I know the whole political bashing thing has been overdone here on typophile already. But the only client i can think of off the top of my head is G.W. Bush. I do not agree with his politics and there is no way you could get me to try to make his message look good.

1) Tobacco Companies, Pro Rodeos, the sport of rope-jumping, an 80 year old ethnic Tartar who lives near the ring road north of Moscow (that market is already locked up). (imagine a smiley face here)
2) Ya mean we

Anything dealing with anti-porn groups.

; )

I

1. Rip-off people--those who would knock off someone else's typeface or anything else not nailed down.
2. Bullies--Berthold (the current incarnation at least)
3. Biggots of any kind
4. Child pornographers
5. Very arrogant people (only if I charged them an arm and a leg and worked through a third party).

No amount of money except for "5"

ChrisL

---

(All opinions here are my own, and do not reflect the opinions of policies of my employer, etc. Although they do have some good ethics policies.)

I wouldn't work for any person, firm or entity which I consider to be fundamentally unethical. Nor any group whose political beliefs are fundamentally opposed to my own. This includes the tobacco industry, groups opposed to what I consider civil rights, and probably even a few software companies and type foundries.

I've recently had to confront a bit of a dilemma in this area. Although I'm not getting paid anything, I have put some effort into helping debunk the Bush National Guard memos. They appear to be forgeries, and certainly most of the arguments being used for their legitimacy were wrong. But I have no particular desire to help Bush get re-elected.

Would I have accepted money from a news media company to investigate these docs? Sure. Would I take money from the Bush campaign? What if it was a reward for proving the docs forgeries, instead of payment up front for the work?

Cheers,

T

well put that way... that is very noble. Even though i don't support the man, the American public deserves to know the truth about bunk documents. If i had the expertise i woulda done the same thing. Props to you Thom!

But the only client i can think of off the top of my head is G.W. Bush. I do not agree with his politics and there is no way you could get me to try to make his message look good.

Hmmm. It depends for me. Some companies I would gladly take obscene amounts of money from just because I don't like them (i.e. disney).

Then they are companies/institutions I would never work for (i.e. tobacco, fast food, bushco).

In terms of porn, well I honestly think it would be challenging and enjoyable to make a nice pornsite. I've never seen one.

http://www.wulffmorgenthaler.com/log/AL17092004.gif

http://prodigi.bl.uk/TreasuresImages\Shakespeare\max\shahao\009shahao32.jpg

"Humanity will begin to recover
the moment it takes art as seriously
as physics, chemistry or money."
Ernst Levy

AS

Alessandro,

Top link very funny!

Yes Alessadro, it just knockered me out :-)

Oh there are loads.
The ones that spring to mind first...
(In no particular order)

Nestle
Coca Cola
The Conservatiive Party
The Republican Party
Pro Fox Hunting groups
Fascists
Bailiffs
Alliance Leicester
Should I go on?

(And no, there isn't an amount of money that would change things)

'nice porn site' a 'little less trashy'.

I think you are out of touch with reality. Playboy has for 50 years done what can be done with making 'soft' porn not degrading.

Hard core is extremely degrading to women, and in my view only dishonorable people are in it. It is an industry that degrades and exploits women, like the prostitution industry. Read about it from its feminist critics and you will find how morally objectionable it is in terms of exploitation and degrading of people.

I'm with Tiffany (and John) on this one.

John,

I wonder about the survey you launched? Are you in front of such dilema yourself? :-)

William Berkson,

Does this really offend you?
http://lanstontype.com/GirlNaturalSetting.html

Cobblestone Press, my former

> your personal beliefs ...I highly doubt...

Your view that modesty is unimportant to women and a ridiculous outmoded idea is a fashionable view. But that doesn't make it right.

The facts about the viciousness of the porn industry I think are on my side. If you want to remain comfortable in your beliefs, then don't read about it. But don't delude yourself that your opinion is an informed one.

In my opinion, the issue of how do deal with sexuality in the ad industry is not off topic for graphic designers.

It is not off topic, but I think there needs to be some clarification of terms before this argument becomes constructive. Porn, feminism, sexuality, these mean many different things to many different people. By using these words, you can't assume that people know exactly what you are talking about. There are branches of feminism that are pro-sexuality and pro-men, believe it or not, and obviously those that are against men AND porn.

