Well, I am speaking of two issues here: the existence of a digital sex industry and the ways our culture (with an emphasis on Christians) model the topic.
I don’t dive into the first, but focus on the second. Generally speaking, I believe people can be held morally responsible in both their intentions and their actual actions. It’s not an ‘either/or’ situation. Hopefully Part 2 clarifies for you!
As much as I would like to write a significantly longer response to this, I'm afraid I don't have the time. I'm in agreement with many of your points surrounding the truly tragic situations that women can face on a daily basis, such as danger at night or disgusting cat-calling. However, I'm compelled to comment because as much as appreciate the analytical nature of this essay, I strongly disagree with many of the statements made and conclusions posited.
I fear that the nature of this piece actually accomplishes something quite different to what seems to be the moral message you're implying. By outright condemning the industry of sexual services, especially by implying that many women engage in sex work to improve their own self-image or seek validation, the essay is weaponising sex in a moral culture war. Some people do take pride in their sexuality and the outlets through which they express it - and this is ultimately their choice and, as someone with a set of morals not grounded in a religious discipline, I believe this condemnation is more likely to feel like a personal assault against the actions of these individuals rather than something which will encourage them to change their behaviours to be more in-line with the morals that this essay stems from.
Yes, educate people about the dangerous of pornographing. Educate them about the dangers of sexual exploitation. Lift the ridiculous veil of sexual censorship that so many communities apply when educating our youth. Women create porn for many reasons, men consume porn for many reasons; but ultimately, it's like you said - an economic instance - where supply meets demand.
If one wishes to dismantle an industry which has in some form or another existed since before the emergence of agriculture, then it requires a lot more than trying to insert their own moral vision into someone else's sexuality, however public or private they may wish for it to be.
These are good thoughts and I appreciate you commenting. Part 2 will actually look at S and D and how an industry gets disabled.
I’m afraid the crux of our disagreement lies prior to the basis on which this essay begins. I’m operating on pre-established notions of sex and the role it ought to play in the culture.
I believe that one of the primary characteristics of sex is it’s social adhesiveness (hormonal release leading to a greater sense of connection, communities emerging people who share a sexual identity, etc)
It would not be the place to unpack this, but I would argue that this disables counter-arguments stemming from individualism. Some may say sex is self-expression, that their use of sexuality is morally justified because it comes from their own decisions, or that consent is the only element that determines sexual morality, but this all falls apart due to this adhesive element.
The reality is that sex involves more than the individual, and therefore someone acting purely from individual consideration will bring harm, such as the sex-worker and the addict, because it disregards the impact beyond themselves.
I have yet to say anything on responsibility in this response, so please do not think I am attempting to weaponize morals against anyone. People have reasons behind their behaviors. I will however, remain adamant that the existence of a sex industry will always be a flaw in society and condemns the actions that support its existence without condemning the people involved.
I’d like to see if part 2 brings any clarity, but like I said, the disagreement lies prior to these explanations. I am greatly complimented by the time you’ve taken to think on this, thank you.
Wonderful essay. You made many good points and I’m looking forward to part 2. I became a little confused at the end as you wrote about OnlyFans and other sex work. Do you mean to imply the issue lies within the motives, or the act itself?
This is a good essay, I appreciate the examination of both contributors to a much larger problem.
You made a statement that sex is animalistic, and therefore simple. Could you expound on that a bit? Contextually, ‘animalistic’ would often depict a behavior to any common beast that is born, reproduces, and dies. Would you not agree that there are distinctions in every one of those categories for humankind?
I ask because I see a potential danger in sex being over simplified, being reduced to animalistic grounds when it truly is so much more.
Curious to hear your thoughts, well done on this essay!
I don’t see simple as having any connotation because something simple can still bear deep significance. The ‘animal’ part of our nature is still part of a ‘very good’ creation and we should be wary of our common tendencies to place physical matter beneath spiritual.
I also agree that sex is far more than a biological function, but that is not the battle line I’m drawing in this essay. Either way, modern cultures have made the cornerstone of many theories —think Freud— and have used it as a basis for perspectives of the self, family, institutions, love, conflict, etc. This has generated so much chaos as compared to its initial use.
