Islam has failed

[André]

I think the purpose of starting a thread on this article was to invite comments. It is very successful.

[Gurn Blanston]

Absolutely. It is interesting to see how opinions can be polar opposite, even among people with similar backgrounds and life experiences. Although I am never sure why Abe starts a thread, since he is always so provocative with his topics and titles...

[drogulus]

Woman writes article about how happy and satisfied she is with her life now.

Various commentators line up to assert that there must be something wrong with her.

     That's not my point. Someone might say that, though. My point is that if an action is free it doesn't mean that there is nothing wrong with it. I also think that it would be strange to assert we should stop making judgments because we have made strong judgments in favor of an ideal of freedom.

     

[NikF]

I am sorry to say that I think you are all deeply disrespectful of this woman. It's clear to me from the article that she knows her own mind, and is a thoughtful, intelligent person. I do not see her as an automaton, programmed without her understanding or awareness by the men in her life, a mental cripple rendered incapable of understanding her own experience . But I just cannot read your remarks in any other way but saying precisely that she is, and that her own, clearly articulated thoughts, are thus somehow invalidated.

Ken B - good stuff. In fact, so good, that on behalf of that woman I'd like to buy you a drink - although truth be told I'd much prefer to buy her a drink. In any case, bravo.

[Gurn Blanston]

     That's not my point. Someone might say that, though. My point is that if an action is free it doesn't mean that there is nothing wrong with it. I also think that it would be strange to assert we should stop making judgments because we have made strong judgments in favor of an ideal of freedom.

In this case, the rightness or wrongness of her choice is based on your own (doubtless well-considered) opinion of sex work as a profession. It isn't really germane to the discussion, since she clearly doesn't care what you think of her choice of a profession, only of the fact that she was able to make her own choice.

[Holden]

In a religion where choice for women is severely limited, this woman has thrown off the shackles and is doing things her way. Her mind is now her own and she clearly states that. For any of us to surmise that she is psychologically flawed and that her decisions are flawed as a result is both insulting to her and presumptuous by us. Good on her I say.

[André]

The crux of the matter, which has not been addressed by anyone is, is she really free ? If you are a libertarian, real and absolute individual freedom of choice is essential.

She may write, tweet and sing 'I am free' all day long, nobody can validate that. Not that she needs any validation from anyone, that's really beside the point. The simple fact that she felt the need to go public makes me wonder « Why » ?

[NikF]

How do you know it hasn't been addressed by anyone? - you don't know that. But a clue might be that not everyone who has addressed any aspect of that article will then grasp any opportunity to show how much they love the sound of their own voice.
As for her own voice, her motive(s), here's my best guess - it's about publicity which will then lead to money. Along with whatever else she is, she's business woman. Some people will do and say just about anything for money.

e: I'd love to see any of you judge or even second guess a man in the same situation the same way. The irony is you wouldn't have the balls to do it.

[André]

You're the one playing Judge Judy, now  .

[Ken B]

How do we know she's free now? Well, she hasn't been stoned to death, but she would have been before. That's a clue. 

Seriously. What reason has anyone got, given, or imagined for doubting her word, or the sincerity implicit in the way she conducts her life. I need a bigger eye roll emoji!

[NikF]

You're the one playing Judge Judy, now  .

I'm not judging her. I'm not judging anyone.  I'm pronouncing you and the others as being Internet dilettantes who arrogantly believe they have some insight into a person based on a click bait titled piece of fluff.
And that 'wink' emoticon? - I'd tell you to ram it up your arse, but there's obviously not enough room with your own head already residing up there.

[vandermolen]

On third thoughts I guess that if she is truly happy and fulfilled with her life that is the most important thing.

[Madiel]

I think the purpose of starting a thread on this article was to invite comments. It is very successful.

The heading of the thread was most definitely clickbait, and succeeded.

[Madiel]

The crux of the matter, which has not been addressed by anyone is, is she really free ?

Is that the crux of the matter?

I think the crux of the matter is that a woman who is into sex, pornography and BDSM gets these questions in a way that every other human being who is probably similarly influenced by their environment and upbringing isn't.