So what exactly are we talking about here? Is all exploration of sexual identity and desire porn, and therefore does that make all people who are interested and passionate about their sexuality violaters and abusers of women's sexuality? Every type of media produced about sex is not porn. It's like trying to argue the exact nature of what art is, it's so different for so many people, unless you know exactly what people mean by saying that word, there's no point.

I don't doubt that some forms of porn ARE abusive and degrading to women. But I would like to see some acceptance that some porn is empowering, intelligent and engaging, to both men and women, and perhaps we all need to accept that this is, like many things, not a clear, black and white issue.

I don't think it's off topic, given the topic. Personally, I'm with Zara on this one. But that's just my opinion, of course. At the same time, I consider myself strongly pro-feminist. (I used to say I was a feminist, but some folks claim that it's not possible for a male to be a feminist. Whatever.)

I'm just suspicious of arguments that porn is degrading only to women. Sometimes I think some of that belief stems from a conservative anti-sexuality viewpoint that says women can't possibly enjoy sex as much as men.

An interesting feature of the porn industry is that if anyone is degraded, it can be argued that is at least as degrading to men as to women. Male porn actors are paid a small fraction of what the women are paid, they don't get the same kind of billing and very few become stars. And certainly what's required of the male actors is more demanding. Yet in hard core porn, they are more likely to be just mobile genitals in the movies, while the women are central characters. If women are the sexual objects of desire in porn, then men are just the desire itself.

So, I guess I am more likely to buy an argument that porn is degrading to people in general. But even that is an oversimplification to me. What I *do* absolutely believe is that in the absence of other information and role models about sexual relationships, most porn, when viewed by people whose attitudes towards sex are not fully developed, has the potential to create unhealthy expectations and denigrate the value of emotional intimacy and love in a sexual relationship. On the plus side, most porn at least teaches that sex is fun, which is a Good Thing in my book.

Probably there are a lot of companies/people in the porn industry I wouldn't want to work for. But I'm pretty sure there are at least a few that I would be willing to do design work for. And almost all I'd be willing to do expert witness, document verification kinds of work for.

Cheers,

T

JFP: I wonder about the survey you launched? Are you in front of such dilema yourself?

No, but it is something that I think about from time to time. One of the troubling aspects of the current configuration of capital is that it is very difficult to find any company that is not in some way connected, e.g. by investment, to other companies. So even if one wants to avoid working for e.g. war profiteers, one can never be certain that one is not in some way contributing to businesses that one thinks unethical.


Regarding porn, I don't doubt that there are more and less abusive and exploitative examples and, if there is to be porn I doubt if many reasonable people would disagree that it would be better run by women and with guarantees to respect the rights and dignity of the participants. But before we start talking about some porn being 'empowering*, intelligent and engaging' we might ponder whether those things are, in fact, part of the distinction between the pornographic and the erotic. Most legal definitions of pornography centre on the functional intent, in which pornography is judged to be solely intended to provoke sexual arousal, which suggests that if the intent is e.g. to intellectually engage one may already be moving beyond the merely pornographic. I think this is a useful way to look at the question, and worth maintaining rather than blurring the line between the pornographic and the erotic in a way that can only benefit the makers of degrading and exploitative material.

All that said, I'm basically in agreement with William on the characteristic nature of porn. But will add that porn is as degrading to the consumer as to the women (and men and children) who are consumed. The reduction of human beings to sexual objects of animal gratification is inherently degrading, because we are capable of -- and, I would say, made for -- so much more.


* I don't believe there is any such thing as 'empowerment': it is a jargon-driven illusion marketed to the economically, socially or politically disenfranchised to convince them that their situation is a subjective problem of self-worth, rather than an objective state of injustice. It is the language of diversion: among other things, the process by which feminism in North America has been diverted into the dead-end of identity and gender politics and away from economic and social justice.

Tom Phinney: What I *do* absolutely believe is that in the absence of other information and role models about sexual relationships, most porn, when viewed by people whose attitudes towards sex are not fully developed, has the potential to create unhealthy expectations and denigrate the value of emotional intimacy and love in a sexual relationship.

Very well said, Thomas.

On the plus side, most porn at least teaches that sex is fun...

You needed to be taught?

