No registration required! (Why?)

Porn Investment


Francis Koenig, 31, previously an executive at a Wall Street hedge fund (New World Partners) but now based in Los Angeles. Last year he launched an Adult Entertainment based investment vehicle called AdultVest (www.adultvest.com) which is raising funds to invest in the $12 billion a year porn industry.

He is looking to launch 2 funds. The first is a $100 million fund which requires a minimum investment of $1 million so no more than 100 investors in this one. The second is a bit more accessible to the average John with a minimum investment of $100,000 to create a $10 million fund.

Investors are signing up on his web site (www.adultvest.com) at a rate of 15 per day and approximately 300 companies have registered with him.

Is there space in your portfolio for porn? Or does porn stock skirt around the edges of non-ethical investments like tobacco?
Elite:

With regard to "subjective", the context of the question asked compared to tobacco and Soros bounced it on the back of religion.

I remain that there is simply no subjectivity to it, unless one is compelled to justify their actions or really doesn't have a working knowledge of religion, despite an opinion.

The body is no less given of beauty for being clothed and in fact the Christian's instructions are to dress conservatively at all times, save for in the privacy of their spouse.

In the end, we're only really asked to maintain 10 commands and we tend to argue those upon every justification we can find, e.g. artistic license. Not Subjective, unless one is in a position of defending one's behaviors.

In deed, there is space for ethics and morals, but they are a "personal choice" to engage. I try to err on the side of caution, just as most speculators have learned is the difference between good profit /loss management versus gambling until their broke.

Perhaps some believe that too is subjective. ;-) That would be the guy that has to tell his wife and family that he lost his last year's income in the markets. But hey, the fine "artwork" in the brown paper bag, only cost him $20.00 at the corner book store, so at least he got a deal. Why then do they hide them in the bag?

You see, if I'm wrong, well... I missed out on some eye-candy for eternity. If those on the other side of the fence are wrong, well... I missed out on some eye-candy.
quote:
Originally posted by urbansound

The body is no less given of beauty for being clothed and in fact the Christian's instructions are to dress conservatively at all times, save for in the privacy of their spouse.

I'm going to jump in here with my 2 cents worth...


I would disagree with that comment because the beauty of the person is in the parts that you can see of the person (i.e. the flesh in the face for example) and not of the parts that you cannot see.

For example, if a person is clothed in a large shapeless cloth with only a head exposed then you cannot comment on the "beauty of the body" because it is shapeless under the cover of the cloth.

So to bring this back to the question of investment in this industry: Should Christians exclude themselves because this industry promotes lust? If so, would you consider any Christian investing in this industry as someone who by implication has abandoned their faith?
OK, we're probably OT heading into theology, but let's see how this boils down...
quote:

I would disagree with that comment because the beauty of the person is in the parts that you can see of the person (i.e. the flesh in the face for example) and not of the parts that you cannot see. []...it is shapeless under the cover of the cloth.


Where do we find a rule that flesh constitutes beauty? We have to depart a religious view to measure beauty as flesh and in fact it has become a "personal decision" on a "popular" basis and we have elevated the viewing of flesh as a higher "personal" value than the other qualities of the individual. Can we not see consideration, kindness, motherhood, wisdom, loyalty and other qualities with our eyes as well? "Personal choice", in a moral basis.
quote:
So to bring this back to the question of investment in this industry: Should Christians exclude themselves because this industry promotes lust? If so, would you consider any Christian investing in this industry as someone who by implication has abandoned their faith?


I would rather question first if the particular Christian ever possessed a true sense of faith and likely that they were not in touch with the guidance of their faith, which would be the Word. This then calls upon proper teaching, discipline, repentance and a turning toward a true sense of faith which is the pursuit of the forgiveness Christians value; again in the end, a personal choice in a moral basis. We're also called not to judge, "the person", but rather the ill behaviors and seek by encouragement to move one away from immoral behavior.

Returning once again to the real question, is supporting the porn industry by trading in it, comparable to skirting ethical issues to trade in tobacco? One is immoral in any act to facilitate immorality and the other perhaps crowding ethics, but ultimately apples and oranges from a Christian, morals view.

Would most men care to have their wife viewed naked in thousands of magazines, or be honored for the care she shows for their children? Should most have a greater issue with their wife dancing naked in public or prefer to help her kick cigarettes? Most would not need to be Christians to make the correct moral or ethical decision, yet when we pose the question as one of "Personal Choice" we momentarily say "Hey, that's a question of ethics", until it's their wife, we're talking about. ;-)

I "choose" not to support immoral or unethical industries so as not to contribute to them, but the point I wanted to make is that it's not an issue of professionalism or even Christian opinion, but of personal choices and I'd rather "choose" on the side that is less likely to harm myself or others.

quote:
Does porn stock (investment) skirt around the edges of non-ethical investments like tobacco?
Yes it does, but in two different ways... the first is permanent, irrevocable emotional harm, the other is physical injury from which one may or may not heal.




Mike, thank you for your insightful comments which I have read carefully.

I still "get" from your comments the "personal" decision that you take with your Christian view. This by implication makes the decision subjective and is not shared by all Christians.

I respect and admire your upstanding morales but they are exactly that, yours. As admirable as those qualities and attitudes are they do not represent all Christians.

If we stick to faith then there is an easy analogy to make. Not all Muslims are terrorists. The radical faction of the Islamic faith does not represent Muslims in general. In the same manner, your view does not necessarily represent that of Christians in general.

To come back to the question "is porn industry investment ethical" then you have to answer it from a personal subjective point of view and not from a group point of view.
urbansound: Of the 2 voices of reason I would tend to be swayed more by George than by you. I feel that you are considering your interpretation of christianity as the correct and only interpretation of this particular faith. You are ignoring the billions of other christains with very different views to yours.
One of the problems that happen when a secular dialog takes theological overtones, is that many misconstrue that faith is a "democracy" or a "popular vote", as is common in secular society.
quote:
[]...your view does not necessarily represent that of Christians in general.
The context for Christians is not popular consensus, but scripture, which is clear on the issues of immorality. In fact most of our laws on the books today, still reflect Christian principles they were penned upon.

You see, we would rather deflect the focus back on popular consensus as a "buffer". That way we feel we can keep safe distance but justify our "popular" responses from reflecting directly upon our personal lives and loved ones. Note the questions that I asked last, remain unanswered still. The fact they were avoided truly answers the original question asked, thank you.

Whether or not one does or doesn't choose in a given path, has never determined whether something is ethical or moral, period. A court which legalizes abortion, does not cause abortion to become "Ethical" or "Moral", only that a justification or toleration for it was found in a given context, right or wrong.

Simply because our actions stem from our decisions, does not cause our standard of decisions or decisions themselves to become "subjective", especially that a Christian context became referenced, in this instance.

What shade of blue is the sky?... That's subjective, because the manners by which it's qualified and quantified vary intangibly. Moral and ethical judgments affect "others" and are based upon tangible standards of discernible cause and effect. They are measurable.

quote:
Is there space in your portfolio for porn?

No.
quote:
Or does porn stock skirt around the edges of non-ethical investments like tobacco?
Both are harmful by standards that are qualified and quantified, albeit within different context and for different reasons. I would not invest in income streams I could not recommend to others, regardless of the reason.

Having answered the questions with reasonable support for why, I would say thank you to Day Trading for entertaining the question. If there are others who would care to continue the question theologically, Day Trading may send them my email address and I'd be glad to discuss it further. For now, I will depart with my thanks to each, so as to not linger on, risk redundancy or pull the thread off topic.

Thank you and best wishes to all in a great community mypivots provides.

I don't think that we have gone too far off topic (if at all) because the main reasons behind not investing in this industry would be ones of personal belief/morality which often leads from faith.

As such if anyone wants to pursue the topic of theology and how it may effect an investment decision then please feel free to continue in this manner as I am finding this both educational and enlightening.

So far we have (in my opinion) all been very well behaved but I will put out a warning that if anybody slurs someone because of their choice of any religion or lack of faith I will of course delete that posting as the general terms of this forum don't permit that sort of behavior for obvious reasons.

You can email Mike directly by clicking on his urbansound nickname and then clicking the Email option or do the same to contact me if you want his email address which I will give to you as he has given me permission to do so. (Don't bother requesting anybody else's email address as I can only give out email addresses if the person has explicitly given permission on the forum.)