I think if she'd settled down with a nice accountant and become a housewife and soccer Mom, no-one would ask whether she made independent choices or was just reacting against her past, because then she would have fallen into the exact same kind of "normal" existence that you're all comfortable with.

I note that BDSM is reported to be a rather common kink in anonymous surveys. It's just that most people don't talk about it. Instead they go and make 50 Shades of Grey a massive best seller and hope that no-one finds out they're reading it.

[drogulus]

In this case, the rightness or wrongness of her choice is based on your own (doubtless well-considered) opinion of sex work as a profession. It isn't really germane to the discussion, since she clearly doesn't care what you think of her choice of a profession, only of the fact that she was able to make her own choice.

     What I'm reacting to is what I consider a false dichotomy of the kind often seen in conflicts of an ideological nature between absolutists.

     An example would be "Islam is an evil dictatorship, evil dictatorships control people through sex prohibitions, a free society lets you be a porn star, a free society is good, therefore what it allows is good, especially since an evil dictatorship says it's bad."

     My critique may have been prompted by happy porn star assertions, it's only related to that, not that. It's the reasoning I'm after. I'm not targeting the happy porn star life as much as I'm targeting the reactive thinking around the happy porn star assertion. I'm seeing odd defenses of her thoughts about her choice to defend the freedom of her choice, which I defend, too, without making the dubious assumption that what is free is good.

[Madiel]

     I'm not targeting the happy porn star life as much as I'm targeting the reactive thinking around the happy porn star assertion.

Your starting point was to say that it looked to you like a "characteristic rebound from abuse".

How is THAT not reactive thinking? It doesn't seem to be based on much evidence.

And what followed was not so much an assertion of knee-jerk positivity about porn, as a response to what seemed to be a knee-jerk negativity about it. In other words, what you're "targeting" only appeared in this thread as a way of questioning why you and several others immediately jumped the way that you did.

I'm not asserting that she must be happy. I'm questioning what basis you have to deny her own evidence that she is.

[drogulus]

Your starting point was to say that it looked to you like a "characteristic rebound from abuse".

How is THAT not reactive thinking? It doesn't seem to be based on much evidence. And what followed was not so much an assertion of knee-jerk positivity about porn, as a response to what seemed to be a knee-jerk negativity about it.

     I can defend freedom and say what a free choice looks like at the same time. People do bad free things all the time, we all do, and if living in a free society really did disable any independent thought about actions and justifications I seriously doubt any sane person would bother to write a Federalist paper.

[Madiel]

If this is not geo-blocked (which it may be, let me know), people might be interested to watch the second half of this show. By sheer coincidence I watched it tonight. It was aired a few weeks ago. Australia's most award-winning porn star.

https://7plus.com.au/andrew-denton-interview?episode-id=IVEW01-014

[Madiel]

     I can defend freedom and say what a free choice looks like at the same time. People do bad free things all the time, we all do, and if living in a free society really did disable any independent thought about actions and justifications I seriously doubt any sane person would bother to write a Federalist paper.

So in essence this is not for you about whether you believe she's truly happy, but whether you believe she's doing something bad (despite being happy while doing it)?

I'm not sure exactly what your measure of "bad" is then. Bad for her? Or just bad according to your own moral code?

If it's the latter, then part of freedom would be that your opinion of her lifestyle would be of limited value. But if it's the former you'd need to explain what makes it bad, and a description of the circumstances that led her there doesn't qualify.

[drogulus]

So in essence this is not for you about whether you believe she's truly happy, but whether you believe she's doing something bad (despite being happy while doing it)?

I'm not sure exactly what your measure of "bad" is then. Bad for her? Or just bad according to your own moral code?

     I don't see what "truly happy" beliefs or "truly bad" actions have to do with my argument, which is about whether an action that might be judged harmful can't be judged at all if it's deemed free, as people here are trying to assume while at the same time critiquing my argument an principles they think they are denying.

     I freely make an argument, and freely made it's beyond criticism because if you criticize it freedom is undermined. If so, what's the point of freedom?