Arguments against Pornography - and Athletes?

[mdaoust]

Hello everyone…this is my first post in these forums.

Allow me to give a bit of background on this question…my business partner does have any professed faith and lacks what we would consider any sound moral foundation. Often times he suggests that we move our web business into the direction of pornography as there is money to be made there. Obviously I tell him that this is not an option, and that I do not want to make a living off of the objectification of women.

And this is where my question begins. I was going through some basic logical arguments against pornography this morning in my head. I started with the popular pornography is wrong because it turns women (or men) into objects to be bought and sold. The argument against objectifying women in pornography is a common argument, and one that I think is a good argument, especially when dealing with someone who lacks a moral foundation.

As I went through the argument, I began to wonder what the distinction is between an athlete who is literally marketing their image and name (e.g. Michael Jordan) and the porn star who is also marketing their image and name (e.g. Jenna Jameson). It seems that athletes are objectifying themselves for the purpose of making money. So if the argument that pornography is wrong because it objectifies women is true, then does this mean that anyone who objectifies themselves is doing something wrong?

As a sidenote, I know there is a distinction here, but I am having problems finding the distinction. I look forward to your responses.

 

[Madia]

This website might help:

pureloveclub.com/chastity/index.php?id=7

Just click on pornography, etc.

 

[mdaoust]

Right, I am familiar with that site, but that does not answer the question…let me see if I can be more succinct with the question:

If the argument that pornography is wrong because it objectifies women is an argument that can stand on its own, then we must conclude that the objecification of any person is wrong. It seems to follow from this that athletes who sell an image of themselves, or objectify themselves are just as bad as porn stars.

Its a simple logical statement which I know has flaws in it, I am just having trouble identifying the specific flaws.

 

[johnq]

mdaoust :tiphat:

Welcome to the forums. This is a good question and I am looking forward to the responses.

How is this? The ends do not justify the means. Here is an example. Two parents need money to feed their children. One works for a bank and collects a just wage and the other robs the bank. The both fed their children, but only one kept his dignity.

Does this help?

God

 

[mdaoust]

The ends does not justify the means argument does not work and seems a bit circular in itself.

To make this argument, you are saying that the means themselves (in this case the making of pornography) is wrong. But we say it is wrong (in a secular argument) because it strips away the personhood from a person (the objectification of women). So the question in light of this response would be: why are the means wrong for pornography yet not wrong for athletes? Or, in other words, why is it wrong for women to make themselves objects through pornography, yet for atheletes turning themselves into objects to be marketed is not wrong?

I too look forward to the responses.

 

[Siena]

Athletes objectify themselves (wrong) b/c of their God-given ATHLETIC ability (not wrong).

Porn stars objectify themselves (wrong) because of their SEXUAL PERVERSIONS (wrong)

The first is wrong, but not in the same way. Athletic talent and exibition is not in ITSELF wrong, it’s what the athlete does with his life/image based on the populatity gained by these talents that is.

The porn star can NEVER be ok- even if they are a “wonderful person”, because their ACTIONS ARE IN AND OF THEMSELVES WRONG.

Therefore, it is possible to be a humble, and holy athlete, capable of living in God’s will, but you can NEVER be a humble, holy porn star living in God’s will.

 

[JimO]

Are you looking for an objective argument that does not involve any kind of morality from the basis of Faith? If so, then there probably isn’t a logical objective secular argument because those who do not recognize a God-based morality see no moral difference between sexual actions and any other actions. Thus in the absence of absolute morals, porn stars “selling” images of themselves performing perverse sexual actions is not much different from atheletes selling images of themselves performing athletics.

This is precisely why our culture is in so much trouble.

 

[Neithan]

mdaoust:

If the argument that pornography is wrong because it objectifies women is an argument that can stand on its own, then we must conclude that the objecification of any person is wrong. It seems to follow from this that athletes who sell an image of themselves, or objectify themselves are just as bad as porn stars.

If anyone is objectified/objectifies themself to the point where they become a marketable product and no longer a person, then it is sinful. This does not usually happen with athletes or celebrities, but it certainly can. With pornography, it *always *happens. The difference with pornography and athletes/movie/rock stars, however, is that the former objectification involves grave matter; violations of the natural law with respect to sex, and is therefore mortally sinful. Here is a quote from the Catechism:

2354 *Pornography *consists in removing real or simulated sexual acts from the intimacy of the partners, in order to display them deliberately to third parties. It offends against chastity because it perverts the conjugal act, the intimate giving of spouses to each other. It does grave injury to the dignity of its participants (actors, vendors, the public), since each one becomes an object of base pleasure and illicit profit for others. It immerses all who are involved in the illusion of a fantasy world. It is a grave offense. Civil authorities should prevent the production and distribution of pornographic materials.

Chastity is greatly violated wherever pornography is concerned. It is far worse than simple ‘objectification.’ It literally reduces the actors to pieces of meat. It removes everything that is truly human about sex and replaces it with pure animalistic lust. Plus it almost always involves fornication and contraception, and often other extremely perverse sins. It warps the minds of viewers and mortally wounds charity with God and neighbour.

Just say “NO” to porn!

 

[LBP]

I am in no way a great expert on moral theology, but I will attempt to answer your question, or at least give some ideas that can be built upon. I must admit that, on a few occasions, my ability to convincingly explain the Church’s teaching on sexuality has failed to make an impression on people who do not already accept it.

In my opinion, it would be possible for an athlete to be guilty of sin in marketing an image of themselves, but it would not be the same as a person selling themselves as an object of lust. I think that if an athlete were to try to market him or herself in a way that tried to make an idol out of themselves, they would be guilty of sin. I do not think that this is very common, but it can be a temptation to anyone who falls in love with their own fame. If an athlete were to feel that he was owed worship, and acted accordingly in the way that he or she presented him or herself,

Now, that said, the temptation of pride is only a possibility, and it extends to every part of life, not just to the world of professional athletics. A multi-billion dollar company could similarly become infatuated with its own image, and adopt a business strategy that is completely self-serving to the point where it blatantly and directly harms others.

I don’t think that endorsement deals, media guides, baseball cards, sports magazines, and the like, are intrinsically evil and objectifying. I live in the SF Bay Area, and every year, the Oakland Athletics use clever marketing strategies to attract attendance. I find nothing evil about seeing a billboard ad with Barry Zito on it, or Eric Chavez, or anyone else. Ads like these do not take away from the personhood of the athletes. Rather, when I see Zito, I think of how he’s a class act, a nice guy, a hard worker, and a guy who worked hard pitching in the big leagues and won the Cy Young early in his career. Virtue does in fact translate on the playing field. Success at sports requires hard work, discipline, sacrifice, humility, etc. Athletes who squander natural athletic talent are looked down upon. Crybabies and Primadonnas aren’t always fan-favorites either.

Now, someone could look at an ad of a fully clothed baseball player and choose to lust over them. Athletes can also be “used” in other ways that ignores their human dignity. The manager of a baseball team may want the team to do well so that he will get a pay raise, and in a selfish drive for material gain, he may overwork one of his young pitchers. Such an action would be dangerous to the long-term career of said pitcher, and would entail an attitude that forsakes the value of another person for the sake of material gain.

Endorsement deals aren’t intrinsically evil either. A guy who plays professional baseball is a good candidate to help sell baseball equipment, just because the public assumes that he has some expertise on the relative quality of baseball gear. In other cases, an athelete might show up on a Coke commercial. This is usually just done as a joke, and the humor often involves the celebrity in a relevant way.

I’ve said a lot about sports, now I’ll say a few things about pornography. The purpose of pornogrpahy is to create something that appeals to lust. Lust reduces human beings into physical objects that are capable of satisfying lust. All of their human attributes, their emotions, their needs, their spiritual welfare, are swept aside. Their worth is not intrinsic, but rather, grounded on their ability to incite lust in other people. The focus of the human person drifts away from “I am a person made to love and be loved” to “I am an object that can make you happy.”

