created non-statutory categories for c h i l d pornography alone, to facilitate sentencing regimens; and there is no real control over anything else.
It has to be possible to drive the cruel abusive material at least as far underground as the paedophile and snuff stuff.
It has to be entirely wrong to tar all pornography with the one brush, what is or isn't porn is a matter of definition, In some cultures showing a woman's face may be pornographic, in others naked and copulating images may be as easily available as online music. Surely we should be acceptant of images that glorify our loved ones and ban only the ones which denigrate them.
Strangely, this largely male orientated, female controlling phenomenon promotes fellatio to such an extent that we might think that women prefer to have penetrative sex in the only bodily orifice that doesn't have orgasms. Promotes male masturbation with oral, facial and body ejaculations in preference to internal vaginal ones. Seems to promote Anal Sex as the ultimate achievement, rather than the sad affliction of men who haven't come out of the closet, or even sadder, the practice of “contraception” in poor catholic countries. Promotes voyeurism of lesbian sex even over voyeurism of couples and groups. And images in the cuckold ethos somehow seem to have to be inter-racial, where the “big buck ****er” has to be seen to be despoiling the pure white woman! All this with little concern for the woman's enjoyment of it all, even if the cuckold stuff is supposed to be about the women preferring their “bull's” big cock over their husband's little one. Certainly foreplay and cunnilingus, which can enable the woman to have multiple orgasms both before and after as well as during coitus, comes a long way down the preferred list; whereas if we loved the women we might be eating their pussies, guiding the cocks into them and cheering them on.
Almost all twelve to f o r t e e n year-old young men now receive their first introduction to sex via pornography on their computers. They are highly suggestible and have minds like blotting paper, soaking up every menacing cruel controlling nuance, until they believe that this is the right way to treat women.
We can't abolish pornography, since we can't even properly define it. The Sun Newspaper says topless is good (page three girls), Islamic extremists accuse us of “allowing our women to parade like whores on the street” and want them all in burkas. Someone somewhere has to create a system for grading pornography so we can all see what we are dealing with before we watch it. So that more of the readily available vicious stuff gets driven into virtual oblivion, and “Net Nannies” are not restricted to banning pictures because they show more than three square inches of skin.
And because there is nothing wrong with good sex where no one gets hurt and no one is damaged.
And because our rights to freedom of sexual expression and orientation have to include the right to chose to be celibate, monogamous, polyamorous or promiscuous, or indeed to be exhibitionits and voyeurs.
Part of the thrill of multi-partner sexual relationships is the risk factor. Some of these risks involve careful subterfuge and sneaking around to avoid being “found out”, where the sneaking around is part of the fun. Other risks are actively courted, “being caught” having sex in car-parks and public places, the risk adding to the thrill. Sex with strangers, particularly with strangers who you know or suspect of having many other partners, is another major risk factor often actively courted. Some of us may indeed seek unprotected sex with strangers, going at it like gladiators, approaching the shrine of Venus Veneris with our weapons held proudly erect, raising our right hands with the immortal words “we who are about to die salute you”. Those that do, know the risks they are taking. However, much of sex, and all of porn is fantasy, and we indulge in pornography to allow our imaginations to run away with us. We fantasise about sex with “bad girls”, “dirty girls”, whose sexual skills and desires are directly proportional to the sheer numbers of partners they've had. We fantasise about “studs” and “bulls” with big cocks whose skills in satisfying women have likewise been honed with practice and multiple partners. The one thing we don't fantasise about is using condoms. We may very well use them ourselves in a real situation with a real stranger, most people do; but we don't want to see our alter-egos on the small screen using them. It is our alter-egos who take the big risks for us, risk of being caught, risk of arrest, pregnancy risk, immersing themselves in the filthy sexual history of the tarts, trollops, whores and whore-masters with whom they are seen to have indulged. No matter that we know, in reality, that many are actors meticulously screened for STIs; that the simple creampie pics have been supplied by husbands and partners; that the “strangers” are in reality the best friend or regular lover: that the penetration shots with strangers are carefully obscured so as not to see the condom and the close-ups are of the husband or partner as body double. The descriptive posts accompanying these pics are designed to belie the careful risk management and engage the reader and viewer in the whole vicarious ethos of dangerous sex. We secretly want to take all these risks, because we know in our hearts that there are real people out there doing so and we really want to be one of them, even if we don't ever dare do it ourselves; certainly we don't want to see condoms being used on screen, nor made a requirement of making or distribution of porn. And finally we know (even when we use them) that condoms are not safe – just safer! (98% safer for contraception under perfect conditions; 72% safer for contraception under real conditions - hurried and careless use; and up to 33% of condoms, while they will prevent the passage of sperm, have micropores which will allow sufficient number of bacteria and viruses through to cause a cross infection.)
Maybe everyone should be encouraged to have a personal porn collection to be judged on!
Note should be made of the web site <<http://devotionalsex.com/>> and the Ethical Porn Partnership at <<http://ethicalporn.org/>>
(The EPP wants to challenge the notion that all porn is exploitative. Instead, they want to collectively establish best practice for the industry, while proving that it is possible to advocate the health, welfare and working rights of those involved in its production, and offer consumers high-quality, original content made to certain ethical standards.
The EPP will also channel funds to anti-***********, anti-sexual ******* e n c e and sex education initiatives, as well as taking an unequivocal stand on condemning c h i l d abuse imagery, and all non-consensual sexually explicit material, such as so-called '************'.
They believe that consenting adults should be able to watch and enjoy adult content depicting sexual acts made by other consenting adults, without fear of reprisal, shame or censorship.
They also believe there need not be any contradiction between exercising erotic imagination and making and watching consensual content that reflects deeper desires, even desires people may not choose to explore in their day to day sexual interactions with others.
They want to champion the porn entrepreneurs; the independent producers and performers who are creating more imaginative, innovative adult content and expanding online porns erotic potential.)
Research from Nicole Prause, a researcher in UCLA’s division for neuroscience and human behavior, found no significant link between watching porn and sexual dysfunction. There’s also no evidence that porn can be “addictive” in any sort of biological sense. And studies on porn and aggression show, at best, that people who watch the most porn may also show signs of aggression, not that porn somehow triggers problematic anger—it could just as well be that watching porn serves to stop some individuals from acting on aggression more in the real world. A rise in the easy availability of free porn online has, at any rate, coincided with a decrease in all manner of sex crimes. - See more at: http://www.patheos.com/blogs/progressivesecularhumanist/2016/04/utah-governor-declares-pornography-a-public-health-crisis/#sthash.FPoioo7Y.dpuf
9年前