John,

Heh. Having a mother who's a sex therapist and being surrounded by lots of books on sexuality made it pretty clear (including several books on adolescent sexuality). I literally can't remember not knowing where babies come from, either.

But my own experiences aside, for a very long time the predominant message about sex in the English-speaking countries was that it was dirty and sinful. I think there is still a lot of residue of that attitude around today, even though the idea of sex as pleasurable and intimate and basically "good" is now pretty prevalent among folks our age and younger.

On the side, I do believe there is such a thing as empowerment. But I think that people are empowered either by achieving economic and social justice, or by being given access to the levers of power that will enable them to achieve that justice. But I then again, a lot of the stuff that is talked about as "empowering" doesn't meet my definition, and seems like a diversion to me, too.

T

>>One of the troubling aspects of the current configuration of capital is that it is very difficult to find any company that is not in some way connected, e.g. by investment, to other companies

Very true, John.
For example, as diverse names as Buxton Water, Munch Bunch Yogurts, L'Oreal & Go-Cat are among the 100 odd brands which are idrectly profitable for just one of the companies I listed above.
The same company only recently ceased to profit from its former ownership of Crosse & Blackwell, so I can eat Branston Pickle again now, and I would work for them too, providing they haven't been sold to some other, equally nasty corporation.

I think one problem is where to draw the line. It would probably be difficult to find any large corporation that doesn't have some misdemeanour on its hands. On the other hand, it shouldn't be too difficult to avoid companies whose activities contribute directly to 3rd world infant deaths or who appear at least unconcerned, if not negligent, about the rate at which trade union officials at their factories are murdered.
The tricky bit is that most companies are somewhere in the middle.

William,

The facts about the viciousness of the porn industry I think are on my side. If you want to remain comfortable in your beliefs, then don't read about it. But don't delude yourself that your opinion is an informed one.

Do I have to be Jewish or Catholic to be informed. That is an Oxymoron.

Oxymoron: "A figure in which an epithet of a contrary signification is added to a word; e. g., cruel kindness; laborious idleness."

How many Americans are voting for the "Prohibition Party".
http://www.prohibition.org/

TP: ...for a very long time the predominant message about sex in the English-speaking countries was that it was dirty and sinful.

Well, that's what Protestantism gets you

I think your observation is particularly true in the USA, due to the strong influence of puritanism on the formation of the country. What bothers me about the backlash of the sexual revolution (apart from epidemics of sexually transmitted disease) is the commodification of human beings and the sexualisation of children through advertising. The USA has always been a country of extremes, and the tendency, in sex as in much else, is to exchange one set of extremes for another: puritanism for license, perpetuated by the fact that 'sex sells'. And, of course, anyone who even suggests that there might be some appropriate balance is will be accused of being censorious, of denying 'expression', etc. by people who willfully ignore the great emotional and physical misery that ensues from treating people as objects.

Gerald, I think William has made some perfectly reasonable points in a perfectly reasonable way. He disagrees with some other opinions expressed here, and has said why, and his exchanges with other people have been polite and respectful on both sides. So why are you being so objectionable and rude?

Also note that William has not once in this discussion made any reference to religion or to morality, except insofar as it is generally agreed that degrading and exploiting people is wrong, which surely doesn't rely on divine revelation. The disagreement in the discussion regards whether pornography is generally exploitative or degrading, about which there is plenty of space for reasoned discussion without accusing anyone of being a religious censor.

>Well, that's what Protestantism gets you

No, John, the view of sex as inherently sinful is mainstream traditional Christian, including Catholic. To start with you have Saint Paul saying that celebacy is spiritually superior. Then you have for example, Augustine: "A good Christian is bound to love in one and the same woman [his wife] the creature of God whom he desired to be transformed and renewed, but to hate in her the corruptible and mortal conjugal connection, sexual intercourse and all that pertains to her as a wife." [De Sermone Dom. in Monte, 41.] And Pope Gregory the Great "Sensual pleasure can never be without sin." And even in the current Catholic Church many view sex within marriage as "mere tolerated in view of procreation (New Catholic Encyclopaedia, Annual 1988, p 414)

There is a long Christian tradition of seeing the body as corrupt, and sexual desire as inherently sinful. I think that both this tradition and the 'modernest' reaction to it, which I objected to Zara about, are harmful to human happiness and well being.

