"A cruel edge: The painful truth about today's pornography -- and what men can do about it "(Jensen)

[Katherine Brengle]

I'd like to avoid being accused of using my ever so frequently (supposedly) employed "broad brush" by making sure all are informed that the title of this OP is the title of the article that I am linking to, and was not invented by me for the sole purpose of indicting male DUers.

A snip:

"It hurts to know that no matter who you are as a woman you can be reduced to a thing to be penetrated, and that men will buy movies about that, and that in many of those movies your humiliation will be the central theme. It hurts to know that so much of the pornography that men are buying fuses sexual desire with cruelty."

There is some strong language and descriptions of sex acts that some readers might find triggering or objectionable, so please be forewarned.


http://uts.cc.utexas.edu/%7Erjensen/freelance/pornography&cruelty.htm

[Help me help Earth]

1. This article is the hieght of sexism.

Women have been downtrodden and held back for thousands of years. In most of the world, they still are. We should embrace pornography for what it truly represents; the sexual liberation of women. Pornography is not about denigrating women at all. It is about men wanting to masturbate and women who are confident and empowered enough to make money off of their bodies. They have every right to do so and we should applaud that.

Women are not second class citizens because men are watching pornography. Women are second class citizens when men stone them to death because they experiment with their own sexuality. In too much of the world that kind of barbarism still exists, and that, not pornography, is what concerns me.

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

3. did you read the article?

It was about inflicting pain on women. Pain and subjugation. That is anything but liberating.

[Jed Dilligan]

5. I think sadomasochism is a huge part

of fantasy life for both genders, so why shouldn't it be depicted?

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

7. I guess you've never been at the receiving end of it, then

or worked with anyone who has. Then you'd know why.

[Jed Dilligan]

19. Actually, neither of those statements is true.

I had a partner who wanted to domme me and I was up for it but found it wasn't for me. Not a traumatic experience, just not enjoyable.

About ten years ago I dated a woman who was in a very unhealthy sm relationship--she was cheating with me as a way to maintain her identity. She got out of it, finished college, and is in a healthy relationship now.

I've been with a number of women who found that various threshholds of pain would lead them to better orgasms. I'm a flexible lover and willing to work with that. Maybe it has to do with something fucked up in their childhood or the culture, but that's a bigger question than I'm willing to address in a sexual relationship. They all seemed fine. Actually, the women I've been with who WERE raped or molested were the LEAST likely to be willing to explore different kinds of sex.

[Lurking Dem]

247. Do you know what "consensual" means?

Many of us are quite happy with our (apparently) twisted sex lives, thank you. And many of us have made money off of it. So what?

[baby_mouse]

274. Sorry, ayeshahaqqiqa. Normally we agree, but not this time.

I have extensive experience of sadomasochism, from both ends, with both genders.

*Choosing* to face pain, humiliation, fear or any other negative part of human experience consensually is not at all the same thing as having it forced upon you.

It's an empowering experience at best, and, in my experience only a disappointing one at worst.

Non-consensual or coercive sadomasochism isn't sadomasochism, it's rape, they're different.

The sadomasochistic community take the issue of consent *very* seriously.

[Jed Dilligan]

278. Good point.

I don't think I've ever received verbal consent for vanilla sex. Asking a woman to have sex is at best a romance-killer and at worst a surefire way to get the answer "hell no, you creepy weirdo." You just go from kissing to foreplay to intercourse unless she tells you to stop.

With kinkier sex stuff I've tried, consent is VERY formal. The discussion can go on for weeks. The "straight" community could learn a lot about sexual communication from the BDSM and other fetish communities.

[baby_mouse]

286. Absolutely. Sadomasochists know perfectly well what they are doing.

People who feel confused and disgusted by sadomasochism never actually listen to any of us, they just make it up as they go along.

[Lurking Dem]

290. Well said.

I don't, for one, understand the "adult baby" fetish. But who the fuck am I to tell somebody it is "disgusting" or "immoral" or a "detriment to society"?

[kysrsoze]

726. A little pain never hurt anybody. I've been on the receiving end and thoroughly enjoyed it

Why are so many people in this country so repressed?

[Stinky The Clown]

315. BDSM is a very common and quite healthy sexual 'perversion'

I put 'perversion' in quotes. I don't see it as perversion at all. It is simply the boat floating medium for many people.

Many of us adults do this consensually, willingly, enjoyably, healthily.

On edit .... your comment about 'working with people' ..... were you referring to people who willingly engaged in some form of S&M or people who were physically abused? Abuse is a **whole other** thing. I am in no way defending it or trying to explain it away. it is wrong and it needs to be dealt with appropriately.

[mzmolly]

437. Shouldn't such a film be marketed as BDSM rather than,

"hey, let's gang bang the cheerleader and make 'the bitch' cry?"

[LostinVA]

725. There's a HUGE difference between an abusive relationship and consensual S&M acts

It's amazingly ignorant to compare the two.

[pitohui]

9. actually it wasn't, you can't legally show S/M in hardcore in the u.s.a.

the writer of this article is grossly exaggerating about what real hardcore films do show -- d.p., anal, and gangbangs -- not my cup of tea either but it's hardly "cruelty"

s/m and bondage are not legal in a film that also shows penetration, haven't been for many years, that's why you hardly ever see them anymore or they're in specialty flicks where the couples/groups never complete the dirty deed

if you're into bondage, you have to stick with softcore (no penetration)

[Madspirit]

11. Gangbanging isn't cruelty?....n/t

[pitohui]

15. in porno gangbang means one partner after another, not forced sex

not my thing, but some of the stars are into it, because they get paid more or it increases their "buzz"

[Mojambo]

16. No. It isn't.

Not if everyone consents.

Some people (women included) are into that.

[Beelzebud]

281. Not among consenting adults...

[Katherine Brengle]

68. I guess that depends on how you define "cruelty" --

I'd say looking a woman and seeing, as Jensen put it, "3 holes and 2 hands" is pretty fucking cruel. I'd say shouting woman-hating epithets at that woman while you gangbang her is pretty fucking cruel.

I'd say a culture that values a woman primarily for her usefulness as a sex object is pretty fucking cruel.

Show me a society where a woman's worth can't be boiled down to whether or not she is "fuckable" and then maybe we can discuss pornography that lacks an element of cruelty.

[Help me help Earth]

85. Jensen exagerates those statements.

I've said sick and perverted things about women. I've also been in long term, caring and healthy relationships with them. It's not an either or proposition. It's fun to rate womens attractiveness for the same reason it's fun to rate mens attractiveness; people are horny, judgmental, insecure, and/or a host of other issues. That doesn't exclude us from being caring people with a healthy view of the opposite (or same) sex. I like porn because it's fun to watch and useful as a (usually self) sex aid, not because I hate women.

[jgraz]

123. It sounds like Jensen sees women that way

It's pretty specious to quote a writer's critique and use that as data to support his criticism. Jensen reminds me of nothing less than a porned-up version of Ted Haggard, railing against something that is a natural part of many people's healthy sexual behavior. My guess is he has a box of some of the nastiest S&M tapes hidden in the back of his closet.

[Common Sense Party]

157. I agree with you 100%.

[GOTV]

360. Of all the "cruel" things that could happen to me....

... being thought of as a source of sexual relief would be one of my first choices I think... if I had to choose some cruel treatment.

[pitohui]

407. katherine have you ever watched this type of porno? it's just a game

a lot of it is over the top and some of the stars actually prefer this because to be blunt, they get paid more and/or it's the only way they can enjoy this type of sex

there will never be a society where we don't judge each other on how fuckable we are, we are animals, animal attraction is real and honest

there are plenty of men i won't fuck and don't consider fuckable, and be honest -- you make the same judgements, it isn't just women who get brushed off for being "butterfaces" in fact it's more common for guys to be brushed off if they don't have looks, youth, or money

availability is always a plus for a woman, for a man it's read as desperation and considered unattractive

porno is one world where a female star has more power and ability to earn than the male, why crap on it?

[mzmolly]

442. Hear hear!

:toast:

[TankLV]

520. You know NOTHING about the wide variety of sexual appitites...

Keep your fucking nose out of what CONSENTING adults fantasize about...

Don't want it - don't find it arousing - DON'T DO IT!

I don't like or understand it either - tried a harness once and couldn't stop laughing at myself - kinda ruined the moment for the other persons - I felt so ridiculuous...

But the other guy was into it - we settled on something we both enjoyed...

[AikidoSoul]

733. My nose stays in this discussion sweetcakes, because this is an open conversation

My guess is that you are REALLY defensive about this issue and are having a knee-jerk moment because you can't stand to see my comment-- because it makes you feel bad in some way.

Another bet is that I've had more partners and know far more about sex and the variety of appetites than you do. I've been intensely curious about these issues for most of my life. The range of attitudes, abilities and psychological profiles surrounding sex are incredible.

We make choices about everything -- and one of the most interesting is how we "do ourselves" during sex.

My main point is that many people can't feel good enough about themselves and their partners to have transcendent sex and they become completely stuck in needing images and fantasies. They NEED to have something external from themselves in order to achieve orgasm.

Some people need THE SAME FANTASY over and over and over again to get off. That's a fact -- and that is a drug man. What else is it?

A person like that is STUCK.

It's fine to have an active fantasy life during sex -- but to be STUCK only in that mode is very, very sad.

How you "do yourself" during sex says a lot about your level of evolution as a person.

My experience is that too many people are stuck in Neanderthal mode.

Get it?

[Zookeeper]

551. Your last sentence is perfect:

"Show me a society where a woman's worth can't be boiled down to whether or not she is "fuckable" and then maybe we can discuss pornography that lacks an element of cruelty."

I don't think I've ever seen a You Tube video, that features a female, without at least one Bozo rating her. The usual comment is, "I'd DO her!," like she should be honored, or something. (Hell, the guy would probably "do" a melon.) If the female isn't rated worthy of being "done," she is usually labeled a "skank."

As a woman and feminist, I find heterosexual, male-oriented porn to be incredibly hostile and humiliating. And my opinion is as valid as porn-lovers who think it's swell to keep reinforcing the idea of women being nothing more than receptacles, and that having women ACT like they're satisfied is even better than actually satisfying them.

One thing I always suspect is that porn addicts must have really weak imaginations. Can't they invent their own fantasies and images?

[Katherine Brengle]

651. True.

And that's the overarching cultural theme - YouTube is a fine example, but talk to men about other women and you will hear the same conversation over and over and over.

[AikidoSoul]

715. You are right Katherine Brengle

and if anyone can't see it, then they are in denial. They are also undeveloped emotionally, or stupid.

[derby378]

120. I think that law has now been reversed...

...at least as far as Internet porn is concerned. There have been a couple of XXX movie houses in our neck of the woods that have been shut down because some of the content was deemed legally "obscene," and at first I thought they had been dealing in kiddy porn, but after learning more about the details of the offending videos in question, they may have crossed that old law separating S&M from hardcore. The Internet, however, has apparently erased that line for all time.

[pitohui]

408. the internet hasn't changed the law, it may have changed what people put out there in public

big commercial publishers have to conform to the law (no penetration in an S/M flick) -- what an individual ignorant of the law and ignorant of what he can lose by posting hardcore S/M on the internet is another matter

jenson's article appears to be about commercial porn, which focuses a lot on anal/d.p. precisely because commercial producers are so limited -- "gonzo" is a name, don't expect any david vitter diaper sex, water sports, or S/M plus penetration -- there is nothing "gonzo" about "gonzo" if you are over age 40

[HardRocker05]

184. really? i must be moving in some pretty tame circles, i guess. nt

[Jed Dilligan]

227. Have you ever read a book about sexual fantasies (male or female)?

Find me one without a section on sm--if you can.

On edit: I guess you're moving in some pretty raunchy circles if you know the sexual fantasies of everyone around you!

[mzmolly]

445. I love how this has suddenly become a mass "Gee whiz, it's just S and M" defense.

This is about getting off on the pain/humiliation of women, and popularity of this genre. It's about what this imagery is doing to us as a society And if pain and humiliation is what you're referring to when you speak of sexual fantasy, yeah - I've read books without such imagery.

[Jed Dilligan]

451. I'm not talking about romance novels.

I'm talking about serious psychological studies.

Yeah, it's always better for everyone when we keep these things repressed and underground...

:sarcasm:

That being said, what do you suggest? An adult content board that decides what's legal and not legal to show in pictures and films? Who would serve on it? Feminists? Fundamentalists? Both?

[mzmolly]

458. I'm not talking about romance novels either.

Regarding what I suggest. I'd start with not belittling those who have legit concerns and offering solutions of your own? A couple solutions that come to mind, since you ask, are quite simple. Perhaps a disclaimer at the beginning of the film indicating that participants agreed to every nuance? Perhaps making the fact that any act is consensual apparent in the film, as it should be "in real life?" Perhaps legislation "rating" BDSM films as such? Perhaps marketing such films under a particular genre? Heck even in films depicting animal harm the following disclaimer is noted - "No animals were harmed during the making of this film."

How about you? Any suggestions?

[Jed Dilligan]

513. find me an adult website that doesn't have such a disclaimer

already, and get back to me...

Be sure to include the reference to your comprehensive psychological study of human sexual fantasy that doesn't deal with common themes of pain and humiliation.

[mzmolly]

649. The OP is about film, not websites as was my commentary.

:hi:

[Jed Dilligan]

670. Then I wouldn't know.

I haven't looked at a porno tape in more than a decade, probably. But yeah, if they don't have disclaimers, they probably should.

[mzmolly]

674. Thanks.

I appreciate your open mindedness on this issue. :hi:

[Jed Dilligan]

675. The only issue on which I'm not open-minded

is government determining what content is appropriate in the media (short of documentation of actual crimes like snuff and kid porn).

[mzmolly]

691. I think that media should be somewhat regulated. The fairness doctrine for example.

Also (you may not know this but) women/actresses have reported being essentially raped during the making of various porn flicks. Generally these women don't press charges, as it's a "slippery slope," no pun intended. ;) The problem occurs when an actress is treated in a manner during a film that she did not agree to before hand.

Peace

[Jed Dilligan]

693. Sounds like a civil case to me

I bet the situation you describe (a woman being forced into acts she doesn't want after consenting to other kinds of sex) happens more often in marriage than in pornography.

The Fairness Doctrine is more in the area of slander, libel, false advertising, etc. than the realm of censorship. Corporations that deliberately misinform the public should be fined and/or sued--no argument there. Fairness doesn't BAN any content, it just says that facts should be presented as facts and opinions as opinions.

[mzmolly]

697. Rape does happen in marriage.

It is not "ok" regardless. Regarding the fairness doctrine, some consider that doctrine a form of censorship, though "I" understand the rationale for it's necessity. I also understand why we don't have porn on after the local news.

[TankLV]

525. Who wants "romance" - I just want to skip to the good parts!!!

But then again, I'm into man on man sex...

puts a big crimp in the arguments on brutalizing women, doesn't it!...

[cyborg_jim]

576. You'd think so...

But time and time again the issue of gay pornography is conveniently ignored in favour of the more important meme:

"Porn degrades women! Nevermind if there's porn with no women in it at all!"

*Sigh*

[mzmolly]

650. I never suggested that you brutalized women.

:hi:

[Help me help Earth]

39. I look at this article the same way I look at right wing stories about women who had abortions

becoming suicidal and wishing they didn't do it. It's trash with an agenda.

[yardwork]

59. Except that this article is from the point of view of a man viewing pornography

The article was written by a man. He said that he carefully excluded any porn that was other than "mainstream." He describes watching a video that involves the interview of a 20 year old girl, who then is filmed having sex with two men at the same time, anally, vaginally, and orally. They taunt her and tell her that her crying is turning them on.

Can anyone defend this as healthy? How is it healthy to equate sex with violence and humiliation?

I think that people who think that porn is just fine are kidding themselves. I think you are living in denial.

[mondo joe]

64. And there are men who say abortion is degrading. And heteros who say homosexuality is degrading.

I don't know much about hetero porn, being a gay man, but I don't know that it differs a lot in some ways.

[Help me help Earth]

77. I'm into both. Anything you see in gay porn you see in straight porn.

Well, except vaginas... (cue rim shot) It's all about what people are into and allowing the freedom to express it as long as they don't hurt others.

[eowyn_of_rohan]

627. Trouble is, MANY are hurt, directly and indirectly

But why should you think (or care) about that?

[mondo joe]

684. Who is hurt directly? Who is hurt indirectly?

[eowyn_of_rohan]

723. If you haven't figured that out for yourself

you are undoubtedly not interested in doing so. Let's not waste each other's time.

[mondo joe]

737. The waste of time here is someone who makes claims they can't back up.

Thank you.

[GOTV]

370. That is disturbing but it's also not representative....

... of the porn I've seen.

I think this article was meant for people that haven't seen mainstream porn.

[Name removed]

6. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[zazen]

23. distinguish between criminal documentation of sex trafficking and Playboy

Help me help Earth, I'm glad you recognize the breadth of male dominance, but I urge you to reconsider that not all phenomena referred to collectively as "pornography" is liberating to women. There's a big difference between an adult female with economic choices deciding to film herself sexually for her own or others' erotic pleasure and the at least 50% of criminal documentation of rape and child trafficking that passes on the Internet as someone's "free speech." Filming a rape at a Bosnian concentration camp, 13-year-old Thai girls being raped by American sex tourists, or starving teenagers in the Balkans who are hanged in various terrifying, painful bondage scenes, isn't fulfilling their agency or empowering them. An act of abuse--and often serial acts, as these are trafficked, usually underage prostitutes--is filmed and then peddled across borders, usually by mafia-like organizations, to profit off of conditioning males to ignore the obvious suffering of these victims and to get these users addicted to worse and worse acts of transgression.

I think we need a new term for what is in effect criminal evidence of sexual abuse. I don't give a damn what adults who can give legal consent (meaning they aren't battered or drugged) do sexually and whether they film and sell it. But I do care if we've got a generation of adolescent boys growing up thinking they're owed fresh crops of third-world women and children who can be hung from chains, have electrodes attached to them, be "waterboarded" (btw, it's a common new genre), etc. That's not protected speech. That's conditioning masturbation to crime photos. What if millions of 14-year-old boys were suddenly having orgasms over pictures of whipped black men or black men hanging from trees? A good analogy is the Dred Scott case of the 19th century--by saying Dred Scott wasn't someone else's property is not to erase all property rights. In the same way, saying that sexually abused women and children in these photos aren't someone else's speech doesn't equate to erasing the 2nd amendment.

Rethugs want to restrict pornography based on an old, patriarchal obscenity perspective, which does in fact ascribe some sort of odium to the victim in the photo all over again, in an impulse to protect the viewer from "moral harm." Instead, we're talking about social and sexual justice, and stopping participation in and conditioning to further oppression of the poor and dispossessed. Two very different issues. I simply don't believe most decent men and women would want to use materials that were documenting abuse. The challenge is to get people to divest from the industry of large-scale sexual abuse and, like with drugs, food, etc., support industries that ensure that the workers are well-treated and there by choice. If you don't shop at Wal-Mart for ethical reasons, then be damned sure where you get your pornography. I might not like the message Playboy sends, but at least I know the women are of age and can be reasonably sure they're not coerced.

Maybe we need a Union Label or something. Better regulation of sex work would be a good start.

[Help me help Earth]

58. I get what you are saying, but I can't agree. Read these telling quotes from the article:

"I think this helps explain why even the toughest women -- women who at rape crisis centers routinely deal with sexual violence -- find the reality of pornography so difficult to cope with. No matter how hard it may be to face the reality of a rape culture, at least the culture still brands rape as a crime. Pornography, however, is not only widely accepted but sold to us as liberation."

The article, and some of your post, cloud the issue by talking about another issue, rape and sex slavery, and confusing it with pornography. I don't think you did it on purpose, but I think Jensen did. By blurring the very clear distinction between consensual and involuntary porn, the impression is created that all porn is harmful to women. This is far from true. Reread the article. The porn Jensen describes is pretty explicit, but he never hints that it is anything other then consensual. Regardless, his next paragraph talks about rape and sex slavery.

Now consider this passage:

"...feminist critics of pornography have been marginalized in political and intellectual arenas. And all the while, the pornographers are trudging off to the bank with bags of money."

What he neglects to mention is that many of those rich pornographers are women themselves, and many women have become rich and famous in this business. I was fortunate enough to go to a presentation on porn by female pornographer Candida Royale. Her views were very enlightening and helped shape my own; porn empowers women and is a sign of a sexually accepting society. Remember, Jenna Jameson not only schooled Bill O'Reilly in a debate, she gets the satisfaction of knowing he is jerking off to her after the show.

[Name removed]

148. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[eastsyde]

153. Which is more tragic?

Someone who, for whatever reason, is into S&M and finds a willing partner, or failing that uses S&M porn made by people like herself, or someone who is forced to hide their feelings because society refuses to permit them sexual freedom? You talk about empathy, but in this case you only seem to feel it if it's fitting a false dichotomy of victim hood that fits your world view. People don't always choose their sexual preferences, just ask one of your gay friends. Should they keep to the closet because a large portion of society dislikes how they were born?

There is a simple answer that that question. NO!

[Duppers]

179. making this into a gay issue is a straw man

I'm not going to play your game.

If hurting and victimizing anyone, male or female, gets you off, then get yourself some therapy >.<

[The Magistrate]

222. So We May take It, Then, Ma'am

That it is your view that people with a sadomasochistic sexuality are in need of therapy to alter their natures?

It is far from a 'straw man' to point out that this is exactly the view held of homosexuality by psychiatrists in the past, and by rightists and reactionaries still in the present.

And of course, were one to explore the matter past the simplistic sloganeerings you have already indulged in, its complexities may provide real entertainment. For sadomasochism occurs with some frequency among homosexual persons, male and female, as well as among heterosexual persons. Persons inclined to either end of the sadomasochist continuum may be found in all genders. The arguments designed to demonstrate that a dominatrix is being exploited and degraded by a male are, to put it kindly, a little difficult to follow. The idea that a person of masochistic orientation is disturbed to the point of being unable to 'really' consent to things he or she in fact expresses desire for and expends great energy to experience is supportable only if one feels oneself able to know another person, usually one one has not met or interacted with, much better than that person can possibly know themselves, and know far better than they what is really good for them.

[Jed Dilligan]

234. For once we agree

But please, don't call me "sir"!

[mzmolly]

446. There is a difference of power in our society among men and women.

However, the article (to my understanding) was not about S and M, it's about mainstream porn, not defined as S and M. I suggest that the strawman is inserting that label into the discussion.

[The Magistrate]

461. The Article, Ma'am

Focused on the incorporation of apparent cruelty in sexual behavior, and that is the text-book definition of sadomasochism. Leather and chains are not the essence of the thing, but merely its eye-candy, and the fetish objects of some with the general orientation. It is a long-standing strain of analysis, broad enough to include Dr. Freud and Ms. Dworkin as comrades, that maintains heterosexual coitus is necessarily an act that incorporates dominance and submission, and is essentially sadomasochistic in nature. One may agree with this view or not, but naming the thing openly hardly distorts or sidetracks what is being discussed. Mr. Jensen's whole focus is on what he sees as a corrupting seepage of sadomasochism into 'mainstream' heterosexuality, through the medium of popular pornographies, though he would seem rather tardy in discovering it for himself.

[mzmolly]

473. I agree with Mr. Jensen and his focus.

Though I don't consider your characterization of S and M seeping into mainstream porn, sufficient to address the crux of the concerns raised.

[The Magistrate]

490. No Serious Concerns Were Raised By Mr. Jensen At All, Ma'am, To My View

He looks at a lot of pornography he says disgusts and alarms him, and he is sure it is making other men, though not him, treat women worse than ever. But women are not being treated worse than ever where this pornography circulates and is viewed.

[mzmolly]

501. Well Sir, I'm sorry you are not concerned about the legitimate issues

raised in the article. You may wish to correct your assertion that women are not being ill-treated in the world of porn however as I've read stories by women/actresses to the contrary.

[The Magistrate]

510. Mr. Jensen's Issues With Pornography, Ma'am

And the rather odd way he has contrived for himself to watch it to his heart's content without acknowledging his fascination with the stuff are of no concern to me whatever, and have no 'legitimacy' beyond the confines of his own skull, which he, as all of us do, conceives to be the exact center of the universe, and so imagines to be much more important than it actually is to anyone else....

