You clearly are not yet somebody who'd be capable of consuming porn in a respectful, ethical fashion. Please try harder, using gendered insults is embarrassing.
They will try to justify their immorality by any means necessary to convince themselves they are right…just like a criminal, just like a politician, just like your typical narcissist..
Ah yes, nothing problematic in dismissing a whole category of people with diverse motivations and ethics as 'they', a homogeneous out-group who all think the same.
But since I think *I* am the 'they' you're actually referring to in this instance, I don't need to try to convince myself I'm right. I think pornography as a category is neither right nor wrong, just like TV as an art form, or documentary as a genre. All I concern myself with is whether or not I think I'm conducting myself with integrity within my chosen professional field.
Every activity has some risk to it. We can't take a zero tolerance policy to every kind of terrible outcome no matter how unlikely. Some people don't watch boxing or American football because of long term harm to some percentage of the players. Many others consider it and weigh the risks of harm and still watch. Even if we focus on sexual trauma there are non-sex work entertainment that put the entertainers at an elevated risk of sexual trauma. Knowing what we know about Harvey Weinstein, Bill Cosby, and others we should assume that consuming Hollywood content puts actors at an above average risk of sexual trauma. Many will still make the calculation that the risks of harm don't merit taking a zero tolerance policy toward consuming any Hollywood content. Even if they agree with Max's premise that consuming the content means that some actresses will be abused. Everyone will weigh the value they are getting against their perception of the magnitude of sexual harm occurring and come to possibly different decisions. Ms. Anderssen for example could place more value on the benefits of porn or consider the harm to be less prevalent. Max resumably continues to watch movies while having good reason to believe that an actor in a movie is more likely to be sexually traumatized than those of us who are not actors. So he isn't placing infinite harm value on such experiences and just thinks the prevalence rate is much lower there and takes a practical stance that the value he gets outweighs the elevated harm for those actors. We can all be following the exact same ethical understanding but in applying it in a practical way we may make different decisions based on our perception of prevalence and degree. Max says the factor that matters is the level of empathy: the more empathetic you are the less value you will put on your benefits and the more you will put on the harm to others. While this is true, there is still room for equally empathetic people to disagree on the decision based on differences in perception of the prevalence and degree of harm.
Thank you, I think I agree. I don’t think Max’s conclusion is a bad one, and I don’t think mine is irrational either. It’s my feeling that we need people w/ all sorts of different thresholds and limits to make a healthy society between us.
Dirty bitch
You clearly are not yet somebody who'd be capable of consuming porn in a respectful, ethical fashion. Please try harder, using gendered insults is embarrassing.
Nope , definitely not…….I’m far too dirty myself for anything as sensible as that! 😉
The only work in which women's pay keeps pace with men's. How sad is that.
Also romance writing I think! And fashion modelling.
Nope.
They will try to justify their immorality by any means necessary to convince themselves they are right…just like a criminal, just like a politician, just like your typical narcissist..
Ah yes, nothing problematic in dismissing a whole category of people with diverse motivations and ethics as 'they', a homogeneous out-group who all think the same.
But since I think *I* am the 'they' you're actually referring to in this instance, I don't need to try to convince myself I'm right. I think pornography as a category is neither right nor wrong, just like TV as an art form, or documentary as a genre. All I concern myself with is whether or not I think I'm conducting myself with integrity within my chosen professional field.
It is not victimless.
I don’t believe that.
No industries are victimless.
Every activity has some risk to it. We can't take a zero tolerance policy to every kind of terrible outcome no matter how unlikely. Some people don't watch boxing or American football because of long term harm to some percentage of the players. Many others consider it and weigh the risks of harm and still watch. Even if we focus on sexual trauma there are non-sex work entertainment that put the entertainers at an elevated risk of sexual trauma. Knowing what we know about Harvey Weinstein, Bill Cosby, and others we should assume that consuming Hollywood content puts actors at an above average risk of sexual trauma. Many will still make the calculation that the risks of harm don't merit taking a zero tolerance policy toward consuming any Hollywood content. Even if they agree with Max's premise that consuming the content means that some actresses will be abused. Everyone will weigh the value they are getting against their perception of the magnitude of sexual harm occurring and come to possibly different decisions. Ms. Anderssen for example could place more value on the benefits of porn or consider the harm to be less prevalent. Max resumably continues to watch movies while having good reason to believe that an actor in a movie is more likely to be sexually traumatized than those of us who are not actors. So he isn't placing infinite harm value on such experiences and just thinks the prevalence rate is much lower there and takes a practical stance that the value he gets outweighs the elevated harm for those actors. We can all be following the exact same ethical understanding but in applying it in a practical way we may make different decisions based on our perception of prevalence and degree. Max says the factor that matters is the level of empathy: the more empathetic you are the less value you will put on your benefits and the more you will put on the harm to others. While this is true, there is still room for equally empathetic people to disagree on the decision based on differences in perception of the prevalence and degree of harm.
Thank you, I think I agree. I don’t think Max’s conclusion is a bad one, and I don’t think mine is irrational either. It’s my feeling that we need people w/ all sorts of different thresholds and limits to make a healthy society between us.
7-21 times a week? Maybe my testosterone is low.