The Selling of Social Dominance - Are you Buying?

[bloom]

The trouble with corporate Television, pornography, etc. - People are buying an attitude - a perception of reality without thinking about it. It takes all of us to work toward a sensibility of equality and of human dignity. People who buy into (Social Dominance Orientation) SDO will buy into a war based on lies - they'll buy into torture because they think it makes them safer - they excuse their own violence and justify everything by saying that everyone does bad stuff - so don't think about holding them accountable. (I must be channeling Rosa Parks this week).

SDO is commonly deployed with the Right Wing Authoritarianism (RWA) scale. SDO correlates with Right Wing Authoritarian and together they are strong predictors of many forms of prejudice, such as sexism, racism and anti-homosexual attitudes. The two measures can be thought of as two sides of the same coin: RWA provides the prejudiced, religious submisive followers, and SDO provides the manipulative, prejudiced, power-seeking leaders....

Sidanius and Pratto propose that one mediating factor in SDO is androgens, noting primarily that males tend to have higher SDO scores than females, and are also observed to be more socially hierarchical. The biological reason for this difference in dominance is increased levels of androgens, primarily testosterone. Male levels of testosterone are much higher than that of females. Higher levels of androgens are correlated with sexual aggression, dominance, spontaneous aggression and decreased restraint of aggression. There is also a correlation between gains in social status and increased testosterone. Thus there is a potential link between social dominance and aggression."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_dominance_orientation

Right Wing Authoritarianism (RWA) is a psychological personality variable or "ideological attitude'.
High scorers on the RWA scale tend to have a rigid, often fundamentally religious view of morality tending towards as homophobic and patriarchial beliefs. High RWA scorers tend to support authority figures, such as the government, taking action to censor certain social groups (often those who are viewed as physically or morally threatening).

This example contains all three facets of RWA:
"honour the ways of our forefathers", that is, conventionalism/traditional values
"do what the authorities tell us to do", authoritarian submission
"get rid of the ‘rotten apples’ who are ruining everything" - authoritarian aggression

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_Wing_Authoritarianism

On the selling of the concept of SUVs to Americans:

"...There is something about feeling good about the hell with you; I do what I want, you see? And this is part of the American culture. And a lot of people resent this attitude around the world. You see that, that's what a lot of people resent about this administration - what they say is the hell with you - we're going to go to war anyway. But on the other hand there is something positive about it, because we know what we want and we do it!-- whatever it is. You know. So they're using that to sell a hummer. Definitely. And I think it works! I think these guys are, in terms of marketing the hummer, are doing a great job if you look at the sale of the hummer.

-CLOTAIRE RAPAILLE

http://www.onthemedia.org/transcripts/transcripts_041803_hummer.html

...Then there's this notion that you need to be up high. That's a contradiction, because the people who buy these S.U.V.s know at the cortex level that if you are high there is more chance of a rollover. But at the reptilian level they think that if I am bigger and taller I'm safer. You feel secure because you are higher and dominate and look down. That you can look down is psychologically a very powerful notion....But that's the puzzle of what has happened to the automobile world: feeling safe has become more important than actually being safe.

Gladwell quoting Rapaille

http://www.gladwell.com/2004/2004_01_12_a_suv.html

There are many ways that Social Dominance is sold - but pornography is probably the most obvious...

You are what you eat:
The pervasive porn industry and what it says about you and your desires

by Robert Jensen

...We can stop glorifying violence and we can reject its socially sanctioned forms, primarily in the military and the sports world. We can make peace heroic. We can find ways to use and enjoy our bodies in play without watching each other crumble to the ground in pain after a “great hit.”

We can stop providing the profits for activities that deny our own humanity, hurt other people, and make sexual justice impossible: pornography, strip bars, prostitution, sex tourism. There is no justice in a world in which some bodies can be bought and sold.

We can take seriously the feminist critique of sexual violence, not just by agreeing that rape and battering are bad, but by holding each other accountable and not looking the other way when our friends do it. And, just as important, we can ask ourselves how the sexual ethic of male dominance plays out in our own intimate relationships, and then ask our partners how it looks to them.

http://uts.cc.utexas.edu/~rjensen/freelance/pornography&masculinity.htm

OPEN LETTER TO MEN
Who Say They Believe in Freedom and Equality
by Nikki Craft

...Despite your understanding of class and corporate greed and your criticisms of capitalism, you move swiftly and articulately to defend the rights of men who degrade and mutilate women's bodies in the name of sexuality, profit and entertainment....

...You decry fascism on the horizon, but how can you be blind to the same tyranny implicit in pornography? Pornography, most often, dehumanizes women. It reduces us to fethishized objects and provides a blueprint and support network for men who commit acts of sexual terrorism. And you, fully aware of the media's powers to mold mass consciousness, still ask us for proof that these images cause prejudice and violence against us.

..You who express your belief in freedom and equality: you have done more than defend pornographers' First Amendment "right" to abuse and degrade women. You have often actively excused it. You have in many cases embraced the bigotry and bought their lies about women.

http://www.feminista.com/archives/v1n1/craft.html

[smirkymonkey]

1. I'm not buying, but too many others are.

Kicked & recommended!

[porphyrian]

2. Heeeey, don't fuck with porn.

Porn doesn't cause violence against women, psychological problems do. Porn does not cause psychological problems in its consumers. Healthy, sane individuals have no problem separating fantasy from reality. Porn doesn't make people hurt women any more than heavy metal music, Dungeons & Dragons, or video games do. If porn is your best example of "Social Dominance Orientation," then I don't buy that shit.

[bloom]

4. It sounds like you're "buying"

Rape-Prone Versus Rape-Free Campus Cultures

Published in VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN,Vol. 2 No. 2, June, l996, pp. 191- 208

Rape-prone behavior is associated with environmental insecurity and females are turned into objects to be controlled as men struggle to retain or to gain control of their environment. Behaviors and attitudes prevail that separate the sexes and force men into a posture of proving their manhood. Sexual violence is one of the ways in which men remind themselves that they are superior. As such, rape is part of a broader struggle for control in the face of difficult circumstances. Where men are in harmony with their environment, rape is usually absent...

Getting their information about women and sex from pornography, some brothers don't see anything wrong with forcing a woman, especially if she's drunk. After the l983 case of alleged gang rape I describe in the book one of the participants, a virgin at the time, told a news reporter:

We have this Select TV in the house, and there's soft porn on every midnight. All the guys watch it and talk about it and stuff, and (gang banging) didn't seem that odd because it's something that you see and hear about all the time...

http://www.sas.upenn.edu/~psanday/rapea.html

[porphyrian]

5. Horseshit. You're the one whose bought something.

However, feel free to continue to help those with psychological problems to avoid seeking help by externalizing responsibility for their behavior. That'll help society.

[lukasahero]

6. Didn't take long for this conversation to deteriorate, did it? eom

[porphyrian]

7. And you've added so much by pointing it out. - n/t

[mongo]

10. Well, when you start with utter garbage

what do you expect?

psuedo science and emotional tirades do not a good argument make.

[smirkymonkey]

65. It's always about the porn. Jeeze you would think people would

have something better to do with their time. Like actually have sex.

[mongo]

69. Hmmm.... playing on our insecurities? Just like the OP suggests?

"It's always about the porn. Jeeze you would think people would have something better to do with their time. Like actually have sex.

and using sex as a weapon to intimidate - Hmmmm...

Too bad I mostly watch porn with my wife.

[roseBudd]

50. I agree that porn doesn't cause rape, and I don't agree that rape is

not about sex. It is, it's about nonconsensual sex, and rapista have a thing for nonconsensual the same way that some men have a thing for being made to clean a toilet dressed in diapers at the direction of a woman they are paying for the privilege.

What if exposure to the right kind of porn at an early age could prevent fetishes that infringe on the rights of others.

[bluedawg12]

3. Neocons frame it as: anti-relativism in morality.

this is their rebound from the so called premissive 60's.

They play this as a need for social stability which is determined by a strong sense of right and wrong.

They are right and everyone else is wrong.

Ex: Limpbags and drugs, till his own little revelation.

Bennett and morality till his little gambling problem surfaced.

they are lying scum and no one should ever follow uncritically, fundamentally, and with out question, especailly when a historical novel is used to control masses based on possible happenings 5,000 years ago.

[mongo]

8. Not again...

What are your tirades against porn timed with Sen Brownback's Senate dog and pony shows against porn? He's having another one next week. Perhaps you would like to testify...

Just a few points -

Sidanius and Pratto propose that one mediating factor in SDO is androgens, noting primarily that males tend to have higher SDO scores than females, and are also observed to be more socially hierarchical. The biological reason for this difference in dominance is increased levels of androgens, primarily testosterone...

Thus there is a potential link between social dominance and aggression."


Nice bunch of sexist crap. If I posted some pseudo-scientific BS about how women are too emotional - because of estrogen, blah, blah blah I would be rightly flamed into oblivion.

High RWA scorers tend to support authority figures, such as the government, taking action to censor certain social groups (often those who are viewed as physically or morally threatening).

Guess I need to go to wiki and make a entry about left wing authoritarian groups too -- just as rigid, just as willing to censor those that they see morally threatening.

We can stop providing the profits for activities that deny our own humanity, hurt other people, and make sexual justice impossible: pornography, strip bars, prostitution, sex tourism. There is no justice in a world in which some bodies can be bought and sold.

Let's see, a woman has total choice over her own body, unless she wants to "sell" it - right?

..Despite your understanding of class and corporate greed and your criticisms of capitalism, you move swiftly and articulately to defend the rights of men who degrade and mutilate women's bodies in the name of sexuality, profit and entertainment....

Sorry, but I defend the right of consenting adults to make entertainment as they see fit. What is "degrading" is in the eye of the beholder, and many women enjoy adult entertainment as well as men.