[mzmolly]

516. Mr. Jensens issues with violent mainstream pornography Sir, reach

far beyond the confines of his skull, thus the problem.

[The Magistrate]

553. No, Ma'am, They Do Not

He imagines they do, but utterly fails to demonstrate that his imagining is a fact; indeed, he does not even make a serious attempt to try and do this. He starts with the reaction of persons who do deal with real violence and trauma inflicted on girls and women to some of his favorite pornography, but he makes no connection between beaten wives and raped girls and the materials he spends so much time viewing himself. He would not be able to establish any such connection, because no evidence of it has emerged from scientific study of the question. He proceeds then to some lovingly detailed descriptions of the pornography he feels compelled to inflict on himself for the benefit of others, sufficient to demonstrate nothing more than that he paid a great deal of attention, despite his great disgust, and goes on to speculate concerning what effects viewing these things might have on other people. Nice work if you can get it, as they say....

[SheWhoMustBeObeyed]

554. You know what I love about you?

Well yeah, you do, but...you take out the trash, squash the centipedes, and handle all the other annoyances I don't want to be bothered with.

I got money to make - I'm off this thread. See you soon, Honey!

[The Magistrate]

556. See You Soon, Dear!

"People are fucking people, and that is fucked up!"

[Warren DeMontague]

567. Best Post In The Thread.

And this is a big-ass thread.

[mzmolly]

647. Yes Sir, they do.

Unless you suggest that women are not raped and murdered in this country since the advent of porn?

However, Mr. Jensen doesn't attempt to make a sound scientific connection between violent porn and violence against women, he attempts to encourage a dialog. He suggests a healthy society would "ask the necessary questions."

Further, to say that no evidence has emerged between violence in the media and violence against people is so absurd, it's downright laughable.

[Warren DeMontague]

680. And banks have been robbed since the advent of the steam shovel.

That doesn't mean the steam shovels have been responsible for the bank robberies.

[mzmolly]

690. Do they have increasingly popular movies using steam shovels to rob banks?

If so, I'd say a dialog is warranted.

[Warren DeMontague]

692. Leaving aside the fact that countries with repression and censorship have higher rates of rape

I don't think a dialog is warranted, certainly not when the basis of the dialog is

"See, this movie Cujo reduces all dogs to rabid, vicious beasts. I showed this movie to a person who was attacked by a dog, and they were upset by it. Obviously, anyone who watches this film -except me, of course, I watched it 8 times, but only for 'research' purposes cough cough- will be forever unable to relate to dogs as anything except a threat to be eliminated. Oh, and by the way, since one movie is Cujo, obviously ALL movies are Cujo- in fact, this statistical sample of one movie is not only representative of every movie ever made, it's representative of every book, magazine, or papyrus scroll put out by human beings since the dawn of civilization."

That's not a "dialog", that's a diatribe. And a dumb fucking one, to boot.

And if it's really not "about censorship", why is Jensen linked to a whole smorgasboard of pro-censorship, anti-ACLU, anti first amendment sites?

[mzmolly]

696. That is the claim by people like yourself.

However, the claim is bogus.

Saudi Arabia has the lowest rate of rape per capita on record.

Canada has one of the highest (per capita) in spite of their "non repressive" laws governing porn: Hardcore material is legal in Canada to anyone over the age of majority (18 or 19 depending on province). Sales to persons under 18 (varies by province) is prohibited, though they may own it.

"why is Jensen linked to a whole smorgasboard of pro-censorship, anti-ACLU, anti first amendment sites?"

I don't know who uses his article/information to provoke thought, nor do I care. Keep in mind the ACLU defended NAMBLA. Perhaps because the former head of the ACLU's Virginia chapter enjoyed k*dde porn? http://www.northcountrygazette.org/news/2007/06/02/admits_possession/

ARLINGTON, VA—Prosecutors called it sadistic.U.S. Magistrate Judge Theresa C. Buchnan described it as “the most perverted and nauseating and sickening type of child pornography” she has seen in 10 years on the bench.

Charles Rust-Tierney, 51, of Arlington, Va., former president of the Virginia chapter of the ACLU, former public defender and former Arlington youth sports coach, pleaded guilty Friday to one count of receipt of child pornography to satisfy the charges that he used his e-mail address and credit card to purchase and possess hard core, commercial kiddie porn which was “sadistic or masochistic”.

...

In an appearance Friday in U.S. District court in Alexandria, Rust-Tierney admitted that he has accessed more than 850 pornographic images of children as young as four.

He admitted that all of the children in the images he possessed were under 12 years old and that he had used a computer in the bedroom of his 10-year-old son to view the files. Some of them were on CDs which had the logo of an American flag.

[Warren DeMontague]

699. You're using Saudi Arabia as an example of good government?

You are aware that they're second only to North Korea on the list of most totalitarian states on the planet?

And how, precisely, does Saudi Arabia define Rape? To even prosecute Rape in Islamic Funadmentalist Countries, unless I'm mistaken, there have to be 3 witnesses willing to testify. Sure, that would give you a low "rape" rate, if it only happens when there are witnesses.

They also put gays to death, over there. Nice.

The ACLU didn't "defend NAMBLA". I don't listen to enough Rush Limbaugh to have all the details of the ACLU/Nambla case, but from what I understand is they defended the right of NAMBLA to have free speech. Not to put out child porn, which is unquestionably illegal, but just to express their decidedly noxious opinions. Yes, even the people with decidedly noxious opinions have the right to free speech. Andrea Dworkin was well within her rights to say that all hetero sex is rape or marriage is slavery or penetrative sex is oppressive and must be 'done away with' or whatever other insanse shit she put out there. The ACLU defended the right of Nazis to march in Skokie, and I agreed with them- even though I come from a Jewish family that lost people in the camps and I have a number of good friends who live in Skokie. Is that "because" the ACLU are Nazis? :eyes: The ACLU are on the front lines of defending everybody's civil liberties- yours, mine, everyone's. Why don't you start a thread about what a bunch of child-molesting assholes the ACLU are, and see how well that flies.

I think Republicans have the right to free speech. Does that make me a Republican?

What a pathetic argument.

[mzmolly]

700. No, I'm saying that the claim you made is bullshit.

Canada has some of the most liberal laws regarding porn, and one of the highest rates of rape per capita in the world. That fact alone shoots down the popular, yet misguided "theory" you noted above.

Further, I'm not using Limbaugh to define the ACLU, I actually learned the NAMBLA tidbit from Molly Ivins at an ACLU seminar I attended in the Twin Cities. She said she didn't always agree with the ACLU, I don't either. I researched the matter later.

http://www.aclu.org/freespeech/protest/11289prs20000831.html

In representing NAMBLA today, our Massachusetts affiliate does not advocate sexual relationships between adults and children.

...

It is easy to defend freedom of speech when the message is something many people find at least reasonable. But the defense of freedom of speech is most critical when the message is one most people find repulsive.

:eyes:

I generally agree with the ACLU, so you can suggest that thread lambasting them to another. However, I will say, you brought up the ACLU in the context of this discussion, not I.

[Warren DeMontague]

704. What's with the eyerolling? You don't agree about the defense of freedom of speech?

Seems to me that freedom of speech is only as good as the right of the most unpopular voices not to be silenced. That seems fairly self-evident. :shrug:

And like I said- if Saudi Arabia only considers "rape" to occur when it happens in the presence of male witnesses, then of course they would have a low rape rate. And Canada. Oh, that's rich.

Perhaps you're not aware that Canada is the Petri Dish upon which the MacKinnon and Dworkin anti-porn crusaders have had the most success in the first world?

Canada only has "liberal" porn laws in the sense that some -a minority, thankfully- "liberals" have adopted the idea that people need to be "protected" from images of consenting adults having sex.

http://www.skepticfiles.org/aclu/380presi.htm

That censoring sexual speech harms the women's rights cause has been
vividly demonstrated in Canada, where the Dworkin-MacKinnon angle was
enshrined in law two years ago. The primary victims of Canada's anti-porn
statute have been feminist, lesbian and gay writers, along with
booksellers who purvey their writings. The latter, in fact, have been so
systematically harassed under the law that one storeowner -- represented
by Canada's ACLU counterpart -- is challenging the discrimination in
court. And predictably, two books by none other than Andrea Dworkin have
been confiscated. We told you, Andrea ....

[mzmolly]

708. The essay on Canada does not reflect fact.

Let's review the laws in Canada "today" once again:

Hardcore material is legal in Canada to anyone over the age of majority (18 or 19 depending on province). Sales to persons under 18 (varies by province) is prohibited, though they may own it. Most materials are sold in adult stores or websites, despite no specific law controlling the distribution. Canada Border Services Agency is empowered to stop the importation of materials prohibited under obscenity laws; many gay and lesbian bookstores have charged that this is applied in a discriminatory way to same-sex pornographic materials.

Also, see this > http://www.nostatusquo.com/ACLU/dworkin/OrdinanceCanada.html

Untrue reports have been circulating that our feminist work against pornography is responsible for the repression of feminist, gay, and lesbian materials in Canada. It is said that the anti-pornography civil rights law we coauthored was passed by the Canadians and that the first thing they did with it was censor gay books. It is said that Canada Customs recently seized feminist, gay, and lesbian materials--including some books by Andrea Dworkin--under a 1992 Supreme Court decision called Butler that accepted our legal approach to pornography. It is said that in practice, Canadian court decisions using our anti-pornography legal theories are backfiring against liberating sexual literature. We want you to have real information about what has and has not happened.

THE ANTI-PORNOGRAPHY CIVIL RIGHTS LAW WE COAUTHORED

Canada has not adopted our civil rights law against pornography. It has not adopted our statutory definition of pornography; it has not adopted our civil (as opposed to criminal) approach to pornography; nor has Canada adopted any of the five civil causes of action we proposed (coercion, assault, force, trafficking, defamation).1 No such legislation has as yet even been introduced in Canada.

However, Canada and Saudi Arabia aside, there are many countries from which to examine in order to gain perspective. The fact is, that a correlation between liberal porn laws and less "rape" can not be drawn in any meaningful manner - period. Canada and the US have very liberal laws. In Denmark for example, (perhaps the most liberal in terms of porn regulation) rape stats are fairly high in spite of claims to the contrary. Spain has a high rate of rape in spite of "very lax" laws as well.

http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_rap_percap-crime-rapes-per-capita

I've looked at all 65 regions, and contrasted them with the laws, it's a bogus claim that limiting porn = more rape and violence against women. It's simply not true.

On edit, I'm out as the conversation is starting to take a toll on my ass, as I've been sitting far too long.

Have a nice evening impeach-d. :hi:

[AikidoSoul]

739. You seem to be confused about the issue being discussed

Nobody is objecting to free speech. Nobody is saying that it is not your right to see porn, make porn and get off on porn. What many of us are saying is that denigration and humiliation of women is evidence that people think it's exciting to dominate, humiliate and hurt women -- and we're saying that this seems sick.

The fact that porn that hurts and victimizes is on the increase is disturbing. More and more you see extreme porn where women are hurt and humiliated with their anal and vaginal cavities torn and bleeding. The text porn where children are sex objects subjected to males forcing them to have sex is especially revolting. Just as revolting are the descriptions of young girls and boys as young as four, "asking for it" with the male writing the story as if the tiny kid actually enjoys being split apart. Many of the stories describe little girls screaming in pain and begging for the man to stop. Some of the stories have the child passing out or even being killed by the rape.

I have a good friend who monitors child porn as part of her job who says it's getting more extreme and violent. Many of the text-only stories describe large men with "huge" penises destroying the vagina of small girls and the anal cavities of young boys. Even the tiny vagina's of tiny infants are described in detail by men who write about the thrill of ripping apart the child's womb and permanently damaging it.

It's pathetic that many people are so psychologically warped, numb, and whatever else their state-of-mind / heart -- that they need these images to have an orgasm.

It's like a drug to many people.

Sad.

You and I and all of us are entitled to free speech, and I would defend it too. All I'm saying is that some of it is sick beyond words and that it has infected our culture, stunted our ability to love, and made us less civilized.

I don't think we are quite civilized yet. Do you? That's what this discussion is about.

[Raster]

701. And you do realize that if the accusation of rape is even made, THE WOMAN is usually executed.

Because it is assumed that it was her fault somehow. Wasabist Sharia Law. They allow honor killings for PERCEIVED transgressions. Men aren't honor killed. Women are.

Using Saudi Arabia as an example for ANYTHING beneficial to women? :rofl:

[mzmolly]

703. Actually, that's a false claim as well. However, feel free to comment on Canada "ey."

I didn't use Saudi as an example of "what is beneficial to women," I noted it because specifically because it's an oppressive nation, and it has the lowest rate of rape per capita on record. There are many more statistics from other countries I can site, but I'll see where the conversation leads first.

[Raster]

705. No, I'll comment on women rights under Wahabist Sharia in Saudi Arabia

And there are REASONS why the rape rate in Saudi Arabia is low. Not because of the lack of pornography. Would you like information about the honor killings? Talk about demeaning to women!

Women's rights

Saudi women face severe discrimination in many aspects of their lives, including education, employment, and the justice system. Although they make up 70% of those enrolled in universities, women make up just 5% of the workforce in Saudi Arabia <3>, the lowest proportion in the world. Implementation of a government resolution supporting expanded employment opportunities for women met resistance from within the labor ministry<4>, from the religious police <5>, and from the male citizenry<6>. These institutions and individuals generally claim that according to Sharia a woman's place is in the home caring for her husband and family.

In the legal system, women face discrimination as the criminal laws of Saudi Arabia adhere to strict Islamic precepts. An example of this is are the requirements for testifying in criminal proceedings; The witness must be deemed sane, the age of an adult, and a Muslim. Non-Muslims may not testify in criminal court. Women may not testify unless it is a personal matter that did not occur in the sight of men. The testimony of a woman is not regarded as fact but as presumption. The reasons women are forbidden to testify in criminal proceedings are (quote):

1. Women are much more emotional than men and will, as a result of their emotions, distort their testimony.

2. Women do not participate in public life, so they will not be capable of understanding what they observe.

3. Women are dominated completely by men, who by the grace of God are deemed superior; therefore, women will give testimony according to what the last man told them.

4. Women are forgetful, and their testimony cannot be considered reliable.

As a result of these laws women are particularly vulnerable in cases of assault and/or rape, as their testimony is treated as a presumption, while that of their attackers is accepted as fact.

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

[mzmolly]

706. Women are vulnerable in cases of rape/assault the US as well. What country do YOU live in?

Do you know what a rape victim goes through in the courts in this country?

Canada, I thought you'd avoid it. I won't however.

[Raster]

707. I live in the United States. I have not read any of the Canadian information.

I am neither disputing nor agreeing. I have to digest the information before forming an opinion.

[mzmolly]

710. Ok. Have a nice evening. My patience with this topic is nearing an end.

:hi:

[Raster]

712. And you have a nice evening also. I can definitely see your passion for this subject.

Take care.

[AikidoSoul]

719. Seeing through the flowery words you use in your posts to defend cruel, humiliating sex

here is similar to taking a photo of a dandy in silk, picking his nose.

I'll only pick on one of your specious arguments:

You said" "He starts with the reaction of persons who do deal with real violence and trauma inflicted on girls and women to some of his favorite pornography, but he makes no connection between beaten wives and raped girls and the materials he spends so much time viewing himself."

"favorite pornography"? "... spends so much time viewing?" Those statements are beyond misleading, presumptuous and egregiously unfair.

[Duppers]

466. so you know what I think?

I never thought, much less stated anything that contradicted your statement:
"Persons inclined to either end of the sadomasochist continuum may be found in all genders."

See one of my other posts to you for details.

[pitohui]

409. therapy can't alter sexual preference bzzzz thanks for playing! EOM

,

[Duppers]

464. sexual preference is not sexual orientation

You need to tell prison psychologists then. They think they can help serial rapists, which is another "sexual preference."

[TankLV]

528. No it's not - you are against porn and what others do in the privacy of their own homes...

We don't take kindly to prudes deciding for US what is OK and what is NOT...

Don't like it - DON'T WATCH OR DO IT!

Keep your fucking morality to your fucking self!

[Duppers]

559. you're using a broad brush

that mischaracterizes my opinions.

Since this thread is so long, it is obvious that you do not understand the nuances of my opinions.

I have been accused by a lady of supporting porn!

Know whom and what you criticize before doing so, asshole!


Edit: to make sure it's known, Tank, it's you I'm talking to and not the lady poster.

[Name removed]

282. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[eridani]

117. Slave labor is slave labor

All slave labor is abusive regardless of whether sex is involved or not.

[Duppers]

141. ....

:thumbsup: :applause:
:applause::applause::applause::applause::applause::applause::applause::applause::applause::applause::applause::applause::applause::applause::applause::applause::applause::applause::applause:
:applause::applause::applause::applause::applause::applause::applause::applause::applause::applause::applause::applause::applause::applause::applause::applause::applause::applause::applause:
:applause::applause::applause::applause::applause::applause::applause::applause::applause::applause::applause::applause::applause::applause::applause::applause::applause::applause::applause:
:applause::applause::applause::applause::applause::applause::applause::applause::applause::applause::applause::applause::applause::applause::applause::applause::applause::applause::applause:

[eastsyde]

156. This article isn't really talking about oppression and abuse.

The author just describes a porn set he visited in graphic detail, then goes into an unrelated discussion about forced sex. NO ONE here is claiming that is a good thing. There is a world of difference between that (which a hell of a lot of fundies use as their talking point too, I assumed he was a fundie until I looked up his bibliography), and consensual porn. If you purposely blur the issue, you slander all the good people involved in the porn business.

[Duppers]

283. thanks for this post

I think we're discussing 2 different things.

If you've read my posts in this thread, you realize that I'm am not against all erotica and porn. I've made that point repeatedly.

[NotGivingUp]

31. oh, too funny, the sexual liberation of women. porno objectifying women does NOT liberate women. n/t

[Help me help Earth]

43. Being empowered and free to do porno DOES liberate women. nt

[NotGivingUp]

49. It doesn't matter how many times you repeat it...it doesn't make it true. nt

[Threedifferentones]

634. Haha oh the irony

[debbierlus]

70. Empowered & free? Most women do it for the money & lack of options

A large percent have sexual abuse histories. Funny how you don't see any rich women going into prostitution and stripping.

Take the money out of it, & see how empowered they are. And, what does it say that this is the one job a woman can turn to for consistently good pay. Some option there!

[mondo joe]

72. Isn't that what drives most choices?

?

[northzax]

237. sure you do

who do you think Deborah Jean Pauley was hiring as her 'escorts'? for the most part, students at places like Georgetown. you don't see rich women go into stripping because their isn't enough money in it. but 1-2 grand a night? that's a different story.

[GOTV]

374. You also don't see many rich people entering the military. n/t

[Iris]

267. So why is it not also true that being able to express discomfort with porn is not an acceptable way

for women to be empowered?

Why is it in these debates that anyone who expresses the least bit of discomfort or disgust by these images does not receive the same respect as the women who are happy to create them?

[Jed Dilligan]

279. To me, the debate is about freedom of expression

which is the same freedom for artists and their critics. No one wants you to stop expressing disgust any more than they want anyone to stop making porn. The only issue is censorship, and the article linked in the OP sounds ominously like a call for censorship.

[baby_mouse]

285. Because you DON'T HAVE TO LOOK AT THEM.

I cannot BELIEVE this nonsense.

YOU are free to remove the unsightly images from your life by not looking t them in the first place and THEY are free to create them for those who do NOT find them unsightly.

WHAT is your problem with this?

[Scout]

296. women don't have to WATCH PORN THEMSELVES

to be adversely affected by it, that is the problem.

Fucking duh.

[baby_mouse]

381. You're completely delusional.

I've sat down and tried to write this response about six times and realised that it's probably going to be completely impossible to get through to you.

What you've done is decide that pornography is bad and then constructed a whole bunch of inter-related sentences that look like an argument, but actually it's just a series of mutually reinforcing "sound bitey", predigested impressions.

There ARE no adverse effects for women from being represented pornographically. But there's no point saying that to someone like you. You'll just say: "yes, there are, fucking duh," and I'll say, "what are they, then", and you'll say "It's demeaning, asshole" and I, never having lost any respect for a woman through having seen her portrayed pornographically will say: "How?", and you'll say: "It's depersonalising, fucktard," and I'll say "How is it depersonalising? I've seen a lot of porn, and the subjects looked a lot like people to me. And it's about sex! How much more personal can you get?" And you'll say: "They're being treated as sex objects!" And I'll say: "So what? What's wrong with being a sex object? It's a lot better than being a corporate wage slave object. I've *been* a sex object! I've been completely encased in leather and incapable of movement! It was loads of fun! In fact, it was AMAZING! I sort of drifted off into a beautiful submissive half-conscious space all of my own, made possible by a deep and powerful trust between me and the top. Of course, being a grown up adult person I am also able to form relationships with other people that don't focus entirely on my sexual qualities. This is called normal behaviour. Interestingly, I am able to separate my sexual feelings from the rest of my experience of other human beings and can connect with them on all sorts of levels, because, fortunately for me, evolution has seen fit to provide me with an entire suite of inbuilt biological urges for things OTHER than sex, such as love and nurturing and reasoning and communication, all adding to a pretty good system of how to deal with real people as if they aren't pictures. Because, I'm a clever grown up person who ALREADY KNOWS that pictures of people aren't the same thing as real people, and NO MATTER HOW MANY SEXY PICTURES I look at, I NEVER SEEM TO FORGET THIS! And I've never met a single person who does, not ONE person in my entire personal history, sexual or otherwise. What IS this sex object thing you're talking about and why does it frighten you so much? If it's the same thing as what I've experienced then your desire to get rid of it is silly and ill-informed. It doesn't MATTER if people view themselves or each other as sex objects during sex. Can you show me any example of any actual detriment, financial, personal, physical or otherwise that has been unambiguously caused by pornography? To ANYONE?" And you'll go, "squee, squee, it adversely affects people, it does, it does, it does, prick!" and we'll go right back to the beginning.

It's completely circular. There's nothing outside the circle that grounds it in reality.

Have you ever considered the possibility that it is YOU who is depersonalising the subjects of this pornographic imagery by
not listening to a single fucking word any of them are saying?

[Lurking Dem]

384. Wow.

:toast:

[Scout]

394. calm down and take a breath honey! n/t

[baby_mouse]

403. Get your patronising attitude out of my face, "honey". NT

[pitohui]

411. nice post mouse, two thumbs up, would read again

Have you ever considered the possibility that it is YOU who is depersonalising the subjects of this pornographic imagery by
not listening to a single fucking word any of them are saying?




too true

[qdemn7]

428. WHOA!

Great post. Two thumbs up!

[NeedleCast]

518. In a perfect world

whenever anti-porn arguments are made, your post would appear in a big puff of smoke and the person making an anti-porn arugment would go "oh..." and walk away.

Bravo.

[tigereye]

557. I suspect that many women dislike that they are perceived only

as objects, as their bodies. This issue was at the foundation of the feminist movement.

I think that many women might feel that men have not been objectified in this same physical way over the centuries, and therefore it is harder for them to see the problem with that objectification.


Perhaps some of the posters' anger is that they continue to need to have this argument with people.


As far as sexual complexity goes overall, I have no problem with it, as long as it is between consenting adults.

[Warren DeMontague]

569. I also suspect that part of the "problem", as always, is that men seem to be more visually wired for

arousal. That's been demonstrated scientifically, and there are perfectly logical evolutionary reasons why that would be so- just like there are perfectly logical evolutionary reasons why women would tend to see intimacy, emotional involvement and sex as more indistinguishable.

That's not to say there aren't women who like porn- there are, and plenty of them. In the course of my old job with a chain of video stores I encountered plenty of consumers of porn. Certainly, the majority were men- but a high percentage were women and also couples who enjoyed visual erotica together.