As John noted, my touchstone for sound views of sexuality put human wellbeing first. My views are informed by Jewish views of sexuality, which are at odds with Christian ones, but I also object to traditional Jewish views where I think they are at odds with human wellbeing.

My objections to Zara's views, and sexual modernism, have to do with their very harmful effect on human happiness, and in particular leading to the destruction of love.

John,

Read William's latest remarks regarding religion. You will find yourself out of harmony with either of us!

Bad moods make Catholics unreasonable.

Say five hail Mary's and I forgive you

...the view of sex as inherently sinful is mainstream traditional Christian...

Well, even noting that you ignored my ironical smiley, this is a gross simplification. The tension between the flesh and the spirit necessarily makes sex a complex issue for any religion that takes the interior life seriously. Christianity, like Judaism, puts limits on the appropriate expression of sexuality, for social, moral and spiritual reasons, limiting it to marriage, for instance, and in the case of Catholicism and Orthodoxy also affirming chastity and celibacy as expressions of sexuality. And yes this has sometimes led some to puritanism and a denial of all sensual pleasure, especially in that period when Greek and Roman converts imported stoicism into Christianity or, in the case of St Augustine, remnant Manichaeanism. But to cite a few readings -- only one canonical and that clearly not saying that sex is inherently sinful -- to suggest that this is the predominant teaching of mainstream Christianity is unfair. The wholesale condemnation of sensual pleasure has long been understood as contrary to the belief that the physical order was created by God and is fundamentally good: a basic teaching that is reaffirmed by the Magisterium when puritanism, stoicism or Manichaeanism rear their heads. What is mainstream is the observation that lust, i.e. selfish sexual desire for physical gratification, is one of the most pervasive distractions of the spirit away from God, hence it is counted as one of the deadly sins: those sins that by habit come to replace God in the human heart. Obviously, in this perspective, sexuality that is directed toward physical gratification as its sole or primary goal -- e.g. pornography -- is disordered. By the same token, not everything that is erotic is pornographic or in the nature of lust.

I'll also note that, like most other things in North America, Catholicism here has been more touched by puritanism than in, say, Italy. A friend of mine who has led groups of North American pilgrims to Rome has observed their shock when they encounter the frankness of fleshy humanity in the paintings and statues that adorn many churches.

And yes, the Church still teaches that sex is primarily ordered to procreation, and that sex from which the possibility of procreation has been deliberately removed is disordered. But it does not teach that procreation is the sole purpose of sex or of human sexuality. Rather, sex is understood to be a wholeness, involving flesh, mind and spirit open to the gifts of God, including spiritual gifts, emotional gifts and the gift of life. What is sinful is to reduce it or to subtract from it any part of that wholeness, so that it becomes a shadow of what it is meant to be. This wholeness is well expressed in the official statements of the Church, e.g. the recent Catechism: 'Sexuality affects all aspects of the human person in the unity of his body and soul. It especially concerns affectivity, the capacity to love and to procreate, and in a more general way the aptitude for forming bonds of communion with others.' [Article 2332]

I should note that when I talk about religion, I am not expecting anyone outside my religion to agree with me or to conform to the direct moral implications of what I believe. I'm just explaining where I'm coming from. On the other hand, I don't believe that things are immoral because the Bible or the Church teach that they are: I believe the Bible and the Church teach that they are immoral because they are immoral, and can frequently be demonstrated to be immoral on purely natural and secular grounds as causing misery, undermining social bonds, leading to illness and death, etc. I'm very well aware, having lived for many years as an atheist, that some aspects of Catholic morality make little sense 'from the outside'. That is, I wouldn't expect any non-Catholic to abide by the Church's teaching on contraception, for example. Without conversion, without first turning toward to God and seeking His will, one isn't likely to perceive the fractured, or at best partial, nature of sexuality that closes itself off to the gift of life.

My objections to Zara's views, and sexual modernism, have to do with their very harmful effect on human happiness, and in particular leading to the destruction of love.

In this observation, we are completely in agreement.

You just don't get it, do you you, Gerald. I asked you why you were being so rude and objectionable to William, when he and everyone else was being polite and reasonable. And I wondered why you were fixating on religious moralism, when he had clearly indicated that his objections to pornography are focused on human wellbeing. And I wondered why you were casting him, bizarrely, as someone who might vote for some kind of temperance party (which is pretty funny, considering that you are the one who has sworn off drink).


