Pornography

What views do Objectivists take on pornography?

Post 1

Tuesday, December 31, 2002 - 6:38am

Ayn Rand herself disapproves of "hard-core" pornography; if I remember correctly she stated her opinions on the subject in The Romantic Manifesto. For my part, I don't care much for the depiction of sex for its own sake, because I think that sex between affectionate (if not loving) partners is too valuable to be treated as a spectator sport.

Post 2

Tuesday, December 31, 2002 - 11:40am

If you consider the question, though, sex is very much a sport. It demands skill and physical aptitudes, doesn't it ? (^_^)

Post 3

Tuesday, December 31, 2002 - 7:25pm

Yes, but is it a spectator sport?

Post 4

Wednesday, January 1, 2003 - 12:17pm

I suppose it could be. I don't see why sex couldn't be in the Olympics. They added Bridge, didn't they ?

Post 5

Wednesday, January 1, 2003 - 3:13pm

Bridge is an Olympic sport? I suppose I shouldn't be surprised, considering what I've read of pudgy geeks making earning purses of prize money at Quake tournaments. But how would you judge sexual technique at an Olympic event? By counting orgasms? And how would the judges know if the (for want of a better term) players were having orgasms?

Post 6

Wednesday, January 1, 2003 - 7:53pm

I think the official position is that it's better than taking welfare.

Post 7

Wednesday, January 1, 2003 - 9:05pm

Matthew :

These are valid questions. I think that sex would have various events, such as greatest number of orgasms, speed, marathons, and so on.

As for knowing what an orgasm would be considered as, that would be a more technical question. We would need some way to measure whatever it is that an orgasm is provoked by. I'm afraid that my biology knowledge isn't very good.

Post 8

Thursday, January 2, 2003 - 7:17am

I think, Francois, that having electrodes and sensors attached to the body would inhibit the players' sexual response, making accurate judgment of performance somewhat problematic.

And it definitely takes the fun and romance out of sex; I still prefer to do it in private so that I can enjoy myself without distraction. After all, the only thing I have to worry about if I keep it private is whether or not the neighbors will hear us.

Post 9

Thursday, January 2, 2003 - 5:32pm

Hey now!!! I'm loving this idea already!

Electrodes and sensors .... *grin* Could be fun just in themselves. :) I've written stories about that kind of stuff. LOL!

But back to the question at hand, I think Objectivists in general try to put sex and nudity on some altar of ... something. LOL!

I believe that some of the founders were quite Puritanical and not particularly rational on the subject of sex. The whole mind and body dichotomy thing.

On the forum, I once presented the following analogy and no one ever responded to it so I'll try to recreate it here:

If there should not be a seperation of mind and body as Objectivists say, then what is so different about expressing the ideas of your mind in discussion or being nude? If I speak freely, what makes showing my body so 'bad' or immoral?

What is the real difference between 'showing' or exposing my mind, as I'm doing now by typing this message or standing naked in front of you?

Of course, in real life, you wouldn't want to see me naked .. but that is another story. Pretend I have a body like your favorite woman/man. *grin*

Joy :)

Post 10

Thursday, January 2, 2003 - 5:57pm

Well, Joy, if all you're doing is standing naked in front of me then I have as much reason to object as I would to seeing Michaelangelo's David or a nude by Titian. After all it might be too hot for clothing.

But the question here is not simple nudity, but "hardcore pornography" -- which first has to be defined! I find that defining pornography (as opposed to erotica) as the depiction of sexual activity for its own sake, in the absence of plot or context. If you showed me a film in that consisted of a couple telling the viewer to "watch them fuck", and then showed the couple going at it, then I would call that pornography.

On the other hand, there are novels like Rand's Atlas Shrugged or Heinlein's The Cat Who Walks Through Walls whose plots involve sexual relations between characters. However, these relations are depicted in the context of the story's plot and the characters' interactions with each other.

You do not just read about Dagny and Hank getting it on; you read about their meeting, their struggles together, all the events leading up to their respect and affection for each other and the expression of these feelings through sex.

Post 11

Thursday, January 2, 2003 - 7:03pm

Hi Matt! :)

Oh pish posh, I was beginning from the beginning. I think nudity is an issue with some. LOL!

But perhaps the beginning should be a definition of pornography? I once brought that up and didn't really get a satisfactory answer as it appears to be a quite subjective viewpoint.

You wrote:

"I find that defining pornography (as opposed to erotica) as the depiction of sexual activity for its own sake, in the absence of plot or context. If you showed me a film in that consisted of a couple telling the viewer to "watch them fuck",
and then showed the couple going at it, then I would call that pornography."

But isn't sexual activity a context in it's own right? Aren't there some implicit statements that makes without having to say 'this is sex'? Why isn't sexual activity valid for it's own sake, with no other context?

If I happen to catch sight of a couple (on film or in real life) engaged in sexual activity, that alone is a complete 'context' so to speak. They are enjoying themselves (hopefully, or at least learning how to enjoy themselves :). I don't need a narrator to tell me what they are doing, I don't need a skyscraper in the background to tell me it has moved from pornographic to erotic .. I mean, the sexual act is its own context, isn't it?

As for Hank and Dagny, all alone, those sex scenes are hot and I'm not sure I needed the context of AS to tell me that. It's within the words describing it, the very flow of their sex, the intensity of their sex. That chapter could stand alone as a sex story, and a hot one at that. It needs no other context. It's implicit in every thing they do and say.

Or am I missing your point?

