Moral defects?

I'm a first year philosophy student and for the last couple of weeks we have been discussing the morality of pornography at the hand of the the philosophers Brison (a feminist) and Altman (a seemingly horny old man).

They speak specifically of violent pornography. In short, Brison believes that all it is is hate speech toward women (though, is there not just as much Femdom out there as Maledom??) and that it is the primary reason that our patriarchal system survives as well as being the cause of violence against women.

Altman sees violent porn as part of our right to sexual autonomy and that it has not been proven that it caused the things above mentioned.

Though they both believe that being turned on by violence (and, well, pretty much everything that can be classified under BDSM) is a moral defect.

I've been a sub for almost four years. If men who get turned on by violent scenes are supposed to condition them to treat women in general as subordinates, should I not be conditioned to see all men as my superiors? Though asking anyone who knows me, I am sometimes scarily feminist.

These are obviously not things I could speak openly of in class. So I ask you apparent defeciants:

Is being turned on by violence, degradation and humiliation really moral defects. And if not, why not?

Terribly vexed.

SM

Definition of DEFECT (according to Merriam-Webster)



1

a: an imperfection that impairs worth or utility : shortcoming <the grave defects in our foreign policy> b: an imperfection (as a vacancy or an unlike atom) in a crystal lattice


2

[Latin defectus]: a lack of something necessary for completeness, adequacy, or perfection : deficiency <a hearing defect>


while i do know what a defect is, i was curious as to the official definition and thought it might add some food for thought...

while my insides kind of bristle at my lifestyle being referred to as a moral defect (lol), i think it is also important to remember that philosophers ARE philosophers simply because they have a philosophy. meaning that what they have to say is just their opinion, or their take on whatever subject. while their philosophy may make for some interesting reading, it in no way means that their opinion matters enough to be vexed over it.

that being said, i think that most of society considers this lifestyle to be a moral defect...the vanilla portion of society anyway...and therein lies the problem. the above philosophies are those of men who are trying to understand something that they, more than likely, have never experienced...and that they do not understand.

i prefer to think of my kinks as less morally defective....and more morally delicious....teehee...

whisperz

Whisperz, if you could get the same rush of excitement, enjoyment, or whatever you get from BDSM sex, as you could in vanilla one, would you choose to do it in a vanilla manner? As opposed to the hassles involved in kink-sex.

Failing to see the "hassle" in kink...the only defect I see is in the plain ole lazy "nilla" sex.

Let's not forget that the "definition" of "normal" changes over time. So any man who was openly bisexual in ancient greece was normal, but perverted and sick in the first half of the 20th century.

Anyone, in the USA, who indulged in oral sex, was perverted in the first half of the 20th century... Sodomy laws still abound in many states and countiies.

Being gay isn't an anathema to our 21st century press, but it is to most christian fundamentalist churches.

And what you do as a submissive, you do consensually... and the main difference between you and the "Taken in Hand" supporters, for example, is you admit you do so sexually, and they still "overlook" in conversations and discussions of their lifestyle, that they are also practicing their beliefs in the bedroom.

Bottom line, I see no moral defect in consensual activities.

honestly, i don't know...i might. but the fact remains that i don't.

Thanks for your replies!
The thing is though, what is also argued, is that it fuels sexism. Is it in any of your experience that Doms also see women outside of the scene as inferior? Does pornography that displays violence against women effect all women, even though they do not themselves participate, in that they are then treated differently by men who watch it?

There are certainly defective people who will point to porn, alcohol, drugs, child abuse, bad DNA or allergies as an excuse for inexcusable behavior. There are a few defective people who lose (or have lost) the ability to separate fiction and fantasy from fact and reality. Some of these people have committed despicable acts. Most people with an axe to grind will point to these few examples and wrongly declare them to be the standard for society. There certainly have been women who have been subjugated against their will in pornography. Linda Lovelace claimed this after the fact. But I doubt that many of the performers on screen today fall into that category. Yes, they do it for money; but it would appear that most also do for the excitement. Those of us who CAN separate fantasy and fiction from reality use the medium as a source of entertainment and diversion. Not as a guide to life. I was raised to respect all, but especially women. Maybe it's a southern thing but I see more manners and respect given to everyone down here than in many other parts of the country. Movies, photos and books do not change my behavior towards others.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SilentMelody

Thanks for your replies!
The thing is though, what is also argued, is that it fuels sexism. Is it in any of your experience that Doms also see women outside of the scene as inferior? Does pornography that displays violence against women effect all women, even though they do not themselves participate, in that they are then treated differently by men who watch it?

---

In my opinion, the imagery makes no difference. Those who hold others inferior, do so because of what their parents, and perhaps their peers (who got it from their own parents,) taught them early in life. Those who don't prejudge, who don't believe being different constitutes inferiority, will use imagery, be it art or porn, for what it is, entertainment, and don't alter their perceptions because of what they see.

These modern day philosophers who decry porn as abusive sexism miss the real point, that people are mostly ill-educated in the first place. Take away the porn and nothing would change...

> Failing to see the "hassle" in kink

Couple weeks ago I had some BDSM sex in a girls dormitory which has people, and walls, and noises, and no kink equipment in her room.

Yes, it's quite the hassle.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SilentMelody

These are obviously not things I could speak openly of in class. So I ask you apparent defeciants:
Is being turned on by violence, degradation and humiliation really moral defects. And if not, why not?
Terribly vexed.
SM

---

Well, as I see it, you do not answer to anyone for either your feelings or your thoughts. What you do answer for, is your actions.

Is your life as a sub hurting anyone? No? Is it making you and your other happy? Yes? Well, it is not a moral defect to make anyone happy.

The morality comes from either religion or politics or ideology. We all have our own version for our own reason, our own sense of right and wrong. Nobody has a monopoly!

Now, if being turned on by non-consensual violence makes you go out and violate other people, it would be wrong. But if you keep it between consensual partners, I see no wrong myself. Even fantasies about actual non-consensual acts hurt noone, as long as you keep it fantasies. There is a difference between fantasy and reality, and one of the problems is that there are those who simply do not understand the difference.

I know there are people out there who think it against their political convictions, and that is bad for them.

Some are feminists, some are fundamentalists. You can recognize the fundamentalists by their tendency not to want to listen to other people, not to want to go out there and find out what it is actually all about on a less theoretical basis, and by their belief that even without doing these things they just know what is best for other people.

But it is the people doing it, who knows. Us. Oh, and the people who have actually studied this, and also found it harmless.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Whisperz

that being said, i think that most of society considers this lifestyle to be a moral defect...the vanilla portion of society anyway...and therein lies the problem.

whisperz

---

Not all societies, though..In DK it is not considered morally one thing or the other, some people may find it stupid or odd, but not sort of morally anything.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by denuseri

Failing to see the "hassle" in kink...the only defect I see is in the plain ole lazy "nilla" sex.

---

I don't see any defect in anything sexual that makes people happy. Consensual, I mean. But maybe that is what you mean? That is doesn't make everyone happy but they keep it that way anyway, for 'moral' reasons?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SilentMelody

Thanks for your replies!
The thing is though, what is also argued, is that it fuels sexism.

---

As you pointed out yourself, it goes both ways, there are male subs as well.
Can it be sexism if it goes both ways??

I do realize that if you know nothing about it, bdsm porn (I do so dislike the term 'violent' porn because it smells of non-consensuality) can be upsetting - or very upsetting. You have to understand the background, and you have to understand the difference between fantasy and reality, as is said several times. And there is a lot more women sub porn that male sub porn.

I myself often find vanilla porn more upsetting, because the attitudes you see there are often not at all for fun! Same with violence in films.

However, you do not hear anyone complaining about that, which is the puritanical (is that a word?) aspect of it. At its basis it is about not liking sex. For the radicals, I mean.

But although I do find many of these porns and films upsetting, I would not go for censorship, but I would like to see some much better quality films and porn. And I would definitly also like to see a lot more male porn - Let's have some equality here :-)

Quote:

---

Is it in any of your experience that Doms also see women outside of the scene as inferior?

---

It is not my experience that Doms normally see women as inferior, either outside or inside the scene. My scene have been DK and UK, that is all I know about.

[quote}
Does pornography that displays violence against women effect all women, even though they do not themselves participate, in that they are then treated differently by men who watch it?[/QUOTE]

LOL Let them try!

I do not think it works that way. If the contempt is there, it is there. I do not think bdsm porn creates it. If it fuels it, so would a lot of films.

Quote:

---

Not all societies, though..In DK it is not considered morally one thing or the other, some people may find it stupid or odd, but not sort of morally anything.

---

i whole-heartedly agree, hence the use of the word "most"...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Whisperz

i whole-heartedly agree, hence the use of the word "most"...

---

Overlooked that one..sorry

I'm not trained in philosophy, so I'm sure any response I give will be sadly lacking from a formal standpoint. That, however, has never stopped me from shooting my mouth off before and it won't stop me this time.

Pornography->Patriarchy
I disagree strongly with the claims of Brison, at least as presented in your post. The idea that pornography of any kind is guiding the path of history seems ludicrous, and as reactionary in its way as the claims from the far Right that pornography is destroying our youth. The world is a complicated place with an unimaginable number of factors determining what its shape will be, and I'm automatically suspicious of anyone who tries to make a sweeping claim of causality. Every time someone claims to have found a simple answer to pretty much anything outside the realm of hard science (and often even in the realm of hard science) they turn out to be wrong. Just look at the economic events of the last decade for some very clear examples of people thinking that they had figured things out only to find that whoops, no, the world is more complicated than that.

Every one of us has had moments when we think "if only (I made more money, had a good relationship, studied something different in school, had learned skill X 10 years ago) were different, my life would be so much better." It's a very slippery slope for people with philosophical or moral agendas to map the ills of the world to things that they find offensive, and to convince themselves that if only X were gone the world would be better. That's a much more comforting way to look at things than to have to face the fact that the world is incredibly complicated, brutally unfair, and that change is a slow, arduous process.

On to the claims of moral defect.

First, as regards pornography
I don't think that the enjoyment of violent pornography is inherently bad, but we should all be aware that pornography can, and often is, created in an unethical manner. We all have a responsibility to know where our pornography is coming from, the circumstances under which it is made, and the circumstances of the performers. The idea that we live in a society in which some people refuse to eat industrially produced meat due to a desire for animals to not be abused, but would at the same time pay for and consume pornography produced in an unsafe, insane, or non-consensual manner is frankly unconscionable. If you care about the history of what you eat you should care equally about the history of what you feed your desires, as both can be equally poisonous.

Secondarily as regards pornography, people should be very careful to make sure they continue to recognize the line between fantasy and reality. This can easily become blurred, and it's very easy for people to start drawing moral equivalencies between the fiction produced by professionals for titillation and the realities of how people should be treated. It's a potentially dangerous path and everyone walking it should regularly stop and look down to make certain his or her feet are still on the road.

With regards to sexual relations
Violence is defined as "Behavior involving physical force intended to hurt, damage, or kill someone or something." (http://bit.ly/ldkFUN) While that would seem on the surface to apply to BDSM I would argue that it does not.

Modern, ethical BDSM is characterized as being Safe, Sane, and Consensual. If an act or relationship is SSC then I do not believe that it meets the burden of the definition of the word violence.

Consent: Consent is obviously key. Sex without consent is rape. It is unconscionable, and it is violent. No sex should ever happen without consent.

Sanity: A person could theoretically be able to consent to their own murder, but it would frankly not be sane. For sex to be sane both (all) participants must take into account the potential longterm effects of the acts, and must be prepared to support and care for their partners as necessary, preventing them from taking unreasonable steps.

Safety: Shit can get out of hand. A person who allows things to reach a point that they are not safe is being negligent, and is showing a lack of care for his or her partner(s). Safety requires that all participants be aware of the physical and emotional situation, and are prepared to change course or stop completely if danger looms.

So
If a person is with a consensual partner, participating in acts that both believe are not going to be damaging and which are not going to cause harm to their partner, and if participants are careful and aware and prepared to stop if something gets out of hand, then I don't believe the sex can be characterized as violent as it is not meant to cause harm or damage. If BDSM is not violent then does not fall under the categorization of moral defect.

My Current partner had never seen, experienced nor had any dealings with anything outside of traditional vanilla, that is until he met me... And having philosophies of my own, that which work off of faith, government,and mathematics that do go against the norm but have been accepted by the individuals closest to me. I like thinking for myself, and I like sex with all of the elements, sex, passion, spanks, filthy language, degradation, forced to commit acts i would love to do anyway. Am I defective? Hell no... I am a straight forward individual who has privied itself to have mind of self, not other peoples thoughts or commissions about who I need to be. And for my pre-vanilla partner, he's becoming more deviant than I, and I love it!

I may be repeating some of what has already been said because I didn't read all of the responses, but I am offering My opinion on this subject. Morality, in my mind, is subjective. There is no objective way to state what is and is not moral. Often one's moral center is determined by their upbringing. Someone raised in a fundamentalist middle Eastern religion such as Islam may see nothing wrong with an "honor killing", where as someone raised in a fundamentalist Christian home may view the subject as "murder is murder, and 'thou shalt not kill.' " Addressing the subject at hand, what one person considers to be "violent pornography" may be seen by somebodyelse as "soft core porn". Did you know that the Uniform Code of Military Justice forbids military personnel from having sexual intercourse in any position other than missionary? The writers of that rule may very well view pornography that includes "doggy style" as being "violent pornography" where as you and I may see it as being very "vanilla" or "plain." Honestly, I don't think there's a way to objectively answer the question posed, as morality is not an objective topic. In order to objectively address this very subjective question, one must first know what set of morals is being followed and then the determination can be made as to A) Whether the pornography in question is violent or not and B) Whether the actions taking place in the pornography in question are morally defective. In short, I'd need more information to aptly answer this question.

Well this is quite an interesting question and like several posters said the main thing to be asked is to what extent do we define morality and what standard of morality are we holding the question to.

In my opinion, I feel that sexual violence without any consent is wrong any doesn't fall under BDSM, but instead rape.

Personally, I don't feel defective, but l wouldn't care if I was. As long as I'm not grabbing strangers off the streets and vice versa (though, can't lie--I'm not 100% adverse to the latter), no one should be concerned. People who hate women will find a reason to hate them with or without BDSM or even porn. Some will say I'm morally wrong for eating meat, but that's not going to keep me from sinking into a slab of ribs.

Treu, not a single one of us is broken in our eyes, but that won't stop people from saying we are.

I've read through all these posts. And before I start, please don't misunderstand me and perceive my response as hostile. I only put forward that these philosophers are maintaining a stance (according to the information above), based on philosophical opinion. Being that, regardless of whether one believes their sexuality is inherently predisposed; or reinforced by or outright created by environmental circumstances, it is a physiological question either way.
I adore this line of questioning regardless of my own feelings, or the fact it is mere opinion because it touches a concept that goes beyond personal opinion. Are there negative variables to our sexuality, that defined anthropologically, are inherently defective in nature within the greater scope of humanity?
I would submit that all questions that push for a greater understanding are worth asking; and diligently seeking resolution regardless the cost, worth any perceived pain.
- E.G.

You think that the definition of what's "normal" and what's not normal hasn't changed over the ages? That this is somehow merely an opinion?

Or have I totally misinterpretted what you're trying to say. Do you mean psychological where you've said physiological?

Psychological and physiological are obvious inexplicably mixed, but no i meant physiological, at least to a greater degree. I'm attempting to (if it's possible) find inherent value in accordance with humanities needs in this regard; to take the question beyond the individualistic nature of moral defection and to explore the idea of intrinsic value with regards to our sexuality in humanity. Whether or not, as the 'moral defect' the philosophers describe, has an inherent value, or an inherent flaw on a scale larger than the individual.
The simple definition of normative behavior does not fit into what I am trying to explore, nor do I believe that was what the original post was trying to explore.

I'm thinking "moral defect" is a negative judgement on a person, rather than anything scientific to do with their physiology or psychology.
And people who engage in BDSM consensually certainly have no moral defect, imo, regardless of how it looks to other people on the outside.

You mentioned violent porn, and someone else called it BDSM porn, but to me, both exist. Nothing my partner and I do, whether we're having a vanilla night, he's on top, or I am, we do not participate in violence. The closest is when I get clumsy and whop into him headfirst or something. We engage in different ways of touching each other, some softer, some firmer, some via surrogates like rope or leather, but we are not violence, it is love. Violent porn would bother/offend me, because it is non-consensual. I am a firm believer in, "An it harm none, do what thou wilt." Harm as in, hurt or damage against their will. I know you can hurt me a little and I like it-but you are not harming me.

You later asked if Dom see women outside BDSM as inferior, too. As far as I have seen and experienced, good Doms (I know, I'm opening a can of worms here, but you know what I mean: Doms, not abusers who hide behind lies of BDSM) value women greatly. The ones I have met, either in r/l or here, all treat women with courtesy, respect, kindness, and gentility. I have only once felt anything resembling a superior attitude, and I'm told that he is not really like that, I either misinterpreted (easy to do without the stress patterns of spoken speech) or I'd caught him on a bad day. If anything, they act as if we are slightly superior-which is part of why they value our submission so. Now, maybe I am wrong, or maybe I have been played by all the top-type men I have ever met, but if I, a woman in the scene, don't get that from our Doms, why should women outside the scene? I think this idea had to come from someone who observed the scene but were never part of it. Look at the post on the difference between a slave and a whore, and see how many of the woman posters like being called by demeaning terms during play, usually by their one master/mistress-not by the world at large, and these women don't internalize these words, they play with them. If you don't get that part, yes, you might think that all she-subs are victims of violence, that we are degraded or abused, when nothing could be further from the truth. I am glorified, uplifted, and in or on my way to sexual exstacy when I am in a scene with my lover/Master. I am alive as at no other time, with every nerve on high, every touch bordering on too much while being just right, every kiss, every word, every stroke with a hand, a paddle, or a crop is like a prayer in a sacred temple, given directly to the Goddess' High Priestess herself. BDSM porn should remind me of that moment, should remind him of the same thing How could thinking that way be bad for women?
You asked if BDSM was a defect. Nothing that can bring the level of joy that I read in Ozme's thread, "A Connection," or the joy I find with Dog could be a defect. It might be something we need more of. What if we quit judging what two (or more) consenting adults do together to find sexual joy or emotional closeness, and let it be okay for people to try things, to find the sex that brings them joy? What if people didn't settle for less than utter joy because they felt ashamed or wrong for what they wanted? What if we quit using labels as insults, and reduced our use of them, so people couldn't be outcast for being homosexual, or bi-sexual, or submissive, or dominant? What if we put the labels on the behaviors, not the people? Then we couldn't yell at each other, "you're a (fag, perv, lez, freak)" and could instead say, "Oh, you tried sex with (a man, a woman, ropes, donkeys, whips, dildos.) How was it? Not for you? Too bad. Have you tried . . ." Yeah, you caught me. I'm secretly an idealist. But wouldn't it be great? (Then that evil porn could be used as instruction or a menu. "Have you tried the whips with a side of your gender? Awesome combo, man!")

Excellent, excellent post, Dog's Lady :)

I'm an idealist with you.

When I think of violence in this context it is play-violence. Yeah, someone may get hurt, but no more than they wanted to, and they have a way to stop it when it's too much.

Thanks, ksst. I'm having a crappy day, so the compliment came right in time. Did the humor I was trying for come across at all? Please, I'd love to hear any input.

Yes I did. I was going to make my own joke, but it wasn't very funny so I deleted it. Hugs to you on your crappy day.

The mistake being made by those who misvalue their partner is the presumption that while the dominant is indeed the superior role, and the submissive is indeed the inferior role, those adjectives must be used with their positional definitions. Those adjectives have nothing to do with the value of the role nor our perceptions of worth.

The original post (OP) is filled with flaws imo, for the very reason that it is filled with words that have multiple meanings but uses them miscomparing the definitions.

Even more importantly, the OP presumes all dominants are men and all submissives are women and extrapolates those concepts into her discussion. Well, these orientations are, and should be, genderless. So how a dominant feels about one or the other gender outside of what we do in our community is kind of irrelevent imo.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SilentMelody

Thanks for your replies!
The thing is though, what is also argued, is that it fuels sexism. Is it in any of your experience that Doms also see women outside of the scene as inferior? Does pornography that displays violence against women effect all women, even though they do not themselves participate, in that they are then treated differently by men who watch it?

---

There is pornography based on violence against women, and porn based on violence against men. The fact that one is considered normal and displayed in mass media, and the other considered weird and kinky, is a product of society's attitudes. If the existence of porn created those attitudes, both or neither of them would be widely displayed.

Take an example that nobody considers "porn": you can make a whole archive of Hollywood films where a woman gets spanked by a man. (These days, you can find such lists on BDSM sites.) But to find scenes where a woman spanks a man you have to go to explicitly "kinky" productions. Society created that distinction, the films didn't create it.

But of course these things work both ways, and once created, the films reinforce the attitudes that created them.

The fact that dominatrix images are becoming more common in the mainstream - even if usually used jokingly - I see as a healthy sign of the gradual retreat of male-dominated sexism.

And as Snark said, anyone can blame their crimes on pornography. People have blamed comic books, video nasties and the Internet for their crimes, anything to avoid taking responsibility. Some people also blame their crimes on the Bible, but nobody takes that as proof it shoudl be banned.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dog's Lady

Violent porn would bother/offend me, because it is non-consensual.

---

No, that's the lie that the censorship lobby use. Most porn involving pain and violent treatment doesn't even play at being non-consensual, it is clear that the sub is offering him/herself to be hurt for the Dom/me's and the audience's pleasure.

If you look at the trailers for most of the sites that advertise on this forum, even when the script involves an unwilling victim, they always end with an out-of-script moment where the sub assures the organisers and the audience that she enjoyed it. That's not just to keep the authorities off their backs: it's because most of their customers, too, want to know it's only a game.

I have watched some of those and wondered what the out of context moments at the end were for. That makes sense.