Pope Admits Priests, Nuns Watch Porn

Probably true, but I think we agree there is at least some exploitation with the porn industry. I don't really blame the Pope if he finds that concerning though it's hard to tell from this article.

Not really because women back then had to go through to the studio system and that's when you had horror stories like what happened to Linda Lovelace. Sex workers were reliant on other people, usually men to have their work distributed.

But none of that changes my point that porn is the commodification of primarily women's bodies for primarily male consumers. That’s equally true of the OnlyFans model as it is of the "old" industry (which hasn't gone away either).

Well that's exactly my point - we can't know the level of freedom the performer had in making their decision to do porn. If you're watching a porn movie, you have no idea how much the performers you’re watching really want to be doing what they're doing.

But the fact that there are hits and misses is an issue. Say only 10% of porn performers really don't want to be doing it but have limited options to do anything else. Well that's a 10% chance that the porn you’re watching has a performer forced by circumstances to do sex acts against their will.

No indeed and all exploitation is bad, but sexual exploitation is usually worse than non-sexual.

Consider Gary and Bill go up to two women and hold guns to their heads. Gary says he'll shoot the woman unless she scrubs his toilet. Bill says he'll shoot the woman unless she gives him a blowjob. Both men are clearly deplorable but I think most of us would agree Bill is worse. The reason is on average people find being forced into sexual acts more traumatic and violating than being forced into other labour. Now maybe they shouldn't, maybe it's a psychological hang-up to feel that way, but that's the way most people are.

If I hired a construction worker and found out afterwards he hated the job and only did it due to financial necessity, I would feel bad. If I hired a woman to do sexual acts on camera and found out she hated it, I would feel even worse.

Consider Lana Rhoades, one of the most popular pornstars in the world. After retiring, she said she hated performing. No-one at the time would have known she was hating having to do sexual acts on camera. And no-one has any idea if the woman having sex on OnlyFans is enjoying herself or hating every second but she really needs the money. Personally I feel that's deeply unsettling.

I don’t care. I have no moral reservations whatsoever about selling sex. Sex work is “work” and if women want to commodify their bodies for profit, then they should be allowed to do that (just as men should).

And the same is true for child actors in any Hollywood movie or TV show that you put on for your children. And yet, that doesn’t stop you from embracing Disney and Nickelodeon as legitimate industries. And my point is, we don’t assume “abuse” unless there is evidence of abuse. My assumption is that anyone in a legally produced pornographic film was a legal, willing participant until proven otherwise.

And the same holds true for the Nike sneakers you’re wearing too. But we don’t make moral judgments based on incalculable probabilities. To say that because in rare circumstances someone MIGHT be abused, therefore the entire industry should be condemned. Because what about everyone else who depends on the industry for their livelihood? Just screw them because some might be abused? That’s not reasonable.

I don’t know that this is in fact the case. That sounds more like an unqualified opinion. But since it’s not supported with any data, I don’t accept it as a matter of fact.

Ranking deplorableness is completely missing the point (and ultimately silly). We need evidence that someone is actually being held at gunpoint in order to make a moral judgment here. And that’s the thing that’s missing!

I simply don’t know that this is true. This is an oft repeated claim, but I don’t see it ever being supported with data. Also, I’m not particularly concerned with how people “feel” about hypothetical wrongdoings. I care about whether there is evidence for a wrongdoing in order to judge the morality of those benefiting from the work. That’s it!

And those are perfectly reasonable “feelings” to have, but that doesn’t make the purchasers of the product which is being sold immoral. At the end of the day, it’s still something the person choose to do, which is legal, and which they receive financial compensation for. Someone is choosing to do work that they don’t like because of their financial circumstances. That sucks, but there’s nothing immoral going on.

Again, she was part of the OLD generation of “the porn industry”. That’s not all porn, so why would we only consider the worst example of one type of porn and use that as an argument to condemn all porn actors? That makes no sense!

I mean, if that unsettles you then my recommendation would be for you not to buy anyone’s Onlyfans. You have that right! But I don’t judge anyone else who does because of the feelings you have towards a “what if” situation based on a testimony from someone who did a different kind of porn in the past. I actually find it quite ludicrous. No one has any idea whether the kid making comedy videos on tictok is being held at gunpoint offscreen. We can come up with all sorts of hypotheticals and reduce them down to the absurd - but is that a reasonable way of judging reality? I say no.

We’ll never live in a perfect world, but if targeting the sex industry as perpetuating negativity isn’t meant to bolster the position of banning sex work, then what’s the point? Yes gender inequality exists, but even IF this manifests in the sex industry, so what? What do you want to do about it? Either you agree that people should have the right to sell sex OR you don’t. You say you are for people to have that right, but your argument implies that you’re simultaneously against it. Those two positions are at odds.

I don’t know how true that is. I see just as many male performers in porn as I do female performers (possibly because I am gay and watch a lot more gay porn than straight porn, lol). Even in straight porn, nearly 50% of the performers are men (who make way less than the women). So how are “women” more exploited, when men make less for the same amount of work, and have to be just as naked? I also know just as many women who watch porn as I do men.

I think that you’re overstating the problem and oversimplifying the outcomes. I’m not convinced that OnlyFans “tells” anyone anything about anyone else except the person they are paying money too. In any case, if you’re not calling for it to be banned, then what are you trying to accomplish here? 🤷🏽‍♂️

It’s interesting to me how all of your framing assumes that the victim must be a woman. As if only women can be homeless, or only women would be solicited in such a way. Surely, no homeless man has ever been solicited into performing sex acts, because only women can be victims! 😏

In any case, if “she” agrees and takes the money, then yes - she is willing. That’s literally the definition of willing!