..You decry fascism on the horizon, but how can you be blind to the same tyranny implicit in pornography? Pornography, most often, dehumanizes women. It reduces us to fethishized objects and provides a blueprint and support network for men who commit acts of sexual terrorism. And you, fully aware of the media's powers to mold mass consciousness, still ask us for proof that these images cause prejudice and violence against us.

Why do we ask you for PROOF? Simply because there is NONE. No proof whatsoever of a causal link between adult entertainment and violence.

..You who express your belief in freedom and equality: you have done more than defend pornographers' First Amendment "right" to abuse and degrade women. You have often actively excused it. You have in many cases embraced the bigotry and bought their lies about women.

No we have defended the right of CONSENSUAL ADULTS to make entertainment, free from you moralistic judgments. And the rights of other Americans (MILLIONS of THEM - men and women) - to enjoy this entertainment in the privacy of their own homes.

[melody]

12. I'd like to have the anti-porn left explain how women are degraded

...in an industry where the average female adult star pulls in $1 million dollars a year. How is that somehow less empowering than working in a secretarial pool for $9 an hour? Women aren't cheapened in the industry - if anything, they're empowered.

There's certainly a lot of room for improvement in the adult industry, but the status of women isn't a problem. EVERY modern female porn actresses (from the fattest to the thinnest and the oldest) makes a LOT of money and has status and influence. I'm not in the industry, but I write erotica and I know a lot of porn industry people. They're all sophisticated, aware people. The days of blue movies are long gone.

[MN ChimpH8R]

17. You're right

Years ago I saw Seka on some talk show and she said that when she was a porn "actress" she controlled every facet of her career, decided who she wanted to work with and when she wanted to work. She made a lot of money and said she had saved most of it, then went over to the production side. The women in the adult film business are the stars and they know it and act in their own best financial interests.

[melody]

18. exactly, Seka is still a major player behind the scenes

She's a multi-millionaire.

[Rich Hunt]

32. fair enough

...but not every woman in the sex industry is a millionaire porn star.

Especially with the internet - far too many opportunities for economic exploitation and blackmail.

A lot of people's knowledge of the sex industry is limited
to the more high-profile aspects of it.

[melody]

35. I have two female friends who ran amateur sites up till last year

Both small scale (out of their homes) - one still pulls in $10,000 a month just from recurs on taped feeds. She put two sons through college on her income...GOOD colleges.

There is economic exploitation in every field. Periodical writers haven't had a pay raise in forty years - I make about $10,000 a year on writing and I'm considered successful.

[Rich Hunt]

44. never said there wasn't, did I??

But some women who have done sex work can never make the transition
to a different life because of the potential for BLACKMAIL.

Get real. The double standard is very much alive.

[mongo]

51. Do you have any anecdotal evidence you would like to share?

Is this the new argument? Ban porn to protect women from future blackmail?

[Rich Hunt]

77. READ MY POST

You're making an accusation that is not based in anything I've said. I wonder why.

I am a civil libertarian and I have NEVER argued for censorship of any kind.

If you think a woman's past in the sex industry will not be dug up and held against her in this society, you are not living in reality. I never said 'banning porn' would solve that. I'm making an argument for the rights of sex workers and AGAINST the double standard. How can an alleged 'defender of smut' not be aware of these issues? Sheesh. Oh no - there's absolutely no prejudice against sexually active women in our society, especially those who take their clothes off for money. Please.

Please retract your accusation and read more carefully.

Anecdotal evidence? What? You want pornographic stories from my own life (even though I have not done sex work) or the lives of people I know? Do you always rudely solicit personal information like this, or are you incapable of determining what is plausible or not?

Get real - do you think it's easy for someone who took her clothes off at one time to make the transition to the 'straight' life?

Go back to the source of my quibble with you - you made the inane implication that every woman in sex work had it as good as Seka. That's ludicrous. Do the research about labor and fraud complaints for those who aren't millionaire porn stars. That is NOT an argument for censorship - it's an argument for legitimacy and fairness. Please note how I started out civil, and you turned defensive, hostile, and unwilling to see my argument for what it is. That is dishonest and disrespectful.

[mongo]

83. Maybe if she's running for president

but no, except in rare cases (of which I've never heard of one), it is not hard to leave the industry.

Performers work under ASUMED NAMES. And I can tell you if I saw any of the Vivid girls pass me in the street, I wouldn't recognize them without the makeup, etc.

I never said every women in the industry had it as good as Seka, either.

What is dishonest and disrespectful is your implication of some huge problem of making a transition to the "straight" life - when one doesn't exist.

Thousands of performers enter the industry every year. Many only make one or two scenes. Don't you think we'd be hearing about this if it were some vast problem?

[bloom]

76. While I'm sure there are stars...

For some reason - this sounds more realistic:

Industry video rates are around: £250 girl/girl, £300 Boy/Girl, £350 Boy/Girl + Anal, £400 Double Penetration or more (circa autumn 2004). Plus reasonable travel expenses with lunch provided (usually).

Men get between £150-£350 per scene (circa autumn 2004) depending on the producer. This is why there are so few male performers who work regularly!

http://www.bgafd.co.uk/miscellany/getintoporn-04.php

as linked from:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Erotic_actress

Somehow - I don't think the average woman feels empowered by the possibility of making more from doing porn than what they are currently doing to make a living.

[mongo]

79. That's about 500 bucks for 4 hours

250 British = $427.75

300 British = $525.30

400 = $700.40

And that is for one SCENE - about 4 hours work total. And a starting rate for an unknown performer. Contract performers make lots more.

But I'm sure you can make that cashiering at Walmart.

[bloom]

80. arguing that women are underpaid at other jobs

does not justify the porn industry to me.

[mongo]

84. Well, nothing would justify the porn industry to you

because for some reason, you don't believe that a woman should be able to CHOOSE this for a living.

[bloom]

85. Please see this post...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=104&topic_id=5266176&mesg_id=5278602


if you haven't already.

[melody]

9. Alcohol in Prohibition era, grass for the RW, and porn for the radicals

Everyone seems to need a bogeyman on which to blame the vices of society. This is ludicrous.

Study after study after serious study has shown no direct causal connection between mainstream porn (not the repulsive, illegal kind, in other words) and ANY social negative attribute. Porn is actually good for people. Everyone but EVERYONE has a form of porn - if they say they don't, they are lying. Humans are sexual creatures.

In case you need someone handy to look down on, check out my profile for my slash fiction page and you can cluck about that.

I'm a free-speech feminist, btw, and a female. The way to improve society is through release of sexual repression NOT through increasing it.

[bloom]

11. I don't want

everyone to be repressed.

But I don't think it's necessary to condone, encourage or contribute to gang rape porn - for instance. From just a curious look at what's popular - most of the porn I saw advertised promoted on a mainstream site - the view that women should be condemned if they like sex and the degradation of women seemed fairly common.

If anything - that would seem to encourage the sexual repression of women - instead of the opposite.

[NYCGirl]

13. You don't like it, don't buy it. Simple as that. And "gang rape porn" is

by no means the majority of the material out there. I don't especially like some of the small minority of the titles, but damned if I won't fight to the death for their right to make it. As long as it's between consenting adults, it's fine with me.

[melody]

15. Who are you to determine what consenting adults like?

Many women AND men are into sexual power-play. It's a very common fetish. Why do you see it as "gang rape" porn? The sites I've seen advertised with more than two people are orgy or multi-partner sites - that's not inherently any stranger than two-person sex, in a rational world.

If you EVER see true violence or snuff, or the use of any children, and/or adult people against their will, that is NOT mainstream and should be immediately reported to the authorities. It IS deeply discouraged from the mainstream industry. A friend of mine, Alec Helmy (who runs numerous porn sites), has been at the forefront of the anti-child porn movement since LONG before the Feds knew about it. In fact, I'll give you a direct link for reporting such sites to the very individuals who can immediately have the crap taken down and the people prosecuted --

http://www.asacp.org/index.php

This is an association of adult sites battling child porn. It's among the biggest of its kind and has shut down more kp sites than ANY OTHER.

The adult industry is an asset in battling the truly illegal crap - not an impediment.

[bloom]

19. gang rape

that is how it's advertised - it's not necessarily actually "rape" - though see my post #4 about what a fraternity brother said about it's effect on them.

Your argument (and the one before you) is just like Rapaille said: "There is something about feeling good about the hell with you; I do what I want, you see? And this is part of the American culture." He's got Americans figured out.

[melody]

21. If it's "Gang Rape", you can get it shut down within two hours.

If it's not "rape", then I suggest you reconsider your own reactions to it. You have every right to them. You don't have the right to tell others how to react, so long as they behave themselves. That frat brother should deal with his own internal problems. They existed before the stimuli.

As for your comments about Americans, that's a bigoted generalization that is grossly unfair (as are all bigoted generalizations).

[bloom]

23. Rapaille's generalizations

are exactly what has used in the selling of domination-oriented ideas. Unfortunately - they seem to work. That's why he makes the big bucks from Chrysler, etc.

I would be happy for more people to NOT be guided by such ideas. That is pretty much the point of my post.

[melody]

24. Rapaille's generalizations are his own problem

This isn't a matter of consumer marketing, this is a matter of personal freedom against the totalitarian center. Sociopaths have been parroting Rapaille's line for hundreds of years (see also Malthus). The modern sociopaths have taken to using hot button issues like porn to manipulate people, while -- in reality -- having among the most subversive minds.

The heavy S&M sites make a massive income off Washington, DC alone.

The problem is repression. The more repressed the public personae (all you have to do is look at the nightly news), the more perverse their inner life. It never fails. Better they release that tension in fantasy rather than climbing to the tops of industry and gang-raping the rest of us with pieces of legislation.

[bloom]

27. If you have time

you might want to look at

http://www.sas.upenn.edu/~psanday/rapea.html

Rape-Prone Versus Rape-Free Campus Cultures

"The outstanding feature of rape-free societies is the ceremonial importance of women and the respect accorded the contribution women make to social continuity, a respect which places men and women in relatively balanced power spheres. Rape-free societies are characterized by sexual equality and the notion that the sexes are complementary. Although the sexes may not perform the same duties or have the same rights or privileges, each is indispensable to the activities of the other."

(Porn is not the focus - though it's mentioned briefly).

I suppose there are a lot of anti-porn sites out there - but that is not where I'm coming from. I do agree with Robert Jensen - as I posted. He sees the issue within the broader context of how people - esp. women - are viewed and treated in society - and also the connection to sports and that whole thing. I've also heard Chomsky discuss the sports thing.

" Sports plays a societal role in engendering jingoist and chauvinist attitudes. They're designed to organize a community to be committed to their gladiators."

Noam Chomsky

http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Chomsky/Noam_Chomsky.html

[melody]

28. You are talking about socio-biological issues beyond conscious psychology

There are innate drives that surface in the human psyche in various ways. Some of it surfaces as jingoism, sexism and bigotry. There are also a lot of issues men must deal with in our society that haven't been as well documented.

We have to stop seeing ourselves as warring tribes and start seeing ourselves as individuals. We are the only ones who have control over our own lives. Society will not be reprogrammed by eliminating porn - porn is an epiphenomenon, not a causal root. Society will go on as it will due to a lot of fundamental factors only some of which are conscious. All we can do is demand people take responsibility for their own actions and stay out of other peoples' lives unless they can't behave themselves.

[lildreamer316]

30. Great summation!

You put that perfectly...thank you!!

[bloom]

31. Some people have tried...

to spread the idea that rape is "natural" - of course I think those people are out of minds and they are just trying to justify violence.

In Rape Debate, Controversy Trumps Credibility
"Natural" sexual assault theory "irresistible" to profit-driven media

http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=1034

-----

Jensen's focus is mostly on men being aware of what their role is. And I think the message of the week - a la Rosa Parks - is that everyone makes a difference. What you say to people you know - what you buy or don't buy - it affects what is allowed to thrive in a culture.

From Jensen:

"Such self-reflection, individually and collectively, does not lead to the conclusion that all men are sexual predators or that nothing can be done about it. Instead, it should lead us to think about how to resist and change the system in which we live. This feminist critique is crucial not only to the liberation of women but for the humanity of men, which is so often deformed by patriarchy.

Solutions lie not in the conservatives’ call for returning to some illusory “golden age” of sexual morality, a system also built on the subordination of women. The task is to incorporate the insights of feminism into a new sexual ethic that does not impose traditional, restrictive sexual norms on people but helps creates a world based on equality not dominance, in which men’s pleasure does not require women’s subordination."

http://uts.cc.utexas.edu/%7Erjensen/freelance/rapeisnormal.htm

[melody]

39. Some people try to say Twinkies are food, too

Even if something is natural, it doesn't mean it should be promoted. Extreme pain and cancer are natural, too. Death is natural. Rape is one expression of the fundamental drives interpreted by a disturbed psyche. If all partners are consenting, it's not "rape".

[mongo]

34. Great post

speaking of porn as an epiphenomena, Nina Hartley recently said "a society gets the porn it deserves".

Can you imagine the talent that would flock to the industry if it were completely legal and socially accepted?

I really think that is the answer to better adult entertainment.

[Rich Hunt]

46. that's a good quote

...because a lot of what is on the internet is absolute crap.

Oh, but maybe those 'health benefits' just haven't kicked in yet...

[Iris]

120. "Date Rape Night" - This reminds me of a recent story about a college

in Georgia where a local bar has a "Ladies'Lock-up" in which women are given free drinks for 2 hours while a line of men forms in front of the bar waiting to be admitted at 11:00 p.m. Nice image.

Oh, and most kids that attend that college would call themselves "conservative" AND "Christian".

[mongo]

16. Got a link to your "mainstream" site?

[bloom]

20. here

http://www.cduniverse.com/ - the "adult" tab.

[melody]

22. CD Universe?

Trust me, no mainstream CD/DVD seller is peddling gang rape material. Their lawyers have been there and done that a long time ago.

I can't find the adult tab at any rate anywhere on the site. I think you're overreacting to fantasy based material.

By all means, I encourage you to respond to it as you wish and to keep your kids away from it, but consenting adults should have the right to view adult material in a truly free system.

[Warren DeMontague]

103. What "adult" tab?

:freak:

[lildreamer316]

25. Count me in...

seeing as I have been an exotic entertainer for 11 years. It has been the freest occupation I have ever tried. I love the control over when I work, how I work, where I work, who I dance for, and the fact that I can walk away from anyone anytime I want. ANYTIME. It is as close to total control of my income as most people will ever get.
I have already posted several rants on this subject so I will be brief here.

[TorchTheWitch]

73. So am I

And I agree with everything you said. I am actually less sexually harrassed or controlled then I ever was in an office environment. There is no question that it has sky-rocketed my self-esteem and improved every aspect of my life in ways I had never expected.

I would also add that not only do I have more control of my income than most people ever will, I also have more control of my work than most people ever will.

[Rich Hunt]

33. well, so am I

But porn is a business like any other.

That doesn't mean it's 'bad for you', but by the same token, it doesn't automatically mean it's 'good for you', too. Unless you're a sex therapist handing out free porn, it's just a business.

Spare me the wholistic hippie 'it's good for you' tripe.

It's neither here nor there.

[melody]

37. it's not tripe in the least - it's been shown in research

No "wholism" about it.

If someone brings up the adverse data, we should be able to come back with the same research from the other side.

[Rich Hunt]

41. oh yeah?

Where is this research?

That's a really naive dualistic argument.

Porn is like any other commercially available expression -
it doesn't HAVE to be 'good for you' to be worth defending.

I thought that was the POINT to the notion of free expression.

To argue that it must be 'good for you' kind of
undercuts the power of that notion. Stuff that
isn't 'good for you' is also worth defending.

You're unwittingly creating a hierarchy here between
what is 'good for you' and what might not be good
for you. Not a good road to head down...

[melody]

43. I'm not defending it because it's "Good" for anyone

It is better than REPRESSION, is what I'm saying. Why not read what I've posted instead of seeing in it something against which you need to react?

Go ahead and have your last say. You want to trade insults, not engage in a discussion. This is my last post on the matter.

[Rich Hunt]

48. I DID read what you posted

You said,

"The problem is repression. The more repressed the public personae (all you have to do is look at the nightly news), the more perverse their inner life. It never fails. Better they release that tension in fantasy rather than climbing to the tops of industry and gang-raping the rest of us with pieces of legislation."

This implies that if abusive assholes fantasize enough, they
won't terrorize, stalk and abuse people.

I know from personal experience that this isn't true,
so next time please consider how insulting you are
being before shooting your mouth off.

And enjoy whatever sheltered life you have that you
think this is so. I live in fear precisely because
it is NOT so.

[mongo]

52. No - I think the implication

is that if you grow up in a sexually repressed household, you become more likely to be an abusive asshole.

[mongo]

49. I agree with you that expression doesn't have to be "good"

to be worth defending - I end up defending some pretty nasty expression sometimes here on DU.

But I also agree with melody's original assertion:

The way to improve society is through release of sexual repression NOT through increasing it.

The links below are not "research", but a couple of pretty good essays about the pro-sex vs anti-sex positions

What Oprah & Dr. Phil Don't Understand About Sex
http://www.sexed.org/archive/article18.html

To Anti-Sexuals, We're ALL Gay
http://www.sexed.org/archive/article17.html

[Rich Hunt]

75. fair enough, BUT

...that wasn't all she said. She said, 'what's wrong with fantasies'? This is where it falls apart - she used the 'release' or 'relief' argument.

People who have obsessive tendencies are not 'relieved' through fantasy or the use of....for lack of a better word, fiction (it doesn't have to be sexually explicit - it could be videogames, movies, whatever).

That argument is distinct from the one that repressive societies (which are not just sexually repressive, but repressive to women and to ethnic minorities!) encourage violence. Theoretically, you could have a hypercapitalist society in which violence is still rampant. Or you could have oligarchy, where the rulers have all the fantasies and 'pornography' they desire, and yet it doesn't make them any better. Certainly this is true in our society, where the very wealthy can buy privacy and can pretty much buy whatever fantasy they have. Doesn't make them less likely to rape and exploit, however. So that whole 'relief' argument is really crap - it also subtly implies that if we had no 'pornography', rape would be rampant, because men have a tendency toward it. Any way you look at it, it's an anti-humanist argument.

I have problems with the word 'pornography' in this day and age. I mean, people pass around pictures on the 'net of, you know, naked quadriplegic dwarfs just to snicker at them. And you have people trying to get their paws on naked pictures of public and private citizens...I mean, what would you call that? Civil libertarians (and I am one - I'm tired of people accusing me of not being one) have to stop dodging the question. As I said, this isn't the sixties or even the seventies, and their understanding of 'explicit' material and what it says about society needs to become more nuanced.

[mongo]

14. And here's some links for you

Feminists for Free Expression counter the argument that pornography promotes violence against women by stating that, "Studies in the U.S., Europe and Asia find no link between the availability of sexual material and sex crimes. The only factor linked to rape rate is the number of young men living in a given area. When pornography became widely available in Europe, sexually violent crimes decreased or remained the same. Japan, with far more violent pornography than the U.S., has 2.4 rapes per 100,000 people compared with the U.S. 34.5 per 100,000". People who say that porn is responsible for the many violent attacks that take place on women every year are probably the same people who claim that rock music makes kids shoot their classmates. There are evil people in this world who are going to do these things whether or not porn exists and, in this modern 'blame culture' of ours, some people are just determined to find someone or something to take the flak for it.

http://www.thefword.org.uk/features/2003/12/the_feminist_minefield

What if you went looking for the harmful effects of the very worst kinds of pornography -- and they weren't there?

That's what happened to Canada Customs when it paid researchers to study customs officials who spend up to 15 hours a week reading and viewing material that goes well beyond erotica or even so-called hard-core porn.

Noted the researchers: "Their work most often focuses on materials of an extreme nature which deal with clearly unacceptable sexual activities such as incest, children in a sexual context, necrophilia, bestiality, and sex involving violence, bondage and degradation." Their study of 90 officers found:

* repeated exposure to such graphic pornography had little or no measurable harmful effect on the officers, 40 per cent of whom were female.

* only half of the customs officers who regularly review graphic pornographic books, magazines and films support banning sexual materials featuring violence and degradation -- the current Canadian law.

* one in six of the customs officers use pornography in their private lives; nearly half have in the past.

http://www.efc.ca/pages/media/ottawa.citizen.21sep96.html

Of course, if porn really is such a danger to society, the effort might be worth it. The problem is, the research doesn’t support the worry. And if recent studies by Danish psychologist Gert Martin Hald of the University of Aarhus stand up, it’s not likely to.

Hald recently conducted a yet-to-be-published study on the usage of porn by men and women in Denmark that showed porn has become a part of the sexual lives of most people.

In a representative sampling of 688 young people aged 18 to 30, he found that 98 percent of men and 80 percent of women had viewed porn. About half of those women used it at least once per month. Men used it much more often. About 38 percent of men used it three times per week or more, which makes you wonder what these guys do for a living.

We’re not talking Playboy, either. Hald didn’t count such images as pornography. For the purposes of the study, porn included “any kind of material which aims to create or enhance sexual feelings or thoughts in the recipient and, at the same time, (a) contains explicit exposure and/or descriptions of the genitals and (b) clear and explicit sexual acts such as vaginal intercourse, anal intercourse, oral sex, masturbation, bondage, sadomasochism, rape..." (Interestingly, this is pretty close to the definition used in many obscenity statutes.)

http://msnbc.msn.com/id/9504659/

The "Danish experience" is often held up as good example.

In 1969 Denmark lifted all restrictions on pornography, and sex crimes declined. For example, between 1965 and 1982 sex crimes against children went from 30 per 100,000 to about 5 per 100,000. Similar evidence was found for rape rates.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/1986869.stm

[chimppyhater]

26. The Hummer

is probably the most appropriate name for a vehicle ever created....an expensive BJ for those who need an enormous vehicle to make up for their tiny apparatus.

[Rich Hunt]

38. porn doesn't cause rape

But to say that it reduces it is disgusting and idiotic,
not to mention insulting to people who have been raped.

Spare me. We're up to our asses in porn in the U.S.,
and we still have rape. What is more likely is that
rape correlates with punitive and repressive societies.
In the U.S., what we really have is a hypocritical
society - porn is available, but then so are repressive
and punitive attitudes. I do wish your argument was
more subtle.

Why do people have to make such naive arguments
to defend something? People did that shit in the sixties,
and I'm sick of it. You would think we'd have grown
up by now.

People don't do the same for literature - you don't have
to think something is good, or 'healthy' to defend a work
of fiction or non-fiction.

[melody]

40. why oh why do people have to use invective?

Show me your work, Rich - show me the data that says it's NOT "healthy". Don't hurl epithets at someone who HAS done the reading. I can tell you it is.

>not to mention insulting to people who have been raped.

No one is talking about rape. I'm talking about consenting adult participating porn.

[Rich Hunt]

47. I don't have to

...all I have to do is pick apart the logic of your claim.

It's not going to cure diseases, it's not going to fight crime.

You can have all the porn in the world, and it's not going to
solve social problems.

This was a 1960s argument - it was naive then, and it's
really naive now. It's tied to that whole notion that
getting laid a lot will solve all of America's problems.
Boomers really need to pack up their ideology and head
for the retirement home. A lot has changed since then.

As for the subject above, I am very aware of the literature to
which you referred. It claims that sexual assault is
reduced by porn, or it claims a correlation. This is ridiculous.
As I said, punitive, hypocritical puritanical societies
produce violence and domination. You can have adult industries
and still have those problems.

I mean, your argument is ludicrous - it implies that porn
makes you a better person. 'Healthy' is a ridiculously
vague word. What on earth DO you mean? You can't use
porn and still be an asshole.

Oh, excuse me - this is the part where I get called a
'prude' just for having some common sense.

[mongo]

57. But the OP's argument

is that porn causes rape. The statistics show that it doesn't.

And rape has gone down in the US too, as porn has gone more mainstream.

Doesn't mean that watching porn is good for you, but that was not my argument. Although creating a less repressive puritanical society would.

[Rich Hunt]

78. STOP PROJECTING

Be a real civil libertarian and read and respond to what I actually have to say. You appear to have forgotten the 'civil' aspect of civil libertarianism.

I am a feminist, a civil libertarian, and I've read the literature.

The literature does NOT say that pornography lowers the rape rate. It notes a correlation in societies OTHER than the US. It just so happens that those societies are actually culturally different from the US and always have been. The US is at once a hypercapitalist society and a deeply hypocritical one. The rich and powerful can have whatever they want in terms of privacy - including pornography, prostitution. The rest are vulnerable to having their privacy violated and are vulnerable to slander and judgment for their private lives. THAT IS A FACT.

I'm also a rape victim, and I find it incredible that you think I was raped because maybe the guy didn't get enough porn. Do stop insulting us with these arguments. And do stop fantasizing about your bad feminist censoring straw women.

Stop looking at Denmark - a less repressive culture to BEGIN with and a less violent and more progressive society, and look at the US. Stop dodging the question.

Get real. You do NOT need for 'porn' to cure cancer, warts or crime for it to be worth defending. Why do you wish so badly for it to be so? I'm sorry, but the truth is that all sorts of bad people use pornography. That doesn't mean it should be censored.

Remember Saddam Hussein's sons and all of the porn they had? That's not a reflection on pornography - it's just the fact that porn is a commercial product that can be used by anyone -- good or bad, exploitative or not exploitative. I thought that was common sense.

Once again - in my opinion, the strongest civil libertarian argument is one that says something does not need to have 'merit' to be worth defending. Civil libertarians should not be in the business of defending or promoting content, but defending one's right to read, consume and possess that material. It is in its essence a defense of the right to privacy. I get irritated by these 'it's good for you' arguments because in effect they draw attention from the real heart of the matter - THE RIGHT TO PRIVACY.

Jesus.

[mongo]

86. I'll try this one more time

The literature does NOT say that pornography lowers the rape rate. It notes a correlation in societies OTHER than the US.

Actually there is a correlation in the US too. Rape has been declining as porn has been more mainstream and available.

I'm also a rape victim, and I find it incredible that you think I was raped because maybe the guy didn't get enough porn. Do stop insulting us with these arguments. And do stop fantasizing about your bad feminist censoring straw women.

I never said that porn reduces rape. I don't believe the links in post #14 say that either. They mostly debunk the old Andrea Dworkin "porn causes rape" argument.

Stop looking at Denmark - a less repressive culture to BEGIN with and a less violent and more progressive society, and look at the US. Stop dodging the question.

Here we agree - and I'll take that a step further. A society that is less sexually repressed will have less rape and abuse. And ONE facet about being less sexually repressed as a society is to relax our attitudes about sexually explicit material.

Once again - in my opinion, the strongest civil libertarian argument is one that says something does not need to have 'merit' to be worth defending. Civil libertarians should not be in the business of defending or promoting content, but defending one's right to read, consume and possess that material. It is in its essence a defense of the right to privacy. I get irritated by these 'it's good for you' arguments because in effect they draw attention from the real heart of the matter - THE RIGHT TO PRIVACY.

OK - and you need to understand that I get irritated by the "it's bad for you" arguments because they only provide fuel and enable the religious right to create a MORE sexually repressed society. Especially when all the "it's bad for you" arguements are NOT borne out by any REAL scientific studies.

[lildreamer316]

29. I am going to state one simple idea.

I do not have studies handy to support this assertion. Flame away, I will go looking if you really want me to,but I find this to be a basic truth to many.

The more physically and emotionally satisfying sex one has, the less likely one is to become violent.

Period.

Why do you think there are such things as prostitutes made available to war leaders and camp followers, and sacred prostitutes in the temples of Sumeria? To reduce the tendency for violence and to hold sex as a normal and even sacred part of MENTAL as well as physical function.
Strangely enough, bloom, I believe we are not so far apart on this issue---I am one of the ones that recommended The Chalice and The Blade. Have you read her OTHER book, Sacred Pleasure? Speaks to the very discussion we are having, in a way.
We could go in many directions with this discussion, but I will state once and for all that I have never and do not find my chosen profession personally degrading in any way. Men have made me feel much more degraded when I was fully clothed at a neighborhood bar. It is disappointing that the worst encounters I have had at my job have been with women, one of whom physically assaulted both me and my friend. I have found it empowering and very educational, and have met many many interesting and intelligent people. I find that I understand men much better, and these days tend to count more of them among my friends than women, including a few former customers. The profession is not perfect and has, I will fully admit, been dominated by men for most of its history. That is changing rapidly, as is the industry as a whole. Many things can be said both good and bad about it,but I have chosen to make it a positive thing in my life and to portray myself positively to all that I encounter.

There is SO MUCH More to this than meets the eye that it would take me all day to explain--the psychological game is what a strip club is REALLY all about,as is S&M. It's funny I was just discussing this last night with my best friend, who is a former dominatrix. Have you ever read Anne Rice's Exit to Eden? It is a good example of this concept and how it can work or not--another being Story of O. The point of TRUE S&M is NOT sexual release or sexual subjugation, it is a MEANS to and end psychologically.It allows people to explore their psyche to the fullest, to understand themselves and others at a level they feel they cannot reach on a daily, "normal" basis. A strip club is such a unique place (when all factors are running normally--that is another discussion entirely!!)It is a place where many, both men and women, come to either be COMPLETELY themselves, or to become someone they wish they could be/explore another side of their personality. Think about it. There, the man can relinquish his traditional, PATRIARCHAL role of dominance and have the woman approach HIM, ask HIM if he wants company, dominate HIM.I take control of the situation,and can get from this anything I want. Many men like this because it is a MENTAL game for them, a sparring match.How much is he willing to give? The most mentally acute of them see the sexuality as secondary, but they love a woman who is not afraid of her body and knows how to use it. There is much more to say and I am not being very clear, but let me emphasize...no one really knows what this industry, including porn,is all about until you have been in it. Personal experience is a very telling factor.....