I figured this thread my engender some interesting discussion, and I think it has, although I'm disappointed that it zero'd in on a single moral issue so quickly. I wasn't expecting pornography to dominate like this, but I guess it is further evidence that nothing generates interest like sex.

Double post

I am amazed how many of our General Discussions forums start off with an interesting type related question but some how end up on a religious discussion.

Could it be a throwback to the monks sitting in the monasteries in the middle ages transcribing the scriptures in illuminated calligraphy?

Just an observation, no reply required

Kosmo

I am never quite sure what to make of some of the fine points of the kinds of teachings tha John is citing. Often they seem like well- or thinly-disguised versions of pleasure-is-bad. Maybe I'm just projecting my prejudices.

But my own view is pretty straightforward. Pleasure is inherently good--but that principle applies to everyone, and over time.

That is, things are good that create pleasure for all affected. But short-term pleasure that causes long-term unhappiness is probably a bad idea. I think that most people have some (usually a lot of) emotional involvement in having sex, so for most people having sex with random people they've just met is a bad idea. Not because it's immoral, but because it is has a good chance of leading to unhappiness.

Relatively casual sex is often a symptom of other kinds of unhappiness or insecurity or feeling unloved. This too doesn't make it bad; just an outlet or a way of trying to paper over other emotional issues. As long as it doesn't simply create more unhappiness (for example, through guilt, or feeling rejected when the casual partner doesn't remain interested), there's nothing *wrong* with it. But if you don't feel good about yourself in the first place, it sure isn't going to fill whatever void you've got.

Wow, this is getting perhaps more personal than I'm used to in a public forum... and I've got to get to bed anyway.

Cheers,

T

Well, I would work for a pornography client, although the option has never arisen. I concur with what has been said above, mostly. But I find that most peoples' objections to pornography are grounded in their religious beliefs more than anything else.

I would also work for the Republican party, and no, I do not find this contradictory to what I just wrote above.

I have worked for Church-based clients. I wonder if anyone here would not work for a specific religious group. Many of them have similiar views to the Republican party.

I would not work for the tobacco industry. Nor would I work for an advertising agency that represented one of their players (like Philip Morris). This has come up for me recently, and I found it immensely distastefull how proud a certian German agency was of their work for a certain American client.

In fact, I dislike advertising in general, although I have worked a tiny bit in the business. But it really depends on the positions of the particular company. There are some ad agencies who do wonderful work that does not degrade and/or seduce anyone into anything terrible. (Hmmm

I wouldn't work for arms industry.
And here's how music industry is related to it:

http://www.cstrecords.com/html/uxo.html

It is slightly outdated, atleast sony and bmg have merged together.

thanks for that timo,
i find it very disturbing and probably very us-american that everybody is talking about tobacco and porn and nobody mentions oil, weapons, gm-food, pharmaceuticals, clothing etc..

i wouldn't work for a porn-whatever either, but isn't it very theoretical to talk about it at all? how big is the chance some porn-maker is going to ask john hudson for a logotype? in my opinion there are much more urgent questions. for example - because it was mentioned before - working for disney. i wouldn't say i dont like disney, i'd say when you work for them, you support modern slavery.

didn't it come to your mind, or don't you care about war, child labor, wrong medication for higher profits and the destruction of the environment?

John,

To get back to the topic. Who would you not work for? The Catholic Church leaps to mind.

http://www.primetimecrime.com/Recent/sex%20crimes%20catholic.htm

Please don't preach to me John. Nothing can be more revolting than a lecture about sexual morality from a supporting catholic who's logo has a cross on.

Well, I've worked for both the Catholic and the Baptist churches. I am a practicing Catholic (or as least as practicing as a middle-of-the-road American will let himself be

I've fortunately only come across one example of this so far in my career. About two years ago I was allocated to work on the typography for a television advert for Roundup, (a Monsanto weed killer affiliated with Roundup-Ready GM crops).

After a few hours of fretting from when I saw it in my email box, I sat down with the director of production and explained why I was not prepared to work for them, convinced that she would issue me with a formal warning or worse.

Thankfully, she then told me how she refuses to work on tobacco industry projects, and that she understood my position and reallocated the project.

