Sorry Pericles, I was relying on vague memory there.
Anyway, I found it:

Ivan, in Fyodor Dostoyevsky's novel, The Brothers Karamozov, got it exactly right -- if God is dead, everything is permissible.

But no matter who said or didn't say it, it remains true. Your point about Christians not having a mortgage on righteousness only 'self' righteousness.... not quite right.
You and I both know that without divinely revealed truth, right and wrong are a matter of opinion, and usually simply become 'Legal and Illegal'

HawaiiLawyers quote of Jensen is very apt. In particular I note the phrases about 'The language becomes increasingly degrading' etc..and the multiple penetrations etc....I mean.. when simply showing basic intercourse... or oral, ummmm what or where to next ? I mean if you view such stuff for more than a few minutes, the titilation must surely wear off, and some new 'hotter' action is needed for the same rush.

Of course, when the industry has gone as far as the law allows, it will seek to either go underground or change the law so it can:
-Show more
-Show for longer
-Show other combinations (human/animal action, defacating, Urinating etc, Multiple penetrations)

Each step of 'further artistic freedom' is a step closer to hell.
One day we might look over from among the sheep to some goat from the porn industry, and note him/her asked by the Almighty "Why did you turn my creation into a sex object."? Let them then say 'Artistic Freedom' because I know what the answer will be "No, sorry, you just wanted to make money".

"And If being a "feminist" means aspiring to a world in which women and girls are no longer conflated with bodies only, and are approached always with respect, then, yes, I am a "feminist.""

Umm hang on HL, respect is not a given, it is earned. I
might respect your human rights, but I don't respect you just
for being female or male for that matter

Boaz, Boaz, please!

>>Sorry Pericles, I was relying on vague memory there.
Anyway, I found it:

Ivan, in Fyodor Dostoyevsky's novel, The Brothers Karamozov, got it exactly right -- if God is dead, everything is permissible.<<

Ivan is a character from fiction, not a noted philosopher. Using his utterings as an example to suit your cause is like referring to the musings of Xena, Warrior Princess to prove the existence of the Elysian Fields.

Incidentally, the quote does not appear in any of the English translations of Karamazov that I have come across. Rumour has it that one of the Russian editions contains the phrase "esli Boga net - znachit, vsio pozvoleno", but I have met no-one who can actually verify this.

Perhaps one of the OLO scholars can help out.

Definitely not a scholar but look at http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/features/2000/cortesi1.html

“To my rather casual reading, it appears that the whole irony of The Brothers Karamazov is that Ivan advances this logical statement, but later admits to Alyosha that, in fact, he believes in God. Hence Ivan has believed right from the start that the antecedent is false and, therefore, that the implication is null -- it was never more than an intellectual toy. Alas, other characters take the succedent B seriously and act on it, resulting in great evil, for which Ivan must feel indirectly responsible.

In any case, did Dostoevsky himself mean to argue the truth of the logical implication? Or to argue either the antecedent (God does not exist) or the succedent (everything is lawful) separately? Did Dostoevsky believe the inverse statement ("If God does exist, then not everything is lawful")? Or did he only mean to show that almost everyone else believes it true, without examination?”

Yankee Lawyer.
“In days of old when knights were bold and women weren’t invented, they drilled some holes in telegraph poles, to keep themselves contented”.

Pornography has been with us since well before the invention of the printing press, check the karma sutra I think it includes all the things your previous post mentioned. New delivery system, same porn, same moral outrage.

That something has been with the human race since forever doesn't commend its continuance. If there is harm done to human beings, those are facts that are uncontrovertible whether nor not the "majority" likes it.

For most of human existence, humans have been brutish, violent, and interested in harming other members of their race. Does that commend the continuance of harm?

____________

Thanks mjpb for your comments on the lack of a total Utopia.

And also, Rachel, I agree with you that pornography is degrading to women despite the presence or absence of consent. Degradation is a form of harm.

Kay,

really sorry to hear of your experience. It must have been horrific.

Hawaiian lawyer,

great posts! I agree with most you say.

One general point, people keep saying that rape is not about sex but abou power, I agree with that, but I think it is a bit simplistic. The problem I have with certain types of pornography is precisely that they eroticise submission, violence, humiliation and degradation, therefore mixing sex with power. Trurning sex into a way of asserting themsleves violently over others and dehumanising them, that's where I think the connection between rape and pornography comes in.

Therefore the point that not just sex workers are subject to sexual violence is mute. If we as a society sexualise violence and submission is it much wonder that women get brutalised through sex?

I should say I have no problem with sexually explicit material which does not emply violence, humiliation and degradation