[bloom]

36. thank you for your comments

The issue is certainly NOT just the porn/sex industry. It is also about things like this:

This is not the first time O'Reilly has commented on Wiehl's physical appearance, as Media Matters has previously reported. On the June 21, 2004, broadcast of The Radio Factor, O'Reilly called Wiehl "eye candy" and told her, "You're here because you're good-looking, so I got somebody to look over."

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=5245150

And I mostly see it as a problem that the right-wing FOX mentality people have. To me - it's about anybody who would like to "put women in their place" sort of thing.

I also worry that if people do not speak up - that young men - can get the idea that what amounts to rape is socially acceptable - or at least acceptable to their "group".

Rape-Prone Versus Rape-Free Campus Cultures

http://www.sas.upenn.edu/~psanday/rapea.html

This study does suggest, as you did, many of these men are very insecure about their sexuality. I think society probably encourages that insecurity. That is part of the problem.

That insecurity can be packaged and sold. And then used to fuel all kinds of aggression - the war - the torture - whathaveyou. It's not my impression that what is sold as porn would help.

And then you have so-called successful men who come out and say "Women are crap" (maybe he is still insecure)...

"...Neil French resigned last week from his post as worldwide creative director of marketing giant WPP Group PLC after he had made remarks about female executives created an uproar at an industry discussion in Toronto, Canada, on October 6...

Nancy Vonk from Toronto, a creative director at WPP subsidiary Ogilvy & Mather who attended the event, said French described women as "a group that will inevitably wimp out and go 'suckle something"'.

http://www.boycott-riaa.com/article/18488

[mongo]

56. Widen the net and keep looking for the boogieman

How are your arguments any differnt than the religious right's arguments that the "filth" and lack of decency in our society is the root of all our troubles?

Want to reduce violence against women? Alcohol is the number one contributing factor there. But no one talks about prohibition anymore. We see alcohol as a neutral factor in the equation. We don't see value in taking it away from millions of responsible adults, even though it has a much more concrete, provable link to violence in some people.

But porn and TV and the way women are oh so objectified on TV - well that must be the real answer, right?

Have you ever watched porn? You may notice that the men are objectified just as much as the women.

Our entertainment is a reflection of society, not the other way around.

[bloom]

58. I was always considering the society at large...

"The trouble with corporate Television, pornography, etc. - People are buying an attitude - a perception of reality without thinking about it. It takes all of us to work toward a sensibility of equality and of human dignity. People who buy into (Social Dominance Orientation) SDO will buy into a war based on lies - they'll buy into torture because they think it makes them safer - they excuse their own violence and justify everything by saying that everyone does bad stuff - so don't think about holding them accountable."

[mongo]

61. and the perception of reality

that it seems you have bought into is:

entertainment creates society instead of the other way around.

watching violence on TV causes violence in real life.

commercials on TV cause self-esteem issues.

[bloom]

71. I expect that advertising is effective

and that is why so much is spent on it.

If it had no effect - it would not exist.


Googling "Media Influences" - this came up. It sounded relevant. The psychiatric POV:

"...Every day minds are being polluted by the media's steady stream of toxic images and messages. Imagine how much better the world would be if we each were flooded with images and messages that gave us inspiration and courage instead of making us feel vengeful because we are not enough.

These toxic images and messages are the unconscious projections of people who have suffered childhood traumas -- such as abuse and neglect -- just like untold others have. The main difference is that these executives, writers, producers and directors have access to a television or movie screen on which to "project" the unresolved distorted memories of their traumas. Add to this the wildly competitive, emotionally volatile atmosphere of the entertainment industry and you get television shows and movies that can incite chaos in the life of the viewer whose mind faithfully records it all.

The industry cries defensively in unison: "Art just imitates life." They claim it is not their fault that life can be vulgar, pornographic and sadistic. They are just doing a public service by letting us in on these sordid facts. And, indeed, the artist is being influenced by his life experiences to create his work. But millions of viewers are then exposed to it and often become tragically affected when their life imitates art.

As psychiatrists, we need to be on the lookout for ways in which our patients are constantly being influenced by the media. Though it may not seem noteworthy when they copy a style of dress or a slang expression from a movie or television show, it is the same unconscious psychological process that makes them copy a revenge fantasy scene and blow their classmates away.

If Hollywood continues exploiting our instinctual drives for their fun and profit, society will continue to self-destruct by engaging in senseless violence and promiscuous sex. The answer does not lie in trying more children as adults, but rather in making the entertainment industry take responsibility..."

http://www.psychiatrictimes.com/p010646.html

-----

Since I don't expect the entertainment industry to take responsibility for what they sell - I am merely suggesting that people recognize that and take responsibility for themselves. Or as Jensen says, "You are what you eat..."


From Working Psychology site:

Does the modern approach to persuasion take the form of reasoned argument and debate? Hardly. Today's persuaders appeal to the masses "through the manipulation of symbols and of our most basic human emotions" to achieve their goals (Pratkanis & Aronson, 1991).

Since the ability to persuade--and to resist persuasion-- is directly related to one's success in life, you'd think the topic would be taught in school.

You'd think people would know their persuasion tactics as well as they know the letters of the alphabet, or the ten commandments, or how to perform CPR. But how many of us can recite ten principles of persuasion? How many of us can evaluate a situation and choose the right persuasive tool for the job at hand? How many of us are even aware of the thousands of times each day we are influenced by someone else?

Do this: take a look in your medicine cabinet, or your pantry, or your garage. Each item you see is a war trophy, representing some company's victory over their competitors. For some reason-- or maybe for no reason at all-- they convinced you to trade your hard-earned money for their product. How did they do that, exactly?

Make no mistake. There are legions of influence agents operating in our society. They thrive--they exist at the pinnacles of power--by getting you to think things and to do things they want you to think and do.

http://www.workingpsychology.com/modernp.html

[mongo]

42. Bravo!

[melody]

45. EXACTLY

Well said!

[jody]

53. Do you mean that we "Left Wingers" are not superior to "Right Wingers"? nt

[bloom]

54. I think the right wingers are a lot worse

and are far more likely to have the attitude that men should rule and women should go somewhere and shut up.

(Mainly the people on this thread who are defending porn are the ones who are selling it or something similar.)

I think liberals - and esp. DUers - are more likely than a lot of people to recognize what they see advertised. The way sex is sold - no matter what the product - beer, exercise machines - and how they reflect attitudes of sexism or trying to play on people's insecurities - and that sort of thing.

It is us liberals who visit sites like FAIR that will call people on this stuff - and Media Matters who call O'Reilly on his sexist attitudes.

We all contribute to the culture one way or another. I think DUers generally intend to make positive contributions.

[jody]

55. I take that as a "Yes" added to my "Yes".

:hi:

[mongo]

59. I think more liberals recognize the right of privacy

and the right to enjoy whatever (legal) entertainment they see fit in the privacy of their own homes.

Far, far less liberals are involved in the culture war now going on in America. The authoritarain lefties who do get involved are mainly just helping the Christian Jihad of America.

[bloom]

60. See: OPEN LETTER TO MEN - Who Say They Believe in Freedom and Equality

" You have counseled us to be silent so that freedom of speech will survive. You claim that the First Amendment works only when the pornographers have their unbridled expression, but you ignore the fact that women's voices have been and continue to be gagged by the roar of pornographic misogyny."

by Nikki Craft

http://www.feminista.com/archives/v1n1/craft.html

[jody]

62. Absolutely. The world will be a better place when women hold at least 50%

of political offices.

:hi:

[mongo]

64. and when we ban pornography

will women magically be elected to 50% of the offices in our land?

[jody]

66. No but it might signal a change that women are more than chattel as taught

by many religions.

[mongo]

67. More likely a signal

that the authoritarian left has helped the religious right turn America into a theocratic state.

Try not to forget that the first laws against obscenity in America were used against Margaret Sanger and her pamphlet on birth control.

[jody]

68. Have a good evening.

Goodbye :hi:

[Warren DeMontague]

106. Then why is the religious right at the front of the crusade to ban porn?

And what porn are you talking about banning? Just the straight kind? What about gay porn? Should that be banned, as well? Are you aware that the first target of Canada's "progressive" anti-porn laws was porn produced by, and for, lesbians?

If you can make it illegal for consenting adults to watch movies containing other consenting adults have sex in the privacy of their own homes... merely because you, personally, find it irritating or bothersome that other people might watch such things.... Then why shouldn't others, who likewise find the private business of other adults excessively bothersome, be able to re-instate sodomy laws that make criminals out of gay people who have sex with each other in the privacy of their homes?

[mongo]

63. Why is it

that in order to believe in your freedom and equality I have to let you tell me what I can and can not watch in the privacy of my own home?

you ignore the fact that women's voices have been and continue to be gagged by the roar of pornographic misogyny.

WTF? I think you are being heard. Forgive me if I speak back to you.

and I encourage everyone to visit the link you posted above for a great example of hyperbolie, invective and hyper-emotional psycho-babble.

You warn us not to molest magazines that would have us raped; not to tear up magazines that advocate tearing up our bodies

Yeah, that's what all the men's magazines suggest - and I have to check some in - I'll try not to get a paper cut.

[Labalanza]

70. Donkey Punch

On an intuitive level, the assertion here just sounds pretty true to me, a modest porn user. Porn as a mainstream phenomenon suggests (to me) a preoccupation with sex in individual and cross-cultural consciousness out of proportion with other equally important components of interpersonal relations. Conditioned for and seeking self-gratification, we face big problems because of our willingness and zeal to distance ourselves from fellow breth and sistren, methinks. And in porn,as with the greater culture, the widely spewed meme very often utilizes/promotes/advocates domination. Where we go is anybody's guess.

[catzies]

72. That Gladwell/New Yorker article convinced me Bush would win in 04

I used that as an example ALL YEAR of how I knew Bush's win was inevitable. Rove knew too: it was all about appealing to emotion not logic.

[mzmolly]

74. One of the best posts eva!

Recommended. :yourock:

[bloom]

81. Thanks!!

[bloom]

82. The "ethics" of pornography ???

After reading many of the defenses of pornography - whether as acted out rape or not - got me to wondering if there are in fact "ethics" for pornographers and their viewers. Free speech is such a big issue. And the defenders don't seem to want to admit to any limits.

Robert Jensen describes the humiliation of the women in a lot of porn these days. Is there something about humiliating "average" young middle class women? Might there be other groups of people that people would want to view being humiliated?

For instance - would someone make/watch Katrina Disaster victim porn - assuming the porn "stars" agreed to it and were well paid?

How about if porn producers went to countries where people were starving and they paid them well to act in porn - would people want to watch that? Would the producers and sellers feel good about it because the people were able to eat?

Or what if someone were to get some Iraqis and make some humiliation porn? Would paying the people more than they could make at other jobs make that Ok?

It seems to me one of the defenses of the porn industry in the US or wherever is that the people are well paid, that they agreed to do whatever it is, and that is all we need to know. So I just wonder if there are limits as to who people want to see humiliated and if anyone would like to explain those limits.

[mongo]

87. Are there "ethics" for TV and hollywood movies?

Your whole post above is way beyond strawman.

First you start out with the implication that "rape porn" is somehow a large part of the market - it is NOT.

Then regarless of what Jensen says, the humiliation of women is not a large segement of the porn market either. But that is of course a subjective term - for either side.

Yes, there is some nasty porn out there. Porn that humiliates women, etc. But that is not the majority of the 1,000 releases every month.

I'm not going to get into your "what if" argument - truth is people will make money on tragedy. How about that lifetime "human trafficking" movie? Was that not a train wreck designed to create an emotional response? How about the fact that there is a made for TV movie about every high profile crime (involving a white woman anyway) that occurs today? What about hollywood slasher flicks? What are the limits of hollywood - besides trying to keep your movie from getting an NC-17 rating.

The problem with trying to put porn into "good" and "bad" catagories is that you can't take a single act and make a value judgement about the work based on that act. Case in point is BDSM porn. There is some really bad, humiliating porn pretending to be that genre. But that is not what consentual BDSM play - or videos are about at all. There are some really good movies in that genre that display loving (if different) views of consentual sexual play - all you have to do is look in the eyes of the performers to see that is true.

I'll leave you with an editorial by Ernest Greene, editor of Taboo magazine (reprinted with permission from the author -with a few edits to keep it from being deleted from DU).

Strictly Speaking

At the gonzo/smash-mouth/extreme end of the smut spectrum, both in video stores and on the Web, we see more and more material that has an unmistakable male-dom/fem-sub mise en scene but is otherwise entirely devoid of BDSM context, much less the explicit contract of mutual respect that underlies the whole principle of consensual power-play.

The sort of brain-dead, men-up-women-down sexual brutality that characterizes, say, <website name ommited> or <video name ommitted> bears a much greater resemblance to domestic abuse than BDSM, though they often cloak their fundamental yobbo thuggery in kink yammer about masters and slaves and dress their performers up in a few latex bits and the odd dog collar.

The relentless use of derisive language ("Wh<____> degraded daily!", boasts one proud producer), the complete contempt for the notion of female pleasure (whether or not the performers are enjoying themselves, they're clearly directed to whine and cry at all times), the bully-boy posturing of the "male" performers as they reduce their co-stars to puddles of tears, snot and multiple <sperm reference> make it abundantly clear who the intended audience really is, and it isn't you or us. Reading the posts on the "fan sites" dedicated to such material, we encounter the same ugly ideas couched in the same vile terms: the girls are trash who tolerate abuse because they're too stupid to know better or too desperate for drug money to care.

Clearly, the guys who respond to this material in this way are losers who couldn't get laid in a women's prison with a fistful of pardons and despise all women for what they themselves lack.

We don't agree with those who think this type of entertainment should be banned, obviously, or even those who think it represents some dangerous trend in the skin trade that the rest of us should try to stamp out. We just think it's kind of pathetic, like those who create it and those who buy it, and we want to make it very, very clear that it has nothing to do with any of us and what we're about in any way. This shit isn't kinky, it¹s just lame and pitiful and we'll have none of it, thank you very much. ­Ernest Greene, Executive Editor


On edit: fixed copy of editorial

[bloom]

88. It's nice to know that Ernest Greene says it's pathetic... eom

[Nikia]

89. I consider the following humiliating to women

Money shots.
When a woman is called nasty names like "slut" "whore" "bitch"
These elements have been in most porn movies that my husband and I have rented.
Why does mainstram porn have to seem to have these elements?
I have also seen rather awful plot twists too which are quite disturbing.

[mongo]

90. Perhaps if porn was completly legal

and wasn't under attack from all sides, the product would get better.

Can you imagine the talent that would flock to the industry if the product were legal and socially accepted?

[bloom]

93. This article...

answers your questions - quite honestly - by men.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=104&topic_id=5266176&mesg_id=5281848

Men and porn

http://www.guardian.co.uk/weekend/story/0,3605,1079016,00.html

[bloom]

92. The Guardian - Men & Porn

The obvious answer is the people who are already humiliated don't need to be humiliated any further - and besides - they pose no threat that needs to be squashed.

It's difficult for me to see that women are such a threat to men.

"What does porn do to men?" by Edward Marriott

http://www.guardian.co.uk/weekend/story/0,3605,1079016,00.html

...Unlike real life, the pornographic world is a place in which men find their authority unchallenged and in which women are their willing, even grateful servants. "The illusion is created," as one male writer on pornography puts it, "that women are really in their rightful place and that there is, after all, no real and serious challenge to male authority." Seen in this light, the patently ridiculous pornography scenario of the pretty female flat-hunter (or hitch-hiker, driver with broken-down car, or any number of similar such vulnerable roles) who is happy to let herself be gang-banged by a group of overweight, hairy-shouldered couch potatoes makes perfect psychological sense.

This is even more harsh:

The porn industry, of course, dismisses such talk, yet occasionally comes a glimmer of authenticity. Bill Margold, one of the industry's longest-serving film performers, was interviewed in 1991 by psychoanalyst Robert Stoller for his book Porn: Myths For The Twentieth Century. Margold made no attempt to gloss over the realities. "My whole reason for being in this industry is to satisfy the desire of the men in the world who basically don't care much for women and want to see the men in my industry getting even with the women they couldn't have when they were growing up. So we come on a woman's face or brutalise her sexually: we're getting even for lost dreams.

Quick to claim that porn has "no harmful effects", he (McLeod) is also happy to acknowledge the contradictory fact that it is "deadening"...

Ray Wyre, a specialist in sexual crime, says pornography "encourages transience, experimentation and moving between partners". Morgan goes further: "Pornography does damage," he says, "because it encourages people to make their home in shallow relationships."

...In its most severe form, this can lead to sexual crime, though the links between the two remain controversial and much argued-over. Wyre, from his work with sex offenders, says, "It is impossible not to believe pornography plays a part in sexual violence. As we constantly confront sex offenders about their behaviour, they display a wide range of distorted views that they then use to excuse their behaviour, justify their actions, blame the victim and minimise the effect of their offending. They seek to make their own behaviour seem normal, and interpret the behaviour of the victim as consent, rather than a survival strategy. Pornography legitimises these views.... In the understated words of Wyre, "The very least pornography does is make sexism sexy."

[mongo]

99. Ten truths about women and pornography

1 Women feel insecure about their bodies. Many of the women in porn are often a perfect 36-24-36 without an ounce of cellulite on their bodies. What woman would NOT feel slightly insecure to know that her man is drooling over this person that he is viewing?

2 Pornographic filmmakers advertise to the male audience. If they would make porn flicks with some prolonged sexual tension between two loving, consenting people, complete with an enjoyable plot, some non-sexual scenes thrown in there, and some good one-on-one action, we might have a female audience here.

7 Women feel a sense of failure in their relationship. I believe women feel that if they were as sexually adventurous, or as flexible as the perfect-bodied bedroom gymnasts in a porn flick, their men wouldn’t NEED to look at that stuff.
8 Women feel personally rejected. Many women feel that viewing porn is a form of infidelity. Instead of changing how THEY view porn, or understanding WHY men are attracted to this, and what their views are, they go straight to the heart and claim infidelity.

http://www.soapboxgirls.com/feb02/articles/tentruths.html

And the only thing you have convinced me of with all your links is that bashing adult entertainment is a good way to make money.

[bloom]

101. Pornographers need people

who criticize them - so that they can maintain their bad-boy persona. And then they can turn around and ridicule them.


It's all part of the game, right?

[Warren DeMontague]

105. Actually, CONSENTING ADULTS need to be left the hell alone

from the control freaks who seemingly don't have anything better to do than try to tell them what they can watch, read, smoke, eat, or do with their own bodies in the privacy of their own homes. (Presuming, again, everything we're talking about involves consenting adults- before you try to drag "the children" into the argument)

I don't care if it's Andrea Dworkin, Rick Santorum or the Catholic Church- this obsessive idea that people can't make up their own damn minds about things pertaining to their own lives, their own bodies and how they get their own damn jollies is easily one of the most pernicious, annoying form of collective mental illness the human primate seems to be afflicted with.

[mongo]

109. You said it -

I wish the Dems would be come the "mind your own damn business" party.

[mongo]

110. Is that what you got from that link?

You're the one playing a game. I'ts called "moral superiority" - you know -- queen of the universe that wants to tell everyone else what they can watch in the privacy of their own homes.

I'm the one that risks arrest every day so a loney guy can release to a movie or a couple can find an outfit or toy. And give some advice along the way, to people that can't talk to their spouses or doctors or ministers about their sexual problems/curiosities.