Joy :)

Post 12

Thursday, January 2, 2003 - 7:17pm

I think we're looking at it from two different angles, Joy. You see the question in terms of accidentally seeing a couple making love as you go about your life. I'm taking about depicting, on film or in writing, sexual activity for the sole purpose of depicting sex.

Yes, the sex scenes between Hank and Dagny are hot. And I think that the scenes are hot because I've come to know the characters over the course of the story; they're not just a couple of anonymous sweaty people.

Post 13

Thursday, January 2, 2003 - 8:25pm

Hi Matt,

Well, no, I wasn't seeing it from the point of view of an accidental sighting as I did mention film and such ... but I'll backtrack some more as I was getting ahead of myself. :) If there are a bazillion typos, please excuse me. I'm tired and had a glass of awesome wine. LOL! But as you know, I'm passionate about sexual topics. :)

A dictionary describes pornography as any depiction of erotic behavior (pictures or words) intended to cause sexual excitement. It makes no distinction about 'high' sex and 'low' sex or whatever.

That's where 'obsenity' comes into play and I believe obsenity is defined by our Supreme Court as anything that the community doesn't accept. I think their wording is a bit more precise, but not really. LOL! They rely on this nebulous thing called 'community standards' so whoever gets to rule a community gets to decide what the standards are. Don't forget that we still have laws that define what consenting adults may or may not do in the bedroom.

So, legally, it's all a bunch of bullshit and that brings us to what can be morally considered ... what? Pornographic? I have no problem with anything designed to excite me sexually. What the question is actually about some 'standard' of what is acceptable in that department and I think that is a very personal decision outside the realm of the input of others EXCEPT if those desires violates the rights of someone. But I am speaking about consenting adults so there is no issue there.

So, pornography is anything that turns you on. What would be immoral about that kind of thing?

Context is something interesting, but has no basis in morality.

As a self aware person, I have my own set of standards. I am not turned on by something that goes 'he slammed his xxxx into her xxxx ' etc.

That does not excite me and so I couldn't even call that pornographic according to the dictionary definition of pornography.

Same if it were a film showing some grunting man dispensing with interesting sexual technique just to ram it home so to speak. So, if it doesn't excite me, it isn't pornography to me. LOL!

I'm not turning this into some subjective debate, only going by definitions.

However, I got very excited reading about Hank and Dagny, not because of the context of Atlas Shrugged but because of how the sex was described -- the very way it unfolded was the context.

I didn't need to know what had passed between them before, or what empires they built -- the WAY they had sex said it all.

Now, I will admit that this is new to me. Because I've been around the block a few times in the sexual arena, I've had enough experience to 'translate' what is depicted in describing or showing sexual material with what is behind it, the implicit context in sexual scenes whether written or shown in pictures or film.

However, this all goes back to this thing I don't have the right words for. How much the viewer brings to whatever he sees.

You could show a hundred people a picture and get a hundred different interpretations of what the picture is supposed to represent and those interpretations come from the experience and reasoning of the viewer.

I'm all for depicting sexual activity for the sole purpose of depicting sexual activity! Good porn is hard to find though! LOL!

Joy ;)

Post 14

Friday, January 3, 2003 - 6:17pm

Pornography, sex, etc... are all very subjective terms. Rand's Question : why do we need these concepts ? What do they refer to ? Public puritanism ? Simply the fact that there are some things which we can do in public, and some things we cannot. Sexual and gender-based behaviour is much more far-reaching and subtle than simple penis-ramming. It pervades our social interactions, for good or for bad. But we fix limits as to what is socially acceptable and what isn't. What's the real difference between a "sex flick" and your usual sex-drenched, constant-kissing popular movie ? That it is the movement of the bodies that is mechanical, instead of the storyline ? What's the big deal ? Saying "sexuality" or "pornography" should be taken as mere classification, nothing more. If we want to classify genital-ramming as sexuality and pornography, however inspired or non-inspired it is, then it's just one extreme of a gradient that we call gender-based interaction. I don't know what your opinion is about all this...

Post 15

Friday, January 3, 2003 - 11:12pm

Well, Francois, that's why I suggested that we first agree on a definition of "hardcore pornography" before we judge it.

Post 16

Saturday, January 4, 2003 - 9:17pm

The initial question by SP concerned pornography, not specifically "hard-core" pornography.

The view this Objectivist takes on pornography is that if it upholds Objectivist virtues and values (e.g., independence, self-esteem, and a heroic sense of life), it's cool. No, rather, it's hot.

Post 17

Thursday, January 9, 2003 - 12:27pm

There is a place for hardcore porn in an objectivists life. It provides an avenue of variety. Routine and automization are deadly to a good sex life- you shouldn't fuck the way you drive home after work.

Porno provides a canned fantasy, whether used during masturbation, or with a partner. So long as the pornographee (made that word up) can tell the difference between fantasy and reality, and doesn't use porn as a COMPLETE substitute for real sex, porn can have value in an appropriate context.

Same with sex toys, occasional threesomes (with people who are not in a position to interfere with a couples relationship- [like attractive people met on vacation, old friends from out of town etc. Another context might be 3 friends not in relationships at the time of the threesome]But I think a couple in a loving relationship should stay away from a regular third party if they wish to maintain their place at the top of their partners value hierarchy)

I'm straying off topic.

My immediate opinion is that any porn that is not degrading to the human spirit- e.g. bestiality, snuff films, etc. is legit to a rational individual.

Post 18

Thursday, January 9, 2003 - 12:30pm

Thursday, January 9, 2003 - 12:31pm