View Full Version : IS ****ography immoral?


platinummatt!
09-22-2006, 09:02 PM
State reasons yes or no

The Noose
09-23-2006, 08:31 AM
NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!

Some is, most isnt.
Id say exploting people is, but an adult who knows wat theyre doing and is comfortable doing it isnt.
Many people have jobs they hate, but need the money. **** and prostitution are the same. Kinda.

Its all a bit soul destroying, and im not sure if the money , however much, really ever compinsates for feeling worthless and having ur dignity stripped away by strangers, but most choose to do it. And can handle it.

So watever.

I dont think theres anything immoral about watching it. Unless ur getting off knowing that the person ur watching really isnt enjoying it.
BDSM **** is cool wen u know the person is getting off on the pain and abuse.
But then again, sometimes its difficult to tell.

I think that alot of the stories in the news are far more voyueristic and a warped type of entertainment. **** is wat it is. People ****ing for money on film.
Whereas the media will show us stuff WITHOUT peoles/victims concent. Not because they care, but to sell their newspaper.

RockyMarcianofan00
09-24-2006, 04:33 AM
As far as Morals go yes its Immoral but in the real world I don't think its Immoral...as long as the girls (or men *shutters*) want to do it then I see no problem...

phallus
09-24-2006, 06:43 PM
NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!

Some is, most isnt.
Id say exploting people is, but an adult who knows wat theyre doing and is comfortable doing it isnt.
Many people have jobs they hate, but need the money. **** and prostitution are the same. Kinda.

Its all a bit soul destroying, and im not sure if the money , however much, really ever compinsates for feeling worthless and having ur dignity stripped away by strangers, but most choose to do it. And can handle it.

So watever.

I dont think theres anything immoral about watching it. Unless ur getting off knowing that the person ur watching really isnt enjoying it.
BDSM **** is cool wen u know the person is getting off on the pain and abuse.
But then again, sometimes its difficult to tell.

I think that alot of the stories in the news are far more voyueristic and a warped type of entertainment. **** is wat it is. People ****ing for money on film.
Whereas the media will show us stuff WITHOUT peoles/victims concent. Not because they care, but to sell their newspaper.


i'd say it's no more immoral than half the **** that goes down in the world, there's people using other people in almost every aspect of life... at least i can jerk off to ****

Exige Jr
09-24-2006, 06:46 PM
Having sex is immoral? Or its the fact the camera is in the room that is immoral? Or the fact that others are watching sexual acts being performed, makes it immoral?

Each is as ridiculous as the other.

No, its not immoral.

Velour
09-24-2006, 06:53 PM
Immoral- 'Contrary to established moral principles.'

kind of a vague question to me.
what are your morals?:tapedshut

neils7147933
09-24-2006, 07:34 PM
If it conflicts with one's morality, then yes. But that's something that is unique to each individual.

I don't have a problem with viewing ****ography and neither does my girlfriend, so I guess she doesn't feel exploited when I download a new video. If it's a particularly good one, though, she'd be disappointed if I didn't alert her to it so she could see...

Chups
09-24-2006, 08:27 PM
Yes it is!!

By the way...here's some hack **** site passwords.