[Warren DeMontague]

104. I can write a 20 page essay about how romance novels cause crack addiction

but it doens't make it true.

[NorthernSpy]

91. but on the other hand...

... some aspects of the anti-porn crusade -- and related moral panics, such as the infamous "ritual abuse" hysteria -- also suggest dominance-seeking behavior (on the part of relatively small groups of hysteria-promoters who are devoted to some underlying shared ideology).

A moral panic is a mass movement based on the false or exaggerated perception that some individual or group, frequently a minority group or a subculture, is dangerously deviant and poses a menace to society. These panics are generally fuelled by media coverage of social issues, although semi-spontaneous moral panics do occur. Mass hysteria can be an element in these movements, but moral panic is different from mass hysteria in that a moral panic is specifically framed in terms of morality and is usually expressed as outrage rather than unadulterated fear. Moral panics often revolve around issues of sex and often involve a new or widely circulated urban legend. These panics can sometimes lead to mob violence.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_panic

Worth reading.

[bloom]

95. re: "also suggest dominance-seeking behavior"

I would suggest that that would be like the whites in 1955 suggesting that the blacks were engaging in "dominance-seeking behavior" when they just wanted the absence of segregation/racism.

"In the understated words of Wyre, "The very least pornography does is make sexism sexy."

http://www.guardian.co.uk/weekend/story/0,3605,1079016,00.html

[NorthernSpy]

100. you're doing the anti-porn crusade WAY too much honor...

... when you compare it to the civil rights movement of the Fifties.

I would suggest that that would be like the whites in 1955 suggesting that the blacks were engaging in "dominance-seeking behavior" when they just wanted the absence of segregation/racism.

Blacks wanted the removal of laws that forced them to live as an honest-to-goodness pariah caste.

You can find examples of misogyny in American society and culture. But it's just not true that American society and culture are actually based on misogyny. Misogyny does not characterize our society to anything like the extent that our maintenance of a racial caste system has.

Of course, there are cultures and societies in this world that truly are defined by organized misogyny. But the US isn't one of those. So the comparison you've made is quite invalid, I think.

And for what it's worth, anti-porn laws are typically the harshest in those societies and eras in which women have the fewest rights and the least respect.

[bloom]

112. I see it as a world-wide problem - globalization - etc.

Like someone posted on another thread about a "Spa" in her town - that turned out to be a place where (white) "women slaves" from Romania or somewhere were being used as prostitutes. I think this is more possible because of our culture that tolerates/encourages? humiliation porn.

I think it makes sense that women who are not suffering so - stand up for those who are.

It's appalling that things like this happen in so called "First-world" countries...

There, Yosef took Anna to a hotel, and ordered her to strip in front of a roomful of men. The ordeal is known as an "auction." Like traders in a cattle market, the traffickers inspect the "goods" and bid for the women they want to buy. "(The woman) is made to stand naked in the middle of a room," a female trafficker told Maariv. "(The traffickers) touch her breast, her ass….They check her tongue, her teeth, to see if she’s healthy. They touch her private parts….They tell her, ‘walk forward, backwards, strike poses like a model, wiggle it honey, bend over. Lower. Let’s see what you’re worth.’" Traffickers are not necessarily picky about the venue of an auction. In one case a woman was stripped, inspected, and sold for $6,000 in the men’s room of a McDonald’s.

http://www.israelnewsagency.com/sexisrael69690531.html

Someone will probably make a porn movie out of that.

Have you read any of Robert Jensen's articles? And he is just describing the mainstream - supposedly socially acceptable - stuff.

http://uts.cc.utexas.edu/~rjensen/freelance/pornography&cruelty.htm

When this sort of porn was kept out of the mainstream consciousness - it might have been different. With this sort of thing supposedly being socially acceptable - with people bragging that they sell it, etc. - that's a different story. I don't see how it is not "organized misogyny".

genderads.com has examples of how insidious misogyny is in the US - in advertising.

The "Men and Porn" article is also good - if you haven't read that.

[mongo]

122. Just because you keep repeating yourself

is not going to make it true.

Have you read any of Robert Jensen's articles? And he is just describing the mainstream - supposedly socially acceptable - stuff.

Like I said before, the only movie of the 4 he talks about could be considered "mainstream". The other three are extreme.

And in Sopornos - Wow, a woman has a threesome with two guys. How shocking. I would go into more detail, but this post would disapppear.

And you also know that the "slavery" argument is a red herring. Adult performers perform consentual acts, for money. But distorting the facts to fit an adgenda is conveient.

When this sort of porn was kept out of the mainstream consciousness - it might have been different. With this sort of thing supposedly being socially acceptable - with people bragging that they sell it, etc. - that's a different story. I don't see how it is not "organized misogyny".

Mainstream consciousness? Organized misogyny? What, do we need a consciousness police now? Shall society be remade into your image?

I have at least scanned all the articles you posted. I'm not impressed.

[porphyrian]

94. The Number One reason your position is horseshit:

You are blaming entire industries for the actions of individuals. By your rationale, Christianity is responsible for hate crimes against homosexuals and the automotive industry is responsible for car accidents. While I concur that advertising/propaganda does have a subconscious power of suggestion, ultimately the actions of an individual are the responsibility of the individual, not of the commercial/dogmatic/suggestive things that the individual is exposed to. That's part of being an adult member of our society.

The thing about suggestion is that an individual must be receptive to it for it to work. You can convince someone who really likes sneakers that your brand is the best, but you can't make a heterosexual gay through suggestion (or vice versa). So, the only people who would, say, treat women poorly from viewing gang rape porn are those who are inclined to do so anyway (and, from what I know about most frat boys, they weren't far from that anyway). If porn caused all men to be violent to women, 9 out of 10 men would be beating women right now.

Additionally, assuming this SDO crap is real, then can we really blame those who propogate it, as they, too, are under its subconscious influence and may not be capable of understanding their role in doing so? Perhaps we should simply ban the display of anything anyone finds offensive or degrading lest it possibly create dominance issues in someone. Bullshit. Stop externalizing responsibility for peoples' actions.

[bloom]

96. I agree that people are responsible for their actions.

They are also responsible for what they ingest.

If you know you are ingesting hate - then you should be aware of that.

And while I agree that everyone is not a Bundy - it's interesting to consider this:

Bundy, as damaged as he was, stopped short of blaming pornography for his actions, though it was, he believed, an intrinsic part of the picture. "I tell you that I am not blaming pornography ... I take full responsibility for whatever I've done and all the things I've done ... I don't want to infer that I was some helpless kind of victim. And yet we're talking about an influence that is the influence of violent types of media and violent pornography, which was an indispensable link in the chain ... of events that led to behaviours, to the assaults, to the murders."

http://www.guardian.co.uk/weekend/story/0,3605,1079016,00.html

[porphyrian]

97. Bundy said that as a final "fuck you," not because it's true.

The guy who did the interview is another anti-porn crusader, and Bundy knew that. Bundy told him what he wanted to hear. Frankly, there's no reason to believe anything Bundy said, he was a sociopath on his way to the electric chair.

[mongo]

98. And to add to what porphyrian said

In two previous confessions, Bundy never mentioned porn. It was only when questioned by Dobson that it because an issue.

[Warren DeMontague]

102. The selling of Censorship: Are you buying?

Apparently.

[bloom]

107. Most people would censor something

child porn, bestiality, or something or other.

Although at the rate we're going - who knows - maybe that will be legal before you know it.

I'm just expressing a point of view.

[Warren DeMontague]

108. Every argument I've made re: this issue involves consenting adults

In this thread you are advocating, clearly, the censorship of materials produced by consenting adults, involving consenting adults, FOR consenting adults.

To try to drag non-adults, or non-consent (and animals clearly aren't adult humans, and they likewise can't consent) in to back up your arguments is the height of intellectual dishonesty... (although I have noticed it's the default fall-back position for just about everyone who wants to justify telling other adults what they can or cannot do with their own bodies, in the privacy of their own homes)

[bloom]

114. One problem I have with rape

and gang rape porn is that I don't think it can be controlled.

You might say that it's between consenting adults - but it advertised as the women being Non-consenting - since that is supposed to be part of the thrill.

So I don't know how people are supposed to know - and frankly - I am not convinced that people who want to see women "raped" are going to use due diligence to make sure that it is, in fact, all an "act".

Plus there is the problem of globalization. If people in one country don't have controls - is that any different than no country having controls? Doesn't seem like it to me.

And what other violent crimes are actually acted out? I don't think it can be defended.

Just like if you paid someone enough to consent to being tortured for the purposes of realism - would people really go along with that? - because there was consent. I think people would say it was sick - and rightly so.

[Warren DeMontague]

116. I spent years working for an indie chain of video stores

I never saw any porn advertised as "rape porn" or "gang rape porn" or advertising that the women involved were non-consenting.

If you can provide links or proof, particularly that there is any porn available in the US that expressly doesn't contain consenting adults, I will keep an open mind. But I certainly do not believe, or accept, that any of the above is indicative of the majority of the mainstream adult erotica market.

[mongo]

126. The only effect all of your arguments have

is to empower the religious right to ban ALL porn - and a lot of other expression in the process.

You see this huge problem of "rape porn". There are 1700 movies in my back room right now and not one of them is advertising "rape".

Then you go on to make another red herring arugument -- implying that the sex isn't consentual, when in fact it is.

[mongo]

111. You forgot a link

and I'll throw this one in for free - I'm sure it will help in the theisis I'm becoming ever more convienced you are in the process of writing.

And this was testimony before the United States Senate - that's got to be the best there is, right?

The Testimony of
Dr. Judith Reisman
, California Protective Parents Association

Good afternoon, thank you for the opportunity to speak with you today. I am Judith Reisman, Ph.D., president of the Institute for Media Education, specializing in the communication effects of images on the brain, mind and memory; fraud in the human sexuality field; and the addictive properties of sexually explicit images, commonly called pornography.

Thanks to the latest advances in neuroscience, we now know that pornographic visual images imprint and alter the brain, triggering an instant, involuntary, but lasting, biochemical memory trail, arguably, subverting the First Amendment by overriding the cognitive speech process. This is true of so-called “soft-core” and “hard-core” pornography. And once new neurochemical pathways are established they are difficult or impossible to delete.

Pornographic images also cause secretion of the body’s “fight or flight” sex hormones. This triggers excitatory transmitters and produces non-rational, involuntary reactions; intense arousal states that overlap sexual lust--now with fear, shame, and/or hostility and violence. Media erotic fantasies become deeply imbedded, commonly coarsening, confusing, motivating and addicting many of those exposed. (See “the Violence Pyramid” at http://www.vbii.org/violence.html) Pornography triggers myriad kinds of internal, natural drugs that mimic the “high” from a street drug. Addiction to pornography is addiction to what I dub erototoxins -- mind-altering drugs produced by the viewer’s own brain.

How does this ‘brain sabotage’ occur? Brain scientists tell us that “in 3/10 of a second a visual image passes from the eye through the brain, and whether or not one wants to, the brain is structurally changed and memories are created – we literally ‘grow new brain’ with each visual experience.”

http://commerce.senate.gov/hearings/testimony.cfm?id=1343&wit_id=3910

I have to go look at some porn now. After all, I'm an ADDICT :sarcasm:

[Warren DeMontague]

113. So, in reality, looking at ANY naked woman would produce "erototoxins"

Under any circumstances. Sounds like a solid argument for mandatory chastity belts-- and burquas to me!

Shit, where's the Junior Anti-Sex League when you need them?

Big Brother Predicts that Within 5 Years We Will Achieve TOTAL VICTORY Over The Orgasm!

[bloom]

115. Is it too much to suggest

that women like sex - without insulting them for it?

One wouldn't think so from many of the descriptions of the porn that is marketed in this country.

[Warren DeMontague]

117. Of course not.

But, again- I spent years working for a small chain of video stores. My experience was that porn runs the gamut- from arty and tasteful to brainless and idiotic. Some porn I find erotic, much of it I find boring, some I find downright unpleasant. But so long, again, as we're talking about consenting adults- and I don't think you're going to find anything else legally available in this country- in my mind there is a HUGE chasm between what I personally "don't like" and what I think should be banned or criminalized.

Personally, the kind of thing you describe above doesn't do it for me on at all. I'm much more interested in erotica which has the woman's pleasure as a central focus- and it's certainly out there. Without venturing into TMI territory, I'd much rather see a woman being pleasured by a man than the reverse. That's just me, that's how I'm wired. I'm certainly not turned on the by the idea of insulting women.

Is there bad porn out there, dumb porn, or even the low-valence porn of the type being referred to in the quote Mongo posted?

Sure there is. There are also a lot of bad non-adult movies out there. A lot of tripe passing as "literature".. A tremendous amount of atrociously bad music, from crappy-ass right wing 'new country' to whiny psuedo-punk cola ad bands to whatever shitty Simpson sibling we're at now. Even many of the watered down, overly simplistic interpretations of 'religion' that millions of people subscribe to wholeheartedly are stupefyingly idiotic to anyone with critical thinking skills above a second grade level. Bottom line? There are a lot of dumb fucking people on this planet. So it stands to reason that if you look at the erotica they watch, a great deal of THAT is going to be awfully dumb, as well.

But the solution to the shitty music, the bad books, the two-dimensional spirituality, or the porn you personally may find bothersome is not to 'ban' them, IMHO. The solution is to pursue artistic endeavours (and whether you accept it or not, erotica has always been and always will be a human artistic endeavour) which work on a higher level. Better books, better music, better religion, better porn.

This way of looking at things stands in stark contrast to the pro-censorship agenda, including the "doctor" quoted above, who seems to have come up with an array of pseudo-scientific mumbo jumbo to justify some really fucked up arguments, including the idea that "lust" is pathological, and any erotic arousal is damaging to the human brain...

So, how long until one of these Neo-Puritans decrees that lust and arousal, those damaging, addictive pathologies, must be stamped out entirely?

That's what I'd like to know.

[bloom]

119. "including the "doctor" quoted above" - was posted by Mongo

- bringing someone's ideas into the conversation that doesn't have anything to do with anything - and is used to discredit the argument. (The classic strawman).

[mongo]

123. Since she testified before congress just a couple of months ago

should make it apply to the argument.

Of which the point is, if this is the best they have on the anti porn side, it doesn't say much for arguments to ban it, does it?

[Warren DeMontague]

118. Here are a couple questions:

Under what circumstances, in your mind, would it be acceptable for consenting adults to watch films of other consenting adults having sex? For men to look at pictures of naked women for purposes of sexual arousal? For women to look at pictures of naked men for the same? For men to look at men or for women to look at women?

Are there any? And can you find any porn or erotica currently on the US Market that you don't think should be made against the law?

[bloom]

121. If I were Queen of the Universe

I would ban all porn that included violence, intimidation, humiliation. (I also would not tolerate any child porn in any form - there might be something else - but I'm not really an expert on this stuff ).

That's pretty much the thing.


I was thinking this morning - that when I posted this:

And what other violent crimes are actually acted out?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=104&topic_id=5266176&mesg_id=5284577

I forgot about boxing.

But the difference is - in boxing - there is some attempt to have both people be more equal. When people watch sports - seems they like to see more evenly matched teams than not. Not Mike Tyson beating up (or raping for that matter) a woman in the boxing ring.

To have porn where 6 men rape a woman seems a lot like the USA attacking Iraq after 10 years of sanctions. Or like the US military torturing defenseless people. Who can defend that? (Republicans.)

It goes back to my opening thought:

"It takes all of us to work toward a sensibility of equality and of human dignity."

Like the Men & Porn article - I think too much porn - just like too much of a lot of stuff can be bad - but as Queen of the Universe I'm not going to worry about everything - I'm mostly worried about how people are hurting others. (I would also ban boxing - and forget about war entirely).

[Warren DeMontague]

124. Again, I have never seen anything advertised as "rape porn"

Nor does the vast majority of porn contain violence, implied or otherwise.

And Child Porn is clearly, unequivocally, ALREADY very, very illegal everywhere on the planet, as far as I know... and rightfully so- but, if you want to talk about straw men, it really doesn't have much to do with the larger discussion of materials by and for consenting adults.

Once more, if you've got a link to ads or some other evidence to back up your claims about this violent 'gang rape porn' you keep referring to that supposedly constitutes such a large share of the adult market, please, provide it.

[bloom]

127. ....

Actually - all forms of child porn are not illegal in the US (I recently had this argument with Mongo) - like they are in Canada.

Illustrations and written depictions are legal in the US/not Canada. I would go with the Canada law.

[Warren DeMontague]

129. Not to defend anybody or anything, I think there's a VAST difference

between a drawing and an image with an actual victim.

And if you're talking about "written depictions" of underage sex, I think you've just criminalized Romeo & Juliet.

[bloom]

133. Like my answer

to Mongo - about the same sort of thing.

There can be laws and there are laws that provide exemptions for things worth exempting.

Just like there are battery laws where there a huge range of offensives - the laws exist for when someone is too extreme - not for when someone touches someone "nicely".

[Warren DeMontague]

135. A debate for another day. Unless I'm mistaken, THIS thread is about

materials by, for, and with consenting adults.

At least, that's what you will find in the porn section of your local video store.

[mongo]

125. So - you want to ban based on an act?

I would ban all porn that included violence, intimidation, humiliation.

Why only include porn? What about lifetime movies about spouse abuse, etc? Shall we ban those too? Or is it only bad if there is real sex in the movie and not simulated sex?

How about A Clockwork Orange? There's a rape scene in that, and it is a very violent movie in general.

What about BDSM movies where the subimissive is clearly enjoying the experience? Or shall we go the way of the UK where they are now busting BDSM clubs and arresting people for assault, even though the person being "assulted" consented to the act, is enjoying it, and does not wish to press charges on the assaulter.

You can't take an act like a slap on the butt and make it illegal.

[bloom]

128. There is a difference

between people watching rape for the enjoyment of watching rape and a suggested scene that is part of a larger movie.

I rather like the broken mirror/Streetcar Named Desire version myself. Since I have no voyeuristic desire to see rape actually acted out.


And "consent" doesn't give it a pass for me. There are people who are charged with domestic abuse - where the abused person wants the charges dropped. But if there is going to be any kind of accountability take place - the prosecution needs to continue - regardless. This is done for the sake of everybody - not just the person abused.

If showing rapes for the fun of it is damaging to the society as a whole - then nobody has the right to consent to it - IMO.

[mongo]

130. Are you actually saying you would criminalize consentual

BDSM activity? How progressive of you to decide what other Americans can do in their bedroom.

[bloom]

131. No I was not saying that

Who called the police and why?

Seems there was a case where a man raped his wife - the kids called - and then the man tried to act like it was nothing - or normal - or something. Sometimes it becomes a matter of who you believe.

[porphyrian]

134. So, who was responsible for the rape in this case?

The man, or pornography?

[bloom]

132. "You can't take an act"

With that logic - there could be no laws like battery - because someone would say that it could used if someone just touched someone. There are generally degrees with these things.


I found this today - which would lead a person to believe - as you have said - that legally you can't do some of the stuff that I am complaining about anyway. Which if that is the case - then "good" - I'm glad. This was someone's review - I think it's from one of the things that Jensen had "critiqued":

...primarily for legal purposes has been chopped up so bad, it's is irritating to watch after you have seen the unedited versions. Serious waist of coin here. Camera stopped every few minutes, even every few seconds, some episodes are missing 20 to 25 and over minutes of footage. What da hell???!!! ... was PREMO porn with lots of degradation, humiliation, cohesions, vulgarities, and plain disrespect for Hos and all that good stuff, but watching this, you feel ripped off and bored. Pathetic dvd release.