But really- and I think gay male porn illustrates this as well as anything- I do believe men's brains are generally wired more for visual arousal and stimulation. It's funny, because one of the chief complaints about porn that you hear in these threads is that it "promotes unrealistic expectations or images of women." Frankly, I think it's unrealistic to expect that heterosexual men won't ever be turned on by the sight of a naked woman. The vast majority of hetero men have gotten off and do on occasion get off to images of naked women or women having sex. (The rest do also, they just lie about it.) It's perfectly normal, and it's not because all men are "programmed by the patriarchy" :eyes: to get aroused at the sight of a naked woman.

Authors like the one quoted in the OP, as well as pro-censorship crusaders like Dworkin and MacKinnon, promote unrealistic expectations or images of men by imagining that with enough lecturing and re-education somehow men are all of a sudden going to stop being wired for visual arousal.

[Lurking Dem]

579. Not to mention

one of the biggest complaints I hear from men about porn is, "she has fake tits!"

Most of them prefer very real women and many producers are now insisting on just that.

[TheFriendlyAnarchist]

664. !

:toast: :thumbsup: :thumbsup:

[Supersedeas]

735. for some people, the very act of having sex to fulfill a purely sexual drive is demeaning

ie. sex that is not motivated by mutual romance and mutual affection is demeaning....even when the act is nothing more than fulfilling a mutual animalistic drive....it is the depiction of human nature as something akin to animal nature that many find demeaning.

i think you will find a bit of this sentiment in the article.

[Iris]

421. ok, so then where does the term "porn culture" come from?

Porn is becoming more and more mainstream. And to act like some people who view porn might not be able to distinguish between fact and fiction is what is non-sensical.

WHAT is your problem with my having an opinion different from yours?

[The Magistrate]

364. Several Reasons Come To Mind, Ma'am

The most important of which are that a number of such expressions press on beyond stating a personal taste to claim that the speaker's personal taste should be normative for all, that persons whose tastes run in other directions than the speaker's are doing great and wide harm to society at large, and that persons who state they are making free choices to participate in an activity are not really making free choices but in the grip of some disturbed mental state.

[Iris]

422. Right. And those are good points. But there are also many people who find porn

disturbing and they have a right to say that AND are sometimes treated as if their saying that is somehow interfering with someone else's participating in it.

I don't understand why the total acceptance of porn is so important to some people that they will not see or respect the fact that for some (maybe even many?) women, some pornographic images are disturbing.

[The Magistrate]

450. There Are Pornographic Images That Disturb Me, Ma'am

Doubtless some that do not, disturb others. Much of it simply passes my understanding: it is impossible for me to comprehend what the appeal is to those that enjoy them. But the only action any of this moves me to is avoidance, which is easily achieved.

Part of the problem is that when someone denounces something in extreme and condemnatory terms, many people expect there is a next step looming, namely a call for some sort of action against the thing so roundly denounced. If someone says that something contributes greatly to an acknowledged social ill, that it is an abusive exploitation, that it poisons daily life, and the inner life of individuals exposed to it, is it not natural to assume that if they really mean these things, they will want something done to end it? This will engage the liberal impulses of many against restrictions imposed on expression, whether artistic or sexual as they conceive it, and move them to defend peremptorily against something they conceive as more typical of the right than the left. The charges will also seem to many to be totally contrary to their own experience of the thing denounced, the way a person who may have a couple of drinks on a Saturday evening and has done so for years would regard a blood and thunder temperance lecture on Demon Rum, promising doom and damnation from a single whiff of whiskey. A great many people, after all, have some exposure to pornography, and do not feel their actions, or their sexuality, shaped to damnable forms because of it. People pick up useful rules of thumb on their journey through life, and one of the commonest and most useful is that persons crusading to save others from moral peril are usually wrestling with some inner demon of their own, and so are not to be trusted too far in the matter that so concerns them. The frequency with which 'family values' types are caught with prostitutes of all genders and in adulteries of various sorts illustrates the principle, but there is no reason to suppose it operates only in that direction. Rightly or wrongly, many suspect that feminist crusaders against pornography are simply exposing a certain unease concerning sexuality, particularly male sexuality, in themselves, and discount what they say on the subject accordingly.

[mondo joe]

410. Is disapproving of abortion a way for women to be empowered?

Or is it another intrusion into purely personal matters?

[Iris]

423. Again, if someone is disturbed by the idea of abortion, but is not suggesting it should not

be legal, than why can't that opinion be respected?

[mondo joe]

430. Why should any opinion be respected? It only matters that the right to an opinion is

respected - and you have that right. And others have a right to disagree and disrespect it.

Personally, I can't respect any opinion that is about other people's consensual personal choices.

[Iris]

436. Damn. This isn't even about opinions. It's about someone else's feelings.

Feelings are not exactly opinions and if some women feel bad when they see pornographic images, can THAT be respected, at least?

[mondo joe]

438. I don't know why you think it's important for strangers to respect your feelings.

Do you think it's equally important that you respect the feelings of others? Or is it a one-way thing for you?

(In the interest of full disclosure: I don't much much stock in feelings as matters of public discourse.)

[Warren DeMontague]

441. So the next time some self-righteous fundy starts a thread lecturing women re: the evil of abortion

yet prefaces it with, "I grudgingly concede it probably ought to remain legal. I just think it's wrong and awful and evil--- and women who have them should be ashamed of themselves"... You would respect that opinion? Really? That's all you would have to say on the matter- "I respect your opinion"... ...Really?

Because I wouldn't. Shit, I think we've had threads like that. I might say that I'm glad that person is marginally pro-choice, just like I'm glad the overwhelming majority of people on DU accept that consenting adults should have the right to look at pictures of other consenting adults fucking without the Dworkin-Mackinnon censorship squad deciding what is permissible to get turned on by and what isn't.

But if someone came out lecturing women who had abortions about their moral inferiority, I'd still probably tell that person to stuff a sock in it... That's MY opinion.

Don't like abortion? Don't have one. Don't like porn? Don't watch it.

[qdemn7]

443. Because it's usually

Very short steps from (a) Person finds _________ disturbing (b) Person fixates on __________ (c) Person proposes _________ be restricted "For the good of _________".

What all this really translates into is Person is offended and thus believes they have some sort of Right Not To Be Offended. And I DO NOT have to respect that opinion. I'm fucking sick and tired of zealots across the political spectrum who want to ban things they find offensive.

[Katherine Brengle]

66. "In most of the world..." I hate to break it to you, but it's not just "most" of the

world. It's virtually if not ALL of the world, including the good old USA.

It's not empowering to only be useful as a sex object. It's not power. It doesn't have shit to do with women's sexuality.

It's about the need, in a patriarchal society, for men to dominate women, often in the most painful and cruel ways possible.

[Name removed]

105. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Triana]

126. Exactly - it is about men having power and control over women...

...and men do that in every society, in every way possible: via government, legally, socially, financially, sexually.

It ain't about sex: It's about power and control.

[Help me help Earth]

134. It's not about power and control if the women are in control of their own lives.

Women are choosing to do porn for plenty of reasons, some good, some bad.I'm glad we live in a society where they are empowered with that choice. It's not my place to judge them. It is my place to point out that trying to protect them from themselves is the same kind of twisted rational used to justify an untold number of cruelties inflicted on women over the past few thousand years.

[Triana]

135. What PLANET do you live on, Mr?

ON THIS ONE, women DO NOT have power and control over their own lives or even their own BODIES without government interference!

Have you NOTICED?!

Gooood grief!


And this is the SAME society that EXPLOITS and ABUSES women sexually too and that's what this is about.

Don't waste your time trying to sell that jizz to me as some sort of "women's liberation" because I don't SWALLOW that.


Sell it to Monica, Mister.

[Help me help Earth]

139. LOL. Cute play on words, but you miss the point.

Look at the two pictures again. In most of the world women would be killed for doing porn, and are killed for much, much less. A society that accepts pornography is a society that accepts that female sexuality is completely natural instead of a shameful secret. Denouncing porn is just as harmful to womens rights as denouncing female doctors and lawyers.

[Triana]

144. Well we didn't miss YOURS though, did we?

:rofl:

Byeeeeeeee!

[eastsyde]

146. I don't get it? What is the big deal with porn?

Help me made a good point. A societies attitude towards porn seem to correlate with their overall view of women; the more accepting of pornography a society is, they more accepting it is of liberated women in general.

You might find it degrading, but as mondo joe pointed out many bigoted men find homosexuality degrading. Their lack of understanding does not make them right.

[Triana]

152. Well Mr. "Help me Help Earth", didn't take you long to re-register under a different name did it?

I've alerted an admin...

[eastsyde]

158. He's my room mate, and this account predates his by weeks if not months.

He's openly bi, and that gives him a better view of societal gender issues the average man. Neither one of us understand why he got banned. Perhaps you can explain before you try to get my account kicked too?

[Triana]

201. "better view of societal gender issues the average man"

Pfft! I think not. You (HE) haven't a CLUE. And if you can't figure out why your porn buddy (which is probably YOU) got banned I'm not going to try to explain it to you.

Your (apparent) double-teaming against the women here and promotion of sexual abuse of them has been noted. I'm putting you on ignore because I can't stomach anymore of you.

Don't you have a porn site you can go hang out at?

[Name removed]

218. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Iris]

269. Where can we find proof that a society's acceptance of porn correlates to is overall view of women?

I don't get this at all. Because, quite honestly, I don't think most men who watch porn would be all that comfortable with their sisters or daughters expressing their sexuality in that manner.

[pitohui]

414. yes most normal men don't want to see their sisters or daughters having sex and that proves WHAT?

i would hope their sisters and daughters enjoy sex anyways, even kinky sex if they are so inclined that way

[Iris]

424. That perhaps we are not as enlightened as we think we are just because we look at porn.

And I didn't say that men should want to see their sisters and daughters HAVE sex, I said would they like it if their sisters and daughters made these kinds of movies. My guess is most men would not. So, if it's so empowering, why would men not think it is ok for the women they really care about and (hopefully) see as co-humans, to participate in this activity as well?

[mondo joe]

521. You missed the boat. Porn is not empowering, per se. Owning your own body and making your own

choices is. And for some that may include making porn. For others it may mean choosing abortion. For some it may be celibacy. For others it may be the military.

I can think of a very long list of things I'd rather my daughter's didn't do.

But the most important thing is that it's their body and their life - not mine. And not yours.

[MGB4EVA]

702. While I don't want to see a porn of my mother or sister,

I do want to see a porn of your mother and sister!

Somebody had to bat that softball out of the park. 1st post!

[baby_mouse]

284. If the women in question have made an informed choice...

Then I simply cannot see that you are talking about anything outside your own head.

[mzmolly]

483. The problem is - 1. The fact that it's an informed choice is not apparent.

And 2. Some women have come out of the industry closet and said they have not consented to all that has happened to them.

[Threedifferentones]

638. IMO one big reason discussions about porn are always so divisive and confusing

are that everyone has their own, often times unspoken, conception of what "mainstream" porn is. I have absolutely no doubt that there have been women who were truly victimized on video that was sold to horny audiences. But at the same time the parties responsible must not have been part of a full-time, professional porn studio, because they would have to dodge the inevitable complaints and investigations by remaining a "fly-by-night" sort of operation, ie mostly on the net and off the record.

I am reminded of a debate I went to see at my university between Ron Jeremy and an anti-porn campaigner; it became immediately apparent to me that the they would never get anywhere because even though RJ has been in hundreds or thousands of pornos they have all been (I think) pretty "basic" and "tame," as in just happy sex between consenting adults.

[mzmolly]

658. Actually, the party in question was a big time porn star/promoter.

His name fails me, but due to complaints the FBI raided his offices last year. They interviewed women who spoke about how they were treated by him, and many refused to work for him a second time. That said, sadly it's pretty tough to press rape charges under the circumstances even though various acts were brutal and non-consensual.

Peace

[Katherine Brengle]

210. Yep.

[baby_mouse]

291. Nope.

[eastsyde]

149. Do you honestly think women are only useful as sex objects?

Last I checked we lived in a country where a women in is charge of the legislature and a women is likely to be our next president. We certainly have room to improve, but your claim doesn't mesh with the reality of American life.

[Katherine Brengle]

211. I didn't say "I" think that at all.

I said that in society as a whole, this is the prevailing attitude.

A handful of women in powerful political positions isn't equality and power for all women - it's power for that handful of women. I applaud them and it's important for them to do what they do, but it's not sufficient.

[mzmolly]

313. From the article:

I am not suggesting all men use pornography, or that all men who use pornography want material in which women are hurt and humiliated, or that all men who use pornography are bound to then want to hurt and humiliate women. I am simply saying that much of the pornography in the United States records scenes of women being hurt and humiliated; that men masturbate to orgasm to those images; and that those men are not deviants but are acting on the cultural norms that are widely taught. And I am suggesting that these facts should matter to us; they should scare us.

The above, was written by a man.

[AikidoSoul]

738. She was writing about the OTHER part of society

Your focus on successful women is beside the point.

[Scout]

272. funny how all these "empowered" women in porn are empowered

by acting out MALE sexual fantasies!

I sure don't know any women who fantasize about a/several men coming in their faces, in their mouths, proving that they swallowed it.... I sure don't know any women who want to have all their holes filled at once and both hands busy....

Not any of my friends fantasize as above, nor have I ever read any erotica written by women where they fantasize as above.

And no, I'm not into stupid romance novels.

Most porn that I've seen is BORING ... she gives him head for an hour, he gives her face for maybe 1 minute and then she has a screaming orgasm and wants him to come on her.... :eyes:

[WhiteTara]

91. I beg to differ with your opinion of

pornography. You sound like an uninformed male, imho.

Here is an excerpt of socialogical studies regarding Femicide and its causes
http://www.pinn.net/~sunshine/book-sum/femicide.html

4) "A sense of entitlement is another cause of sexual terrorism. Many males believe they have a right to get what they want from females. If girls or women thwart them, some become violent, sometimes to the extent of committing femicide." page 18

5) "To see where these students get such gruesome ideas, we need only look to pornography and mass media "gorenography" (movies and magazines featuring scenes of sensationalized and eroticized violence). Like many feminists, we believe pornography is a form of antifemale propaganda, peddling a view of women as objects, commodities, "things" to be owned, used, and consumed while also promoting the logical correlates "all women are whores" and therefore to be hurt, raped, or even killed. Research indicates that objectifying, degrading, and violent images of women in pornography and gorenography predispose certain males to be turned on by rape and other violence against women and and/or undermine their inhibitions against acting out sexualized violence.

An FBI study of 36 sex killers found that pornography was ranked highest in a list of many sexual interests by an astonishing 81 percent." pages 18-19

6) "If all femicides were recognized as such and accurately counted, if the massive incidence of nonlethal sexual assaults against women and girls were taken into account, if incestuous abuse and battery were recognized as torture (frequently prolonged over years), if the patriarchal home were seen as the inescapable prison it so frequently becomes, if pornography and gorenography were recognized as hate literature, then we in the United States might have to acknowledge that we live in the midst of a reign of sexist terror comparable in magnitude, intensity, and intent to the persecution, torture, and annihilation of European women as witches from the fourteenth to the seventeenth centuries." page 20

7) "A femicidal culture is one in which the male is worshipped. This worship is obtained through tyranny, subtle and overt, over our bruised minds, our battered and dead bodies, and our co-optation into supporting even batters, rapists, and killers." page 21

snip
Advertising Femicide: Lethal Violence against Women in Pornography and Gorenography by Jane Caputi

1) Relationship between pornography and sexual violence:

" 1. In many cases, pornography actually is sexual violence, a document of actual degradation, rape, torture, and even murder (as in snuff film).

2. Pornography is used manipulatively to undermine women and children's capacity to avoid or resist abuse.

3. Pornography causes sexual violence through its capacities to normalize that violence, give ideas to receptive male viewers, and break down some men's personal and social inhibitions against behaving in a violent manner." page 203

[Duppers]

155. there are distinctions to be made in "porn"

See my post #150.

Perhaps that's a middle of the road answer, but I do not think ALL porn victimizes women. However, the type described in the OP's link certainly does.

There are certainly some insensitive, misogynistic men on this thread who cannot make distinctions!

And broad-brush, blanket answers do not cover all facets of this subject.

[eastsyde]

159. Who are you to make the distinction for us?

How much harm has been done in history by people who think they know best trying to regulate sexuality? When has it even been a good idea for a biased third party to step in and decide for others how they can freely use their own bodies?

[Name removed]

161. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[eastsyde]

162. So I can't have a motorcyle fetish?

There is a difference between regulating public safety issues and regulating peoples sex lives. Seat belts save lives, making people ashamed of who they are destroys them.

Male freepers seldom live with other men who wander the apartment in underwear smaller then my girlfriend wears*. Don't worry, I'm a liberal.




Banning HmhE was the worst thing that happened to me today, because now he is in my room. ;-)

[Duppers]

180. ha! how does that work?

glad you decided to use some humor.

To answer your question, I was answering YOUR FIRST question, "When has it even been a good idea for a biased third party to step in and decide for others how they can freely use their own bodies?" literally.

Still, you're throwing up straw-men.

[baby_mouse]

294. What humour?

How does ANY fetish work? There ARE people who have motorcycle fetishes. I used to date one of them, he was the president of one of the Gay Motorsports Clubs in Scotland.

What's funny about it?

Do you actually know anything about sex at ALL? Or are you just pulling stuff out of your ear?

You people are just offensive.

[Duppers]

297. "you people"??? you mean we women???

That statement says a lot about you!

And, you cannot get a joke! Yes, I know about motorcycle fetishes. It was a JOKE, duh!

[baby_mouse]

401. Of course I don't mean "you women". VERY OBVIOUSLY I mean YOU ANTI-PPORN PEOPLE.

ALL OF YOU.

DUH.

[Duppers]

478. hello, is this mike on?

having you been reading?

There is a lady on this thread disagreeing me because I don't condemn all erotica.

There you go with YOUR broad brushes!!!

[mzmolly]

314. I'd like more people to "freely use their own" brains.

Men spend $10 billion on pornography a year. 11,000 new pornographic films are made every year. And in those films, women are not people.

[GOTV]

420. Neither are the men people n/t

[mzmolly]

439. The men in such "mainstream" films are not being harmed, made to gag/cry in order to entertain and

arouse people on a mass level. They're not openly humiliated and called derogatory names like "whore/bitch/c*nt."

[mondo joe]

468. And yet that appears in gay porn.

And somehow gay men manage to regard each other as human beings, despite the porn.

[mzmolly]

476. Perhaps because men ARE equal

both in stature and strength? Perhaps that's because men raping other men is not very common? Perhaps that's because there is an understanding in gay porn that acts are consensual and one needn't appear to be a victim to arouse the audience?

[mondo joe]

479. Or perhaps it's because porn is just porn and doesn't have anything to do with how you

relate to others in your daily life.

[mzmolly]

485. Yes, perhaps the media has no influence what so ever, and we shant concern ourselves

with Faux News and/or media consolidation going forward.

[mondo joe]

487. In what ways do you believe you are brainwashed or mentally manipulated?

In what ways are your attitudes not really yours?

[mzmolly]

496. I'm not concerned about me, personally.

Neither is the author concerned about himself. In what ways are you not concerned about media consolidation and influence? I could swear propaganda was considered dangerous from a progressive stand point?

[mondo joe]

502. Really? So it's just the people you disagree with that are brainwashed?

Convenient.

Propaganda is a tool, and like all tools it can be dangerous. The article linked by the OP can be considered propaganda too.

[mzmolly]

504. Really? So propaganda is only that which you disagree with?

Convenient.

Strawmen are a tool, and tools can be dangerous. The article linked by the OP, can be considered thoughtful as well.

[mondo joe]

512. Where did you get that???? I never said propaganda is only what I disagree with.

And I wouldn't say it because I don't think it.

But the OP's article is not useful except as propaganda.

[mzmolly]

517. You said it twice.

the OP's article is not useful except as propaganda.

The OP's article is very useful, and I find the professors views refreshing - especially given the fact that he's a man and he "gets it."

[mondo joe]

519. But it is propaganda.

It does not follow that propaganda consists only of what I disagree with. That is an illogical and baseless conclusion on your part.

I'm not surprised you find it "refreshing" since it confirms your own beliefs, which have apparently been put into your head from some external source.

[mzmolly]

523. My beliefs are based upon personal experience.

As a women, I gather I've got an edge on you experience wise, when it comes to this article, huh?

[mondo joe]

524. Of course you think that. But y'know, you're just a media influenced person, subject

to all that brainwashing.

And as a man, I've got the edge when it comes to this article, since it's all about imagining what goes on in men's heads. (And by "men", I mean males without the author's pervy obsessions.)

[mzmolly]

529. No, I'm a person who's studied media influence and has looked at various research,.

And, I've lived long enough to form my own opinion and ponder various perspectives. Because I'm open minded, when I come to a thoughtful conclusion, I'm pretty comfortable with it.

As to your experience being a man, I'm going to defer to Mr. Jensen on his male experience as he's backed up his assertions in a thoughtful manner. However, I will defer to you on what it's like to be a "media influenced person, subject to brainwashing" as it would appear to fit in your particular case.

I will also say that I'm very sorry that you are unable to enjoy an intimate sexual relationship without pornography, it must get expensive and be a bit frustrating to boot? I guess that goes back to the old media influence thing though? :P

Night. :hi:

[mondo joe]

531. LOL! So again, those who disagree with you are only media influenced, but you are magically immune

Ha!

[mzmolly]

535. Not magically immune, thoughtfully immune - in this case.

:hi:

[mondo joe]

542. I guess the influenced always think they are thoughtful.

For some it's FOX news, for others Andrea Dworkin.

[mzmolly]

630. I hadn't a clue who Andrea Dworkin was until I started discussing the issues surrounding

violent Porn here at DU. It seems she's a convenient distraction? My opinion was fostered via thoughtful deliberation and personal experience living in the US today, as a woman.

[mondo joe]

635. When you decide to extend to others the same respect for their own thoughtfulness

and experience, you'll get the same.

But your attachment to this article, which has no scientific backing and relies on the author's psychic powers, is not a good support for your own thoughtfulness.

[mzmolly]

637. Justifying the oppression and humiliation of others is never thoughtful IMO.

I've read many articles Mondo Joe, this is but one.

I do thank you for engaging me in this important discussion.

Peace

[GOTV]

596. As a woman you have zero insight into what goes on in the heads on men watching porn...

... you're talking about things you can only imagine.

[mzmolly]

626. Perhaps you can enlighten me?

For example, what goes on in your mind when you see a woman brought to tears of pain/humiliated during sex? Further, I wonder if you can surmise what women might think/feel while seeing such a thing in a mainstream porn video?

[GOTV]

673. Probably not, you don't seem the least bit interested in learning.

You're more interested in mischaracterizing mainstream porn as being mainly about making women cry through pain and humiliation. That's not close to the porn I've seen. If you stop playing rhetorical games, you could be enlightened.

Point is, your opinion of what guys are thinking when they watch porn is worthless.

[mzmolly]

676. I never said that most mainstream porn is about making women cry.

Given you don't understand the crux of the concerns/issues stated in this conversation, I would say it is you that isn't interested in learning.

Point is, your opinion of what guys are thinking when they watch porn is worthless.

My opinion is never worthless.

[GOTV]

595. When you watch the news you may believe you're watching reality, when you watch porn...

... it's clear you are not.

[mondo joe]

601. True! Imagine my shock when I realized all those pizza boys, plumbers and police officers

were really just doing their jobs and not part of an elaborate set up for sex!

[GOTV]

604. Yes! Especially troubling in the cop scenario....

... but I can't help it, I saw it in a porno, now I believe it.

[mondo joe]

605. And to add to my confusion, he WAS willing to use the handcuffs - but not any of what

he was supposed to do after!

[Lurking Dem]

486. Shoot.

Here I was, using it as a primer.

"Gee it's hot in here. Let me take off my blouse." /deadpan

[GOTV]

589. Men who look at hetero porn ALSO manage to still see women as HUMANS...

Imagine that, adults being able to separate fantasy and reality.

[GOTV]

588. They ALSO are NOT presented as PEOPLE

And your bottom of the barrel examples are not representative.

[Raster]

497. You paint with the broadest of strokes again, as usual.

You find one horse to ride and ride that pony to death.

"And in those films, women are not people." Really, all of those films. You know this? And you do realize the statement about men spending $10 billion on "pornography," is also broad strokes again, not taking into account various forms of erotica, various subject matter, various sexual configurations. Your assumption that all erotica victimizes women is ignorant at best.

Allow me to paint in broad strokes. You seem to have issues with men and sexuality. I suggest therapy.

[WhiteTara]

402. when the only thing of value is your holes

I think that is dehumanization...no matter "how liberated" you think some ACTRESS is.

[GOTV]

599. And if you're a hand model? They're equally dehumanized! We must stop jewelry ads....

... they are a scourge.

[phylny]

590. Bravo! and Bravo to Scout as well.

I've watched porn, albeit years ago when it was a lot tamer than it is today. My biggest problem with porn is that if boys and young men view it, and what they know about sex and a sexual relationship is what they see in porn, then what do they expect when they meet a girl or young woman? Do they expect to see and experience what they saw in today's porn?

I have a friend whose husband watched lots of internet porn. This friend, far from being "prudish," had been sexually active before marriage, had other partners, and before the internet porn obsession of her husband, had a very happy, active sex life with him. But he started watching so much porn, that he began to expect her to act in ways that he saw the porn "actresses" act, and his whole demeanor toward her began to change as well. It was one factor among many that has led to the deterioration of their marriage.

[Help me help Earth]

97. Why the hell was my post with pictures deleted?

It might have been graphic, but it did more to prove my point then anything else on this thread. For those who didn't see it before it was censored, I contrasted the freedom expressed by a Victoria Secret model with a girl who was stoned to death because she wanted to marry freely. Deleting it is completely ridiculous. That was the single most important post on this thread. I'm literally sick it is gone.

:grr: :grr: :grr: :grr: :grr:

[TalkingDog]

114. Ummm...get some ice water. Your pics are there. You just lost track of them.

I think you posted them in response to the wrong thread.




My Favorite:http://ghostwomanstudios.com"> Master Artist: Karen Parker GhostWoman Studios

[Help me help Earth]

115. I reposted them. The second time they didn't get touched.

[TalkingDog]

122. Ah... Well, welcome to DU!

My Favorite:http://ghostwomanstudios.com"> Master Artist: Karen Parker GhostWoman Studios

[mzmolly]

280. LOL, porn is the liberation of women.

That is rich.

[Raster]

491. Well actually, mzmolly, women creating their own erotica can be quite liberating

for them. Or are you saying it isn't?

[mzmolly]

506. I'm not saying any such thing. In fact, I'm glad women are infiltrating

the industry, as it may bring more balance. Though I'm not a porn fan personally.

[Skittles]

500. LOL - WHAT A PANTLOAD

go wack off somewhere :puke:

[AikidoSoul]

716. Most men are still stuck in Neanderthal Mode when it comes to sex

It is fair to say that many people need these cruel domination images because they are stuck in an early state of development. It's a gross immaturity and failure to develop a positive self concept and the ability to value others, that drives them to relieve sexual needs with cruel images.

People who don't like themselves usually can't love anyone and are unable to have transcendent sex. Feelings of inadequacy drive them to use cheap images of themselves in a "powerful" position where they have the ability to hurt others. A highly developed man or woman would find this disgusting.

There are lots of Neanderthal men and women around. Women are too accepting of the trend of hateful domination.

And it's becoming worse. Raping women and children is increasingly part of the porn culture, and like the article says, there is an increasing drive by porn users for more extreme scenes. That would include pain and humiliation. Although pictures of child sex are illegal, the web has hundreds of sites that provide stories about men raping women brutally, even killing them in the process. There are also hundreds of stories about men with very large penises having sex with very small underage girls and boys that cause them to scream in pain.

What is wrong with a society that needs cruel domination as stimulation?

The best kind of sex is not domination and cruelty, but sex with pure connection between two people who value themselves and each other. It's very much like a dance where you can't tell who is leading and who is following. Ecstatic sex is when the brain actually turns off completely and both persons go into a state akin meditation. In this state it's possible to feel deeply and to have incredibly deep, satisfying orgasms.

The danger is when you NEED images or conjured thoughts about hurting others to push oneself into orgasm.

It's a widespread sickness in this sick society.

An anthropologist once joked that he had "found the missing link between Anthropoid Ape and civilized man".

It's us.

[Lurking Dem]

729. You are fucking clueless

about the BDSM community.

[AikidoSoul]

736. What if I fantasize sexual humiliation of your kids? Wife? Other special person in your life?

You might stop feeling as generous and O.K. about this domination/ humiliation/ hurting addiction and it's value to humankind as you apparently do now.

I doubt if you would perceive the person having these fantasies as "sexually liberated" either -- whether the person was male or female.

The reason you would feel different about family members being fantasy objects is because you care about them and at the deepest level of your being don't want them to become fantasy objects subjected to pain and humiliation -- even if in somebody's mind.

Do you think that after having these sick fantasies about your loved ones that I'd be able to relate to them in a normal way if I was your neighbor? Business associate? Other?

I don't think so. I think these behaviors hurt all of us at a level little understood (or discussed) by most of us. And it's obvious by many of the posts here that we are generally blind to the effects of denigrating sex on our own psyches.

Responding to your statement:

"Pornography is not about denigrating women at all."

Pornography that depicts women and/or children, either in pictures or in print, as sexually humiliated and hurt, is damaging to both those who are objects of aggression, and those women and men who need those images to reach an orgasm.

Even if the degrading images used for stimulation are done with another partner during or before sex -- both become disconnected emotionally to the other person -- they become two people jerking off to exterior images of people humiliated and hurt. The disconnect from the other, along with these images of pain are dehumanizing. Those needing the porn become like meat to be used and discarded after the "abstract" fantasy is over.

Many of these images are like drugs to many people who cannot have an orgasm on their own through pure feeling and connecting.

Sad.

That in and of itself is one of the most significant things about the damage that porn does. It causes a laziness of the soul, heart, body and mind. It keeps one forever in a primitive stage of human development. Sex is an opportunity for integration. Pornography is a splintering of the mind, body and spirit.

Anything that depicts women or children either in pictures or in words (word only story lines for child porn that include rape and mutilation are completely legal) is harmful to the human spirit. Most of the porn to day seems extreme, depicting human beings as objects of violence, denigration, and hatred. The denigration is obvious to anyone with a brain. Calling women and young girls "sluts", "whores, bitches, cum-queens, daddy's little fuck-face, daddy's little slut, etc. -- are hurtful to all of of the human family.

This drug addiction to these images and words cause us to fail to work toward a deeper psychological commitment and relationship with persons who can become, or are already of value in our lives. It also keeps us from developing a self concept that evolves into caring about oneself.

People who do not love and value themselves are incapable of loving and cherishing others.

Narcissists and sadists also fall into this category.

People who are scarred and emotionally numb -- for a variety of reasons also get hooked on these images. Many times they imagine themselves as victims of pain, and even need pain in order to feel anything.

Some folks say that they have ugly bodies and they need the images to get "off" -- and some even confess that they like the idea of humiliation because they are victims of humiliation psychologically all the time -- and at some level feel good about getting even -- through humiliating others, if only in fantasy.


and then you said,

"We should embrace pornography for what it truly represents; the sexual liberation of women.
Pornography is not about denigrating women at all. It is about men wanting to masturbate and
women who are confident and empowered enough to make money off of their bodies. They have
every right to do so and we should applaud that."

Many of the women who do porn for a living are desperate. I cannot imagine that they are liberated in any way. Most of them are trapped for a variety of societal and economic reasons.

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

2. Wow. Just wow

I have known for years that men often look upon women only as sexual objects. I had no idea that hard core pornography was so demeaning. It made me ill to think that men in power might be watching this stuff. And it makes me wonder why girls' fashions are often seen as making them look like little prostitutes--or the fashion demand that women wear provocative clothing. To my mind, wearing such clothing is simply part of the patriarchal culture that demands that women be judged only on their physical appearance. I know that yesterday there was much joking and putting down of modest clothing for women--that it somehow demeaned women to wear long skirts and dresses, and something on their head. I take it as liberating, myself--by dressing modestly, I know that the men I work around are looking at the person, and not objectifying me. Now that I've found out about hard core videos, I'm doubly glad I dress in a modest manner.

[noamnety]

36. I know the post you are talking about

What struck me there was the sense of superiority that folks manage to hang onto when judging women from other cultures. We look at cultures where women wear modest clothing, and we call them backwards.

Not so long ago, American women covered up almost all of our bodies, and we looked at those cultures where the women didn't as backwards.

It's pretty much a universal thing that the women I hang out with dread shopping for bathing suits. Magazine articles come out each spring advising us how to not be hideously ugly in a bathing suit. http://lifestyle.msn.com/beautyandfashion/personalstyle/staticslideshowoprah.aspx?cp-documentid=4950380>1=10113

Page 2 of that link suggests that we bring spiky heels to the dressing room to try on bathing suits - so we don't look like our ugly short squat selves, because that would hurt our confidence. And this, you know, this requirement not to show any cellulite while wearing skimpier and skimpier clothes, while attaching spikes to our heels because without them we can't bear to look at ourselves in the mirror, this is liberation.

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

45. Not wearing spike heels is liberation

I've never been able to wear heels, much less spike heels. They aren't good for your feet, anyway. They are created solely for "style". Whose style I've never quite figured out.

People from other cultures watch our movies and draw erroneous conclusions about us. I've known women on pilgrimage in India who were constantly hit on by Indian men because they assumed all American women are promiscuous. The only way they were able to stop them was to had tasbe out and be doing zkr with eyes down OR have a male friend pose as their fiancee. When people of other cultures get past the movies, they are confronted with the MSM hype and their tendency to objectify women by featuring ones parading around in scanty clothing and who bounce from bedroom to bedroom. And then, to top it off, many Americans belittle other cultures (ever hear of the Ugly American?), and have this strange notion that the American way is the best. And we wonder why people in other parts of the world look down upon us.

[knitter4democracy]

93. I hear that. I've been told by Russian men that American women are sluts.

That's what they saw in our movies, anyway, and they were surprised when we weren't.

Oh, and I totally agree on the heels. I can't wear much of a heel, either, and I started wondering how stilletos were any different from foot binding in China. Same effect--swaying hips and slower prey.

[raccoon]

213. I think lots of foreign men get the idea from the movies that American women are sluts. nt

[Sparkly]

440. I never thought of it that way.

Clothes that cover vs. clothes that don't, and judging others as backwards. That's true! Don't people still consider tribes where women bare their breasts as primitive or backwards, AND cultures where women wear veils or burkas?

I think, like so many other things, it comes down to choice. I've SO often wished I could take my shirt off on a hot summer day, as men can. And on the other hand, I've also wished bathing suits were made like the old 1920s ones, like unitards that extend to little shorts.


http://www.fashion-era.com/swimwear.htm

(Edited to take out too-large photo, but that and similar ones are here: http://www.coololdstuff.com/bathing.html)

[Katherine Brengle]

60. If only it were that simple --

merely knowing that you are indeed a woman is enough.

And in many cases, a woman who does not dress and behave as expected by patriarchal standards will get hassled a lot more (at least in a more overtly negative fashion) than a woman who acts as if she knows her proper place in the hierarchy.

But yes, it's like a kick in the stomach when you realize that there are really men out there who hate you because you are a woman.

And it's terrifying to think that any man I come across, he could be a teacher or a minister or a doctor, could have been "indulging" in this kind of woman-hating and then come to try to relate to me as a human being. How do they see me? What are they really thinking after seeing a woman treated like a tube sock? How can they possibly see me as a fully sovereign human being after that?

[mondo joe]

73. I'll help you out with this one.

As a gay man I've seen my share of porn.

And it has never prevented me from relating to another man as a human being, or a fully sovereign one at that.

[gollygee]

78. That isn't necessarily a parallel situation

with heterosexual porn, part of what is involved is the inherent power differential between men and women.

I'm not an expert so I can't say there aren't any comparisons to be made, because I honestly don't know, but it isn't necessarily the case that these issues regarding hetero porn would translate into similar issues in gay porn.

[hfojvt]

101. did you see the recent study

showing that women were dominant in most marriages? I think you miss the fact that in man-woman relations unless the man is an Adonais or really, really rich, the woman has the power. Thus, in this fantasy world men get to imagine they have power until the movie is over and reality re-asserts itself. Walter Mitty had the secret life, not Mrs. Mitty.

[raccoon]

215. That hasn't been my experience!

And Walter Mitty is fictional, for gosh sake.

[noamnety]

720. While I disagree with you in this thread

I was definitely in agreement with you in the thread where Paris Hilton was in jail, and the DU pitchfork crowd was out saying that she shouldn't have a problem with guards taking photos of her on the toilet and broadcasting them widely, since her boyfriend had already released a sex video of her (without her permission, mind you). You were saying there should be a clear distinction between what was consensual and what wasn't, and you were ticked off (as was I) that people couldn't tell the difference.

The thing is, I see that pattern played out again and again, with women who have done porn, and even with women who haven't. Most people don't seem to be able to grasp that distinction. One woman I know posed 5 years, 10 years ago, I forget how long ago, for a small online company. She did it consensually, absolutely. Then the owners (men) screwed her over on the payment, so her parting ways with them was a giant FU from them to her. Now, all this time later, she works with a well known charity, and has just been accepted to a PhD program. And in the community I know her from, if there is a disagreement with her, the guys will gang up on her and call her a slut, a whore, so on and so forth. There is nothing empowering in that, it's something that will be used against her in that community forever, and it wouldn't matter if she won the nobel peace prize, they would still be treating her with contempt for that.

[qdemn7]

79. What other people are really thinking

Is none of your business. Unless you want to start engaging in thought / mind control. Do you?

[mondo joe]

80. I think the answer to that question is pretty self evident. NT

[hfojvt]

104. I think being aware that there are in fact

sadistic pigs in the world is kind like how the woman felt in the book "Twilight eyes" which tells of sadistic goblins that could assume human form. Most of the time you are safe, in public, etc. But what if you unknowingly become friends or lovers with such a person. Dean Koontz also wrote in "Dark Rivers of the Heart" about a woman who unknowingly married a serial killer. This seems to be true here in the KC area, the college freshman who was kidnapped, raped, and murdered - her assailant was a married man and a father. Same with the a$$hat who killed Ally Kemp. He was living with a woman when they found him in Connecticut.

But this really goes both ways, since my sister had a female friend who later seemed kinda psycho and she said 'she had babysat my kids'. Same with my uncle, now that he is divorced his 2nd ex wife seems like a total user, took him for about $80,000.

[Duppers]

160. then you don't give a flying fuck what we think of you!

:evilfrown:

eat and go away.

[Katherine Brengle]

214. What are you talking about?

It shouldn't matter to me that men in positions of power and control over parts of my life might see me as an object and not a human being?

So sorry for being confused about that.

:eyes:

[qdemn7]

235. Unless they artculate it openly

Or attempt to lay hands on you, what they think is personal.

You know this whole thread smacks of Dworkinite / MacKinnnonite rhetoric from the 80s. To wit, all heterosexual men are rapists / beasts or potential rapists / beasts (excepting of course, the ones who are SO enlightened, like Jensen), and all women are victims or helpless potential victims. All heterosexual intercourse is rape. Furthermore you say "and was not invented by me for the sole purpose of indicting male DUers", as this somehow excuses this. So what, this is still blatant misandry. :puke:

And with crap like this women wonder why men avoid commitment. :banghead: You know, if being gay was really a choice, I think I'd choose to be gay. Certainly would be fewer problems being viewed as a potential rapist / beast. I guess I would have to wear a pink triangle to be sure though, huh? Certainly wouldn't want you to mistake me for a potential beast. :puke:

[stevedeshazer]

87. Honest question here

Reading all your posts here about men, you seem to have a genuine dislike for them.

Why?

[ProudToBeBlueInRhody]

145. Funny, but if I ever knowingly came across you.....

....I'd wonder if you were scared of me and why. It would disappoint me greatly, because I am friendly and respectful and of sound and clear mind. I have no interest in objectifying women, only either getting to know them or not, depending on how their personality strikes me. The same as I would any man.

You seem to be in fear of men. This comes across in so many of your posts, and clearly I'm not the only one who notices.

If I came on here and said I get nervous about black men coming up to me on the street in a high crime urban area, because I thought they were going to mug me, I'd be labeled a racist. If a man came on here and talked in the same tone about women that you talk about men, he'd be called out as a mysoginist. Don't you see how you are feeding into a system of fear? It's no different than what the administration does with people of Middle Eastern descent. Some of them committed terrorist acts, now they want us to fear them all, and profile them all. Some men have committed rape. Some men watch disgusting humiliating porn. Why do you want to instantly profile them all based on what a small segment does?

[Katherine Brengle]

652. I'm so pleased that you are *concerned* for me.

"If I came on here and said I get nervous about black men coming up to me on the street in a high crime urban area, because I thought they were going to mug me, I'd be labeled a racist. If a man came on here and talked in the same tone about women that you talk about men, he'd be called out as a mysoginist. Don't you see how you are feeding into a system of fear?"

I'm married to a man. I have men in my life who I trust (as much as any woman can living under patriarchy) and I do not have problems with men in general.

I have a huge issue with the patriarchy and its effects on women AND men.

I focus on women because bear the brunt of the negative effects of patriarchy.

I am not being sexist, I am being realistic about who is privileged in our society and who is not.

A man cannot come in here and simply switch "men" to "women" in something I've written and be saying something truthful - because men are not the oppressed class i a patriarchy.

Until we stop granting one half of the population importance and dominance over the other half, I will not stop talking about this and acting against it. And no, I'm not "feeding into a system of fear" - I'm feeding into a revolution.

[hfojvt]

98. what the article does not say

is how many men are into the hard-core stuff.

"It hurts women, and men like it, and it hurts just to know that.

Even these women, who have found ways to cope with the injuries from male violence in other places, struggle with that. It is one thing to deal with acts, even extremely violent acts. It is another to know the thoughts, ideas, and fantasies lie behind those acts."

"Men like it." Really? All men?

"People routinely assume that pornography is such a difficult and divisive issue because it’s about sex. I think that’s wrong. This culture struggles unsuccessfully with pornography because it is about men’s cruelty to women, and the pleasure men sometimes take in that cruelty. And that is much more difficult for people -- men and women -- to face."

"men's cruelty to women"

How nice that it is all one way, apparently. There is no men's cruelty to men, or women's cruelty to women (see the movie 'Mean Girls' except that leaves out the final possibility) or finally women's cruelty to men.

It calls the pornography 'mainstream' and mentions $10 billion in annual sales. Which would be 100 million men spending $100 a year or 10 million men spending $1000 a year, on average. If that's worldwide sales, then what is the percentage? Out of perhaps 400 million men of the age and income level anywhere from 2.5 - 25%. And I am not sure if that is just those videos or all of the industry from Playboy to the hardcore.

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

198. The fact that even a group of men buy into this

is what bothers me. Of course not all men are this way--I am married to an honorable man who would never hurt me or any woman, and who honors all women. But he told me that once, when he was a young man, he had a girlfriend who had been beaten and abused as a child. She left him because he wouldn't abuse her--to her, it wasn't love unless you were injured. That is not healthy and not normal. I wouldn't be surprised if the women exploited in these films came from similar backgrounds.

[gollygee]

209. Your numbers are a little off

there are 600 million people in the US. Of those 300 million are male of any age and income level. I have no idea what percentage of them are of the age and income level you're thinking, but you can't start with 400 million.

[Terran]

317. Um, there are not 600 million people in the US

US population just recently hit 300 million. Check the US Census site if you're in doubt.

In fact, never mind, go here: http://www.census.gov/

It's in big easy-to-see numbers. :eyes:

My two cents on this discussion: as with some other issues frequently discussed at DU, a lot of people have a totally black and white view of things, which is neither logical nor rational. The fact is, porn that does injure or humiliate women *in reality*, as opposed to mere acting, is very undesirable, as is men's enjoyment of such. I do not believe that porn in general conditions men to be this way; it's nature and parental values and experience that do that. Having seen a lot of porn in my life, straight and gay, it's clear to me that most porn is *not* about power or humilation; it about nothing more complicated than the primitive pleasure of penetration and being penetrated. As long as that's consensual, all these arguments about all porn being denigrating to women are pure bullsh*t.

As for women actually working in the porn industry, it's a similar gray area: some are no doubt exploited while others are not. Which is the same with a great many other lines of work, for both men and women. I don't see that it's special in that regard.

(Edit for "pron" :lol:)

[gollygee]

319. OK, then his numbers are a *lot* off

rather than a little off.

[leftyladyfrommo]

224. Boy, I'm with you on this one.

Being free to dress like a prostitute doesn't equal any kind of true freedom.

Pornograpy demeans everyone it touches.

[Jed Dilligan]

4. Article loses me

snip

Under what conditions can the consent of people involved in acts that may be detrimental to their own well-being be questioned?

snip


I'm against it period. It's the logic of Prohibition and the War on Drugs. It doesn't work, will never work, fuck the authors for bringing it up yet again when everyone KNOWS it doesn't work.

Lots of stuff bothers me. Thomas Kinkade paintings bother me. If he didn't break the law to make them, he can go on making them. His freedom to make bad art, pornographers' freedom to show rough sex, and my freedom to post on DU are EXACTLY THE SAME FREEDOM.

When will people finally get that through their heads?

[SeattleGirl]

10. I'm with you, Jed.

If a man or woman chooses to participate in pornographic movies, who cares? It's freedom of choice. I've watched several shows about people in the porn industry, and it was clear to me that they made the choice to do that of their own accord.

There are, of course, exceptions (as there are in many things), and that would be where someone truly WAS forced to participate against their will, and child porn. Those, I draw the line on.

But as a female, I don't feel demeaned by porn in general. I know who I am, and I'm comfortable with myself.

[pitohui]

13. well there's pretty stringent testing these days to be sure anal/d.p. DON'T harm your health

a star's career is over if she is infected w. hiv/aids, and considering how seldom you hear of a star getting infected these days, i have to assume that they take these precautions very seriously

they are not showing s/m anyway -- the definition of rough sex has actually retreated since the 60s and 70s, hence the over-emphasis to my mind in straight porn on anal sex, which i believe would not have such a huge audience of curiosity seekers if those who were into s/m could have hardcore on their own terms telling their own genuine stories

[lumberjack_jeff]

65. The first sentence suggests that women are incapable of giving informed consent.

And this view is supposed to be a liberating stake in the heart of the patriarchy.

:shrug:

[mondo joe]

67. It's not only the far right that wants to control the bodies of others.

It's a very sad thing.

[TalkingDog]

74. Given the choice, I'd much rather outlaw Kinkade "art".

Tho' I don't watch porn either so...meh....

As long as everybody consents - even if it hurts- then go for it.

-and to those that would school me on: But...but....women are doing it to feed their families; they don't havea choice.

Yeah, they do. It may not be a choice they like. It may be an incredibly tough choice. But life is full of those.

-not a beliver in the Nanny State.

[Clark2008]

83. Well, I'm not a believer in the Macho State.

[TalkingDog]

110. Sorry, wrong gender... wrong temperament

Not macho, just immanently practical. There will always be tough choices. You can't protect people from those. It's paternalistic to try.

Attempting to slather on a heaping of guilt to an already emotional argument about "these women don't have choices because their lives are so hard" to try to sway the argument, frankly doesn't cut it. The toughness of their lives is immaterial in terms of their ability to chose a path and consent to an activity.

They make the choices they make. They may not be the best choices, or even good choices according to "our" standards of optimal living (again, I don't have a dog in this fight as long as there is consent) but those are the choices they make. Should we infantilze them by suggesting that they don't understand the ramifications of their choice? Should we protect them from the choices they DO make?

Why, how.....Republican of us.




My Favorite http://ghostwomanstudios.com">Master Artist: Karen Parker GhostWoman Studios

[Jed Dilligan]

147. I'm against both.

The stereotypes of both genders are odious, particularly as political models.

[Duppers]

163. a guy making distinctions

I applaud you. really. no sarcasm. :)

[Jed Dilligan]

230. What's your fetish for "distinctions"

Pretty kinky if you ask me. I wouldn't want to shake your hand.