http://d0x.de/?http://www.grooby.com/yum/amembers.html l:rocket1 p:rutgers
http://d0x.de/?http://www.grooby.com/yum/amembers.html l:Rockytop p:deeplime
http://d0x.de/?http://www.grooby.com/yum/amembers.html l:kchusker p:husker
http://d0x.de/?http://www.grooby.com/yum/amembers.html l:aferro16 p:redgem1
http://d0x.de/?http://www.gushbusters.com/members/members.html l:444arrow p:444truck
http://d0x.de/?http://www.gushbusters.com/members/members.html l:demidion p:befree
http://d0x.de/?http://www.gyno-fetish-dreams.com/members/mem_eng.html l:37602302 p:9775230
http://d0x.de/?http://www.hentaifetish.com/members/ l:reevewolf p:jehuty
http://d0x.de/?http://www.hometownholly.com/members/index.html l:radar p: piccullo
http://d0x.de/?http://www.hometownholly.com/members/index.html l:Gohan p:Goku
http://d0x.de/?http://www.hometownholly.com/members/index.html l:dooglas p:nnmaster
http://d0x.de/?http://www.hometownholly.com/members/index.html l:a1mbient p:sl1ov8ns
http://d0x.de/?http://www.hotwebamateurs.com/members/ l:sylvain p:jeremi
http://d0x.de/?http://www.hotwebamateurs.com/members/ l:syntax p: pellucid
http://d0x.de/?http://www.hotwifetv.com/members/ l:larryluv p:bigman

Nacho_Analstain
09-24-2006, 08:39 PM
no,men need it when life is down

thanks 4 the pass's haha

RAESAAD
09-24-2006, 08:39 PM
State reasons yes or no
UMMM no.......

Chups
09-24-2006, 08:59 PM
no,men need it when life is down

thanks 4 the pass's haha

Karma will be well appreciated. :banana:

LIU KANG
09-24-2006, 09:02 PM
I think it is.

I think ****ography mislead's people. I think men look at those women and expect their woman to be like that or to look like that. Not every woman was born with a tiny waist and big boobs..lol I think it sorta does the same for women. They might think that their man isn't big enough and try to find someone bigger.

My husband has never had an interest in it and doesn't understand how men get hard off of watching something. He said he need's it to be infront of him or touching him lol

ATM
09-24-2006, 09:59 PM
I like to think of it as instructional footage that will help me convince some sinning whore to have sex with her and then impregnate her, bringing a child into this world and being a good christian.

platinummatt!
09-25-2006, 12:08 PM
yall saying its not immoral. But thats ok seeing as some of the women only do it cos they are poor

K-DOGG
09-25-2006, 02:16 PM
immoral: Contrary to established moral principles]


What are the established moral principles?

Humanism and morality
Defining non-religious rules about ethics and morality is an issue of major concern for humanists and atheists. This is partly due to a common religious conception that those without religion may be somehow lacking in morality or have no ethical foundation. When defining what they believe in, humanists have produced statements of their beliefs and purposes which often include expressions of support for things such as human rights, democracy, liberty, social responsibility, scientific method and the need to provide an alternative to religion. Perhaps among the most authoritative of these statements have been the International Humanist and Ethical Union***8217;s resolution concerning humanist principles as expressed in its Amsterdam Declaration 2000, and the American Humanist Association's Humanist Manifesto III of 2003.

A motivation for these statements is a need to identify fundamental principles that may be used by humanists in a general way as an alternative to religious belief to assist moral decision making. A concise and effective statement of universal ethical values would be of advantage not only to humanists but to all humanity. An attempt is made here to suggest a possible way in which this may be done. This draws not only on humanist values as published, but also on some relevant insights in contemporary ethical and moral philosophy.

Moral theory and principles

Most people are familiar with a "common sense morality", based on norms such as "treat others as you would like to be treated", "keep your promises", "be fair" and "do your best". Along with these common sense guides to behaviour, there are also values that are generally held to be "good": happiness, honesty, justice, charity, courage, integrity, community, love, knowledge and freedom. Most people are familiar with these ideals, which do not depend on any religion, but "common sense" principles of morality may be insufficient when considering complex situations . Philosophers have used these ideals to develop moral theories to help guide behaviour and have postulated ethical standards and principles based on them.

Historically, some of the most prominent of these moral theories are, divine command theory, utilitarianism and natural rights theory. Divine command theory holds that morality should be based on God***8217;s commands. This is the morality derived from religious texts, and is the major form of morality provided by the world***8217;s religions. Utilitarianism holds that morality should be guided by "the greatest good for the greatest number", meaning that utility or happiness for all should be maximized. The natural rights theory holds that all individuals have natural rights to life liberty and property, which should only be limited by the need not to violate the rights of other people. It has sometimes also been assumed that such natural rights have a religious foundation. There are also many other theories using different rules or methods to specify ethical human behaviour and obligations. None of these has gained universal acceptance.