Their human dignity is erased and replaced with a value grounded specifically on “what good can you do for me.” It’s remotely analagous to a 10 year old kid who befriends the guy down the block just so he can go over to his house and play on the new video game console so that he himself doesn’t have to buy it.

I understand that this may not be a conclusive explanation, but I hope it at least gets the ball rolling. One final thing I’d like to say; the objectification of human beings is not confined only to lust. The author of this thread is not incorrect in venturing to wonder how else humans are made into things. Think about slavery, low-wage workers, etc.

Cheers

 

[Latin_Catholic_1]

Siena:

The first is wrong, but not in the same way. Athletic talent and exibition is not in ITSELF wrong, it’s what the athlete does with his life/image based on the populatity gained by these talents that is.

How is that wrong?

So, if I’m a famous athlete, I cannot get paid for ads?

It would only be wrong if the ad is for a morally-illicit product (condoms for example), but I don’t see why it’d be wrong if you sell whatever morally acceptable products.

Therefore, it is possible to be a humble, and holy athlete, capable of living in God’s will, but you can NEVER be a humble, holy porn star living in God’s will.

I agree.

 

[Elizabeth_B]

In moderation, watching athletic events is not only fun but can benefit the family. For example, my sons spend time with their dad (my husband) cheering for their favorite teams, bonding, learning about rules, teamwork and sportsmanship…all positive when kept in the proper perspective.

However, there are no benefits to viewing pornography. Quite the opposite. in fact – it significantly damages those who participate and those who are closest to them. I think that the greatest damage is the distortion and destruction of relationships. It conditions those who view it to seek physical gratification independently of a deep, emotional relationship. As a result the viewers and those closest to them are denied the sacred gift God has given us.

It also leads, in some cases, to all sorts of violence against women and children. I realize that not all viewers of pornography become violent, but in a large number of serious crimes against women and children, pornography has arguably been a factor.

 

[mdaoust]

Thanks for all the responses so far…a few comments:

JimO:

Are you looking for an objective argument that does not involve any kind of morality from the basis of Faith? If so, then there probably isn’t a logical objective secular argument because those who do not recognize a God-based morality see no moral difference between sexual actions and any other actions. Thus in the absence of absolute morals, porn stars “selling” images of themselves performing perverse sexual actions is not much different from atheletes selling images of themselves performing athletics.

Obviously there has to be some common assumptions of what is right and what is wrong when discussing any moral issue. Unfortunately people have different starting points where they can say something is wrong or right.

In this case, if I can prove the simple argument that objectifying a person is wrong, then I can show that pornography is wrong. My problem is that this simple argument seems to apply to people that I would not consider doing anything objectively wrong.

Neithan:

If anyone is objectified/objectifies themself to the point where they become a marketable product and no longer a person, then it is sinful. This does not usually happen with athletes or celebrities, but it certainly can. With pornography, it always happens. The difference with pornography and athletes/movie/rock stars, however, is that the former objectification involves grave matter; violations of the natural law with respect to sex, and is therefore mortally sinful.

Neithan, you and Siena seem to be on the same path with this, and it is the same path that I was hoping to go down to find the exact distinction between athletes/celebrities and porn stars. Although I still take issue with some of what you said.

1. Because the scope of this argument needs to be kept to the secular level where the only assumption we can accept is that objectifying a person is wrong. It is what the other person is willing to accept due to an argument on my part about how slavery is basically wrong due to the objectification of the slave (another topic). Making the difference between a celebrity and a porn star based on the mortally sinful violation of the natural order of sex unfortunately exceeds the rather narrow scope of the conversation.
2. It seems as if you are saying that there are varying degrees of objectification. Does this mean that there is a magical point at which it becomes wrong? This seems to be a bit of a nebulous distinction.