[Duppers]

298. oh, I could make a joke here

but it wouldn't be appreciated.

I'm not going to take you or your post seriously. And as for kinky, I've nothing against it. :)

And as for my "distinctions"---the gals and some of the guys here know what I'm talking about.
Sorry it escapes you.

[Duppers]

482. ok, I'll do this

you wouldn't shake my hand???

Ha, I wouldn't shake your dick! AH

[Clark2008]

257. Thank you for understanding my point.

The other poster obviously didn't get it.

[hfojvt]

174. it's really more about what it does to the viewers

than what it does to the performers.

Yeah, yeah, we know there's no demonstrated proof of cause and effect. I am sure thousands of men can watch thousands of hours of that and still remain a gentleman and a scholar as well as a tender and loving husband and father.

I'm not sure how Kinkade would have the same effect any more than Def Leppard does. I cannot stand Led Zeppelin or Kenny G either, but I don't think they rise to the level of mental poison.

[Jed Dilligan]

178. You apparently think you're pretty fucking special.

The arbiter of what qualifies as "mental poison."

What is so bizarre is that you can't see how ANYONE being allowed to make this distinction will lead to the end of free speech. Of course our "liberal hate speech" is "mental poison" according to the Coulters, et al. of the world.

Do you really want to risk jumping on this slippery slope? The fascists are smiling, waiting for you to sign on to their cause.

[hfojvt]

191. well that's what Barney told me

Liberal hate speech is poison too. I wish people would stop spreading it.

Everyone is allowed to make this distinction. I may need to check, but I do not believe I have said anything in this thread about government restrictions. I mentioned my own personal business decision not to sell it. Mostly what I have been saying is just the simple proposition that the putrid sludge they are trowelling out is fu$%ing evil. It's poison. It should not be made. It should not be sold, and it should not be watched.

Whether that means it should be restricted by law is another question. I think some of your arguments against restriction are weak. This one, besides being a personal attack, is hyperbolic - fascists, the end of free speech, and censorship - oh my! Ann Coulter too, for good measure.

Currently it is against the law to own, make or distribute child pornography. And yet, and yet, free speech still exists, in some ways. TV has been censored since its inception and there are words not allowed to be said on the radio or TV. Granted, that censorship has been easing over time. It used to be a big deal when Archie Bunker flushed the toilet. Now they can practically take a crap on the camera lens, and there are even less restrictions on violence. But there are still some restrictions I guess - an appalling lack of topless women being one of them. In spite of all that, we still have the free speech we enjoy today.

But the ultimate case for censorship is this video.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L-HiCcyg_gk

The offense rests.

[Jed Dilligan]

225. Whatever

You lost me when you implied support for the War on Drugs in your first post.

[TalkingDog]

208. I can, without my tongue in my cheek, make a case for Kincade being mental poison.

And of the worst kind. Instead of showing you images of the degradation of others others - which many if not most, are instantly repelled by, Kincade shows you a cream-puff confection of non-reality.

It's the same argument people make about airbrushing models and impossibly beautiful porn stars: It can't exist, yet we see it on the page. It creates a desire for something we can't possibly have and leaves the uncritical viewer dissatisfied with bland and lumpy "reality".

People used to say similar things about Norman Rockwell. The difference is, Rockwell used real people, real places in their unvarnished nobbiness. The content may have been nostalgic, but it was based on life-experience, not an unthinking fantasy.

Kincade's images don't engage the viewer in a process in which they can be critical (thinking). They are like the fairy stories people tell their children, but without the underlying structure of mythos; denuding them of the ability to affect the viewer beyond a superficial rush of desire.

And also unlike Rockwell, Kincade developed his uber-fantasy-land with an eye only toward profit, pushing every manipulative button to sell his work. His manipulative tactics don't just apply to viewers and buyers but to the extent of damaging gallery owners and other artists. (trust me, I've seen his gallery contracts)

Basically, in laymen's terms, he's McDonalds. It's ubiquitous, it's greedy and corporate. It may satisfy a temporary hunger, but it is not nutrition.



My Favorite Master Artist, Karen Parker GhostWoman Studios

[Jed Dilligan]

240. I can add to that argument.

Kinkade is part of the Great Republican Myth--harkening back to a rose-colored time that never existed. Imprinting with his sort of imagery is a big part of what makes people vote Republican. This has been a huge part of their Big Lie since Reagan's era.

Kinkade's images are sexist and racist BECAUSE they are sexless and raceless. They speak of a neat and permanent order in which everyone is comfortable and nothing changes. It's one step away from saying, "If we just hadn't opened that whole civil rights can of worms..." In essence, they are conservative fantasy.

They also feed America's unhealthy addiction to the Home as fetish, investment, and focus of life.

Furthermore, I don't think porn ever destroyed a beautiful meadow:

http://dir.salon.com/story/mwt/style/2002/03/18/kinkade_village/index.html

[trekbiker]

260. You pretty much nailed Kincade...

and dont forget the religious angle, he really works that one over. I grew up with Kincade in a small California foothills town, Placerville. We even attended the same summer art camp as kids. In the beginning he was going to be a cartoonist. But he was always a master salesman and self promoter, even as a kid, and would have been a huge financial success in any type of sales field. I dont mind his kitschy, greeting card art, there's pleny of company there. What bothers me is the thousands of his reproductions selling for $500 - $1500 that could support untold numbers of truely deserving original artists out there. I know people who have $10,000 - $20,000 worth of his lithographs hanging in thier homes.. I sure hope they dont think its an "investment". Personally, I'm waiting for the official line of Kincade toilet paper to come out.

[TalkingDog]

398. Ha! "Kincade toilet paper." Yet, the thought is so vile, I wouldn't even wipe my arse with it.

Thanks for the chuckle.

My Favorite Master Artist: Karen Parker GhostWoman Studios

[hfojvt]

109. I don't think it's the same freedom

I think there is such a thing as nutritious food and such a thing as poison. Prohibting the sale of meth and regulating the purity of other food does not dimish freedom.

I was in the book business and I consider good books and true information to be like mental health food. Alternatively though, bad books and lies are like mental poison.

I was in the book business and wanted no part of the poison industry. A guy came in and ordered a book about how this guy makes his girlfriend a slave and at the end she says 'I love you'. I told him I could not get it. He's standing there with his daughter and I'm gonna sell him a book that says making somebody a slave is an expression of love? After they are made a slave they will say 'I love you'? Fuck that noise.

And your freedom to post on DU is restricted by the mods and the admins.

[Jed Dilligan]

129. Never mind.

We obviously have nothing to say to each other.

Your desire to impose your personal standards on others is noted, however.

[Madspirit]

8. k&r..n/t

[Mojambo]

12. This thread is going to get HOT!

Somebody get my video camera.

[pitohui]

14. yeah i'm almost tempted to say: "no sex threads" but i remembered in time it wasn't the lounge EOM

,

[bemildred]

17. Yeah, OK.

I'm a guy, and I like smut, and I agree with what she says. A lot of porn is offensive crap that encourages bad behavior.

[Tsiyu]

164. You are cool

:thumbsup:


When people defend even the worst porn, I lose interest :boring:

You can admit some of it is not responsible or produced ethically without destroying the Bill of Rights.

Given the pro and con arguments here, I would say I have much bigger issues - such as women's rights to birth control and safe abortion and pay equity - to jump up and down if there were tighter controls enforced on porn.

They're strangling the smokers and the tokers and the drinkers and the protesters so why not the smut merchants, too?

[bemildred]

261. Ditto that, Ghost.

:thumbsup:

[presspeal]

18. I had to force myself to write a response,

How easy is it to take something that indefensible and then use it to color ever thing in the area? Rove would be proud. Yes horrific Porn is out there and I'm sad to tell you that worse then you describe exist also.
But I feel that you are arriving at a different view of the problem(situation?) A women(like a man) in porn is not a thing, they are ideas, it is the brain after all that deciphers any and all information. The majority of porn for men is visual, the majority for women is written. Doe's that mean that men are bad? Women good?
And why do I feel that I'm not making myself understood? A few minutes of typing on a subject that needs weeks/months/years.
P.S.-Hoping not to offend, honestly most adults are walking wounded when it comes to this subject.

[Bobbieo]

25. This probably off the topic , but does religion in some ways

promote a sense of sexuality. I'm not the least bit religious so I really don't know. I'm thinking of the Ayatollah Khomneni's remark - "Women cover your bodies lest you tempt men" - That to me shows a weakness in men who cannot control their urges, but what do I know? I'm just am an old woman,

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

46. Tantric Yoga does

but then sexuality is taken as a sacred act. Much the same in many mystical sects, I would add. Titillation is a distraction.

[hfojvt]

124. I think they are anti-women ideas though

The films are promoting the ideas that women should be hurt. That they either have no choice but to take it, or that they enjoy it.

I think the article gets many things wrong though. First, it makes that industry bigger than it really is, IMO, almost like every man does it. Second, I am kinda surprised and doubtful of the idea that pornography involving love and affection or even just seduction and mutual pleasure would not sell. It almost makes me wanna go into business because I think there would be a huge market for more wholesome erotica. Sort of like romantic comedies but with alot more nudity and sex. Maybe I over-estimate the human race, but that almost seems like the best remedy - using good ideas to push out bad. It isn't about visual versus written though. It is about violence versus love.

I disagree with this from the article:
"Men typically consume pornography specifically to avoid love and affection."

There is a severe shortage of love and affection. Most men are not gonna masturbate when there are more positive alternatives. Does the author really think that these men have actual women willing to perform oral sex on them, but they say 'nah, I'm gonna go watch a movie and jerk off.'

And welcome to DU :hi:

[Duppers]

165. Thank YOU, sir!

"wholesome erotica" I love your term!

And I ALSO agree with you that this statement from the article, "Men typically consume pornography specifically to avoid love and affection," is Hogwash! What a sick interruption.

[Duppers]

642. interpretation.

not interruption. stupid of me to make such an error.

[mzmolly]

668. I like your post.

It's balanced.

Second, I am kinda surprised and doubtful of the idea that pornography involving love and affection or even just seduction and mutual pleasure would not sell. It almost makes me wanna go into business because I think there would be a huge market for more wholesome erotica. Sort of like romantic comedies but with alot more nudity and sex.

DO go into business!

Maybe I over-estimate the human race, but that almost seems like the best remedy - using good ideas to push out bad. It isn't about visual versus written though. It is about violence versus love.

Hear hear!

[cgrindley]

20. Why are you posting a 3 year old article?

Just to draw flames or what? ..."not...for the sole purpose of indicting male DUers"... Bullshit.

[seemslikeadream]

24. The age of an article is irrelevant

[cgrindley]

32. Sure it is

Posting an article, for example, about the transmission of light through the ether is utterly worthless.

[Duppers]

168. don't you have an airplane to fly?

nt

[cgrindley]

204. That doesn't make any sense at all

defenders of this thread's existence are a little well... defensive.

[Iris]

270. This isn't posted in "Lastest Breaking News"

And the topic of the article is still relevant as general discussion.

[Katherine Brengle]

61. How does the age of the article effect its message?

It's an important piece and I felt it should be read. If you don't think so, so be it.

[cgrindley]

203. Come on

it's flamebait.

[seemslikeadream]

21. can the guys go away for awhile?

He said you're really an ugly girl
But I like the way you play
And I died
But I thanked him
Can you believe that
Sick holding on to his picture
Dressing up every day
I wanna smash the faces of those beautiful boys
Those christian boys
So you can made me cum
That doesn't make you Jesus





http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t4eAuxr4CRU

Excuse me but can I be you for a while
My dog wont bite if you sit real still
I got the anti-christ in the kitchen yellin at me again
Yeah I can hear that

Been saved again by the garbage truck
I got something to say you know but nothing comes
Yes I know what you think of me- you never shut up
Yeah I can hear that

But what if Im a mermaid
In these jeans of his with her name still on it
Hey but I dont care cause sometimes, I said sometimes
I hear my voice and its been here
Silent all these years

So you found a girl who thinks really deep thoughts
Whats so amazing about really deep thoughts
Boy you best pray that I bleed real soon
Hows that thought for ya

My scream got lost in a paper cup
You think theres a heaven where some screams have gone
I got 25 bucks and a cracker, go you think its enough
To get us there

Cause what if Im a mermaid
In these jeans of his with her name still on it
Hey but I dont care cause sometimes, I said sometimes
I hear my voice and its been here
Silent all these years

Years go by will I still be waiting
For somebody else to understand
Years go by if Im stripped of my beauty
And the orange cloud raining in my head
Years go by will I choke on my tears
Till finally there is nothing left
One more casualty
You know were too easy easy easy

Well I love the way we communicate
Your eyes focus on my funny lip shade
Lets hear what you think of me now but baby dont look up
The sky is falling

Your mother shows up in a nasty dress
Its your turn now to stand where I stand
Everybody lookin at you, here take a hold of my hand
Yeah I can hear them

But what if Im a mermaid
In these jeans of his with her name still on it
Hey but I dont care cause sometimes, I said sometimes
I hear my voice
I hear my voice
I hear my voice
And its been here
Silent all these years
Ive been here
Silent all these years


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MFZ3oXCRtIM

So I ran faster
But it caught me here
Yes my loyalties turned
Like my ankle
In seventh grade
Running after Billy
Running after the rain
These precious things
Let them bleed
Let them wash away
These precious things let them break
Their hold over me

He said you're really an ugly girl
But I like the way you play
And I died
But I thanked him
Can you believe that
Sick holding on to his picture
Dressing up every day
I wanna smash the faces of those beautiful boys
Those christian boys
So you can made me cum
That doesn't make you Jesus
I remember
Yes in my peach party dress
No one dared
No one cared
To tell me where the pretty girls are
Those demigods
With their nine-inch nails
And little fascist panties
Tucked inside the heart
Of ever nice girl
These precious things
Let them bleed
Let them wash away
These precious things
Let them break
Let them wash away




http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2nB4fogoBRE

Every finger in the room is pointing at me
I wanna spit in their faces then I get afraid of what that could bring
I got a bowling ball in my somach, I got a desert in my mouth
Figures that my courage would choose to sell out now

Ive been looking for a savior in these dirty streets
Looking for a savior beneath these dirty sheets
Ive been raising up my hands- drive another nail in
Just what God needs, one more victim

Why do we crucify ourselves
Everyday I crucify myself
Nothing I do is good enough for you
Crucify myself
Everyday I crucify myself
And my heart is sick of being in chains

Got a kick for a dog, beggin for love
Gotta have my sufferingso that I can have my cross
I know a cat named easter, he says will you ever learn
Youre just an empty cage girl if you kill the bird

Ive been looking for a savior in these dirty streets
Looking for a savior beneath these dirty sheets
Ive been raising up my hands- drive another nail in
Got enough guilt to start my own religion

Why do we crucify ourselves
Everyday I crucify myself
Nothing I do is good enough for you
Crucify myself
Everyday I crucify myself
And my heart is sick of being in chains

Please be
Save me
I cry

Looking for a savior in these dirty streets
Looking for a savior beneath these dirty sheets
Ive been raising up my hands- drive another nail in
Where are those angels when you need them

Why do we crucify ourselves
Everyday I crucify myself
Nothing I do is good enough for you
Crucify myself
Everyday I crucify myself
And my heart is sick of being in chains

[tkmorris]

50. Great links

It's been way too long since I've watched Tori Amos perform. Thanks.

[madrchsod]

22. poorly written article about a complex issue

that has no clear answers . i really hate to break the news but women also buy/watch a wide variety of porn. i noticed the article has nothing to say about pornography for lesbians and pornography that is produced by women. just as any relationship, it`s not black and white but many shades of grey.

[SheWhoMustBeObeyed]

30. And says nothing about porn that objectifies men

Not just gay porn, but porn in which men are degraded and abused at the hands of women and of other men. Who is the consumer for the latter? The men who fantasize about being degraded and abused.

And that's not even to mention the men who fantasize that they are in the place of the woman being degraded onscreen. There's a lot more man-on-woman than woman-on-man material available, so they take what they can find.

The article utterly lacks any insight about roleplay and powerplay. As usual with this POV, women are the gentle, spiritual victims of brutal, carnal men. This is so simplistic that it sickens me. Women possess the same range of sexual urges as men; men are as capable of love and empathy as women. In my lifetime I have found no difference, none at all, between the genders' capacity for cruelty and kindness.

[supernova]

41. You raise an interesting point

SWMBO (Heh. )

I think people who *openly* engage in dom/sub role play are a lot healthier about that impulse than what the author describes in the supposedly "straight" vids.

[Duppers]

170. so agree that this is not about gender

but abuse and power. Women can also be very abusive.

I oppose it for reasons stated above.

[The Magistrate]

323. And The Ground On Which You Do So, Ma'am, Is Mere Bog And Quicksand

The fact is that sadomasochism is a sexual orientation, and one displayed in varying degrees by a great many people. The fact that you do not like pornographies that appeal to this portion of many people's sexuality is spectacularly uninteresting and unimportant, and certainly not a reasonable basis for broad social criticism or deep ruminations on the relations between the sexes or public policy. If you insist that your distaste for this is anything more than a matter of your personal preferences, then you must accept the whole range of personal distastes for various sexual orientations as being important guides for social criticism. There is no difference atall between your attitude in this matter and that of a 'moral majoritarian' towards homosexuality, or even towards extramarital sexual activities. Both lines are nothing but the statement "what I do not like, and think wrong, myself, is wrong for everyone else." There is no ground on which to choose between your view of this matter, and their view of another matter, and from which to say you are right and they are wrong. The range of sexual practices some people find disgusting and wrong is precisely equal to the range of actual sexual behaviors displayed by human beings. If all such were given the weight you seem to want yours to be given, we would all be Shakers, but of course, there would be protests then from those who consider celibacy the vilest of perversions a human can display....

[Raster]

444. Dude, Sir!

Rock on with your BAD self!
:kick:

[Duppers]

459. I posted about "distinctions"

Agree or not, your statement confirms what I said:
"The fact is that sadomasochism is a sexual orientation, and one displayed
in varying degrees by a great many people."

I hope you understand that I, unlike many other females, do not condemn ALL visual erotica.

This subject has sparked a conversation in my household. My husband: "sadomasochism is a pathology, not a sexual orientation." In fact, I enjoy more kinky things than he, but nothing I'd term S&M, and neither would he. My 20yr. son just ended a 3 yr. relationship with a bi-sexual into what I term real S&M. I am so very glad HE ended it, because he was being victimized by her in every way possible. He had planned to marry this girl, even though it was obvious that she did not love him. NPD people are incapable of love, according to several books. I asked if he thought it was an orientation....he's still thinking as I type and debating with his dad. Btw, the girl he was involved with has had an extremely dysfunctional home life. I had accepted her bi-sexuality, but not her abuse of him. There's another one of those damn "distinctions" I often talk about.

Therefore, this is a touchy, personal subject with me. It's about power and dominance, it's about users, and in most cases it's about NPD.

I do not use a broad brush here. I know there are varying degrees, as you stated---unlike the many other men on this thread.

I'm sure I did not say anything you cared to read or considered relevant, but I wanted to say it.

[The Magistrate]

481. All Sexual Orientations, Ma'am, Can Boast Some Flaming Jerks

How you distinguish between 'real S&M' and 'kinky things' is unclear to me. Someone else might see some of your 'kinky things' as distinctly sadomasochistic. But it is of no moment to me, because other people's sexuality, and the manner in which they come to terms with it and its fit with social conventions, is neither my business nor my concern, so long as they do not attempt to impose their individual solution to the thing on me, or the populace in general. Whatever your husband may work his way around to, people who consider themselves sadomasochists certainly consider this to be their sexual orientation, and will be wholly unconcerned with his view of the matter. It was not too long ago homosexuality was listed as a pathology among the routine psychiatric diagnoses, just as sexual appetite in women was considered to be a pathology, along with masturbation and a great many other things. A hundred years ago children were being put to bed in restraints that would fit well into any sex toy shop today, if made to a larger pattern, on respectable medical advice to prevent them damaging themselves by touching their genitals. A few hundred years before that, in Central Europe, the first consumation of a marriage was carried out before witnesses from both families. The range of what has been considered normative and wholesome sexual behavior in human societies is quite dizzying, and includes a number of things that would curl the hair of any modern....

[Duppers]

507. thanks for the history lesson

Being a student of social anthropology, I was aware of all the facts you presented. Yet we disagree on the current debate. But I do sincerely thank you, as you most certainly seem to be a kind and knowledge person and I appreciate your considered reply.

I am still in the middle of reading much of the material I collected when my son was in the relationship. I desperately wanted to understand this girl, and not just her sexual "orientation." One thing my husband, my son, my friends (which include one LPSW), and I all concluded is that the girl was indeed suffering (if one can call it suffering) with NPD. For awhile, I had questioned my son's sanity for staying with her for long. Yes, I openly discussed it all with him. We are a very open family. My son's friends tell him they are envious that he has such a "liberal" mother. Enough of my personal life.

Your statement, "long as they do not attempt to impose their individual solution to the thing on me, or the populace in general," sounds like the bedrock of progressive thinking. IF I thought NO one was demeaned nor such attitudes were transferred to the women/men in their real lives, I would not protest at all.

I cannot change laws and do not advocate censorship, except in the cases of child pornography and horrific "snuff" movies. Could you not make the same argument for those cases, with the same logic? Is not paedophilia a sexual "orientation" then too?

Thanks in advance for your response, sir.

[The Magistrate]

546. It Does Sound, Ma'am, Like Your Son Is Well Out Of The Thing

Wild women have a fascination for young men, and while men of any age are fools where women are concerned, when young we have more energy with which to display it....

To deal with your closing query first, Ma'am. All tolerance will have a breaking point. In instances of homicide, and the imposition of adult sexual desires on children, though an argument could be made that these proceed from a sexual orientation, at times in the former instance and certainly in the latter, these things do not fit well into a structure that rests on the concept of mutual consent among the involved parties. A person who actively wants to be killed will fit any conceivable standard of mental disturbance sufficient to establish incompetence to consent, and minors are by law considered incapable of consent, to sexual activity, or contract of any sort, and are not even held wholly responsible for criminal actions they may commit. Photographs of such things are simply records of a crime, and hence barring them does not strike me as censorship: fictions on the subject are a more vexed question, and an absolutist civil libertarian argument concerning them has some force, to my mind, just as censoring them strictly has a certain charm about it. Some things will always remain unsettled, and unsettling, and require case by case resolution.

The question of whether pornography, or for that matter any fictional representation of human behavior, has much effect on what people actually do in their lives, does not seem to have any definite answer. Certainly some people become obsessed with pornography, just as some people become alcoholics. But the overwhelming preponderance of people who drink some alcohol do not become alcoholics, and it seems likely that is the case with persons who view pornography. Most people can maintain a clear distinction between fantasies and reality, and even most of that smaller portion who are so strongly influenced by fantasy that they are driven to realize it in some degree are content with experiences that they know, even while they are 'really' happening, are an exercise in play-acting and stage-craft. Those compelled beyond this will certainly present difficulties, however small their number. The question becomes, then, how much do we wish to restrict the free choices of many people to prevent the possible bad outcome of a very few people's choices. To restrict A, B, C, and D on the ground that E might prove unequal to the strain does not strike me as a sound policy, and will certainly never be a widely popular one where A, B, C, and D find what E must be deprived of pleasureable and untroubling themselves.

One thing that can be stated with certainty is that large things like treating other humans as objects, and cruelty to other humans, can hardly be laid at the feet of modern forms of pornography. Pornography in its modern forms can barely aspire to being regarded as a symptom or indication of underlying social structures and human propensities: to treat it as a cause of them, and pretend that eradicating or even toning it down would have some material effect on these things is akin to running an automobile through a car wash in order to fix its transmission.

[Duppers]

558. thank you

A strange metaphor: "Pornography in its modern forms can barely aspire to being regarded as a symptom or indication of underlying social structures and human propensities: to treat it as a cause of them, and pretend that eradicating or even toning it down would have some material effect on these things is akin to running an automobile through a car wash in order to fix its transmission."

But I understand what you are saying.

"One thing that can be stated with certainty is that large things like treating other humans as objects, and cruelty to other humans, can hardly be laid at the feet of modern forms of pornography.
Yes, indeed, but perpetuating them is still debatable, IMHO.

I wish I could speak with you at length in person about this for reason you cannot imagine. I think we both could learn more.

Thank you again, so very much. You've given me the best replies yet.

[The Magistrate]

561. A Pleasure To Make Your Acquaintance, Ma'am

To briefly engage your concern about perpetuation. It is very hard to see the thing as having anything like the weight to bear up as an appreciable factor. It seems to me a mere distraction. In the early days of the industrial revolution in England, there was tremendous social dislocation as traditional crafts incomes were snuffed out and persons flocked to industrial towns from the countryside. Family life was disrupted, children put to work because it was cheaper than employing adults, people sickened from poisons and were injured horribly in machinery, solace was sought in drink and despairing people turned to vagrancy and crime. Religious reformers stepped into the breach, certain that if people could be broken from the habit of blasphemy and from gin everything would be fine and back in order just as it had been before when people were God-fearing and sober. Not a word about the tremendous economic engines driving the process, only a focus on symptoms so trivial as to be essentially non-sequiters on the order of answering the question 'What time is it?' with 'The table is maplewood.' People are prone to regard others as objects for their various purposes, and willing to be cruel and exploitative for their own benefit for reasons that run so deep in the nature of life in this world that a cholera germ could probably be made to understand them. Breathing, and the desire to do so in comfort and keep on at it, and leave others like you after to go on breathing, seems to me the root cause, and damned near anything else mere filligree in ornament piled atop it....

"This is the best world possible: everything in it is a necessary evil."

[Duppers]

565. I was trying to edit my reply to you

and had typed several long paragraphs in the edit and hit the button only to be told my edit time had expired.

Here's an abbreviated version of what I was going to add: the bottom line is that I am not advocating more censorship. I do not view this issue in terms of black and white; it is nuanced. Most folks on this thread do not get that. I believe there is "wholesome visual erotica", just as someone else first stated, and that there is violence in some porn that objectify humans, even animals. It is the violence that bothers me.

We, as a progressive community, rail against all power, all violence outside of sexual context, why does the same not apply within sexual context, even the portrayal of it? Why is this unnecessary portrayal of power so stimulating to some people (men and women)? Is it their dysfunctional personal histories or just some latent 'caveman' gene, lurking in the background of our animal brains? Simply a preference? Does this fantasy portrayal not influence young impressionable people in the least? And does none of it influence any real life behavior and attitudes in the least? If I could be assured that it didn't, I'd not likely be typing here.

Again, I do not advocate more censorship; I would only like to change the hearts and minds of some people who translate fantasy into domestic violence. I abhor violence wherever I see it, real or portrayed.

Magistrate, you offered a scholarly explanation of why humans objectify other. I thank you once again. You also, perhaps w/o intent, ascribed this behavior to our non-progressive opponents in this greater clash of ideas. Progressives should rise above this.....
"People are prone to regard others as objects for their various purposes, and willing to be cruel and exploitative for their own benefit for reasons that run so deep in the nature of life in this world that a cholera germ could probably be made to understand them. Breathing, and the desire to do so in comfort and keep on at it, and leave others like you after to go on breathing, seems to me the root cause....


Time to take another step in our evolution. Adieu.

[The Magistrate]

570. A Couple Of Small Points, Ma'am

If people "rail against all power, all violence" they are very misguided to do so. Any movement for social and political change necessarily aims to acquire power in some form useful to implementing its programs, and cannot succeed without securing and wielding power sufficient to neutralize opposition to its intentions, and effect the things it desires to occur. In the present state of political and social organization, this requires either enlisting the power of the state in service of the movement, or actually gaining political control over the state and its coercive powers of law and enforcement. A state is an engine of violence, whose chief attribute is the ability to credibly sustain a claim to be the sole legitimate employer of violence in a given space.

Power and violence are quite neutral in themselves, mere tools of some purpose in the minds and hands that employ them, and it is the purpose to which they are turned by which they are properly judged as good or bad. It is true enough that the basic criteria for such judgement boils down to 'do you agree with the end or no?', but what unifies us as left and progressive persons is a general agreement on the desireability of an economic and social order that more justly distributes the fruits of labor and increases the measure of liberty enjoyed by all in our society.

The key, in my view, to all and any understanding of human behavior is appreciating that humans do not experience either the world around us or the impulses that arise within us directly, but always through the medium of symbols, the words and images of conscious thought. On occassion overwhelming physical or emotional sensations can break through this curtain between our self-awareness and the world around and within us, but generally, we navigate the world by symbol like a bat navigates the night through echo, building ourselves a sort of map of what is there for us to experience, in which what is is represented by some mental object, with which we actually engage.

Even the most basic urges are experienced and satisfied through this intervening medium. People must be at the edge of starvation before they just eat: food means things to us, foods arouse certain feelings, memories, things that attract us to the idea of eating, and spur us to efforts beyond simple animal satisfaction at something in the belly.

Sexuality, too, plays out through symbol, and the basic mechanism of it is laid bare by the class of fixations on odd items known as fetishism, in which for some reason the sexual urge in a person is fixated upon some object, that symbolizes sexual desire and release for that person. Why the thing should have been imprinted on the person's mind as the symbol through which sexual desire is experienced is and will remain always a mystery, and it certainly is an indication that in these particular instances, the system has gone wildly awry. But what we call heterosexuality is simply the case where a person of the opposite sex has become the symbol through which a person experiences sexual desire and release, and something in the ordinary run of human rearing and society contrives that most persons, or at least enough to ensure an adequate rate of reproduction, will become so imprinted and fixated from a pretty early age, though how this is occurs is not known, and likely never will be. The fact is that the system, whatever it is, is wide ranging and may come in any particular instance to rest on almost anything, and does it pretty early in life, and without any real direction from the conscious mind. A range of factors, from innate ones like genetic influence and hormone balances at various times in development, and external ones standing out from the emotional and physical environment around the child, must influence the process, but nothing really directs it or pre-determines its result; these things only affect the odds that various outcomes will eventuate within a startlingly broad range of possibilities.

Among these ranged possibilities are wholly non-physical things, such as emotional states, patterns of feeling, a sense of great power and of great helplessness, that sexual symbols summon into the mind and experience of the person again and again. This is what sadomasochism actually is, the imprinting on a person of particular emotional states as the symbols through which sexual desire and release is experienced. The infliction or endurance of pain is merely the means by which the emotional states that embody sexual desire and release for the person are achieved and experienced.

[Lurking Dem]

583. Again, well done, Sir.

Someday we may understand the difference between the hardwired parts of our sexuality and the "gee that could be fun" kind of soft programming.

I don't have to understand why gay people want to have sex with their own gender. It is not wired (well, not completely) in me.

Nor do I have to rail against it as an abomination against humanity. It isn't. The thought is ridiculous enough to have engendered many threads deriding right wing religious nuts for espousing it.

Now, I also have my walls filled with female nudes. This does not make me a lesbian either. I find the nude form pleasing to the eye and the female form more pleasing gazing at me from my walls than the male.

Collecting Sorayama's and Olivia's and Julie Bell has not changed my sexuality one iota. The essence of what I like to do and with whom I like to do it was formed long, long before. In fact, by puberty.

The trappings, the symbols, of what I like are no more a detriment to society than gay art is.

[Name removed]

639. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Lurking Dem]

248. Well said!

[mzmolly]

452. Men are equal to one another in society, women are not equal to men in strength

and stature.

The article utterly lacks any insight about roleplay and powerplay. As usual with this POV, women are the gentle, spiritual victims of brutal, carnal men. This is so simplistic that it sickens me. Women possess the same range of sexual urges as men; men are as capable of love and empathy as women. In my lifetime I have found no difference, none at all, between the genders' capacity for cruelty and kindness.

Have you found a difference in the number of women raped by men than visa versa?

[SheWhoMustBeObeyed]

469. Your post illustrates the entire problem with discussion of this topic

You take a statement out of its context in a post about pornography and conflate it to apply to the entire spectrum of male-female relationships. Then you pull out the rape card and slap it down on the table. If twisting words is your game, you'll have to play by yourself.

[mzmolly]

477. Your post illustrates the entire problem with this discussion.

Most people participating in it, haven't bothered to read the article.

[SheWhoMustBeObeyed]

492. There again, you're wrong

[mzmolly]

498. You should have recognized my post as a quote from the article then.

:hi:

[Raster]

484. The poster in question seems to have a penchant for cherry picking

No pun intended. I've read several of your posts in this thread. Thank you. Yes, there is erotic material out there that objectifies and demeans women. There is also material that does the same to men. And then there is the vast majority that just features good ol' folks having a good time. Unfortunately authors, like the one that wrote this article, show no distinction between the two. Then again, he is trying to sell books.

Erotica comprises many forms and concepts and to demonize all erotica because of this one "flavor" is ridiculous.

And again, Rape is rarely a sexual act. It may involve the genitals, but is almost always about power, control and domination. Rape is wrong. Men raping women, men raping men, women raping men. Wrong. And yes, women raping men has happened. And it's still wrong.

And I still say the root of the problem is our society's view of women. To denote pornography as the "problem" is avoiding real discussion and going for the sensational. Again, this author seems to have a penchant for just that.

[mzmolly]

508. Feel free to demonstrat to "the poster in question" where I have done just that?

The author doesn't denote pornography as "the problem" he notes a very specific kind of pornography along with societal issues. Thus, it seems to me your assertion about plucking cherries is a bit of projection on your part?

I'll continue this discussion tomorrow afternoon. :hi:

[The Magistrate]

495. Where On earth, Ma'am, Did You Get The Idea Men Are Equal To One Another In Society?

Social interaction between men consists principally in determining pack order, in discovering who is above and below whom, and there are real rewards and penalties associated with being in the various strata.

One hesitates to ask, in light of that stunning mis-statement of an obvious fact, but curiousity impells me to it: you are, are you not, aware that there are other cruel things than rape?

[mzmolly]

503. Men have an equal shot at leader of the pack, Sir.

I AM aware of cruelty beyond rape, but the difference between me and some people here, is that I don't dismiss cruelty and it's possible catalysts in society. Children are not born hating one another, hate is learned, lest we ask how?

[The Magistrate]

509. How Do You Figure That, Ma'am?

Everything is contingent: people are born with and gain in life different aptitudes and skills, social and otherwise, in different degrees. Capacity for leadership is rare, and people emphatically do not have an equal shot at positions in the upper rungs of any social order, on whatever scale is being considered.

It is not clear exactly what you mean in your final paragraph, though the old song "You've Got to Be Carefully Taught" from South Pacific comes to mind. In this context, it would seem you are suggesting that pornography is an important cause of cruelty towards women. But cruelty towards women has been far more widespread and extreme than it is in the present day in the U.S. in periods where pornography was exceedingly rare, which suggests the sort of thing Mr. Jensen is so on about is pretty irrelevant to the thing itself, and grotesquely insufficient as a cause for it.

[mzmolly]

514. I'm saying that some pornography is both an expression of the problem and a contributor.

But cruelty towards women has been far more widespread and extreme than it is in the present day in the U.S. in periods where pornography was exceedingly rare, which suggests the sort of thing Mr. Jensen is so on about is pretty irrelevant to the thing itself, and grotesquely insufficient as a cause for it.

Can you show me the statistics that indicate that cruelty to women is down with the influx of porn? Can you show me where men who've raped and killed women have indicated "Gosh, I just didn't have enough porn?" Porn has existed as long as society has, in various forms. I've seen drawings dating back centuries. http://www.everything2.com/index.pl?node_id=1054183

However, this discussion isn't about Playboy.

Goodnight Sir.

[The Magistrate]

555. Are You Seriously Maintaining, Ma'am

That violence against women is more prevalent in the United States today than it was, say fifty years ago? Do you think more wives were routinely beaten last year, or in 1850? Of course, back then, the age of consent ran about nine, and prostitutes most commonly were under the age of sixteen. We could go back even further, of course, and farther afield: Medieval Europe, China in the foot-binding period, Rome....

If you think pornography had much presence in pre-literate societies, before the printing press, and before the easy reproduction of visual images, you have little conception of social realities. Graffitti of genitalia scrawled on a wall are hardly what we are talking about here, nor is a Regency gentleman's snuff-box with an enamel miniature of a couple in coitus on the inside of its lid....

[mzmolly]

592. The fact that women have been oppressed for centuries does not negate the point.

Your post simply demonstrates the long term cultural climate in which this shit is spawned.

However, you mentioned "porn" and we've had "porn" for centuries in various forms, even according to those in the "industry."

Over at the Oprano messageboard for adult entertainment webmasters, there's an interesting thread today -- users are constructing a timeline of the adult industry. It's pretty comprehensive. Here's one of the more densely annotated timelines, submitted by user "Gonzo." After the jump, and into the late 20th century, we get into tech-centric milestones like Betamax and Section 2257 that made the present-day biz what it iz. I love how the timeline does one humongous warp-speed leap from the 1400s to Dr. Ruth. Guess there wasn't much shagging going on for 500 years!

Snip:

1st century BC - Kama Sutra was created
1440 - Gutenberg Press Invented
1928 - Dr. Ruth was born.
1953 - Hugh Hefner starts Playboy
1965 - Bob Guccione starts Penthouse
1968 - Al Goldstein starts Screw
1969 - First mainstream movie to represent the swinger lifestyle - Bob & Carol & Ted & Alice, Directed by Paul Mazursky
1970 - Penthouse shows pubic hair for the first time.
1970 - Notable Porn Movies - Cycle Studs - Le Salon (Gay)
1971 - Notable Porn Movies - The Boys in the Sand - Wakefield Poole (Gay)
1971 - First condom to appear in a movie - Carnal Knowledge, Directed by Mike Nichols
1972 - Notable Porn Movies - Deep Throat - Gerard Damiano (Straight)
1972 - Notable Porn Movies - Behind the Green Door - The Mitchell Brothers (Straight)
1972 - Notable Porn Movies - Fritz the Cat - Ralph Bakshi (Anime)
1974 - Larry Flynt starts Hustler.
1975 - Betamax introduced
1975 - First condom commercial air on television
1976 - VHS introduced
1978 - Larry Flynt is shot in an assassination attempt that left him paralyzed from the waist down.
1983 - Name server developed at University of Wisconsin
1984 - Penthouse publishes pictures of Vanessa Williams naked. She resigns her Miss America crown.
1984 - Domain Name Systems (DNS) introduced
1985 - Symbolics.com is the first registered domain in history
1985 - Earliest domains to be registered - cmu.edu, purdue.edu, rice.edu, berkeley.edu, ucla.edu, rutgers.edu, bbn.com, mit.edu, think.com, css.gov, mitre.org
1986 - Traci Lords is discovered to be underage
1986 - US Attorney General Edwin Meese published 1,960 page report investigating porn at the order of President Ronald Reagan.
1988 -Title 18 United States Code Section 2257 was enacted
1990 - First commercial provider of Internet dial-up access - world.std.com
1992 - Term "Surfing the Internet" is first heard
1993 - Don't Ask Don't Tell introduced by President Bill Clinton.
1993 - World Wide Web goes live.
1994 - Sex.com was registered by Gary Kremen
1995 - First confirmed blowjob in the White House.
1995 - Sex.com was stolen by Stephen Cohen
1996 - Domain name tv.com sold for $15,000
1997 - DVD introduced
1997 - Domain name business.com sold for $150,000
1998 - Viagra introduced
1998 - Al Goldstein installs Fuck You Finger in his backyard in Florida.
1999 - Domain name business.com sold for $7,500,000
2000 - Sex.com was given back to Gary Kremen after a legal fight.
2000 - AEBN launched first VOD site
2000 - American Express stops accepting porn transactions
2001 - Yahoo removes porn banners from search engine
2003 - Paypal stops processing adult transactions
2003 - Penthouse files bankruptcy
2005 - Sex.com theif Stephen Cohen arrested
2005 - Video iPod introduced
2006 - Sex.com sold for a reported $12,000,000
2006 - Google resist court order for porn search results

However, I have indicated that the issue I have, as does Mr. Jensen, is that the simulated oppression/abuse of women in porn, is now considered mainstream. Obviously, so much so, that ("good" liberal men) like yourself defend it.

[The Magistrate]

622. What It Does, In Fact, Do, Ma'am

Is demonstrate that, in asserting the influence of modern forms of pornography, you are in the odd position of claiming something done on this Tuesday morning set in motion something begun on Friday last, and neither time nor causation quite works that way....

None of the rest of this interests me sufficiently to continue this exchange, beyond noting that my actual postition, clearly stated numerous times here, is that Mr. Jensen has discovered nothing new, proved nothing at all besides that he is troubled by his own fascination with pornography featuring sadomasochistic elements and has chosen a way to indulge it that, to put it kindly, lacks manly forthrightness, and that, moving on beyond the trifle of this one person's obsessions, human sexuality, and individual's expressions of their sexuality, is quite beyond the reach of political action, so much so that trying to view and interpret it through a political lens is, to recycle an old saw, akin to putting a fish on a bicycle.

[mzmolly]

623. Sir, the OP is about the desire to see women

humiliated, and in pain/discomfort in order to get ones rocks off. Mr. Jensen EXCLUDED S and M from his analysis and stated as such in the article.

When the shootings at Columbine occurred, we had a national dialog about violence in media and how it effects us as a society. When women are raped and murdered, we don't question society, we question individuals. Why is pondering/asking the question tabu for you "real men?"

Here are some statistics that might be of interest to the "wimps" who care about women.

http://www2.ucsc.edu/rape-prevention/statistics.html

[The Magistrate]

631. You Will Not Find Any Comment Of Mine Saying Any Such Thing, Ma'am

You will merely find a simple statement of fact, that the level of violence against women in the United States at present is considerably less that it was previously, from which it would follow that the present state of pornography that so fascinates Mr. Jensen can hardly be considered an important cause of violence against women, since that was at higher levels when what so excites him to high dudgeon today was absent from the scene. The decline in violence against women is the result of a number of large scale social factors, chief among them the efforts of women themselves to exert themselves against it, leading to changes in laws and social mores that now turn a stern face against acts that formerly would have met with tacit approval, or even open applause. Persons who claim pornography 'cures' are as wildly off base as persons who claim it 'sickens': pornography is irrelevant.

[mzmolly]

636. What do you mean by "previously?"

VAWA was passed in the 1990's and has been a success according to some statistics. However, the kind of porn mentioned in the OP IS violence against women, Sir.

[The Magistrate]

644. My Advice, Ma'am

Would be to have a good, hair-down sit-down with a woman in her seventies or eighties on the subject, and supplement it with some hours in the micro-film files of old newspapers ranging back to the thirties and forties in a larger library, as well as reading popular novels of the period.

[mzmolly]

648. I don't need your advice Sir.

I know how far women have come, and I know that we have a long way to go. Today, our continuing struggle has become even more apparent.

My advice to you Sir, would be to visit a local womens shelter, volunteer. Have a good sit down with these contemporary women and ask them what it's like to live in fear of the men in their lives. Ask them how they feel about violence being mingled with sex in the mainstream porn industry. Ask them if they've ever been raped by a partner and if they reported it. Ask them why they did or did not. Ask them if they feel that rape in the 1800's had a different psychological effect on women, than it does today. Ask them if they feel "safer" because violent porn is becoming increasingly abundant.

[The Magistrate]

655. Then we Have Nothing Further To say To one Another Here, Ma'am

Enjoy the remains of the day.

[mzmolly]

659. You as well,

"Sir." ;)

Peace

[JVS]

724. LOL

:rofl:

I am astonished that, in the time running up to an election where we face a very likely outcome that from 1989 to 2012 the presidents of this country will have been drawn from 2 nuclear families, you could even think (let alone post) that.

[ProudToBeBlueInRhody]

133. Well those women are clearly mentally ill

They must be taken to re-education camps ASAP to be shown they are being exploited and shouldn't be enjoying the filth they are watching with those sick, perverted men they hang out with. :sarcasm:

[Lisa0825]

140. I was looking through this thread to see if anyone brought this up....

I have mixed views on porn. I am disgusted by porn that shows humiliation or violence against women (or men for that matter, but it usually against women). But I am not against porn in general.

Now I had a problem with my ex husband and porn, but it was a symptom of the problem, and not the problem itself.

Speaking as a woman who has been single for most of my thirties and late twenties, it sometimes breaks the monotony of being alone. Does that mean that I am a party to abusing women? I just don't think so.

I actually think mainstream advertising and media is probably more demeaning and exploitative of women than the moderate varieties of porn, because it is targeted at all of society; it's so pervasive and has the ability to influence the self esteem and attitudes of young girls growing up and adults. Porn may influence men, but I really don't know if the relationships shown between abusers, murderers, rapists, etc are valid. If porn were not available, I don't think they would cease to be a part of society. After all, rape and murder have existed in all of human history.

Finally, if hardcore porn does cause problems, the other problem is, where do you draw the line? I do not think all porn should be illegal, so how does society decide what is allowable and what is not?

Also, I often wonder how it is that it seems a lot of liberals favor legalized prostitution (which I do not), but are against porn. I really don't get that.

[kdmorris]

193. Very nicely written!

I think I agree with most of your points. And yes, advertising and the media are a large contributor to the problem. Woman are seen as objects (to be fair, most advertising shows married men as complete idiots as well). I also don't KNOW with certainty that porn causes men to rape or otherwise abuse women.

It's amazing to me every time I see a little 5 year old girl wandering around in high heels. When my daughters were little, it amazed me the type of clothing and such that they sold for little girls. Nothing like dressing your daughter up like a little whore so that she will fit in. I refused to do it, but the stuff is pervasive.

[GOTV]

600. No, it's very clear, there is, apparently, a manistream porn film where a woman gags....

... what more is there to know?

[Wiley50]

26. UM... I Really Have No Use For A Movie Like That Starring say.. Ruth Bader Ginsburg

So the premise that "no matter who you are" is wrong

Having said that, I don't like people being exploited in these films

Now if they are truly doing it of their own volition......

[The Magistrate]

368. You May Depend Upon It, Sir, There Are People Who Would Pay Their Last Dollar For Just That

There is nothing some number of people do not find the most exciting and arousing thing in the world....

[Lurking Dem]

371. Heh.

Back in the heady days of ascii text, I had a macro for an answer to the infernal yet constant online question, "what r u wearing?"

My answer was always, "A clown suit and golf shoes" until a very wise online tv friend asked me, "What are you going to do when somebody answers, 'Thank G-d! That's exactly what I've been looking for!'"

[The Magistrate]

375. Hard To Come Back To That, Ma'am

"I'm going home now. Someone get me some frogs and some bourbon."

[Lurking Dem]

377. LOL, Sir!

We used to cut and paste completely out of context comments in the chat rooms and my favorite was always, "I was going to take it out of the freezer but I realized it would hurt if it thawed!"

[kdmorris]

27. What amazes me is some of the responses.

I don't get it. I truly don't. If we have all been conditioned from the time we were young to accept this type of thing as "normal", is there really any choice involved? It's not liberating to hurt women. It's not liberating for a woman to allow ourselves to be hurt because that's how we've learned to behave. We live in a society in which women are STILL not seen as equal to men. They make less money, they are generally expected to be more subservient and allow men to dominate. That's the way it is.

This author is speaking of pain shown in pornography and saying that it's a bad thing for society that our sexual lives have, in many cases, become about the degradation of one of the partners. Not always.

For anyone who would like to read more of this, I suggest reading "Female Chauvinist Pigs: Women and the Rise of Raunch Culture" by Ariel Levy.

And I would like to point out that the person who wrote the article that the OP posted was a MAN, not a "she".

[Jed Dilligan]

28. Worry about your own sex life

society is not welcome in my bedroom.

[kdmorris]

35. You just kneejerk to that response?

Whatever, man. I'm not engaging in a debate with you. It's sad, though, that people can't have a conversation about the implications of this sort of behavior without someone jumping to "mind your own business".

[Jed Dilligan]

107. Absolutely.

No more laws against voluntary behavior. If you aren't sick of the police state in this country, I don't buy that you're really concerned about people being tortured/sodomized/etc.

[Duppers]

171. WTF???

She wrote a sensitive, intelligent post NOT critical of men and you post this shit?!

This is not about a police state, nor hating all "porn."

[Jed Dilligan]

176. It's ONLY about a police state.

Or else it's not even a discussion.

"Let's sicc some cops on the degenerates who..."

That's all I hear in all this stridency; if I'm wrong, please show me how.

[Duppers]

181. gladly

but it's now 3:41am EST.

I'll let someone else take over for now. GN.

[Duppers]

462. do child porn, snuff movies

ring any bells? Isn't banning those a "police state" using your logic?

[Jed Dilligan]

515. No

Banning content that includes murder and underage sexuality would be "police state." Banning murder and underage sexuality is not. Right now it is perfectly legal to depict either in any medium, provided people aren't actually harmed. The porn referenced in the OP is protected free speech insofar as crimes are not committed in their making. I don't want to watch it, but I'm a good American, which means I will defend to the DEATH the right of people to make and watch it. Because their right to do so is the same as my right to (for instance) write and read DU.

The scariest thing I've ever seen on this site is the "a little fascism in the service of liberal causes is okay." It's not, just, fucking, not okay. Move to Saudi Arabia if you want government to censor content.

Aren't you the guy who loves "making distinctions"? Learn to make this one: there is no such thing as thought crime. Not in a free country, at least.

[AikidoSoul]

740. This discussion is not about censorship.

It's about how some people exercise free speech by creating images that are denigrating to women, images that include rape, fear, extreme pain, humiliation, insults, and domination.

We're suggesting that these images are not healthy for our psyches and for our own development as human beings.

[kdmorris]

192. Who said anything about laws against it?

I sure as hell didn't. I said it's sad that we can't even have a conversation about this without people jumping to conclusions and saying "mind your own business".

I don't think that this is anything that can be legislated. I don't think that you can pass a law that says "women shouldn't be treated as objects". There are already laws in this country saying that women can't be paid less than men doing the same job, but companies violate that all the time. There are laws that say that we can't have child pornography, but it still happens.

See, you've taken something someone (me) said and responded with a meme. You didn't respond to ME. You responded to what YOU thought I was saying based on what you've heard before. I said that the responses to this thread amazed me and that I find it really sad that we can't have a conversation about this sort of thing to really see if there IS something to it. Not everyone knee jerks to this. See supernova's post. Mature, well thought out, truthful.

Whatever, man. It's still sad that people like you can't even THINK about something this complex and come out of it with something more than "shut up". No one said make laws against it (at least I didn't). I'm not saying you have to give up your precious porn. Just that you try to fucking think about how seeing images that are violent or degrading in sexual terms MAY affect you.

[Jed Dilligan]

223. Then there's no discussion to be had.

This is a political website. Why wouldn't I assume that a discussion here is about policy?

And why are you making assumptions about me ("your precious porn")? Fuck you. Just because I'm concerned about freedom of expression doesn't make me a pervert.

I don't care whether the flag is Feminism or Fundamentalism. The person waving the censor's pen is my enemy, end of story.

[kdmorris]

324. Well, you are right about one thing

There's no discussion to be had with you.

So, anything goes with you, huh? No censorship at all? Child pornography OK, too, as long as the kid is consenting? Or are you just against censorship in SOME instances and not others?

[Lurking Dem]

329. "Consent" is a legal term.

Children and animals cannot "consent".

In some places one cannot consent to "abuse" so I can literally be arrested for the means I employ to orgasm.

How progressive.

[Jed Dilligan]

333. Thanks for saving me the trouble. nt

[kdmorris]

339. I wasn't talking about consent

I was responding to his "censorship" statement.

Notice he still hasn't answered the question?

[kdmorris]

341. Never mind..

I see what you are saying now. Still, that wasn't really what I meant by the statement. You are correct. Children cannot consent.

[Jed Dilligan]

336. The way you and your husband feel you have the right

to judge people, barge into their lives, and tell them what is good for them and what they should or shouldn't be thinking, is incredibly disturbing to me. Like above, where he told that poor old sad guy to "get a date." I mean, who the FUCK do you think you are?

[kdmorris]

340. So, is that a "No"?

YOU were the one talking about censorship. *I* never said a thing about laws or censoring shit. All I wanted to know is if YOU think there are SOME things that need to be censored, such as CHILD pornography?

Because YOU made a sweeping statement about censorship NOT consent.

[Jed Dilligan]

346. Child pornography isn't censored

Having sex with children is illegal, so child porn documents a crime. Owning it makes you an accessory. It has nothing to do with censorship.

I thought Lurking Dem knocked down your strawman very well, so I didn't need to bother doing it again.

On edit: Since you persist in being dense, check this out. If someone writes a story, draws a picture, or even makes a simulated movie about a child having sex, they cannot be censored. The "child porn" that is against the law involves actual children having actual sex with the involvement of adults. The crime has nothing to do with content.

[kdmorris]

365. Laws are what YOU are saying are censorship

in the matter of porn. I'm not being dense. You are not even listening to what I'm saying.

YOU don't want laws (which YOU equated to censorship) that limit porn (for what's it's worth, I've ALREADY stated that I don't think that this is something that can be legislated). So, we already have laws that stop child pornography, which YOU don't equate with censorship.

Why do YOU hold such different ideas? I'm not saying I want laws that limit porn (I've stated that several times) YOU came back with those laws (laws that limit porn) being censorship.

So, my question remains, why is a law that stops people from looking at child pornography NOT censorship, but laws that would limit looking at other types of porn IS censorship? Was it censorship when they first enacted child pornography laws? After all, it wasn't illegal before that, therefore making it NOT a crime.

[Jed Dilligan]

373. It's never been legal to have sex with minors

as far as I know. You are confusing content with actual crimes.

Murder has never been legal. If it was illegal to depict murder (without committing it), there would be no film industry.

Sex involving children has never been legal, but it has never been illegal to depict it. The crime involved in child porn is when actual children are actually sexually exploited. Owning it makes you an accessory to a crime--not a thought criminal.

If you want to regulate porn for content when it's done between consenting adults, you're for censorship. If you aren't, we have no problem with each other. I can't tell from your comments what exactly you're advocating, but since we're still arguing I assume you are for censorship.

Yes, I am against censorship in all its forms and I can't do any more to make that make sense to you. But please, please stay out of other people's lives, business, and especially our heads. Especially when you have no idea what you're talking about.

[kdmorris]

574. What the hell are you talking about?

That's great and all, but (I repeat) I never said anything about censoring anything. YOU DID. I initially started talking about the way women are depicted and treated in America.

I didn't say ANYTHING about laws. I didn't say ANYTHING about regulating porn. I said "It's NOT liberating to hurt women". I DIDN'T SAY WE SHOULD MAKE LAWS TO MAKE THAT STOP. I SAID WE ALREADY HAVE LAWS THAT MAKE HURTING WOMEN ILLEGAL AND THEY ARE NOT TAKEN SERIOUSLY.

And I have to say... until you've been a woman who's abused or had to get some guy to TALK TO YOU FACE and NOT YOUR BREASTS, I respectfully request that YOU stay out of people's lives and heads and business. Because, frankly, YOU have no idea what YOU are talking about. Re-read my posts. You've NEVER even responded to what *I* said. You've responded to what you've heard before or what you think I was saying.

It's NOT porn. Porn isn't the problem. It's a symptom of the problem. Look at how women are depicted in commercials and movies and various other forms of media that ARE NOT PORN. Rap music, anyone? And, just once.. JUST THIS ONE TIME... think of how it would fucking make you feel to know that so many people see you as an OBJECT. Think of how it would make YOU feel if so many forms of media depict you as a HO, a slut.. something to be taken, not something valuable. It doesn't matter that I'm a computer programmer or that I've raised three daughters or anything else. What matters is my sexuality, whether or not I put out. And it's even worse for young girls. We've fought for years to keep that kind of attitude from destroying our daughters, and it's not easy. They are 20, 17 and 15 now, and there's a wave of attitude from others that they are meat, that they have to be pretty to have worth, and it's VERY hard to combat.

I'm not saying that we need to censor any of this. I don't think you CAN. It's too pervasive and insidious. I'm just saying it would be NICE if men like you, who defend this shit, would THINK about what it would feel like to be treated like this, to be seen as this, to grown up in this country as a woman.

This is my last post on this subject. I don't even know what the fuck you are responding to anymore. Certainly not me.

[Jed Dilligan]

606. I simply don't understand what you're asking

people to do, if it isn't censorship. If you really think browbeating people from behind a keyboard will change their views of the opposite sex, their porn addiction, or their views on free speech, I'd like a hit of whatever you're smoking.


"And, just once.. JUST THIS ONE TIME... think of how it would fucking make you feel to know that so many people see you as an OBJECT. Think of how it would make YOU feel..."

Wow. You're so persuasive! My eyes are opened! I see the light! But, once again, what am I supposed to do? I already avoid staring at women's breasts, partly because it's impolite, partly because it could get me in a lot of trouble. Since you're making everything personal... Personally, I think porn is a waste of time, I'm in a long-term relationship of love and mutual respect, and I call my mom at least once a week. Honestly. Short of writing a rap celebrating the career of Gloria Steinem, I'm not sure what kind of action I could take even if I wanted to help your (still unknown to me) cause.

"Men like you who defend this shit"

I don't really care about "this shit" one way or another, except to the degree that it represents everyone's right to free expression. If it stopped being made tomorrow, it wouldn't affect me, unless government censorship was the cause. Then it would affect me, because I care about my rights enough to accept pretty much any level of discomfort caused by other citizens practicing the same rights.

So you're against censorship too, or so you say. In that case, I don't understand what you/we are talking about. I assume when people post on DU they want the government to do something or stop doing something. Silly me. This turns out to be a purely personal thing. Since I'm never going to know or interact with you personally, I guess the conversation is over.

But please be assured, I will defend to the death your right to run around screaming whatever you want about men, rap music, porn, parenting, how hard you've had it in life, whatever--just as I will defend to the death the right of "gonzo" pornographers to make images of female degradation. I don't have to LIKE either one. I just have to be a good American.

[pitohui]

29. the person who wrote the article thinks anal sex is pain

while anal sex can be painful, i don't think anal sex is inherently about pain, do you?

this person is twisting the facts or presenting his own prejudice as universal truth -- clearly, multiple partners, anal sex, and double penetration don't do it for him, well, fine, no one is hiring him to star in a porno anyway :shrug:

[kdmorris]

34. He never said that

He said that, IN THE MOVIE HE WATCHING, the woman showed pain on her face and it was not edited out. And he surmised that the reason that it wasn't edited out was because that's what they MEANT to portray... the pain.

He said:

When the legal restrictions on pornography slowly receded through the 1970s and ‘80s, and the presentation of sex on the screen was by itself no longer quite so illicit, anal sex became a standard feature. Anal sex was seen as something most women don’t want; it had an edge to it. When anal sex became routine in pornography, the gonzo genre started pushing the boundaries into things like double-penetrations and gag-inducing oral sex – again, acts that men believe women generally will not want. The more pornography becomes normalized and mainstreamed, the more pornography has to search for that edge. And that edge most commonly is cruelty, which emotionally is the easiest place to go for men, given that the dynamic of male domination and female submission is already in place in patriarchy.

[pitohui]

44. he interpreted the expression on her face to be pain

a lot of us might have interpreted it as bad acting, frankly :shrug:

[nashville_brook]

118. you miss the point -- the market demands expression of pain -- it's what guys want

[Raster]

453. "it's what you guys want"-- No, it isn't. Perhaps some do, but not "you guys"

broad, sweeping and DEMEANING! And this is a three year old article. There is an entire other world of erotica out there. The author chose to highlight ONE SMALL PORTION and make an article--a sensationalizing article--out of it.

You do realize that there is currently being produced erotica by women, for women featuring men and women. Is this demeaning and objectifying women?

This original post, while somewhat valid, is a flame bait surprise.

[Help me help Earth]

113. Worse then that, he purposely confuses voluntary porn with rape.

It's a pathetic and degrading attempt to confuse the issue and push his prude agenda.

[Mutineer]

268. In a lot of porno films it is about the pain

I think the most telling lines in this article are about how such films reduce women to three holes and two hands. Very degrading. I don't get the mindset of those who somehow believe that this is an "empowering" image for women or the actresses who take part in such acts on film.

[Oeditpus Rex]

37. No, the author writes of what *he interprets* as pain

He completely glosses over the fact that there are many women, as well as men, who enjoy this type of sexuality — and who are we to question them for that?

Isn't it just a bit odd that, with few exceptions, it's rarely the porn actors themselves who make the cry that they're "victims"? If I hear a woman say she's been "reduced to a thing to be penetrated" or she's just "three holes and two hands," then I'll give this argument some credibility (and urge her to get counseling), but I'm not about to take some crusading guy's word for it.

[mondo joe]

52. They're just like the people why decry abortion. Almost without exception, they're

not the ones who have actually done it.

[Name removed]

63. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[baby_mouse]

386. It's got nothing to do with "conditioning"!!!!

ARRRGH! You can't CONDITION people into sexual responses! And you can't condition people into taking broad conflated opinions regarding entire genders because of how they're viewed sexually, by ANY section of the populace! Sex doesn't work like that! Patriarchy has nothing to do with SEX! Patriarchy HATES sex!

[Scout]

396. and you called ME delusional! that's a laugh. n/t

[kdmorris]

575. I'm not talking about conditioning people in sexual responses

I'm talking about, from the time our daughters are children, they are taught that beauty and what they look like to a man, is how they determine their worth.

Have you seen the shit the put out as girls clothes these days? High heels? WHY.. just tell me WHY they make high heels for a fucking 5 year old? Look at the commericials and movies and music that are created. Girls are conditioned from the time they are little to be OK with being seen as objects. Beauty is what it's all about. Woe to the girl that doesn't appeal to a boy, for their fate will be lonely.

Like I said to another poster. I'm done with this thread. There's no conversation to be had here and no one is listening anyway.

[supernova]

33. As a woman who enjoys erotic material

I think that maybe porn is best viewed as a barometer of the current culture, not a cause of it.

You could remove all of those things the author finds objectionable in porn, but the impulses and behaviours that porn is created for will still exist. Some people are stimulated by pain. It's not my thing, but it does exist. Is it really wise to ignore them? I don't think so.

Personally, I don't think you're going to get porn that is not abusive until you separate the association of sex and violence in our culture. And that is a lot bigger, more complex problem to solve than pointing at objectionable behaviourss in vids.

edit: I do :applause: the author for at least trying to think through and understand the problem though. We need more like him.

[bemildred]

40. Well said.

:thumbsup:

[kdmorris]

54. I agree that it's pretty complex

well written response!

[Duppers]

173. bravo

well said, indeed!

[Nikia]

38. I think that it is perfectly acceptable to criticize the content of mainstream porn

I also think it is good to discuss why degrading porn is popular and that more female positive porn is not.
Sex by itself is not degrading. Porn films seem to include degrading sex though.

[pitohui]

47. "female positive porn" is laurell hamilton and romance novels

in our society we simply label porn aimed at men as porn and porn aimed at women as "romance" or a "vampire novel"

modern hardcore porn is not allowed by law to feature "degrading" sex such as s/m, b/d in hardcore film, if you're into that, you have to watch mainstream movies or softcore where the s/m sex play is buried in the subtext of the film

this guy thinks anal sex is degrading, fine, i don't have to take him seriously then do i?

[NotGivingUp]

53. Exactly! They've taken a perfectly normal activity and perverted it. n/t

[youthere]

221. LOL! That reminds me of the dad from "American Pie"...

"IT's a Perfectly Normal, Natural Thing!"

[HardRocker05]

188. correct; some people are determined to turn this into an attack on any and all porn; it's a strawman

and it seems designed to avoid the major issues raised.

[noamnety]

42. Robert Jensen is one of my favorites

For people who don't know him, he appears in Hijacking Catastrophe, with Daniel Ellsburg and some other prominent anti-war activists.

Google videos has that, broken up into smaller segments, as well as him speaking at the 2003 World Social Forum,

[pitohui]

48. well maybe he'd better stick to that and quit freaking about people doing anal on film

because he's just embarrassing himself if you ask me

we get it, he's a real man, he thinks anal is icky

next!

[kdmorris]

55. What the hell are you talking about?

He NEVER said it was icky or degrading. He wasn't TALKING about anal sex. I repeat... he said:

When the legal restrictions on pornography slowly receded through the 1970s and ‘80s, and the presentation of sex on the screen was by itself no longer quite so illicit, anal sex became a standard feature. Anal sex was seen as something most women don’t want; it had an edge to it. When anal sex became routine in pornography, the gonzo genre started pushing the boundaries into things like double-penetrations and gag-inducing oral sex – again, acts that men believe women generally will not want. The more pornography becomes normalized and mainstreamed, the more pornography has to search for that edge. And that edge most commonly is cruelty, which emotionally is the easiest place to go for men, given that the dynamic of male domination and female submission is already in place in patriarchy.

Why do you keep saying he doesn't like it or that it's degrading? You don't seem to have any other thoughts about it.

Since you keep making a fool of yourself, I don't have to take YOU seriously either, do I?

[noamnety]

62. This is why it's smart to know what you are talking about

before popping off about something. "just embarrassing himself" is horribly funny in the context of your post. :D

What do you suppose his position is on gay rights?
What do you suppose his own sexual orientation is?



Maybe you should check your own definition of "a real man." Here is his:

Real Men

First, let me say what I don't mean by the term "real men." I am not referring to some concept of an "authentic" masculinity, to some notion of what it means to be a real man. In this sense, there are no real men. Masculinity, like femininity, is a trap, a way to constrain human beings--wildly variable in our capacities--into predetermined social roles that define and confine rather than open up and liberate.

But in shaping a political strategy, we must take note of where and how real male humans really live in the real world. After many years of talking to men, in formal research interviews and informally, here's what I've concluded:

Although we can never know who they are, there likely are some men who are beyond the reach of the call to love and justice, probably forever. Some men are so committed to dominance and male supremacy that they have, for all practical purposes, lost their souls. There are no doubt complex explanations for this, but in practical political terms, these men are not my target audience. The same can be said of some white people, some rich people, some Americans. For whatever reason, some people in positions of privilege and power seem beyond the reach of an appeal based in empathy and shared humanity. Coming to terms with that rather sad reality is difficult, but necessary. The good news, however, is that we don't have to win over every single man to change the culture.

Our focus should be on the men who are struggling. These are the men I know and speak with often. That is the man I am. We struggle to make sense of our socialization. We struggle to be decent in a world in which it's easy to simply accept our privilege and power. Often, we fail. ...

http://www.mrcforchange.org/realmen_realchoices.html

[qdemn7]

86. Hmmmm from "his" viewpoint

There's only one type of porn, heterosexual, nothing else exists. And THIS is the most telling part of everything he writes:

The feminist anti-pornography movement is, of course, fundamentally political--it's about changing an inherently unjust distribution of power.

It's about POWER, nothing more, nothing less. Who has it, who wields it.

[noamnety]

94. He says exactly the opposite.

You: "from "his" viewpoint there's only one type of porn, heterosexual, nothing else exists."

Jensen: "There are different pornographic genres telling different stories, but I am concerned here with the story told in mainstream heterosexual pornography."

(He also doesn't discuss roller-blading or accordions in this particular article, or any number of other things that don't relate to "the story told in mainstream heterosexual pornography" which was the subject of this piece.)

[mondo joe]

51. Seems moronic to me. But I wonder how he's appply his sophomoric line of thinking to gay porn.

What would he say? We're being both victims and victimizers to ourselves at the same time?

[smoogatz]

95. In some parts of the country they'd call that a "Lucky Pierre."

I'm not sure where the Pierre part comes from.

[gollygee]

56. I don't know what bothers me more

the information in the article, or people's defense of this industry. :(

[Lilith Velkor]

57. Someone needs to clue Jensen in on a simple fact:

Heterosexual women like to be penetrated. As do homosexual men.

The penis is not an icky dirty thing. Please get a grip, and for fucksake watch your porn in privacy instead of in workshops with traumatized rape victims, that's just fucking sick.

[eridani]

128. An overgeneralization

10-15% of gay men don't really care for anal sex, and a significant number of heterosexual women prefer oral or manual stimulation of the clitoris to penetration. Lots of people of both genders and all orientations do like penetration. Lots of het men like being "pegged", and some lesbians like penetration also.

[HardRocker05]

186. uh, lesbians like penetration; doesn't mean the points raised in the article aren't legit, and it re

really has nothing to do with the 'penis being dirty.' treating people like shit is dirty, and it is sad that so many people seem to find this kind of fantasy indispensible and many others can't wait to defend it, i guess to show how sophisticated they are.

[Lilith Velkor]

232. How can one equate penetration with 'treating people like shit' w/o the penis being a Bad Thing?

I guess I'm not "sophisticated" enough to grasp that. :eyes:

Perhaps another paternalistic pronouncement will make me see the error of my ways. I can hardly wait. :sarcasm:

[HardRocker05]

331. *you* created the strawman that penetration is the issue. it is not. treating people like shit is th

the issue. does that clear it up for you?

[Lilith Velkor]

357. Yes, it is clear that you either didn't read the article, or didn't comprehend it.

There is an excerpt *right in the fucking OP* bemoaning how hurtful and humiliating it is to see women being *penetrated.*

Not beaten or robbed...but penetrated.

As a heterosexual female, I object, for obvious reason.

[ismnotwasm]

69. Pornography is getting worse.

Check out any top ten pornography titles, and they contain demeaning titles usually directed toward women. The hard core porn in any category seems to involve inflicting pain or humiliation and I don't mean the SMBD stuff-which at least has a certain level of honestly no matter what I think about the content. There is a trend toward specific acts grouped together. A lot of it reminds me of how dogs establish dominance. Pornography is very, very big money. I despise the industry for too many reasons to go into here. I find pornography exploitive and damaging and based on the subjugation of women all over the world. My experience, and my opinion.

That being said, sex worker advocates like Dr. Sharon Mitchell have my admiration, because she went out and did something about the health of sex workers.
http://aim-med.org/index.html

I get real tired of defense of pornography as a victimless profession, or a "free choice". It's not, and it never has been. I think most folks who sit and defend pornography couldn't give a SHIT about the lives of sex workers. There used to be a couple of people on DU who thought about that aspect of it, but I haven't seen them in a while. I never agreed with their stance on pornography and I never will, but care and concern for human beings is big in my book.

[noamnety]

76. I guess a lot of people in this thread would argue

that sweatshops aren't really that bad, we shouldn't boycott them, because the people who work there CHOOSE to work there.

[Duppers]

175. hear hear

exactly.

[Raster]

563. Please don't assume that everything in this three-year old article is accurate

This article comes during the time he was promoting his book. He has taken a complex issue and sensationalized it, hoping much for what we have today--heated emotional reaction. According to some, this author has a penchant for hyperbole.

And don't believe everything you hear about the adult entertainment industry.

[noamnety]

566. Actually he's a friend of a very close friend

and I trust him implicitly.

And also, I've read the studies - I linked a good study of the studies elsewhere in this thread. Being an old soviet analyst, I still live by that phrase "Trust, but verify." ;)

Writing a book about a thing does not automatically discredit a person - it would be a very strange world if all authors were, by default, discredited the minute they put a book on the market.

This is another essay of his that I loved, having written on a similar topic myself at about the same time (Jeb Bush and the rewriting of history). http://www.zmag.org/Sustainers/Content/2006-08/13jensen.cfm

[lumberjack_jeff]

71. First observation:

A cruel edge: The painful truth about today's pornography -- and what men can do about it
<snip>
copyright Robert Jensen 2004

An abridged version of this appeared in MS magazine, Spring 2004, pp. 54-58.

There's nothing that says "hey guys, let's get our shit together" than publishing your article in Ms Magazine.

Next up: The painful truth about cellphone related accidents -- and what women can do about it
published in GQ.

[noamnety]

75. I am missing your point

There was an original full length version of the article. Several months after it was published, Ms. Magazine ran an abridged version. Are you thinking men didn't read the original when it came out because they somehow knew that down the road, Ms. Magazine would be reprinting it?

[lumberjack_jeff]

89. I'm saying there's very little marketplace for articles which promote the most degrading stereotypes

about men, in men's media.

At risk of perpetuating the patriarchy, I agree with the author that porn is harmful to everyone involved, and to society at large.