The failure of any predominant theory to emerge is because in practice it may be difficult to rely on any one theory in all situations. Some flexibility may be needed in applying different theories at different times or in combination. Rather than specifying a theory and then trying to apply it in all cases, a better alternative may be to attempt to specify a comprehensive set of basic principles, that may universally be regarded as having general moral value. A moral decision making process may then be defined as an attempt to optimally implement a balance of these principles in given circumstances. The problem then becomes initially one of defining what principles that are "good" for this purpose. The approach of defining principles was described by W.D.Ross, "The Right and the Good", OUP, 1932. He suggested that moral issues could be understood as conflicts between certain duties, which could be expressed as 'prima facie' principles, but which are not absolute rules. Field says these may be described as "moral presumptions", to be followed unless there is a justifiable reason not to. If any circumstance arises where one principle is not observed, then this exception must be justified by the overriding need to fulfil a different principle.

A basic set of eight such principles, together with brief annotations, has been suggested by Resnik:

Non-malificence: Do not harm yourself or other people.
Beneficence: Help yourself and other people.
Autonomy: Allow rational individuals to make free and informed choices.
Justice: Treat people fairly: treat equals equally, unequals unequally.
Utility: Maximize the ratio of benefits to harms for all people.
Fidelity: Keep your promises and agreements
Honesty: Do not lie, defraud, deceive or mislead.
Privacy: Respect personal privacy and confidentiality.
While the meaning of words such as "harm", "benefit", fairness", "rational", and "deception" may be debated, it can be seen from this list that it is indeed possible to postulate a reasonably comprehensive list of principles that may form a useful guide to a general moral system. The list incorporates many principles that are common to all cultures. It may accord in part with certain religiously inspired principles but does not rely on them. The principles are not absolute rules but guidelines to be used in conjunction with each other. There may be conflicts between them. For example it is generally presumed that honesty is good, but there may be circumstances where it is not, for example if honesty would assist a person with known and immediate malevolent intentions. When faced with an ethical dilemma, it is suggested that after gathering information and exploring different options, a balanced decision could then be made by evaluating the options in relation to these principles. This procedure is known as "moral reasoning" leading to a state of "reflective equilibrium", or balanced judgement.

__________________________________________________ ___________

There is more; but I figured that was enough...from Wikipedia.

In summation

****ography is sex on film. We are humans and whether or not we are merely "animals in pants" or "half animal/half spiritual" is up for grabs, depending upon whether or not you believe in God.

Sex is undoubtedly a natural act between two consenting adults; and in ****ography it is known by all parties what is being done: some are having sex while otehrs are filming/taping.....or taking still photos, thereby recording the event for the stimulation of others. In other words, all party's are aware of what's going on, so no one is being exploited.....ideally. Likewise, those who buy or rent ****ography know exactly what they are purchasing.

If such is the case, if there are no victims, why would it be immoral if one does not believe sex outside the confines of marriage to be a "sin"?

Why would ****ography be immoral?

Well, here are my thoughts on why it is perceived so:

1. It's dirty......what is dirty, other than a feeling; and why do you feel this way?

2. It's demeaning......why would sex between consenting adults be demeaning?

Well, for one, it's not real; it's acting. Yes, the individuals involved are indeed having real sex; but they are doing it for a profit and not for any emotional stimulation.....this reduces sex to...

A. animalistic impulses

&

B. an act which is carried out soley for profit, thus, taking any emotional value that we humans cheerish, out of it completely.


The reason for the debate...