Thanks for your views everyone, please continue as you feel fit...
urbansound: Just to clarify, the unanswered questions that you asked are:

"Would most men care to have their wife viewed naked in thousands of magazines, or be honored for the care she shows for their children? Should most have a greater issue with their wife dancing naked in public or prefer to help her kick cigarettes?"

Is that correct?
quote:
Originally posted by day trading

urbansound: Just to clarify, the unanswered questions that you asked are:

"Would most men care to have their wife viewed naked in thousands of magazines, or be honored for the care she shows for their children? Should most have a greater issue with their wife dancing naked in public or prefer to help her kick cigarettes?"

Is that correct?



Partly Day Trading, but I should perhaps clarify. By the way, thank you for affirming the consideration of topic and by all means let me assure that I never hope to offend, nor do I take offense and I hope others have endured in kind.

There were four questions that I interjected on my post of 11/16/2006 : 19:54:40, which originally replied to your response of 11/16/2006 : 14:25:30, Day Trading. In all fairness, you had not yet replied to that response so I'm not at all suggesting that you ignored the questions, which were...

1) Where do we find a rule that flesh constitutes beauty?
2) Can we not see consideration, kindness, motherhood, wisdom, loyalty and other qualities with our eyes as well?

The context of the above 1 & 2 are evident.

3) Would most men care to have their wife viewed naked in thousands of magazines, or be honored for the care she shows for their children?

4) Should most have a greater issue with their wife dancing naked in public or prefer to help her kick cigarettes?

These were absolutely not to imply any more than a relative examination of comparison to the recapping of the original question and PLEASE, not directed at anyone's wife, per se. In other words, by putting the references close to home... in 3) we attain a comparison of "personal" implication, versus generalizing within a "Christian" community or even a "secular" community and how our judgments in those two separate situations, (personal versus generalized), may let us see them through a different light. The last, 4) in particular, was additionally phrased as an apples/oranges to reflect the odd context of the original topic, part b, comparing pornography with tobacco, as I had identified the recap in the preceding paragraph to 3 & 4.

Mr. Soros and Elite then offered replies to that particular post on the 17th, again returning to generalized opinions, so my response of 11/17/2006 : 16:42:50, might have clarified that better and yet I respectfully did not want readers to mistakenly assign the comparison to anyone directly, so I did not explicitly refer to them in reply.

So yes, those were the questions with some additional clarification here, hopefully to assure all that objectivity was still hopefully maintained.

Thank you Day Trading.
quote:
Originally posted by urbansound

1) Where do we find a rule that flesh constitutes beauty?
2) Can we not see consideration, kindness, motherhood, wisdom, loyalty and other qualities with our eyes as well?

The context of the above 1 & 2 are evident.

3) Would most men care to have their wife viewed naked in thousands of magazines, or be honored for the care she shows for their children?
4) Should most have a greater issue with their wife dancing naked in public or prefer to help her kick cigarettes?

Thanks urbansound.

Questions 1 & 2 deal with different emotions: lust and nurture

If a person has elected to suppress lust then it is much easier for that person to see the qualities mentioned in question 2.

I think that at this point we end up wandering into an area where you have to decide from a faith point of view how much lust is right. Unless you are celibate then lust (phrased euphemistically as passion or something else) will play a part in everyone's life whether you like it or not.

You also have to look at the stage of life someone is in. A young Christian man looking for a wife will have a very different outlook on the subject compared to the married with children Christian.

Questions 3 & 4 relate to the last paragraph. Young Christian versus older Christian.

I remember being told about a study that was done in order to determine what men and woman looked for in each other. I believe that series of pairs of photos were shown to both men and women and the common factors were picked out. It was determined that based purely on looks women elected men with more muscle on the arms and men chose women with larger breasts and younger faces.

The scientists who ran the experiment stated in their conclusion that the mind naturally select women who were more likely be able to procreate and produce offspring while the women selected men who would protect them (and presumably their offspring).

The reason that I brought this up is that the mind is naturally wired to select (1) flesh over (2) nurture because the basic instinct is to be able to primarily breed and secondarily nurture - especially from a man's point of view.
If you buy the S&P500 through an index tracking fund then I think by definition you are investing in ever industry in the world. I can't imagine anything being left out by the top 500 and their subsidiaries.