Often people can be more reasonable than our cultures can sometimes lead us to believe.

But in general, I'd be avoiding any company who's primary interests produce large-scale unsustainable levels of pollution or resource extraction, those who hold life in contempt (Bhopal, anyone?) or those with political affiliations that are, to me, offensive.

Did anyone read this? Seems germane to the porn discussion.

Personally, I don't think I'll ever be approached by child pornographers or fascists... so most of my qualms come from generalities:

- Clients that appear to strongly misunderstand my role as a designer and I get the sense that a) they won't change and b) it'll adversely affect me/the work. These cases are rare, but it's happened.
- Clients engaged in a business practice I find extremely offensive or political groups out of line with my views.
- Clients that want spec work.
- Clients involved in a business I think is overly shaky ("This sounds like a pyramid scheme to me...").
- Anything designed to harm someone physically (I don't mean working on weapon warning labels, I mean something that calls for physical harm as its message.)

The world is too complex and corporations are too large for me to say absolutely "I won't work for the Gap" or "I won't work for Boeing" without knowing more than I do now. Also projects aren't always tied to every aspect of a corporation. If putting a well-designed label on a Tomahawk missile prevents people from dying or getting maimed unecessarily, then I'll do it (doubt I'll ever be in that position). Also, corporations, by their very nature, place people in a secondary position, so if I precluded corporations that I think are acting in an unsavory way... I wouldn't be able to do any work for any corporation.

I make most of my decisions on a case-by-case basis. I'm also not so I high-minded that I'll refuse work I think is tacky or annoying (junk mail). An example I like to site is that John Malkovich did Con Air so he could fund The Dancer Upstairs. There's a way to turn garbage into gold.

That's all I can think of.

P.S. Not all porn is created equal.

To get back to the topic. Who would you not work for?

1. Armaments manufacturers. [I don't include in this companies that specialise in target shooting and hunting weapons and ammunition, only makers of military ordinance.]

2. Pro-abortion organisations or abortion providers. Also pro-capital punishment groups, for exactly the same reasons.

3. Pornography. [For a variety of reasons: child pornography for absolute moral reasons; most other porn simply because I see it causing more misery than happiness.]

4. Companies that employ child labour, slave labour (including indentured labour), or withhold wages from their employees.

5. Anyone who knowingly and deliberately seeks to profit from the misery or death of other people. This includes war profiteers, most tobacco manufacturers, many pharmaceutical companies.

Timo: I wouldn't work for arms industry. And here's how music industry is related to it...

This is a good example of what I was talking about above: the financial and organisational connections between companies that make it very difficult to separtate off the 'ethical companies' from those to which one might object. I remember in early 1980s taking part in a boycott of EMI recording artists because Thorn EMI was also making guidance systems for nuclear missiles. They probably still are.

Thomas Phinney: I am never quite sure what to make of some of the fine points of the kinds of teachings that John is citing. Often they seem like well- or thinly-disguised versions of pleasure-is-bad. Maybe I'm just projecting my prejudices.

I hope so, because if pleasure-is-bad I'm in serious trouble

I think there is a perfectly reasonable and well-founded observation, common to most of the world's religions, that an imbalanced focus on sensual pleasure is an impediment to spiritual development. But it is the imbalance and the focus that is the problem, not the pleasure itself. The desire for sensual pleasure is very strong in most people, so if an individual is serious about developing the inner life, some measure of denial and a deliberate attempt to control desire is simply necessary, not because sensual pleasure is wrong or evil or sinful, but because it gets in the way and distracts the mind from contemplation. There's nothing particularly Catholic or Christian about this; you'll find the same ideas in Buddhism and Hinduism, without any reference to the Jewish, Christian or Moslem notions of sin. It is, essentially, not a moral teaching but a practical one, born of centuries of experience.

JH:I think there is a perfectly reasonable and well-founded observation, common to most of the world's religions, that an imbalanced focus on sensual pleasure is an impediment to spiritual development...But it is the imbalance and the focus that is the problem, not the pleasure itself.

[taking us slightly off topic, I apologize] John, that makes a lot of sense to me (your first point before the ellipses), but I wish that the world's religions

My main metric for people/companies I wouldn't work for is actually the same as John's: those who seek to profit from the creation of unhappiness are not folks I'd work for. Also, those whose work is based fundamentally on lying to or misleading people (no telephone psychics).

