quatona said:
So do we agree that we better leave this tangent for now?
Alright.
quatona said:
I don´t think that an abstract idea like "industry" possesses anything or is anything "inherently".
If it is your presupposition that the inappropriate content industry is "inherently immoral", be my guest - but if that´s the premise or presupposition, there´s nothing left to discuss.
Grrragh!!! I want you to explain this
further, quatona! If I'm correctly reading what you're stating here, then I need to ask follow-up questions, for sure. What is industry's primary reason for being? Money? Human beings' personal fullfillment? Improving society? What is the focus? What is the focus within the sex industry? Actually, wait. To you, there is no difference between industries, so I could've easily have said cheddar cheese industry. But, please answer those other questions. Something's just not coming through on your end (and apparently mine). I'm not quite getting your point.
quatona said:
That´s exactly what I was saying - greed, exploitation, abuse of power occur in different levels in different businesses.
But:
1. You haven´t shown that it is particularly high in inappropriate content industry.
2. The result of your consideration depends on where you draw the line between ordinary business and greed/exploitation/abuse of power.
3. The point I have been trying to make since my very first post: The fact that something is more present in business A than business B calls for an explanation as to why this is so (and I have offered one possible explanation). Simply claiming it is "inherent" to business A is not even an attempt at an explanation. It´s a belief, and it has been your premise and presupposition all the way. I fail to see how such a belief can be discussed.
Okay, so basically you are asking for stats. I have no problem with doing further research into it to crank out the specific numbers for you. But, where we might run into problems with research are: 1) biased information (which is, I suppose, true of all research - that factor can always exist) and specifically for this
type of subject matter, 2) the overall "newness" of this topic and 3) the DSM. It is extensive, but not 100% reliable for several reasons. We have to consider the revisions and the last time it was updated. The problem we face is that the sex industry (though it has been around for
much longer than 30 years) is more
commonplace, widespread and with far more variables than it was, say, 30 or even 3,000 years ago. Further research needs to be done at the clinical level, in several different spheres, no less.
quatona said:
Sorry, Im not sure I understand the grammatical structure of the last sentence.
I´ll try to answer anyways:
What in particular are you thinking of when saying "
those things brought up in this thread"?
Ah, so now you're pickin' on me again for grammar, eh? Pffffft! Sweetie, you're just as bad as I am so come on.
The thing is, people neglect to consider how people are treated within this industry (just as people don't consider how others are treated in, say, sweatshops), nor do they look at the overall picture which
includes not only the current state of a sex worker's well-being, but their future as well. We can't know any one person's future just as we can't know our own. But, figuring in what we already know of those who've walked the walk and those who are
still walking it, we can know that the outcome doesn't look so great for those sex workers.
There are those who are quite honestly either naive or emotionally/mentally fragile to the extent that they will more than likely be taken advantage of at some point. Yes, the same could be said for
any job - but as we've already established, manipulation is paramount in
this particular industry and besides that, we're not talking about other industries at the moment. Yes, there are people who
knowingly get into this industry, fully aware of the safety precautions and what they will need to go through in order to get that paycheck. There
are people who just love sex! (I'm one of them, hello?) But, there are HUGE safety and psychological issues here. Not all people use condoms or dental dams; in fact, it's highly
unlikely that these will ever be used. Sex workers know that they need to go in regularly for HIV/AIDS/STD tests and the like. But, does that still make it okay for the consumers (or
anyone) to validate such an industry by saying, "Well, it's their choice; as long as they're adults, whatever"? Ethically-speaking, how is that okay? I'm not asking that the sex industry fail to exist (I can get into this at a later time b/c it would be a separate post altogether); I am merely asking that people look at this topic from outside their comfort zone - outside of the computer screen/DVD - and look at the people. I'm asking that people look at this as a moral issue and not an anti-sex/religious/sin issue. Have I used the word sin here? It's not about that right now. It's a basic black-and-white/some grey?, is this a good idea thing.
I know you're going to be having a hell of a time with that, so I'll leave it at that for now.
quatona said:
I think that the inappropriate content industry works like any other industry. People sense that there´s a demand (or, imo, more often, they sense that it is possible to manipulate people into having certain demands), next they plan how to produce and offer this product, they hire people to do the work, and their main interest is to get money. That´s capitalism for you, and I don´t "expect other people to fill this role" for me, rather last time I checked they tend to offer their products no matter whether I am interested or not.
Thank you. I wasn't referring to you, specifically, as a consumer. If my word choice and placement had alluded to that, I apologize. I agree with what you've said here.
quatona said:
Personally, I am not a fan of capitalism, but once you accept it for the economic system of choice, that´s exactly how it´s supposed to work.
The fact that a practice is commonplace doesn't make it right (or ethically-sound, sorry. I know how atheists hate the terms "right" and "wrong"). Likewise, lining a banker's fat wallet, while he downsizes his company in order for it to succeed is not ethically-sound either.
quatona said:
Ideally, customer, employer and employee feel that they profit from the deal. From within the paradigms of capitalism I´d submit that this would be the standard for a business being "moral". Whether this is the case in the inappropriate content industry more or less than in any other industry is not for me to tell. I simply don´t have the data necessary for such a judgement.
Okay.
quatona said:
Again: This could be said - in case it has been your presupposition all the time. Just like it could be said that wearing shoes is an abused practice.
I really don´t know how to discuss such statements of belief.
I can't even say this is apples and oranges b/c you're comparing apples to soda (or if you live in Chicago, it's "pop").
Jane_the_Bane said:
Re: "abused practice"
Alcoholism incapacitates the one suffering from it, in many cases making it impossible for him to earn a living, and entailing health risks that may very well result in a premature death and/or damages to the central nervous system.
Now, you theoretically can become addicted to pastimes or substances that are not, in and of themselves, drugs: computer games would fall into that category, along with online discussion forums (wink, wink), as would sex in general and inappropriate contentography specifically.
However, none of this makes any of these activities or services equal to mind-altering substances that seriously interfere with your whole system.
Touché.
As far as interference with your "whole system," as I've stated before that involvement in the sex industry (whether it be as a sex worker or as a participant/viewer)
can affect a person, psychologically and physically. But, you can view my other post about the difficulties with attaining the crunched numbers on the research. Sex addiction is a very new concept in psychology, so this is a factor, as well.
.
