The Standards of The Pornographic Industry Are Immoral

Pro states: "My main contention is that the contents of the porn (and therefore the consumer's desires) are immoral." Irrelevant. This debate is about the Pornographic Industry, not the desires of its consumers. Pro states: "My argument here is that a large portion of the pornography that exists is based on the sexual degradation of women." The problem with this argument is that "sexual degradation" is subjective. What some people might consider sexually degrading, others might consider sexually liberating. And the bottom line is that every woman has the right to define what is degrading and liberating for herself. Pro claims porn "dehumanizes" women and "sends the message that some women are only there to please men." This is, again, a subjective interpretation. The flawed assumption in Pro's argument is that objectifying someone is always immoral. This is obviously false. Consider magazines filled with advertisements in which women are valued only for their appearance. Or football games with cheerleaders as human decoration. Or armies that objectify people into implements of war. Pro claims the industry is immoral because "producers or directors then coerce them into finishing the scene, sometimes threatening not to pay them if they don't do what they agreed to, regardless of whether or not the actress feels comfortable." If an actress agrees to do something for money and then ends up not doing it, it is a breach of contract and the producers have every right to not pay the actress in question. This is not a "threat," as Pro calls it, it is the law. Imagine if you could agree to do something for money, then not do it, and still demand to be paid for not doing what you agreed to do. That would be immoral. The porn industry, on the other hand, is just following the same standards that apply in any business, including the production of Hollywood films. I mean, if Tom Cruise decided not to finish shooting a film, the producers would have every right to not pay him because he would be breaching his contract. Pro states: "There is also footage of actresses saying that they are in pain, asking the male performers to stop doing something during a scene, and being ignored, as well as breaking down emotionally during a scene due to the verbal and physical degradation, and the challenging violent nature of the act they are performing." Pro admits he has no sources for this. Ignoring that, consider if this were really the case, then male performers are effectively raping those actresses and if the actresses pressed charges, said male performers could go to jail. The reality of the situation is that the actresses are doing just that, ACTING, sometimes porn plays into the rape fantasy of many women. You have to keep in mind that anyone who enters the porn industry is choosing to be there of their own volition. The porn industry is also not responsible for male performers raping female performers. This is the fault of the male performers. Pro states: "The point is, if such emotional and psychological toil is possible within the environment of the pornographic industry, then the standards of the industry must be morally and/or ethically inferior." What Pro doesn't seem to realize is that 1) the actresses could be acting and the only way to know for sure is if the actresses press charges or not, and 2) just because a job is emotionally or psychologically taxing does not mean the industry or job is immoral. I could list a lot of jobs that take an emotional and/or psychological toil on people that are clearly not immoral. For example, being a psychologist. Or being a police officer. Or a doctor. Each of these jobs can cause emotional and psychological trauma. This doesn't mean the jobs are immoral. Finally, it must be recognized that emotional and psychological trauma is subjective and particular to specific individuals. The vast majority of porn stars are not emotionally or psychological traumatized so there is little reason to think the industry itself is immoral on this basis. I also note that in the modern legal porn world, performers are extremely safe because they work for large production companies which operate in the open, under public scrutiny. It is very unlikely that abuses exist in an industry that is not only massive but publicly transparent and completely legal. Pro claims that pornography "is encouraging violence" because "a large portion of pornography depicts sex mixed with violence, and gender-based violent themes (violence against women)." The flawed assumption here is that if you are exposed to something in your entertainment, then you will do it in real life. The depiction of violence in a film is does not mean the film encourages violence or that the film in question is immoral. In fact, Hollywood action films depict far more violence than porn, and they also objectify human beings, yet they clearly don't encourage violence nor are they immoral. They are entertainment just like pornography. Pro states: "There are a lot of sexual possibilities in the world, and I think most people can agree that some of them are better off unknown." While some people (read: prudes) may prefer to not learn about different sexual possibilities, that doesn't mean that the people who are interested in exploring perverse sexual fantasies are immoral. Furthermore, porn provides a way for people to explore these fantasies in a safe environment. In fact, porn breaks cultural stereotypes by eliminating shame for having sexually adventurous desires and fantasies. Porn says to people, "you are not alone in your deepest darkest desires." Pro continues: "I have nothing against being nonconformative and sexually adventurous, but a lot of pornographic niches, like I mentioned before, push things that are inherently disturbing because they are dangerous, harmful, or otherwise immoral, for the sole purpose of pushing the limit to be more stimulating." Whether a sexual act is "disturbing" or not is subjective, and just because it may be dangerous does not mean it is immoral. Furthermore, pornography does not encourage harmful sexual acts. It depicts them because they are stimulating. This does not mean it thinks people should go out and do these harmful acts. Pro claims porn is immoral because of the potential for porn addiction. I don't feel the need to address this really. Their is little evidence that porn causes addiction, and even if it does, that doesn't mean porn is immoral. There are people who are addicted to World of Warcraft. Does that mean it is immoral? In fact, there are people who are addicted to sex. Does that mean sex is immoral? What about alcohol or cigarettes? People get addicted to those things too but I highly doubt Pro would consider those things immoral. The potential to get addicted to something (and note that Pro acknowledges the potential here is low) is not grounds for calling that something immoral. Pro states: "In order to refute my claim that the standards of pornography is immoral, Con must show that it is acceptable to encourage or promote sexual violence, and the degradation of women." Actually, I only have to show that pornography does not encourage sexual violence or the degradation of women. Since Pro has no proof that the depiction of something encourages whatever it depicts, Pro's argument completely collapses. I want to end with something I think is really a really strong argument in favor of porn: Pornography provides a sexual outlet for those who -- for whatever reason -- have no sexual partner. Furthermore, I would argue that many acts of sexual violence are avoided because people use porn to explore their most perverse sexual fantasies in solitude instead of going out and committing an act of sexual violence. Evidence: in Japan, where pornography depicting graphic and brutal violence is widely available, rape is much lower per capita than in the United States, where violence in porn has far more restrictions.