[supr_strudl]

>Not because he was a pornographer, but simply because he did what he pleased and fought like hell to protect that right.

That's what's wrong with the "free" world. If something's legal doesn't mean it's moral.

He did what he pleased for sure, but at what expense. Many would argue he contributed to objectifying women. There's always a flip side.

[simonh]

Sure, and that's a legitimate subject for debate as to where legality and morality should intersect. I think it's also reasonable to say that one group imposing their opinions on others without sufficient justification is immoral. So then we go to the merits of the justification.

[krageon]

Moral arguments are in the west almost always made from a puritanical standpoint, of which this post is a good example. To anyone who isn't puritanical, it's not very interesting to say that because they've already decided they don't think like that. To someone who is, you're posting something they essentially already agree with.

Both of those sides won't really produce interesting discourse, unless you're very invested in making people more (or less) puritanical.

[zaphirplane]

I understand what you feel, there are 2 sides with strong views preachings to the choir so to speak. But ;)

There are people without a militant views and people seeking to form views and people with weakly held options on the topic. I don’t know if we should shutdown conversations where there are 2 existing opposing camps with strong views

Not to turn this into that conversation elections are an example yet the winning party changes (except for Germany ;))

[rayiner]

> Moral arguments are in the west almost always made from a puritanical standpoint

More than just the west lol.

[chordalkeyboard]

> Moral arguments are in the west almost always made from a puritanical standpoint,

In my experience there is significantly more variety.

[jboog]

Believing that hardcore pornographers "objectify women" makes you "puritanical" now?

OP's criticism was quite civil and reasonable compared to some anti-pornography people I've seen before.

And it's absolutely true magazines like Hustler objectified women! Have you ever seen one? The entire point is to objectify women and sex!

That's entirely different than claiming you're evil or bad for producing porn...

[tarboreus]

Something of a facile distinction, given that the construction "objectify women" has a strong negative valence, and implies you're doing something wrong. I won't say "immoral," since the modern moral majority doesn't use that term. It marginalizes the voices of those with woman-aligned identities, I guess.

You can say the point of Hustler is to objectify women, or you can say the point of Hustler is to let people get their rocks off. These are both true, as far as they go, but there are assumptions in each statement that you need to unpack a little. "Getting your rocks off" acknowledges and tacitly approves of a certain framing of the magazine. "Objectifying women" acknowledges a different framing and includes a tacit disapproval. To say that a criticism of the magazine as objectifying women is reasonable because it is true is weak, because you're not acknowledging the framing. The rocks-off framing is equally true, and in the same way, but you might still disagree with it because of the framing.

Hustler is a magazine that pays women for provocative pictures, and it packages and publishes them for the sexual gratification of men. I think it's fair to say that it objectifies women, in the sense that the men looking at the pictures are treating them as objects of sexual gratification. To say, sans other context or sentiment, that the magazine objectifies women, does, however, suggest a puritanical goal or objective. Out of a large bag of potential framings, or combination of framings—libertarian, sex-positive, live-and-let-live, religious, enlightenmentarian, humorous remove, indifference—you're selecting the framing that suggests you want this thing to be attached to a strong negative valence. It's also done in the epistemically cowardly way in which many social criticisms are now made. If you said it was immoral, that would at least tip your hand a bit, and show a little conviction.

[jboog]

These are the incoherent ramblings of someone that just took their freshman philosophy seminar...

[tarboreus]

Mean, insubstantial, and late to the party. Thanks for weighing in. :)

[lightgreen]

Seems to be far fetched statement. Women (and men and everybody else) were objectified since the beginning of the history. But during 20th century this objectification took different forms because of general improvement of women rights and freedoms (basically, woman can be now “objectified” without high risks of being thrown to the streets by the family: women are much more independent now).

[mtnGoat]

Agreed, and we all have different values. I've always found morals, like religion and politics to be a slippery slope. I try to not judge others on theirs as long as they are not effecting me too much.

Had he not existed would women have been less objectified in that era? Do you know what their circulation/sales were compared to say Playboy at that time? Or other mass media that was running objectifying ads? What he added, was a rain drop in a lake, IMHO. Gotta pick your battles.

[supr_strudl]

If you think you are too small to make difference, try sleeping with a mosquito.