Porn - Philosophy for Everyone: How to Think With Kink Read Online Free PDF Page A

produce porn films are guilty of coercing performers into doing things they may not be comfortable with, degrading them, exploiting their damaged circumstances (e.g., taking advantage of the fact that a porn star may have a drug habit to support), and objectifying them as a matter of course; that is, treating them as “things” rather than persons. Given that they are victims of, or complicit in, so much “wrongdoing,” we must conclude that the lives of porn stars are worse off than most of ours.
     
    We believe that the popularity and plausibility of this opinion rests on several assumptions. First, there is the assumption that departing from “normal” sexual behavior represents a kind of character defect. Second, there is an assumption that sex acts have a special significance that the porn actor does not recognize or ignores due to some interfering factor. Third, and most significant, is the assumption that there is a necessary connection between morality and welfare. One could attribute these assumptions to certain religious-based views about the significance of sexual activity and definitions stipulating “normal” sexual behavior. Undoubtedly, many who hold the popular opinion accept these assumptions on the basis of their religious backgrounds. However, that may not be true, especially with respect to the belief that moral quality of life is essential to one’s welfare. 2 Aristotle defends this view, telling us that virtue is a necessary condition for
eudaemonia
, or “faring well.”That is, if we are not virtuous, we have no hope of a satisfying, good life. Of course, we reject this view and its assumptions, so we will turn now to our arguments against them.
     
    Get Out Of My Bed!
     
    It is manifestly false that porn stars are scummy people universally lacking in character, have drug problems, were sexually abused, have bad family lives, have mental defects, or any of the panoply of assumed flaws. Dylan, for example, has spent a great deal of time doing non-profit work for charities that “normal” people tend to praise; in fact, she was a substance abuse counselor for prison inmates preparing for their release. She has lived a regular life in which she competed in sports, was free from sexual assault, and so forth. She currently attends college, and has a great relationship with her parents and siblings. There are some, like Dylan, who simply like the business, embrace their sexuality, and relish putting it on display for the enjoyment of others. No doubt there are some who have the aforementioned issues, but the assumption that porn performers must be somehow defective to get into the business is false.
     
    Does departing from “normal” sexual behavior represent some kind of character defect? This assumption is problematic. There are certainly clear cases in which one departs too radically from sexual norms, such as molesting children.The moral issue is clear – it involves victimizing and exploiting people who are powerless to defend themselves and cannot give informed consent. 3 But what about cases that involve fully developed adults making informed choices to act on certain non-standard sexual preferences? Such individuals exercise their autonomy in a way that does not involve actively harming others. Does this represent a kind of “character defect”? It may, if we understand “character” in this context as conforming to some Pauline standard of sexual morality, or believe that a specific kind of sex life contributes to human flourishing, e.g., monogamy. If that were actually true, then perhaps there is some substance to this assumption and our sexuality assumes a special significance.
     
    Whether or not this is true, however, is a matter of debate. It is not our purpose here to settle this matter entirely, so we will only pause to throw doubt on the assumption that “normal” sexual mores are justified or that they have any special connection to the prudential value of our lives.