Reply #206: Well, you asked for examples,

[thucythucy]

and so I gave you some. You seemed in your posts to be denying and mocking the whole notion that there are "degrading" images of women in porn, and so I responded. So I'm glad you at least acknowledge that this stuff exists, and evidently are at least somewhat queasy about how women in these specific porn genres are depicted.

And no, most of this stuff isn't illegal, at least not in the US, though there generally seems to be an effort (however feeble) on the part of those who own the websites to limit access to minors. (Basically, they ask you to click a button that says, "I'm over 18" and that's it). There is also usually a disclaimer that all the people participating are consenting adults, and all the violence is "acted" or "role playing." Obviously, depictions of actual, legally actionable behavior is illegal--and it seems you agree that it should be so.

As for your assertion that "I don't think it's the majority of what people consider 'porn'" can you provide a link or a study or any objective information/data/polls that back up your assertion? I'm not saying you're not right, it's just that I think you should hold yourself to the same standards to which you hold those of us who are critics of the worst elements of the genre. Give us a definition of "non-degrading" porn, and some examples, if you will. Besides which, reading through this thread, I don't see too many people arguing that ALL or even most porn is degrading--just the sorts of images I described above. This all began with a discussion of images of women "hog-tied"--that's the context in which all these comments have been made.

Part of my frustration with this whole topic (and my usual reluctance to engage in these discussions) is how little truly objective information there seems to be out there. I've heard people argue (as you seem to be asserting) that the vast majority of porn is non-violent in content and is sex-positive and thus innocuous in its impact. I'd like to believe that, but where are the data supporting that assertion? Is violent, extreme, degrading porn increasing as a percentage of porn over all, or not? What is the general ratio of "degrading images" (and I'm talking about the explicitly violent/degrading stuff I mentioned above) to more or less innocuous material that is simply consenting adults engaged in sex, "kinky" or otherwise? Just how large is the porn industry anyway? (I've read that the various porn trade groups generally grossly inflate the extent of their "billion dollar industry" but who can say for sure?) What are the trends in terms of degrading vs. non-degrading images? Critics say that both the ratio and content of "extreme" porn has increased dramatically over the past ten years, but again, where are the data?

Aside from all this, my general point is you shouldn't simply dismiss all the critics of porn--as you seem in your posts to do--as either completely uninformed, or as prudes who don't like sex. It would also be helpful to avoid straw man arguments -- that all or even most feminist critics of porn want necessarily to censor it, use state power to regulate people's sex lives, or limit women's choice in whether or not to participate in porn. Just as I might be a critic of media images of people of color, or people who are GLBTs, or people with disabilities (and I've seen some excellent work on all these topics),and think that progressives should take some interest in how these images impact the society around us, and how they make the struggle for social justice more difficult, I think genuine progressives should also show an interest in how degrading images of women in porn might impact the struggle for gender equity.

Does this really seem so outlandish to you?