...is quite simple. We, as humans, do not behave primarily as animals, for we, by and large, consider ourselves above "mere animals". We are "animals" who have sex for pleasure as well as for reproductive purposes and while there of course is the act of "casual sex", in which, ideally, there is no emotional involvement....for the most part, we want to have sex with someone we "love," or are emotionally committed to....our "mate", if you will.

If this were not the case, we would be having sex on public streets in broad daylight just as Chimpanzees do in front of their "tribe", so to speak. The fact that we do not, means we put a specail intimacy upon sex, which is contrary to the sheer act of ****ography because it is neither intimate, nor private, nor "special".....ergo, emotional in nature. It is sheer, raw, sex, which is animalistic in every since of the word, save the use of toys. Those of us who watch ****ography become aroused by watching other humans engage in sex, whether we use this stimulation for masturbation (which would be in most cases) or to stimulate our partner as well is irrelevant. It is sex and we are voyures.

So, in a sense, it is natural; but in another sense, it is anything but. Sex in **** is "natural" from a sheer, raw, animalistic stand-point; but since we, as humans, are not raw and animalistic by nature, ****ography is a glimpse and an escape to our "darker" side.....which is why it trips the "dirty" meter.

Whether or not it is "moral" or not is purely dependent upon the individuals involved and their individual morality.

SonnyG8R
09-25-2006, 02:37 PM
As a Christian man I can tell you it is immoral. However, I am not without sin. I enjoy ****. I'm not addicted to it like some people though.

Tha Greatest
09-25-2006, 09:33 PM
I love ****...

Dr.Depravity
09-25-2006, 11:39 PM
Tough call. I guess by most religous standards it is. But Im like Sonny. Guilty as Charged!

the traveler
11-09-2006, 09:44 PM
****ography is definetly immoral. It's the devil's work. What it is is basically feeding your perversions and devil thoughts in your mind.

ben41193
11-09-2006, 09:56 PM
No but this is http://www.miamatures.com/p21.html

Ta Khent
11-09-2006, 11:25 PM
What is moral to one person is immoral to the next. It's how that individual perceives it. Nothing more, nothing less. IMO, ****ography is not immoral. We are inherently sexual beings. To deny that would be denying oneself.

The Noose
11-10-2006, 05:35 AM
****ography is definetly immoral. It's the devil's work. What it is is basically feeding your perversions and devil thoughts in your mind.

I agree.

http://www.unicorn1972.com/Pictures/OtherArtists/Movies/Bedazzled.jpg

Burn baby burn!

homeflixs
07-10-2009, 05:53 PM
**** = Educational :)

siablo14
07-12-2009, 03:09 PM
not to me........

Plat
09-17-2009, 11:32 PM
I dont think so, the people involved in the videos arent being forced to do all that

so sex is the devils work now?

braydenking
09-28-2009, 06:52 AM
Say hello to all of you and nice to meet u

#1Assassin
09-28-2009, 07:03 AM
we were all thirteen once. just cuz u get older and get ***** doesnt mean **** isnt needed by the younger generation. dont be selfish, think about the children.

dummydam
10-24-2009, 09:17 AM
Yeah IMHO it is immoral......though i watch **** from time to time....

AC111
10-24-2009, 11:36 AM
**** is no good. I stopped watching it Thank God.

kid_labangal
11-17-2009, 04:25 AM
ABSOLUTELY NOT!

first, a lot of people benefit from it... actors and actresses, cameramen, directors, etc. it's their means of living.

second, it prevents crime. self explanatory.

third, its good to watch.

:beerchug:

mayquiao
11-17-2009, 04:44 AM
it sounds good for the camera men, the producers, the audiences but the fact behind it, women don't like what they are doing and it creates human trafficking...

those little children... poor little children... :sad6: theres a bigger possibilities that they will end up in those ****films if you don't stop watching

---

it's immoral and irresponsible.
NO REAL MAN WATCHES ****

MANGLER
12-23-2009, 08:13 PM
No.

It was very important to me BITD as a kid. :wank: