Does the law dictate YOUR morals? (Intelligent debate inside-no pics)

[ronaldo]

YnotBob and I had an on-air debate a while ago (which I'll concede that he won-bastard), and it got me to thinking.

He had Rob Black from Extreme Associates on-air and I made it known in no uncertain terms (in the chatroom) that I believed his material is reprehensible. I said that if ANY material that's legal today, should be made illegal, it's EA's.

Bob called me a hypocrit for working in the industry today and not supporting his efforts the way we would have for Larry Flynt back in the day.

After talking with Bob again yesterday, he didn't retract his statement about me being a hypocrit, but also said there's nothing terribly wrong with BEING a hypocrit. (He actually apologized for making me feel bad, but I wasn't seeking an apology, so that wasn't necessary). Fine. 'Nuff said about that.

I thought further and I'm on record as stating that the legal age for women in porn SHOULD be 21 imo. Most 18 year old girls today can't fathom the ultimate consequences of signing off on naked pictures of themself whenthere's only herself and a cameraman present.

But, I don't have a big problem with women who are 18 and doing it today. I wish the age was 21, but I'm morally socialized to it so it's not THAT big a deal to me.

Now, I think we'd all agree that we don't want the government breathing down our necks for things such as record keeping mistakes, and I know MOST people would be outraged if they DID raise the legal age to 21.

But, what if they suddenly became more LENIENT. What if they were to LOWER the age to 16?? Remember that this is ENTIRELY hypothetical people and isn't likely to happen in our lifetime. (This example was the reason I called Bob, but I'm not gonna reveal his opinion, because it isn't my place to do so).

WOULD you promote it if it WERE legal where you live? I most assuredly wouldn't, because my morals tell me otherwise, regardless of whether or not it's the law. I couldn't support anyone that promoted it either. It being the law and there not being anything I could do, I'd live with it, but not be happy about it. The same as I wouldn't promote anything produced by Extreme Associates. The law has no bearing on my morals on those two issues, regardless of how much money was to be made.

For those of you too uneasy to discuss the age thing, imagine it being ANYTHING that is against your morals. Beastiality could be another example.

Simply put, could you support a law that flew directly in the face of your morals? Or would you cast your morals aside and promote OR support ANYTHING, so long as it was legal? Or, do you say, well the law says it's so, so it must be okay?


P.S. Someone who's opinion I value greatly commented on this and she told me "In my reality, I only give a shit what the law states in order to not be arrested, when it comes to what I will and will not support, the law's irrelevent to me."

Which states my opinion much more clearly in just one sentence.

[who]

I'd not only promote it. I'd get in on the action.

I don't need human 'laws' to tell me how my feelings should be dealt with.

[BoNgHiTtA]

LOL if its legal, sign me up!!

I have no morals, my morals are what won't get me in trouble

[mardigras]

There's lots of legal stuff I don't put on my websites

[swedguy]

There's a lot of teen sites today that I wouldn't promote, just because I think they are pushing it. Sure people make bank on those sites, but I rather not.
So my answer is no, I wouldn't promote anything that was legal if my morals told me something else.

[DWB]

Human or religious laws DO NOT dictate my morals. I believe in neither.

I know when something is not right, as we all do, and do not need anyone or a book to remind me.

And yes, if 16 were legal... I'd push it because I do not have a moral problem with it. If a model makes a mistake early in life... that's just life and she has to deal with the consequences of her actions the same as everyone else. To play the "I was too young to understand" card is bullshit.

To quote your friend, "In my reality, I only give a shit what the law states in order to not be arrested, when it comes to what I will and will not support, the law's irrelevant to me." I couldn't agree more with that statement and feel exactly the same way.

[jawanda]

Human laws most assuredly don't have a bearing on my moral beliefs.

There are certain things which are against the law but which I consider to be completely O.K. There are other things that are legal but which I could never support. It all comes down to the gut ... and mine has changed over the years. I don't even promote anything hardcore anymore, not because I think it's wrong, but because it's not something that I want to put a lot of my time and energy into. There are verying degrees for sure.

