Ray A: A Mormon 'John'?

[_Coggins7]

I live in a large town in the South. We have porno shops sprinkled throughout town on the major streets. I can think of six or so off the top of my head (is that a telling sign?). We do not, on the other hand, have strip clubs.

Sounds like Charlotte. Saturated.


harmony wrote:
You still haven't connected the 60's with what you're saying is the downfall of civilization as we know it. Find a study or two that shows what you're saying is true, backed up with appropriate sources. Until then, it's your opinion, and your opinion isn't worth much.

Whether he can actually prove the connection is one thing, but he will not be shy about repeating his diatribe against the 60s ad infinitum no matter how tenuous the connection. And if you don't like it, well you're just a liberal, postmodernist, feminist ninny-muggins.

Trevor clearly feels threatened by a serious critique of the sixties and its implications. I wonder why?

[_Coggins7]

Putting to one side the question of child pornography, it is simplistic and paternalistic to suggest that adult women involved in making pornography are invariably forced into the industry (for example, through physical or financial coercion), or that no women enjoy making pornography. Depending on the woman’s individual perspective, she will not necessarily be harmed simply by participation in pornography. Moreover, the more pressing question is not whether women are ever mistreated in society or in pornography (as they undoubtedly are), but whether restricting or prohibiting the production of pornography will prevent or minimise that mistreatment. This question will be further discussed below in Part IV(E) of this article.......

While I have come to take a libertarian view of some issues (such as drug legalization, at least provisionally), this paragraph above seems to make some broad assumptions without supporting logical argument. It is equally simplistic to assume that any woman would willingly prostitute herself and her sexuality for public amusement if she, even in a purely subjective sense, perceived a viable alternative. I do not believe participation in that kind of activity can ever be psychologically or emotionally healthy or affirming. Human beings are capable of many things, but altering their own fundamental nature is not one of them. We are capable of vast feats of self delusion and subjective flights of rationalization, but we cannot change the stubborn facts of human nature. As Alma says, wickedness never was happiness. We can convince ourselves that it is, under the right conditions, but like Beastie's bubble, forced down under water, the reality always bursts through to the surface once again.

There are people who enjoy participating in pornography; in having sex over many years with countless men or woman in front of cameras for the masturbatory amusement of others. What it means to "enjoy" something of this sort, however, is problematic. Some people enjoy setting fires to buildings. Some people enjoy torturing puppies. Some people enjoy sex with children or animals. At this level of relativistic subjectivity, anything is interpretationally possible, which is a major failing of the libertarian argument: it rarely takes the deeper aspects of human nature into account and relies on the free market to morally neutralize the cultural landscape.

In some cases, as with race relations, this can be true. In others, it trips over its own feet.

[_Ray A]

While I have come to take a libertarian view of some issues (such as drug legalization, at least provisionally), this paragraph above seems to make some broad assumptions without supporting logical argument. It is equally simplistic to assume that any woman would willingly prostitute herself and her sexuality for public amusement if she, even in a purely subjective sense, perceived a viable alternative. I do not believe participation in that kind of activity can ever be psychologically or emotionally healthy or affirming. Human beings are capable of many things, but altering their own fundamental nature is not one of them. We are capable of vast feats of self delusion and subjective flights of rationalization, but we cannot change the stubborn facts of human nature. As Alma says, wickedness never was happiness. We can convince ourselves that it is, under the right conditions, but like Beastie's bubble, forced down under water, the reality always bursts through to the surface once again.

There are people who enjoy participating in pornography; in having sex over many years with countless men or woman in front of cameras for the masturbatory amusement of others. What it means to "enjoy" something of this sort, however, is problematic. Some people enjoy setting fires to buildings. Some people enjoy torturing puppies. Some people enjoy sex with children or animals. At this level of relativistic subjectivity, anything is interpretationally possible, which is a major failing of the libertarian argument: it rarely takes the deeper aspects of human nature into account and relies on the free market to morally neutralize the cultural landscape.

In some cases, as with race relations, this can be true. In others, it trips over its own feet.

As I mentioned before, it's not my aim to defend the porn industry, or even prostitution. I see them as "necessary evils", which no doubt will seem hypocritically practical, and I have utilised both, so I must be a really bad hypocrite. It's something like euthanasia. I support voluntary euthanasia, which most Mormons don't, nor Christians, but at least 70% of the Australian public do. Again I see this as a "necessary evil". Killing is not noble, but for some strange reason we find nobility in ending the suffering of animals, but feel humans do not deserve the same mercy. Only God can take life, and choking and convulsions and hallucinations on the way out seem appropriate to many. This is, no doubt, "God's final test". I just received an email from a good Mormon friend, telling me her husband (and my good friend also), has 6-8 weeks to live, dying from cancer. They are "praying for his quick release from this life". I replied with what I felt was a comforting email, without judgement, but personally I don't see why we can't offer this "quick release", with his consent, if it was given. So I call this "exit facilitation" a necessary and practical "evil".

