Moral? Philosphical is a better way to describe it, and that’s being generous. Usually philosphy also addresses the responsibilities that come with rights.

I’m confused. I believe that all people have the right to be treated as human beings. I believe that all people have a responsibility to treat other people as human beings — to not exploit, harm, or dehumanize individual people or classes of people. That’s a pretty basic tenet of feminist thought.

Moral: of, pertaining to, or concerned with the principles or rules of right conduct or the distinction between right and wrong; ethical.

I’d say feminism does this, no? We separate right from wrong all the time. Just because we don’t derive our ideas of rights from what we think God says doesn’t mean that we aren’t discussing morality.

What we’re more likely to get here “all the time” is hateful mockery and over-the-top sarcasm (quite funny at times in a stand-up comedic sort of way), that follows a desperate, frantic attempt to find kooks at the opposite end of the spectrum to react against.

Frantic attempts to find kooks at the opposite end of the spectrum to react against? Reading the New York Times and posting on one of its most-emailed articles is a “frantic attempt”? Try again.

And what cats? We haven’t done Friday cat blogging in a long time.

Plus there’s all the goddam cats.

You bring up a subset of porn that few here will deny deny as horrifying. You stuck your neck out on this site, however, by alluding it having a ‘moral’ dimension. Kudos to you.

Wha?

We talk about the moral dimension to pornography all the time — specifically if porn fits into our feminist and human rights ideals. We may not toss around the word “morality,” but that doesn’t mean that we aren’t having a discussion about it.

To me, there’s more moral fodder in the specialization. Relatively pretty women can make money doing low risk, mainstream porn. Less attractive women end up doing the circus act, woman-hater stuff, like simultaneous, multiple insertions into any given orifice. The woman who went by the name Laura Roxx ended up with HIV because she wasn’t pretty enough to get a vanilla porn gig. That’s an extreme example, but the physical toll of gonzo porn generally is a little horrifying. Leaving aside how horrifying the market it caters to is.

What should be the standards that “they” set for men?

“Able to keep it up for an unnatural amount of time” seems to be the only one.

Duh.

Could we stuff more inane stereotypes into one sentence. I’m sure we could work in “boys will be boys” and a “girls wear pink” in there too.
;)

“You can’t have not-so-hot guys in porn and demand the chicks be perfect, and then blather on and on about how women just aren’t visually oriented or sexual. It’s a nice, passive-aggressive way to justify entitlement, but it’s not reality. ”

BINGO.