Objectively speaking, is the marketing tactics of a Michael Jordan, whose name, image, and personhood can be used to sell items wrong (even in the venial sense)?

Siena seems to be going a bit further by saying that any objectification of a person is wrong, although we can all agree that the underlying circumstances may effect the gravity of the situation. I guess I’m not ready to say that Michael Jordan is doing anything objectively wrong by using his image to market goods.

 

[Siena]

mdaoust:

I guess I’m not ready to say that Michael Jordan is doing anything objectively wrong by using his image to market goods.

If he is doing this b/c he thinks he is an object to be glorified (pride), wants another big fat check he doesn’t “need” (greed), wants to show off his super-sexy mucles to pick up chicks (lust), etc., then he is.

Others can objectify him, say, his business manager. Fans can objectify him, say, a young girl who has his poster above her bed and fanticises about him. He can also objectify himself in the above manner.

INTENT is at the heart of sins that are NOT IN THEMSELVES IMMORAL.

(I could, however, have a poster of Michael Jordan above my bed, and all I’d think would be. “He sure is good at basketball.” No objectification. )

 

[Montie_Claunch]

Hallo mdaoust. And welcome.

About your question. This is me off the top of my head. Porno would be wrong for a series of reasons (outside the Catholic faith).
It would seem to me that Porno would lead to a series of things. One people would value each other less. They would see each other in that way (and proboly other) as less as a comittment and more of a one night standish way which would have negative ways in the way off crime, honouring contracts, and so forth. Of course the more overt one would be the veiwing of that gender. I would think that the veiw of that person as such a thing that once one finds it displeaseing or no longer as gratifing as at first it would lead to seperation (or divorce). And if there are children involved that is where things would really get ugly. and heres why.
The children of divorced or seperated (if the parents were never married) tend to develop attachment problems. They are more likly to divorce themshelves. The preform worse in school and standerdized tests. That is of coarse if they finish school for they tend to drop out of high shcool than others and are less likly to attend College. They are also more likly to preform violent crimes and get into drugs. If you want I can get the stats where I got these from (I took child psy. last summer and that was what my final project was on {the effect of divorce on children}).
I hope this helps.

 

[JimO]

mdaoust:

Obviously there has to be some common assumptions of what is right and what is wrong when discussing any moral issue. Unfortunately people have different starting points where they can say something is wrong or right.

Why? I don’t agree. This is one of the great deceptions of atheism - that you can have an objective, absolute morality in the absence of God. We can all agree that pornography is wrong, but what if we don’t? How can you possibly argue that it is wrong if nobody is being exploited and those participating are making money and agree to the job?

I know this isn’t what you wanted to hear, but I have these debates all the time with my atheistic colleagues and they wind up falling back on what is essentially is a system of “majority rules.” If the majority or those in power say something is wrong, in the absence of God, they become gods and declare what is and what is not morally acceptable.

 

[CatholicSam]

Pornography is also harmful to the person viewing it. I heard someone on EWTN say something to the effect that it takes one or two views for someone to become addicted to pornography. Then they can spend hours and hours of the day looking at it. People lose time they could be spending with their families, and they even get fired from their jobs. Maybe you could use the argument that it is wrong in the same sense that cigarette companies are doing a disservice to people (who get addicted to cigarettes and end up dying prematurely). If you started a pornography website that led someone to get addicted and lose their job, you would be partly responsible for that. You would be doing tremendous harm to your clients! I’m sure your partner would understand that argument. If not, have you considered getting a new partner or going into business by yourself? Good luck!!

 

[Magicsilence]

erm…

You want reasons why pornography is wrong?

erm…

You cant see why its wrong?

People sinning, showing it to other people who in turn sin. END OF. It is sinners taking glory in their sin and causing others to sin.

Objectification is only relevant when discussing why it is wrong without God. But if youre posting on a Catholic forum I presume you are Catholic. Therefore you can tell your partner that the reason you will not support pornography by moving into it is because it is a grave offense to Almighty God.