I agree that there is a far better lifestyle than the porn and escort industries offer. I think most people do, including those who participate in those industries. But the other fact is that they do "cater" for many people, who are at various stages of their life. I know someone, a close friend, (who shall remain totally anonymous, and he's not the only one) who boasted that he "never visited a brothel" in his life. Yet he has "conquered" numerous women, including married women, and has fathered a child to a married woman whose husband is to this day unaware he's not the child's father. Now I've never done anything like this, and as I stated previously, I stay away from married women, yet I'm looked down upon because I've been known to dally with "loose women". I don't particularly want to bring Joseph Smith into this, but I've been anti-polygamy for some of the reasons I mentioned. I don't feel it's right, under any circumstance, to seduce married women. I'm seeing double standards, all around, not just with the idea of polygamy. So I'm the ignoble bastard because I pay a "loose woman", who agrees to the "contract", but men who steal other men's wives somehow have higher morals (and I'm not referring specifically to Joseph Smith). As Mon would say, "I don't geddit".

Maybe there is something more noble in polygamy, or serial marriage, or undercover adulterous relationships, but if so, I must have missed it. The "escort industry" has allowed me to avoid two things I didn't want: To break up someone else's marriage, and to remain free of what I don't want, relationship committment. I suppose I could have found a bonging partner, but even that requires demands I didn't want. Again, that's why I said it's a "necessary evil". Many will not agree, but I guess I'll have to leave them to make their own judgements.

[_Dr. Shades]

Gadianton, I'm afraid your second-to-last post makes ABSOLUTELY NO SENSE WHATSOEVER to me. Can you please help?

Fortunately we had a local who supervised them, but, he was not allowed to actually so much as touch anything at all. He was a kind of crazy, humourous full-fledged NY guy, and he'd get mad and go back and fix their mistakes.

How could he possibly fix their mistakes when he wasn't allowed to touch anything at all?

When they'd catch them, . . .

Who is "they" and "they?" I.e., who was catching whom? Do you mean when "labor" would catch its own "mistakes?" I thought that's what the local who supervised labor did.

. . . they'd yell at him (I could hear them in the background while on the phone) and he'd just laugh it off, and then tell me the next thing he was going to do which would "really piss them off".

So labor would yell at their own supervisor?

What's funny about it is that if any of us had been there supervising, oh no, we'd steer clear of touching anything out of fear of being shot or something. heh.

So was the supervisor the one with Mafia connections, or was labor the one with the Mafia connections?

[_Gadianton]

]How could he possibly fix their mistakes when he wasn't allowed to touch anything at all?

He wasn't allowed to touch anything, but he did anyways at times. That's why he got yelled at on occasion from the laborers.

Who is "they" and "they?" I.e., who was catching whom? Do you mean when "labor" would catch its own "mistakes?" I thought that's what the local who supervised labor did.

Labor would catch the supervisor fixing things he shouldn't have been. This could literally be something as trivial as applying a sticker the right way.

So labor would yell at their own supervisor?

Yes. labor = mafia approved contractors. supervisor = employee of our company overseeing their work.

So was the supervisor the one with Mafia connections, or was labor the one with the Mafia connections?

The labor had the connections. The "supervisor", our employee, could have done the entire job himself in half the time it took like 6 of these guys to do it. But, he might have an unfortunate accident the next day, I guess, if he did.

[_Gadianton]

If Gad had read the essay, he would have seen that the Periano's, and other porn kingpins poured much of their profits, not only into more porn, but into garbage collection, legitimate film making, restaurants, you name it. Gad's claim that there is "There is no compelling reason why "sin" industries have a natural link to crime outside of historic context" is simply silly. Let's take three: porn, gambling, and drugs. There are three primary reasons, to my mind, why these three industries attract organized crime, while car washes don't (at least, most of the time). The first is the incredible profits that can be realized from doing it underground in a criminal fashion. Another is the addictive nature of all three; one's clients tend to become dependent on the product, even though the product has no inherent value or necessity. Thirdly, pornography is inherently exploitative;

Your first point has to do with historic context, it's illegal. risk-loving activities like crime, when lucky, pay well. Your second point I'll leave for you to contemplate when you go back to college and take your first economics class. Things don't have "inherent value". And the last point reaches too far. Some is exploitive and some isn't, much rides in the same gray area as many other markets where there is bad working conditions and unethical labor practices. In a wealthy economy, as an example, where there is a legalized restrictive industry, it's very easy to imagine plenty of volunteers. Hell, I'm sure you give into the urge now and again and have checked out some of the free sites out there; there is no end to the amateur material being put up where the participants just want to show off and aren't making a dime. They upload the stuff as a hobby, just as we write posts.