As a matter of prudence, I am inclined to agree with the arguments of the questioner--if one does not want others to photograph one's exposed breasts (or other body parts), one should keep them covered in public. On the other hand, I don't think that the issue is quite as simple as this. The man who was arrested admitted that he used the photos for his own sexual gratification. But what if he was posting them on a website--perhaps for profit? I think there are somewhat thorny issues here, and do think that the most important ones have to do with legal protections of personal privacy, and where the lines get drawn on this issue. Does appearing in public mean that anyone can photograph me for any purpose whatsoever? That does seem a bit much to me! Here is another example--what do you think of the idea of a pedophile photographing children swimming or running around on a beach in the nude (as one can see in lots of places in the world)? No problem here? I guess I would caution the questioner...

I generally gree with Heck and Leaman have said, but would add a proviso: I am inclined to think that there is something (not without exceptions, of course--even numerous exceptions) in the kind of suspicion that people tend to have when they consider relationships between people who are unusually far apart in age--a suspicion that grows considerably more acute when the younger one is very young (i.e. a legal minor). In another response I made (on a question about animals), I noted how significant the value of reciprocation is, as a measure of relationships. People very different in age can, of course, enjoy fully reciprocal relationships. But differences in age usually also tend to be associated with differences in perspective, in interests, in worldly wisdom, and in lots of other areas that are profoundly important in relationships. So, when one tends to be suspicious of romantic relationships between people of very different ages--and all the more so when one partner is extremely young--it...

Surely anything that promotes sexism is, to the degree and for that reason, a bad thing. Truth is, the popular media and advertising reinforce all kinds of biases and prejudices (against older people, against people who do not fit social standards of beauty or attractiveness, against poor people, against people of color--by inadequate representation, and so on and so on). The media make money from doing so, because people have the interests they have--and these interests are often sexist and biased in all of the relevant ways. So you want to ban all of the ways in which the media promote or reinforce such wrongs? Well...you will have a lot of censorship to do! On the other hand, as Pogge suggests, surely there are more important concerns (in regard to sexism specifically, and in regard to making the world a better place more generally) than becoming overly concerned that Page 3 shows the breasts of young women. Before you get too far gone in moral indignation about this issue, it...

It is a little unclear precisely what you have in mind here. Love scenes in mainstream films most certainly do not require the performance of most sex acts (beyond kissing), and so could hardly constitute rape done by or to anyone. The same can be said as to why this is not prostitution, as there is very little in the way of actual sex performed in such films. Of course, real sex acts are performed in pornographic films, and it may well be that in some instances those performing these acts (or on whom they are performed) have not given their consent. By the way, I do not agree with your definition of rape. I think consent--rather than whether the sex is wanted --is what is key here. Many loving people occasionally consent to sex even when they don't really want it. I would not call that rape. In some cases I could imagine--which may occur, or even occur rather more often than we might suspect--I would call such cases extraordinary acts of love. After all, loving may involve willing...

I agree with you that Dworkin's arguments "horribly simplify" the relationships between men and women. But I would also say that this kind of simplification is unavoidable in arguments of the general kind she makes--from any point of view. For one thing, notice the difference in how I put my agreement with you--from the way you put the point. In my agreement, I put "relationships" in the plural. Dworkin understands well the generality of male domination and oppression. But arguments such as hers fail (and cannot help but fail, by their very nature as generalities) to take into account the indefinitely great variety of ways in which human beings can be related and can interact. This is not at all to say that Dworkin's arguments do not deserve our attention and respect. But we should always take care not to allow such arguments to obscure the fact that the generalities to which they point are, to some degree and by many individual cases, not at all without exceptions.

I agree with Joseph Moore's insight, but have some reservations about the question itself. As squeamish as our own culture is about sex, I think it would not be wise to generalize this fact about our culture to all others at all times. The varieties of practices and taboos across cultures can be striking. The degree to which prostitution, for example, is anathematized in our own culture is not at all to be found in many other cultures. For the ancient Greeks, prostitution was entirely socially acceptable ("everything in moderation" still applied, of course), whereas free males were expected never to commit oral sex (on any sex partner, male or female). Most cultures are completely intolerant of extreme violence against the members of that culture, and the punishments for murder, for example, are generally much more severe than any sanctions put on (especially legal) sex acts. So I do not think I accept the assumption behind the question.