The only thing we differ on is what activities fundamentally create unhappiness and misery. More on that below....

(I know this next is still off the original topic. But I think it's interesting, and we're having fun, so....)

Alcohol seems to be in the same class as porn to me, only worse. If used the wrong way or by the wrong people it makes folks really unhappy. It seems to have those effects a lot more consistently and directly, plus it is physically addictive. Yet alcohol is an accepted part of society, and porn isn't. I think that's partly because sex is considered sinful, and partly because it's considered private.

Peter, I think you've expressed very well a big chunk of what I think and am trying to say.

I believe that being mindful both of what one does and the effects of one's actions is a good thing. I think pleasure is inherently good, and good for all people. But I mean pleasure in the broad sense: I don't feel there is anything superior in the pleasures of the body over those of the mind, or vice versa. The greatest physical pleasures are spiritual experiences to me, making me feel closer to the fundamental forces of "good" in the universe. This is especially true when such an experience is shared with somebody else who is experiencing an equivalent goodness.

I guess I'm an altruistic hedonist. I think pleasure is good (and unhappiness is bad), and I want everybody to have it. That can mean anything from eliminating starvation and disease to enjoying a well-made curve (whether on a font or a person), to sharing an outstanding meal, or other more intimate activities.

T

Thanks for your thoughts, Peter. Yes, it is getting us off topic a bit, which is a pity because it is interesting stuff. Just one comment:

If there was a religion that took seriously the need for carnal pleasure (within measure) working in harmony with a spiritual awareness/focus then I have not found one.

Actually, I think the major religions are pretty sensible about this in determining that there are circumstances in which sexuality can positively contribute to spiritual growth, especially as it relates to love and to communion with another. That phrase you use, 'within measure', seems key, as is the notion that we should make room throughout our lives for physical, intellectual and spiritual development, although the balance of focus might change as we age. I don't think it is particulary controversial to suggest that in materialist, consumerist western society, there is an emphasis on the physical to the detriment of both intellect and spirit. That, too, is anti-human.

Thomas Phinney: Alcohol seems to be in the same class as porn to me, only worse. If used the wrong way or by the wrong people it makes folks really unhappy. It seems to have those effects a lot more consistently and directly, plus it is physically addictive. Yet alcohol is an accepted part of society, and porn isn't. I think that's partly because sex is considered sinful, and partly because it's considered private.

Alcohol is socially acceptable but, generally speaking, drunkeness is not. I'm firmly convinced that the social acceptability of alcohol is based in the fact that wine and beer and scotch etc. taste good. So people can, and in many places largely do, drink alcohol without the express intention of getting drunk and in moderation for the pleasures of taste, in the same way that they eat delicious food without gorging themselves to the point of vomiting. This is why alcohol is socially acceptable while most other mind altering drugs are not: no one drops MDA because they like the taste, the only reason to take it is for the psycho-chemical effects. In the same way, pornography is concerned solely with animal arousal and gratification (following the traditional and legal distinction between pornography and erotica). I think it is this crudity and reductionism that makes porn distasteful to many people, including those like me who don't believe sex is sinful and enjoy it very much, thank you.

What would those reasons be? I fail to see the connection.

I believe that one should not end the life of a human being except in extreme cases to preserve another life. I do not consider a human being in the embryonic or foetal stage to be any less a human being than an infant, a child, an adolescent, an adult or a geriatric: they are all phases through which the same individual human being, created at conception, passes so long as his or her life is not interrupted. There is no magic moment after conception when a non-human suddenly becomes a human. This is not a religious opinion: I know atheists and agnostics, including scientists and philosophers, who take the same view. Any book on human biology is likely to begin with the same observation: human life begins at conception. Hence abortion is the termination of human life.

Capital punishment is also the termination of human life, and except in extreme cases, where it might be deemed necessary to protect other life, it should not be done. Since we have the means to remove the threat of murderers to society by locking them up, there is no good reason to kill them. Capital punishment in such circumstances is, fundamentally, a statement of despair: a refusal to allow for hope and grace.

I put abortion and capital punishment side-by-side deliberately, because in political discourse, especially in the USA, they tend to get separated.