Well, I am speaking of two issues here: the existence of a digital sex industry and the ways our culture (with an emphasis on Christians) model the topic.
I don’t dive into the first, but focus on the second. Generally speaking, I believe people can be held morally responsible in both their intentions and their actual actions. It’s not an ‘either/or’ situation. Hopefully Part 2 clarifies for you!
As much as I would like to write a significantly longer response to this, I'm afraid I don't have the time. I'm in agreement with many of your points surrounding the truly tragic situations that women can face on a daily basis, such as danger at night or disgusting cat-calling. However, I'm compelled to comment because as much as appreciate the analytical nature of this essay, I strongly disagree with many of the statements made and conclusions posited.
I fear that the nature of this piece actually accomplishes something quite different to what seems to be the moral message you're implying. By outright condemning the industry of sexual services, especially by implying that many women engage in sex work to improve their own self-image or seek validation, the essay is weaponising sex in a moral culture war. Some people do take pride in their sexuality and the outlets through which they express it - and this is ultimately their choice and, as someone with a set of morals not grounded in a religious discipline, I believe this condemnation is more likely to feel like a personal assault against the actions of these individuals rather than something which will encourage them to change their behaviours to be more in-line with the morals that this essay stems from.
Yes, educate people about the dangerous of pornographing. Educate them about the dangers of sexual exploitation. Lift the ridiculous veil of sexual censorship that so many communities apply when educating our youth. Women create porn for many reasons, men consume porn for many reasons; but ultimately, it's like you said - an economic instance - where supply meets demand.
If one wishes to dismantle an industry which has in some form or another existed since before the emergence of agriculture, then it requires a lot more than trying to insert their own moral vision into someone else's sexuality, however public or private they may wish for it to be.
These are good thoughts and I appreciate you commenting. Part 2 will actually look at S and D and how an industry gets disabled.
I’m afraid the crux of our disagreement lies prior to the basis on which this essay begins. I’m operating on pre-established notions of sex and the role it ought to play in the culture.
I believe that one of the primary characteristics of sex is it’s social adhesiveness (hormonal release leading to a greater sense of connection, communities emerging people who share a sexual identity, etc)
It would not be the place to unpack this, but I would argue that this disables counter-arguments stemming from individualism. Some may say sex is self-expression, that their use of sexuality is morally justified because it comes from their own decisions, or that consent is the only element that determines sexual morality, but this all falls apart due to this adhesive element.
The reality is that sex involves more than the individual, and therefore someone acting purely from individual consideration will bring harm, such as the sex-worker and the addict, because it disregards the impact beyond themselves.
I have yet to say anything on responsibility in this response, so please do not think I am attempting to weaponize morals against anyone. People have reasons behind their behaviors. I will however, remain adamant that the existence of a sex industry will always be a flaw in society and condemns the actions that support its existence without condemning the people involved.
I’d like to see if part 2 brings any clarity, but like I said, the disagreement lies prior to these explanations. I am greatly complimented by the time you’ve taken to think on this, thank you.
Wonderful essay. You made many good points and I’m looking forward to part 2. I became a little confused at the end as you wrote about OnlyFans and other sex work. Do you mean to imply the issue lies within the motives, or the act itself?
Would love to see this answered ^
This is a good essay, I appreciate the examination of both contributors to a much larger problem.
You made a statement that sex is animalistic, and therefore simple. Could you expound on that a bit? Contextually, ‘animalistic’ would often depict a behavior to any common beast that is born, reproduces, and dies. Would you not agree that there are distinctions in every one of those categories for humankind?
I ask because I see a potential danger in sex being over simplified, being reduced to animalistic grounds when it truly is so much more.
Curious to hear your thoughts, well done on this essay!
I don’t see simple as having any connotation because something simple can still bear deep significance. The ‘animal’ part of our nature is still part of a ‘very good’ creation and we should be wary of our common tendencies to place physical matter beneath spiritual.
I also agree that sex is far more than a biological function, but that is not the battle line I’m drawing in this essay. Either way, modern cultures have made the cornerstone of many theories —think Freud— and have used it as a basis for perspectives of the self, family, institutions, love, conflict, etc. This has generated so much chaos as compared to its initial use.
Hope that helps a bit. Thanks for your comment!