-P

[DWB]

To clarify my 16 year old statement...

I do not have a moral problem with it because the number "18" is a number written into law books and has no real significant meaning as to if a person is really "of age" or not. Who says 18 is the number and why? I know a few 30 year old women who are less mature than my 15 year old neighbor.

One thing (almost the only thing) I believe in is survival of the fittest
and evolution. I'm not going to stand in the face of evolution and the process of life and say (because of human law) that if a woman is not 18, she is too young. When a women is menstruating, that is HER BODY telling her she is ready to carry a child. Who in the hell are we to say otherwise?

Now... is she mentally ready for a child? Not these days. But there was a day before TV, Play Station, Malls. ATM Machines, Cell Phones and total and complete child spoiling that women WERE having children and marring at an early age. In some rural parts of the world this still happens. That is life according to the rules of nature and evolution. I will not argue with that because after humans are LONG gone from this planet, life will still be here evolving successfully according to the way it is supposed to WITHOUT intervention of man.

This does not mean I'm a pedo. This is just how I honestly feel about the subject. If I were a younger guy (early - mid 20's) and 16 was legal... I'd hit.

[2HousePlague]

The treatment of Sex Entertainment, by both Morality and by the Law, is a function and a reflection of the prevailing treatment given (by both) to Sex itself.

It seems unlikely that Morality will cease to opine on Sex any time soon.

And, insofar as the Law has yet to demonstrate itself lucid and rational enough to depart from the Moral baseline of the moment (in matters of Sex) -- even when the intellectual argument for doing so is very strong, I would say the Law will remain an instrument of Morality, as regards both Sex and Sex Entertainment.

To consider your hypothetical scenario, one would have to also know whether the change had arisen from a shift in the governing Morality, or whether the Law had broken free of (popular) Morality, in order to assert a HIGHER GOOD -- as with the abolition of slavery and accompanying civil rights advances.

If the Law were leading, and I agreed with the direction of the change, I would support the Movement, as a movement, in my personal life -- via communication of the Ideas and the Argument, to anyone who'd listen.

As a marketer, however, I would have to (separately) consider the commercial viability of whatever it had suddenly BECOME LEGAL to sell.

If the Law had leapt too far ahead of popular demand, it might not make sense to offer NEWLY LEGAL products for which no market yet existed -- unless, of course, you were not accountable to conventional business principles, and were free to use your products as vehicles of propaganda, unconcerned for revenue, profit, etc.

IF/WHEN I EVER find myself in a position to offer a product, LEGALLY, to a receptive market -- I will, until the cows come home.

Ultimately, all that remains, for any of us, is to answer the question: Can I live with myself? The answer to THAT question decides everything I do.



j-

[SykkBoy]

legality dictates my morals for the most part
for me, it's more about what would I feel comfortable defending ina court of law with my friends and family present if I had to...

I've made the "what if the age of consent were lowered to 16" thing for awhile now when people freak that someone might find a 17 year old hot (even if she is only a week away from 18). As my daughter gets closer to that age, I'd probably be a big hypocrite about it....

the reason most of us only shoot models that are 18 and older is because it's legal...if it was lowered to 16, I would bet a large majority in this industry would start shooting 16 year old models...

the reason many stopped promoting beasty sites was more to due with possible legal porblems than moral issues...also financial issues (other sponsors threatening to terminate affiliates who had links to such sites on their sites) and of course lack of processing sent most of the beasty boys to shadier processing, hosting, etc.

[Babaganoosh]

The law is more of an extension of my morals. If something is illegal, I am obviously not going to promote it. Anything that I feel is reprehensible in any way I will not promote it or allow it on my sites. In the end, my sites are mine and it's up to me what goes on them (assuming it's legal). I run a network of TGP and MGPs and I come across galleries all the time that are legal but I find them objectionable for one reason or another. One example is this gallery http://www.gene-juice.com/galleries/...dexTFF_TG.html which has the title "Such Big Cocks, Such Little Girls." That line makes my skin crawl so I always decline it. I'm on the verge of just getting rid of that submitter completely.

In answer to your question, if 16 year olds could legally do porn, I would not promote them under any circumstances. I would cut ties with anyone who did promote them. 16 is too young. I agree that 18 is probably too young too but that's the way the ball bounces. There are a lot of things that I won't touch in this business that are legal. Cock gagging/forced blowjobs, simulated rape, pissing and really disgusting cumshots to name a few. I also hate sites that clearly cater to pedophiles (like little april). If some people want to promote it, great. I can't stop them but I assure you I won't be promoting that site or any site like it.

[2HousePlague]

Originally Posted by Babaganoosh

... I run a network of TGP and MGPs and I come across galleries all the time that are legal but I find them objectionable for one reason or another. One example is this gallery http://www.gene-juice.com/galleries/...dexTFF_TG.html which has the title "Such Big Cocks, Such Little Girls." That line makes my skin crawl...

EXCEPTIONAL MARKETING!

That's the best text ad I've seen in a while.




j-

[jayeff]

The point perhaps people are missing is that laws don't exist in a vacuum, but reflect society. The law wouldn't change unless the social climate changed first, so if 16-year-olds were allowed to make porn, the prevailing view of the age question would be quite different from what it is now.

Which is something else people forget: moral standards are not cast in stone. Our views related to age are less than 150 years old and we were driven to try to keep children as children for longer primarily by political and economic issues: the moral considerations got tacked on later. Nowadays we are attempting to outguess nature by around 50% and a lot of people argue that this presumption is the cause of many of the problems that assail teenagers.

Although people can fight vigorously to defend their moral standards, the fact remains that by and large we simply adopt the morality of our times, or more accurately, whatever we were exposed to between birth and around 25 years of age. But while our individual views tend to stop changing, those of society at large don't, so it isn't surprising that many people find themselves out of step at some point.

[Allison]

Originally Posted by jayeff

The point perhaps people are missing is that laws don't exist in a vacuum, but reflect society. The law wouldn't change unless the social climate changed first, so if 16-year-olds were allowed to make porn, the prevailing view of the age question would be quite different from what it is now.

Which is something else people forget: moral standards are not cast in stone. Our views related to age are less than 150 years old and we were driven to try to keep children as children for longer primarily by political and economic issues: the moral considerations got tacked on later. Nowadays we are attempting to outguess nature by around 50% and a lot of people argue that this presumption is the cause of many of the problems that assail teenagers.

Although people can fight vigorously to defend their moral standards, the fact remains that by and large we simply adopt the morality of our times, or more accurately, whatever we were exposed to between birth and around 25 years of age. But while our individual views tend to stop changing, those of society at large don't, so it isn't surprising that many people find themselves out of step at some point.

Good point. I couldn't really find an answer to Ron's question until I read your comment.

~Alli

[ronaldo]

Some excellent thoughts in this thread.

[mindoza]

I learned a long time ago, in business you MUST check your emotions at the door!!!

On a personal level I would be sick to death if 16 was the legal age however it is not about me personally. I have an obligation to offer the pubic what they want within the legal limits of the law, if the adult viewing public demands 16 year old chicks then:
To each his own, who am I to say.

In life we must wear many hats, some are just more comfortable then others!

[pradaboy]

Originally Posted by swedguy

There's a lot of teen sites today that I wouldn't promote, just because I think they are pushing it. Sure people make bank on those sites, but I rather not.
So my answer is no, I wouldn't promote anything that was legal if my morals told me something else.

I second this... my morals would prevent me from promoting anything I find immoral. It doesn't matter if it's legal or not.

[GatorB]

Well they did research on why 16 and 17 year old high the high fatality rate among drivers of all ages and it was because they found out the even at age the descision making process area of the brain is still very immature. In fact that area of the brain doesn't fully mature until age 25. We all know 18 year olds can't drink even though they are "adults" because let's face it most don't have any sense of self control. That's why they raised it to 21. Yeah when I was 18 I thought I was an "adult" when I see a 18-19 year olds now, I still see a kid.

[webseth]

mmmm 18 year olds