I’m aware of that. But we’re not debating whether rape should be considered a serious crime (clearly it should be), or whether it causes psychological trauma (clearly it does). The question is whether sexual explanation is “worse” than any other kind of exploitation. The fact that it’s taken for granted in society doesn’t tell me if it’s a “true” claim or not. It’s a subjective opinion.

No - that’s a fallacious argument! Again, you’re basing all of this on the assumption that sexual trauma is “worse” than other trauma (with no data), and then further assuming that all sexual exploitation results in trauma akin to rape (with no data). The fact that some former pornographic performers have given personal testimony in which they present themselves as victims does say anything about other performers - at all! Nor does it suggest that “most performers” view themselves as victims. If gives us no information whatsoever about the prevalence of exploitation in the industry today. The plural of anecdote is not data, and data is the thing that’s missing from your analysis!

First of all, let’s be clear. I’ve never once argued that nobody has ever been victimized by the porn industry. My argument is that every industry has “victims”, but we don’t destroy the industry because of its ability to victimize. Rather we improve it and police it so as to reduce the chances of victimhood. But you’re never going to eliminate all of it. And so long as the person has engaged in a legal contract of their own free will, and had informed consent at the time, then they’re not a “victim” of anything other than circumstance. And that applies to people whether they’ve done porn or not. You don’t condemn an industry (consumers or producers) because someone who’s been a victim of circumstance “feels” victimized by the industry.

Agree to disagree. It is far removed from that. They are in fact two different things. There’s a clear perpetrator causing harm (and who can therefore be blamed and held accountable) in one scenario, and there’s a person making a difficult choice because they lack resources in the other. Those are NOT the same thing!

So far, I agree with most of that.

I do. Even your framing of the scenario is prudish because that same logic could be extended to letting your kid join the boy scouts or to become an altar boy at a Catholic Church! Are parents who allow their children to participate in such things also “dubious” because they know there is the potential (however small) of them being raped? No. You wouldn’t make that argument because your assumption would be that the parents have calculated a reasonable low risk of that happening. So why do we conveniently change the rules when it comes to porn? Why not view it as a consumer calculating a low risk that the performer is a 4, rather than demonizing them as being part of the problem merely because they are consumers? That’s a double standard to me which speaks to an innate bias against one over the other.

Which is a separate argument (perhaps one against capitalism itself). In capitalism, there has to be losers in order for there to be winners. Nevertheless, we all take advantage of a capitalistic model in society. Either all winners are “evil” according to you, OR only SOME winners are evil. And I would argue that only the winners who know they are exploiting people are evil. Not the ones who assume that most people involved in institutions they take part in are not victims.

It may be something you consider dangerous, but practically speaking - it happens to be true. It’s always been true.

Its largely obsolete in this day and age. And even the remnants of it are much more regulated now than it was decades ago. The performers identities are protected with aliases, they are all age validated, citizenship validated, and they are all regularly tested for STI prevention. These protections did not exist in the 80s-90s so it was a lot easier to create victims. You also didn’t have opportunities for performers to be their own content makers to sell themselves either. Now you do!

Which is a huge goddamn difference, as they reap most of the financial success and control their own content.

That depends on what their idea of “doing well” is. Regardless, that’s still their choice! If someone doesn’t want to do OF, they MAY have to become a janitor and clean toilets for a living. But that’s their choice too!

So, I actually DO know what goes on behind the scenes because I know several people who have OF accounts. And while SOME (who can afford to have a manager) may have pressure put on them, the difference is - they can fire the manager, unlike in under the traditional model where the manager can fire them! So it’s totally different.

That is a completely biased (and frankly out of date) perspective. For one thing, the writers cannibalize their own argument by proving one of my points (regarding PornHub) and about how many of the mainstream porn outlets have become more transparent and no longer advocating and promoting material that may involve victims. Secondly, their use of hyperbole (“OnlyFans’ economic model dictates that they take a 20 per cent cut of all performers’ income” - which is actually pretty good) and (“This is nothing more than a pimp-led pyramid scheme, where those profiting from sexual exploitation earn a lot for doing nothing”). Really? So you’re equating a business model that charges people for use of its service to a literal pimp who physically assaults his hookers and often takes 90-100% of their money? I mean it’s a clever way to falsely equate the two things, but that’s all it is. A false equivalency!

The last link you provided was basically making an argument that OF “may not be doing enough to ensure their users aren’t underage”. And if that’s true, then my position is that they should do more to guarantee their performers are of age. That doesn’t mean they should be shut down or that people who are of age shouldn’t have an OF though. So again, it sounds to me like you’ve just tried to build a “cumulative case”, using generalizations, slippery-slope arguments, and non-sequiturs to argue that “porn is bad”, and that anyone who produces or consumes porn is “evil”. But none of your arguments establish those as valid or credible positions. And if you’re NOT saying that porn should be banned, then I’m not sure what the point of your argument even is. Like what are you trying to get at here? 🤷🏽‍♂️

Looking at porn could lead to sexual abuse of children (or rape of women, etc).

Let's not forget there is child porn too.   The poor kids who have to act out in that degrading smut are being victimized too.

No legitimate studies have linked viewing of pornography to the commission of acts such as rape or child sex abuse.

As to child porn, I haven't posted anything suggesting lack of awareness of it, nor its heinousness, which goes without question. I am referring directly to clerical abuse of young children, a phenomenon which has been well-documented and which the Catholic Church, despite some early promise that the current pontiff was going to address the issue more forcefully and directly than his predecessor did, is still shamefully largely silent and still guilty of harboring and sheltering pedophiles in its ranks. Your response is, sadly, the typical strawman construct that its members too often employ to evade a head-on response to this fact.

You forgot Grandpas...don't forget Grandpas.

My point is, if a clergy person becomes a sex offender, watching lust will do nothing to stop him from becoming one.