An atheist with his mind made up has relativity on his side. You cannot win Im afraid.

In Christ.

Andre.

 

[Neithan]

1. Because the scope of this argument needs to be kept to the secular level where the only assumption we can accept is that objectifying a person is wrong. It is what the other person is willing to accept due to an argument on my part about how slavery is basically wrong due to the objectification of the slave (another topic). Making the difference between a celebrity and a porn star based on the mortally sinful violation of the natural order of sex unfortunately exceeds the rather narrow scope of the conversation.

You are unnecessarily limiting the criteria to prove the immorality of pornography. It isn’t only wrong because it objectifies the actors, and slavery isn’t wrong solely because it objectifies the slaves. There are added violations against the moral (natural) law. If your friend does not accept the existence of an absolute, objective moral (natural) law, then it is futile to argue with him/her in the first place, however, he/she agrees that objectification is wrong so perhaps there is some hope here.

Re-read that paragraph from the CCC. It’s a pretty effective argument on the secular level, and there is nothing specifically religious in the language.

2. It seems as if you are saying that there are varying degrees of objectification. Does this mean that there is a magical point at which it becomes wrong? This seems to be a bit of a nebulous distinction.

Objectification either occurs or it does not, and it is always a sin. On its own it is venial, but when attached to additional moral violations it can be mortal (slavery for example, is a grave violation of justice and charity). It is stripping away the humanity/personhood of somebody until they themselves cease to be people in their own right, but mere products to be marketed. Put simply: if someone is selling their body as an object in itself to be used, then this is objectification. This is always the case with pornography. The main problem, however, is the product of porn as a whole–sex. Sex is an intimate human act, and creating an object out of it to be sold to third parties is immoral/obscene. It is a grave violation of chastity–the right use of sex. It is against the natural law, and again if your friend does not see any sort of objective natural law in the world then it would be impossible to argue any sort of morality, however, why does he/she then accept that objectification in itself is wrong?

Objectively speaking, is the marketing tactics of a Michael Jordan, whose name, image, and personhood can be used to sell items wrong (even in the venial sense)?

We are not purchasing Michael Jordan himself at the expense of his humanity, we recognize that he is a person in his advertisments/merchandise/sport cards. He is using his personality to market, he is not selling his body as an object in itself to be used. If marketing with one’s personality was objectification… then every salesman would be guilty of sin! There is no objectification happening when athletes use their personality/celebrity to market. In the case of a sports card or poster, the person of the athlete is the end in itself, not merely his/her physical body as an object of use for an end irrespective of the whole person. Unless an athlete is selling an immoral product in an ad, then there is no sin.

 

[Mijoy2]

Mdaoust,

you stated:

**pornography is wrong because it turns women (or men) into objects to be bought and sold. **
True, of course, but woefully incomplete.

I think the flaw with this comparison is in your way of reasoning. The priority is not one of objectifying women or men. Although it certainly does that. The priority should be one of the evil nature of pornography. The hurt and pain it inflicts on God and people.

1. it’s an addiction that consumes time.
2. distorts reality.
3. it hurts loved ones indirectly and directly
   for example: a married man spends time lusting after other women via pictures or whatever. This takes away from the attention he should be spending on the beautiful woman he married who desires to feel wanted and loved. Such an awful dreadful thing. When the married couple are “together” she should feel she is the complete person of his attention.
4. It hurts the person him/herself that is pursuing the pornography. They feel badly about the time consumed, they naturally feel dirty and disgusted with themself, they compare themselves physically with others and often feel inadaquet.
5. it’s disgusting and grows increasingly more and more perverse and disgusting (subjective sentance I suppose but…so what)
6. God hates it for all the reasons above and more.

It is not the same as Michael Jordon using his talents to sell sneakers.

 

[CatholicSam]

This individual who is your business partner sounds like he really lacks integrity. Maybe this is your chance to get out of business with him. He can go his way and you can go yours, and you can break up over the issue of pornography. A wonderful thing could come out of something so evil!