Quote Originally Posted by Stargazer View Post
Quite interesting that at this particular part of pornography's history there is a 'given' sense that graphic portrayal of - in this case - the sexual act or naughty bits in anticipation of same - is undeniably associated with the demeaning of those portrayed, and the amusement of those looking at them.

This is a good point. People against certain types of sexual behavior or imagery often claim that the behavior or image is demeaning. Aggie's recent claim that some pictures only have one purpose (Making money? Arousing men? Angering Aggie?) is of this sort. The problem is that people who make these claims have a tough time demonstrating the demeaning nature of the acts or images in question. For example, is oral sex inherently immoral or demeaning? If yes, then why? If no, then why would a picture of oral sex be demeaning or immoral? Just because someone doesn't like something, or someone is disgusted by something, or someone wouldn't personally engage in something, it doesn't follow that that thing is demeaning for others.

On a related example, when I asked my students if homosexuality was immoral, many of them would say "yes!" When asked why, the number one response was "because it's gross." Well, as far as arguments go, that's pretty pathetic, as being gross (to someone) isn't sufficient for something being immoral. Otherwise eating tapioca pudding would be immoral. I mean yuck!

People often claim, for example, that stripping is demeaning. But if you interview strippers, most don't think they are being demeaned. The same goes for models, actors and actresses, investment bankers... "I'm not being demeaned." "Oh yes you are!" "Really? How?"