It's stupid when feminists say that porn is misogynistic

Post Reply New Topic

I see you're now imitating me. They say people who imitate others actually admire them.

Try telling that to a homosexual living in Pakistan.



Well then, imagine that instead of saying "homosexuality" I said "homosexual behaviour". I don't see what difference that would make.



That's not what I said. I said that homosexual behaviour is
(a) possibly the result of something "going wrong" (from an evolutionary standpoint)
(b) risky
(c) abnormal.

Those are the three things that you ended your post with, as if they in themselves are a reason to shun a behaviour. I was just pointing out that clearly they are not enough reason.

Actually, I just thought of an even better example: becoming an astronaut! I'm pretty sure it qualifies for all three. Is becoming an astronaut a mental disorder?

It's only risky in Pakistan because of what society might do. In other words, it's risky because Pakistan is an Islamic as well as a homophobic country. That doesn't mean that it's inherently risky because there wouldn't be a problem at all if society was more tolerant.



Homosexual behaviour doesn't harm anyone.



All three points are incorrect anyway.

Yes, and becoming an astronaut isn't inherently risky, it's only risky because humans can't breathe in space. If humans could breathe in space, there'd be no problem. Sorry, but I don't get how this distinction is supposed to help anyone's case. It's either risky or it's not. If you want, we can change the example from "exhibiting homosexual behaviour" to "exhibiting homosexual behavour while in Pakistan".



The sense in which "exhibiting homosexual behaviour while in Pakistan" doesn't harm anyone is precisely the same sense in which "eating faeces" or "becoming an astronaut" doesn't harm anyone. It can be risky for the people involved, but it's consensual. Which is exactly what my point was.



What do you mean? Do you mean that the three points don't apply to "exhibiting homosexual behaviour while in Pakistan" (how do they fail?), or do you mean that the three points don't apply to "eating faeces" (how do they fail?), or do you mean that the three points don't apply to "becoming an astronaut" (how do they fail?), or do you mean that the three points don't in themselves provide a reason to shun a behaviour (which is exactly what I was trying to say)?

Any action potentially has its risks, but the difference is in the degree. When I speak of risky or abnormal or whatever, I should point out it's in terms of statistical significance.

That said, if you choose to be too picky with words, you're missing the main point. Nevermind that I was quoted out of context especially since I explained why feces eating for sexual pleasure is not beneficial in anyway (aside from sexual pleasure) and is more harmful than beneficial for anyone involved. No benefit whatsoever to feces eating and a lot of potential for being infected by all sorts of diseases as a result. It also makes most humans extremely ill doing so (a sign that you're not evolutionarily meant to do this).

The comparison with becoming an astronaut is a false analogy. Human beings are not responsible for there not being air in space but human beings are responsible for the laws in Pakistan. Therefore, in the case of Pakistan, it is society that is the problem and it's society that must change, not homosexuals. In the case of living in space, nobody can put political pressure on the vacuum of space accommodate astronauts, so that they can breathe in it, unlike what we can do to Pakistan with regards to homosexuals, because that is just how the environment is naturally. Therefore all we can do is rely on technology to make the conditions in space more liveable.



It is not generally risky. There are a lot of countries where homosexual behaviour is legal.



Should I go through each of them? OK:



Homosexuality is not the result of something going wrong from an evolutionary standpoint (whatever that means). First of all, a lot of animal species exhibit homosexual behaviour as well. Secondly, sexuality has functions beyond it's use for reproduction, therefore can homosexuality can have evolutionary benefits.



Generally speaking, homosexual activity does not have any risks that are really that different from heterosexual activity. Homosexual activity being illegal in Pakistan has to do with people's attitudes not the activity itself.



Only if you can define what a universal norm is, does this point even make sense. The word "normal" is defined relative to a specific social context. What's normal to one group of people can be abnormal to another group.

No actual objective norm, but there is a construct standard that most of us would intuitively abide by (with some minor disagreements).

Also, using other animal species to prove a point isn't effective, because in the case of sh*t eating, dogs enjoy eating sh*t.

I wouldn't talk about norms in that. I would rather talk about whether something affects other people.



I wasn't really making a point, but rather countering his point that there was something unnatural about homosexuality from an evolutionary standpoint. If you can give examples of some animals engaging in it, then that contradicts the notion that it's unnatural. That's not the same thing as falling for the naturalistic fallacy, i.e. the fallacy that because something is natural, it's ok for us to do it. For instance, in your example it is actually natural for dogs to eat sh*t and believe it or not, there's an adaptational advantage for them doing so, but that doesn't mean that it's healthy for us to do it, or that we should.

I don't think any moral conclusions can be reached by the existence of a behavior in animals.

I don't think "an evolutionary standpoint" is particularly well defined, since evolution itself is a mindless process without any views of its own. Probably what "an evolutionary standpoint" means is whatever the author wishes it to mean.

Point (a) is not a good measure of whether a sexual behavior is right or wrong, since it is too subjective. The answer you get depends on who you ask.


Normal could be defined in terms of "average" or "majority". In this case, homosexuality would be excluded.

Other definitions of normal could be offered that would be designed to include homosexuality, however they would suffer from problems of arbitrariness, vagueness, and the objections you made here.

In neither case can we convincingly use abnormality to say that sexual behaviors are bad, unless we wish to also exclude homosexuality. Point (c), like point (a), suffers from subjectivity. Is behavior X abnormal? Depends on who you ask.


I think it's possible for risk to become so great that it has moral consequences, but moderate risks don't rise to that level, and neither of the two behaviors being discussed have been shown to have significant risks.

I think the real basis for rejecting eating feces is not (a)-(c) above, but (d) an emotional reaction of "Eeeew!". I don't believe that (d) is an adequate rejection of a sexual behavior on moral grounds.

Okay, you were saying that the three points don't apply to "exhibiting homosexual behaviour while in Pakistan". I have some issues with your post, but I'll give you the victory for free on that topic. It doesn't matter for my case, since I'm going to stop using that example. As I said, "becoming an astronaut" is a better and less controversial example. So forget about the homosexuality thing. My new example is the astronaut thing.

I just want to clarify what I am trying to say here, since I am beginning to get the worrying impression that people think I don't like homosexuality. Here is a history of what I am going on about:

(A) MCalavera made a post saying that "eating faeces" is a behaviour that should be shunned.

(B) MCalavera's final sentence (which I took to be a summary of what he was saying) said that eating faeces is
(I) the result of something going wrong (I took this to be from an evolutionary standpoint)
(II) risky,
(III) abnormal.

(C) I claimed that (I)(II)(III) are not in themselves a good enough reason to shun a behaviour.

(D) As a counterexample, I choose a behaviour that we all agree shouldn't be shunned, but which has the three properties (I)(II)(III). My current example is "becoming an astronaut".

(E) Becoming an astronaut is
(I) the result of something going wrong (since it involves taking a massive risk which has nothing to do with survival or reproduction),
(II) risky,
(III) abnormal (meaning "rare").

Okay, I'm much happier with that way of thinking. A cost-benefit analysis is exactly the sort of thing which could separate the astronauts from the faeces-eaters. The benefit to the faeces-eater is purely a benefit of personal pleasure, whereas the astronaut provides much more important and widespread benefits.

But hold on a minute! If we use cost-benefit analysis to decide which behaviours to shun, we will run into all of the usual problems with subjectivity. For example, compare these two situations, both of which are simply about personal pleasure:
(A) Two people having meaningless sex. They both receive 5 units of pleasure, but they run a 1% risk of sexually-transmitted diseases.
(B) A guy eating faeces. This guy really loves to eat faeces. He gets 200,000 units of pleasure for each gram of faeces he eats, but he runs a 30% risk of disease.

It almost seems like we ought to shun (A) more than (B).

Last edited by Declension on 21 Jun 2013, 2:50 am, edited 1 time in total.

Once again, I never made any moral conclusions. I was trying to refute Declension's point by giving a counterexample. Declension spoke about an evolutionary standpoint, not me. If someone else makes a statement about homosexuality being unnatural, then why can't I refute that using animals as an example? There is no moral implication associated with that, where have I said whether it's right or wrong? If someone else claims that something is immoral, it is up to them to explain why, it's not up to me to explain why it isn't.



Different cultures and social groups have different conceptions of what they consider a norm. Yes, in the context of the majority of the general population, homosexuality isn't "normal" in the sense that most people aren't homosexual but one could say that about any difference. For instance, one could say that being on the autism spectrum isn't "normal" in that sense either. In the end we are both basically saying the same thing.

Yes. I quoted you quoting him because that was the easiest way to get all of the context of what I wanted to reply to, not because you originally said everything that I wanted to respond to.


There isn't a moral implication in either naturalness or unnaturalness. That is a simpler and more direct way of refuting point (a) from before.

You must of posted this while I was writing my last post because I didn't see this. Sorry, I think that I misunderstood the context and your argument. I understand what you're saying now.

Fair enough.



Well no, of course there's no moral implication either way. Implying that there is would be invoking the naturalistic fallacy. However, I wasn't trying to imply any moral implications whatsoever. I thought that the most direct way to refute the idea that something is unnatural was to show that it's natural. That was the basis of my argument.

pornography is an industry that makes money on people's misery. Pretty much anyone involved including the viewers. The release of chemicals in the brain from porn viewing has been compared to a hit of crack, although a really weak hit at that. Just look up how porn impacts the brain. It is very interesting stuff. It is somewhat theoretical but it makes sense once you understand how neurotransmitters and endorphins work in the brain.

Also, I believe it is why there is so much PUA culture. Men constantly watch porn and then they want to do exactly what they are seeing. Women also feel like they cannot compete with the women in porn.

Some women become more depressed because they can no longer please their husband probably because he is secretly watching porn and fantasizing about other women. Seriously most women would not like the fact that their man is checking out other women on the home computer right under her nose. If she finds out you are in big trouble.

I was reading something about this in a Psychology magazine. I would say we live in the Porn generation and it is only going to get much worse. Cheating and divorce are on the rise.