[nashville_brook]

253. that "porn is harmful" is not a patriarchal value -- don't get your point

[lumberjack_jeff]

263. It is easy to make the case...

... that those who believe that porn should be regulated, must believe that grown women as a group lack the judgment to choose that career.

Regulating the behavior of women because they lack the wits to be in charge of their own decisionmaking is an inherently patriarchal view.

I'm conflicted because I do think that porn is harmful, but publishing articles in Ms Magazine on the pretense of modifying the behavior of the male consumers of porn is not an honest attempt at effecting change - it's simply man-bashing.

[nashville_brook]

334. no one is suggesting regulation of porn -- you can CRITIQUE something without eliminating it

the author is saying this particular trend in porn is destructive. it's amazing how people automatically jump to this paranoid fantasy land where all the X-chroms want to take away your damn porn. rest assured -- we don't care how many times you cum under your desk at the computer -- we're just saying -- yuck.

[lumberjack_jeff]

419. Yes, he's saying that "mainstream" aka "hardcore" porn is destructive.

I find this an interesting treatment of definitions, if nothing else.

You've hit on an interesting point. I certainly agree that it isn't an honest effort to change anything. One certainly can critique something without having any intent to ameliorate it. After all, if it were improved, there'd be less to "critique".

[Exiled in America]

81. People act like women don't watch pornography.

This makes no sense to me. Articles like this make it seem as though the only people who watch porn are single heterosexual men. Women watch porn. And LGBT and straight people watch porn. And committed couples watch porn together. Let me give a personal example of why articles like this makes no sense to me:

My little "family" of friends consists of eight female friends and three male friends. These are the people in my close circle. Roughly half this group is gay, half straight. Most of these people are highly educated, over half with Master's Degrees or better, and all but two are actively working for progressive causes either in political and non-profits or - in most cases - as social workers. 100% of them are left leaning democrats.

Not a single one of them has a problem with pornography. One lesbian couple take great pride in seeking out the best lesbian porn. One of them likes both gay and straight porn. One gay man simply loves all porn - gay, straight and well....in my opinion "strange" porn. :) All but two of these friends are in committed relationships in which pornography is a positive part of their shared sex lives, along with all kinds of other erotica.

I feel like this reality is overlooked. I'm not sure I believe that the typical stereotype of the single woman-hating man who is "addicted" to porn really holds much worth in modern society? Does that happen - I'm sure it does, at which point I fault the individual, not the erotica. Is their bad pornography out there? I'm sure there is, but I don't think YOU get to judge that for someone else. Just like there are bad movies, bad books, and bad activities one can associate with in any genre of activity, people must use responsible discretion, which doesn't mean never seeing a movie, reading a book or participating in any activities ever again.

I also find it kind of offensive that sex acts with people voluntarily coming together and desiring to have sex, even if that includes having sex that others may watch, must immediately be somehow oppressing or objectifying the woman. I feel like there is an underlying offensive assumption that women are weak and don't know what they want, can't never be assumed to be assertive decision makers about what kind of sex they want to participate in and what they want to do with their bodies. To me it seems like a stereotype where woman are believed to be passive participants in the sex desires of others rather than active decision makers about their own bodies and their own sex desires.

Are there situations where woman are mistreated or exploited? Yes, which is why its a shame that attitudes about the sex industry overall are so backward. It would be nice if we could fully legalize and regulate the sex industry just like any other industry wherein woman can (and often are) exploited or marginalized.

[HardRocker05]

187. i doubt that the numbers are comparable, but it doesn't matter; the point is the nature of the porn,

not porn per se, or who is watching it. some people are studiously avoiding the central points of the article.

[Exiled in America]

189. the nature of pornography? Describe its nature for me?

Distinguish it from erotica? Tell me when the sexually erotic becomes pornography and be specific - I want a concrete definition. Or is all forms of erotica evil?

So a lesbian couple watching video of two women having sex is wrong? What about if it wasn't video - what if they were watching two women having sex live, say in their own home? Is that wrong? Why?

Explain for me the statement, "its not porn its the nature of porn..." ?

[HardRocker05]

564. uh, i think the objection is to porn which is based on degrading, abusing, and even raping people; w

who is opposing happy, loving, lesbian erotica? i certainly haven't done that or seen that in this thread. i've seen a lot of people trying to dodge the real subject, though.

[Exiled in America]

633. Who defines "degrading" or "abusive?"

And let's say my partner has a rape fantasy, which is you know... not unheard of and in fact fairly common... the certain degree of excitement that comes from that sort of power play...

Are you in a position to determine what kinds of fantasies I or my partner have or play out ?

What is the difference between fantasies that we might play out in private as consenting adults and the kind of erotica we might choose to view, like videos of consenting adults exploring similar fantasies?

And again setting that specific example aside, who gets to decide what is "degrading" or "abusive?"

Is there such a thing as degrading or abusive between mutually consenting adults?

[Katherine Brengle]

653. "Rape fantasy" is not, and never will be, "rape" for pete's sake.

I don't think "rape fantasies" are as common as a lot of media would like us to think, but that's beside the point.

A fantasy is a mental image that doesn't hurt anyone outside the head of the one imagining it.

And acting out a "fantasy" with your partner is not the same as actually being raped.

No one is talking about your fantasies. We're talking about a form of "entertainment" in which the primary focus is often the humiliation and degradation (not imagined by the way, but acted out) of a woman.

And you want to know who defines degrading and abusive? How about the demographic that is hurt most by this shit - women.

[Exiled in America]

734. Neither is rape fantasy filmed. And you didn't answer my questions.

[Warren DeMontague]

82. What consenting adults choose to do with their own bodies is their own business.

What consenting adults choose to watch, read, or get off to, provided everyone involved is a consenting adult, is their own business.

[Starbucks Anarchist]

288. How dare you bring logic into this.

[lostnotforgotten]

84. Way Off Base - Modern America Is An America Of Isolation and Social Dislocation

Single man here that has not had a date in 14 years.

My doctor mandates that I masturbate to maintain prostate health.

Without visual stimulation this is nearly impossible.

Hence pornography.

Once again the woman's movement is way off base.

[tkmorris]

132. Hold up

Are you seriously arguing that the "woman's movement" as you call it is wrong about pornography, solely because YOU need visual stimulation? Really? That's your argument?

Why haven't you had a date in 14 years?

[lostnotforgotten]

142. Did You Not Read The Heading To My Post

America today is about social isolation.

People live in fear in their houses and do not venture forth to engage one another.

I have lived in apartments for the past twenty years.

They are soulless places.

During that twenty tear period I was unemployed for five.

Woman don't want to date unemployed men.

Thems the facts!

On society, If you don't believe me read the book "Bowling Alone".

http://www.bowlingalone.com/

[tkmorris]

150. I have read that

But I still don't see your point. It's true that purely asexual recreational activities (like bowling) are not what they once were but do you really not think people are getting out and socializing for purposes of sex? Or were you trying to make some other point so esoteric it went over my head?

And by the way that still leaves 9 years. Get the hell out of your apartment dude. Walk a dog. Visit the park. Hit the library. ANYTHING, as long as you turn off the tv and log off of the net a few times a week. Brother I'm ugly but I managed. You can too.

Oh, one more thing. You may imagine I am anti-porn. I'm not. Not even close. HOWEVER, there is a large and growing subset of porn that does treat women in the way the article that inspired the OP warns about. It pushes the boundaries by portraying or pretending to portray the utter domination of women as sexual objects, to the point of causing them pain. Rape scenarios are depicted, and enjoyed by some. Furthermore, many women are pressured and manipulated into participating in such things, while later regretting it deeply. It discomfits me a great deal.

I suggest you read the book my wife suggested upthread. Ariel Levy's Female Chauvinist Pigs. It illustrates quite well the ways in which women are manipulated into such things, and describes why they often willingly seek out opportunities to do so. They have been taught that that's what success IS, for females. Being an object of desire, to be used by the alpha males.

If you peruse much porn online, you have likely run across the acronym PIHB. Think about what that means, and what it implies.

[lostnotforgotten]

154. TV Free For 6 Years - You Really Do Make Too Many Assumptions

Once you reach 50 in this society you are really not welcome anywhere.

Married couples shun you.

Younger people shun you.

Etc, etc.

BTW - a library card was my first priority when I moved.

Read about two books a week.

[tkmorris]

172. Not making assumptions

I AM making guesses of course. I hope I can be forgiven that; without details what else can a person do? You have a point about age. There is a definite tendency to ignore older people in today's society. I already feel it though I am not yet 50. It can be overcome though. You know this is true, you have seen people as old as you be engaging, and capture some interest from others. Furthermore, there are women your age out there being as ignored as you are. GO FIND ONE.

It would be easier to find a woman equal in age to me now than it would have been at 20. When I was 20 all of my contemporary women thought they were hot. Now, they know better and are beginning to fear being alone for the rest of their lives. No longer is that my problem but if I was single, as you are, it would be a buyer's market.

Forgive me if I am too presumptuous, but I believe you must not be trying sir. The biggest fear amongst those who are single and 50+ seems to be loneliness. THERE ARE LONELY WOMEN OUT THERE. Go help them be less so. It is a doable thing, if you but try and are willing to accept failure.

PM me if you wish. I would enjoy further conversation.

[pitohui]

427. give the dude a break, i dated someone w. this RX, he was 25

he had already lost function in one tube and the doc advised him to start masturbating regularly if he was unable to hook up

the reason he had trouble getting women?

he was short (less than five feet tall)

we don't know this guy's story, but we do know this society has prejudices so what does it cost to give him the benefit of the doubt?

[noamnety]

207. "America today is about social isolation"

"soulless places"

And this is brought up as a defense of why an industry that dehumanizes and objectifies humans is a good thing?

[lostnotforgotten]

432. It Is Brought Up As A Fact That Forces One To Seek Release Elsewhere

eom

[noamnety]

447. Nobody is "forced" to look at porn or exploit women.

it's a choice, and if it feels like a forced option (what choice do you have, if women won't screw you, eh?) - then that would hint at a sense of entitlement and male privilege. It's every man's god-given right to have access to women's bodies.

[lostnotforgotten]

493. You Don't Read Well Do You - Doctor's Orders - Masturbate!

eom

[raccoon]

276. What about the other 15 years? nt

[Duppers]

177. sorry you missed this point

I don't think this is about "porn" but victim portrayed porn, cruel and demeaning to women.
Not all visual erotica is.

If hurting women gets you off, well....but you did not say that. Sorry. Whatever does it for ya, as long as it doesn't hurt or demean anyone, male or female.

on edit: And I agree with some posts above that this is not about anal sex either. Those who think it is are missing the point too.

[lostnotforgotten]

194. I Can Assure You That I Am Not Into Pain Afflicted or Received!

eom

[Prophet 451]

88. *sigh*

This reminds me quite strongly of the Meece Report put out under Reagan's government. It assumes that a woman cannot give informed consent, it represents the extremes of porn as the mainstream, it denies the possibility that women might enjoy participating in or viewing porn and teh author repeatedly inserts his own perceptions into the subject matter. The insinuation that anal sex is seen as "something most women don't want" seems to come straight from the author's mind, not from any statistical research. It is entirely possible that the popularity of anal sex is because most men think most women do want anal sex. "Her vocalizations sound pained"; again, his impression, not fact, as the later exchange demonstrates (the attitude of the filmakers is irrelevant in this instance since I'm talking about the author).

Several times, he makes the assumption that porn is inherantly degrading, again with no evidence. "Her smile fades to a pained look of shame and despair", another assumption. "I think the evidence clearly shows that in some cases pornography influences men’s sexual behavior" is interesting since the evidence clearly does NOT show that (the evidence is entirely inconclusive) and again, demonstrates that teh author is approaching this not from the evidence-led view of teh scientist but from the opinion-led view of the polemecist. "In pornography, women are three holes and two hands", "There is no way to say this that isn’t harsh": These are lines from a polemic, not a serious piece of research.

As an educated rant at the porn industry, this might be fun to read but as a serious investigation of porn and men's reactions to it, it's about as useful as Dworkin at her battiest.

[booley]

388. Thank You!

I admit I am getting annoyed at people who tell me to read the article who obviously haven't 'read it themselves.

Or at least werent' paying attention to what this guy was writing.

[Prophet 451]

582. I find that's often the case

I've spent a fair portion of my life in academia (no more thankfully, the pay is lousy) and one thing I noticed was that most people (students and lecturers alike) will laud a study which agrees with their own views and disparage on that doesn't. Seems obvious but they do this regardless of the worthiness or flaws in the metholdogy employed.

My old PoliSci lecturer (who later became a personal friend) once said: "Twenty years ago, I spent my time telling students that Marx hadn't written the last word on everything. Now, I spend just as much time telling them that not everything the man had to say was rubbish". It's that kind of either/or thinking which propelled things like the Meese Report (I looked up the spelling). The evidence showed that porn which involved acts of physical violence was harmful; fine, no-one objected to that. Porn which didn't involve acts of physical violence was (hang the evidence!) "not entirely harmless".

Porn is a subject that everyone comes to with their own views and if one has chosen to study it, those views are probably fairly extreme. What annoys me is the twisting of research to fit those views regardless of what the evidence actually says.

[the other one]

90. Porn is THE BEST THING FOR EVERYONE

Violent and sexual crimes against women have been dropping consistently since the widespread introduction of the internet. Because pornography has gone from the back alley to the bedroom. As the the internet has become more available, so too has ready access to porn. Shy and repressed people no longer have to buy their porn in public, but can do so in the privacy of their own homes. And judging by the explosion of porn web sites and corresponding proliferation of talent and titles, this product has found a welcome market.

But the key point is the reduction in violent crimes and sex crimes. It appears that people would rather sit home and masturbate to images online then to go out and actually act out their sexual urges. In much the same way as sports television has created more couch-potatoes and fewer athletes, porno-internet has created more voyeurs while finding a healthy outlet for the less wholesome fetishes.

While I do pity individuals who are reduced to sacrificing their dignity in order to earn a living, I am not sure that the sex workers are suffering as much as some others in our society who have gone from good jobs to no jobs because of a bankrupt moral philosophy which has guided our nation's economy since George Bush called it voodoo economics a generation ago. I know women who have done porn, and they don't seem hurt by the experience. In fact, they seem quite pleased that that they could earn in two hours what would otherwise have taken two weeks.

But if you really want to fight porn ( and help increase violent crime against women ) than fight the real problem - the credit card companies have fueled the explosion in the porn industry by making porn deliverable to the home computer. And they make an obscene amount of money doing it. You want to hurt the porn industry? Then boycott your credit card company and get everyone else to do the same until they stop allowing their product to be used facilitate the purchase of online porn.

[idgiehkt]

182. you seriously need some links to back that up

I'd love to see them.

[nashville_brook]

255. porn performers are more likely to commit suicide than any other social group -- here's a link

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

[mondo joe]

470. A link to "Mike" saying so?

Got an actual link to real data?

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

92. Overall, Porn Is Completely Harmless. We Are Sexual Beings And There Is Little Wrong With Viewing

erotic movies.

My only additional point, would be that there are countless numbers of women who get turned on by porn as well. Sexual energy is healthy, and there's nothing wrong with stimulating that type of atmosphere by watching some conventional pornography.

In fact, though I watch it rarely, my wife and I will actually be watching some porn in a little bit. My idea? Nope. Hers. On the way home from her parents a bit ago she just impulsively asked if I could download a little something. I said "Ok, if ya want", but didn't for a second judge her for it or put all these stigmas around it as if there was something so much deeper that was going to be impacted if God forbid we actually watch it.

Porn is just porn. In fact, it's quite harmless.

[ProudToBeBlueInRhody]

136. Something you said or did made your innocent wife want to watch that porn

You manipulative, sick, perverted man. She probably needs massive doses of therapy now. :sarcasm:

[Jed Dilligan]

242. I think you're right for the wrong reasons.

Why does everyone make this personal ("I'm healthy and I watch porn" vs. "Think of what you're DOING you filthy pervert!")?

The biggest square-eyed whackoff in the world can post how they hate porn, and the biggest defender of porn here might puke when they look at it.

This is a policy issue, in the end. Censorship is censorship. If you want it, join the GOP.

[nashville_brook]

258. be aware of how porn programs you

if good old loving, non-humiliating sex still works for you, bravo. if however, you find yourself getting programed to humiliation narratives, then, be aware of that. what's your internal dialog when making love with a head-full of porn? are you enjoying the people in the room, or are you enjoying mental projections?

and don't think that just because your wife wants this, that it's healthy. we are just as able to be self-destructive as men.

[Lurking Dem]

259. Thank G-d someone can cure me

of my deviant desires!

You gotta program for gays, too?

/snark

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

273. It's. Just. Porn.

[Warren DeMontague]

328. Yes, like I said downthread, every time I watch a zombie movie I'm suddenly incapable of relating to

other people as anything except zombies.

I watched an old Cary Grant/Katherine Hepburn movie last week, and for 3 days I saw everything in black and white and could only respond to people in rapid-fire, off the cuff, 1930s witticisms.

I watched Winnie The Pooh with my kid, and now I keep getting my fucking hand stuck in big cartoon jugs of honey.

Yes, truly, we must be careful because our brains are being "programmed" against our will by these foul, corrupting influences! :eyes:

[nashville_brook]

332. the moon is made of green cheese and advertising doesen't work, either

[Warren DeMontague]

433. Well, wait just a minute there. I thought sexuality wasn't a "choice". Why, just last week I had my

head nearly bitten off by folks in another thread, going "SEXUALITY IS NOT A CHOICE!" when I suggested, rather innocently to my mind, that even though I agree that a person's sexuality is not a choice, whether it is or not shouldn't make a whit's worth of difference when it comes to the right of consenting adults to run their own lives and control their own bodies. I didn't even say it wasn't a choice, I just said it shouldn't matter if it is or isn't- and the SEXUALITY IS NOT A CHOICE police quickly and enthusiastically corrected me for saying something I didn't say.

Wait. What was that? "The right of consenting adults to run their own lives and control their own bodies."

Hmmm. Maybe someone can think real hard and figure out how that statement might pertain to the subject of this thread.

:freak: :think: :freak:

But getting back to the notion of "choice".. yeah, I thought it was gospel truth unchallengeable fact that sexuality is not a choice. Yet, here, you seem to suggest that the easily confused heterosexual male is so susceptible to re-programming of his sexual mojo, that watching a few porno flicks with someone, for instance, licking whipped cream off a midget will irretrievably turn him into a whipped cream midget-licker. In my old job, like I said, I came into contact with a good deal of porn. Including no small amount of gay porn, which somehow didn't turn me gay. How can that be? :shrug: Supposedly exposure to these mind-altering toxic images should have warped my helpless, easily molded sexuality beyond repair. I don't get it. Maybe sexuality is set in stone by biology, unless there's a DVD player nearby.

[Raster]

474. You are correct. More and more science is showing us sexual orientation is an innate trait.

That said, sexual orientation, as in all aspects of human sexuality is a complex issue and not simple black and white. There are factors that may influence action and behavior.

For example: Bob is a heterosexual, he is sexually attracted to women and has been his entire life. When Bob was 7-10, Bob had a hot babysitter that wore fishnets and stilettos. That left a DEEP impression on young Bob. Now an adult, Bob has found he has a fetish for fishnets and stilettos. At first he was just turned on to women wearing fishnets and stilettos. One day he found a pair of stilettos and a pair of fishnets of his wifes. Bob had wicked idea and tried on the fishnets and stilettos and found he was really excite. Point to the story, was Bob born a hetero guy with a fetish for fishnets and stilettos? No, just born a hetero.

Simplistic, yes, I know. But it illustrates my point.

I wanna know more about the whipped cream and midgets.

[mondo joe]

417. Be aware you are just programmed against porn.

Your mind is not your own.

[raccoon]

287. That's your opinion.

"Overall, Porn Is Completely Harmless."

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

292. It Is? For Real? Fuck, I Woulda Sworn For A Second There I Was Taken Over Mentally By An

ill meaning alien breed that forced me to type that.

But I guess I posted it out of my own free will after all... :hi:

[raccoon]

293. You state it as if it were a fact, that was what I meant. nt

[Duppers]

300. you've missed the fucking point yet again - as per usual for you!

you did not read the article at the OP link nor most all of this thread either.

Details are not a strong suit with you.....not much of anything else is either.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

335. I Didn't Miss The Point, I Just Found The Point To Be Melodramatic And Illegitimate.

But your ad hominem overly emotional attack was quite cute!

[mudesi]

348. I agree with OPERATIONMINDCRIME!

Pigs, they fly today.

There is some "Gonzo" pornography, however, that is little more than exploitation. "Overall", though, you are correct.

[Deja Q]

406. What if people watch it instead of finding and appreciating other, real people?

[mondo joe]

413. So what if they do? It's their choice. I'm pro choice about more than just abortion.

And if forming relationships isn't sufficiently PERSONAL for others to back the fuck off, I don't know what is.

[Scout]

618. these are probably the guys who complain that women won't go out

with them, they're a "nice guy" and those bitches only like the bad boys and guys who treat them like shit.

:rofl:

[The Magistrate]

96. Mr. Jensen, Ma'am, Spends An Awful Lot Of Time Watching Pornography....

Odd that he finds something he professes such disgust for so fascinating, and so engrossing: it is a wonder he can ever manage to tear himself away from his 'researches' and type up his results.

[jgraz]

127. Sure he can

He just types one-handed.

[The Magistrate]

130. So Where, Sir, Is The Drum Sting, And 'Thank You, Folks, I'll Be Here All Week...'?

But seriously, there is in this an air similar to the 'exposure' of homosexual practices that is such a staple of religious right denunciations of 'sodomites', that functions as the acceptable form of homosexual pornography in those circles. Persons this interested in other people's sexual behavior are generally ridden hard by demons of their own they can neither face nor acknowledge in themselves.

[jgraz]

131. Try the veal

To rephrase your eloquent analysis in a more visceral way: This kinda shit just creeps me out.

[supernova]

250. You are wise as ever, Sir!

:D

[bemildred]

262. So you think it's labor of love, Sir?

:hi:

[smoogatz]

99. And yet "the number of rape cases in the US has plunged by more than 85%

since the 1970s."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/06/18/AR2006061800610.html

Huh. The porn gets "worse," the number of rape cases plummets. Go figure.

[nashville_brook]

119. wow! rape has virtually disappeared! who knew!

thanks for sharing this extremely good news!

[raccoon]

289. Even if that's true that ""the number of rape cases in the US has plunged by more than 85%"

(which I don't believe it is), correlation does not equal causation.

[smoogatz]

322. My point exactly.

The increase in the general nastiness of mainstream porn hasn't caused any increase in sexual violence against women. In fact, sexual violence against women appears to have decreased considerably in the past two decades (read the article--it's hard to argue with DoJ statistics), the same period in which porn nastiness has allegedly increased. If increasingly nasty porn isn't causing any real-world negative repercussions, then I'm not sure I understand what the problem is other than the fact that it's, well, nasty. The OP and other posters here seem to worry that men who look at nasty porn might then think nasty thoughts about them. I don't look at nasty porn, but even if I did I'm pretty sure that what I do or don't think about in the privacy of my own brain is nobody's damn business but mine.

On edit: I should add that if women (or men) are being exploited by the porn industry, and I'm guessing that they are, then that's a bad thing. They should probably try to unionize or something, though I imagine that their jobs would be pretty easily outsourced.

[FooFootheSnoo]

100. I agree with a lot of the article's points

I'd like to understand how anyone can see pornography as liberating to a woman? Because she can do whatever she wants with her body and make lots of money? Ok, yeah that's true.
What if she has children and wants to volunteer at their school and the principal find out she was involved in the porn industry? What if she decides to change careers and her future employer learns about her porn career? What if her neighbors find out what she does? What if she meets someone she wants to marry that's not involved in the porn industry? What if she wants to become a leader in her community? Most of the women involved in pornography are very young and have not yet acquired the wisdom to understand how being involved in that kind of industry can affect their lives. It's not liberating, if anything, in the long run these girls wind up with their choices more restricted than someone who was never in pornography.

Is there any porn star that has become a successful big screen actress? The kind that don't have to take their clothes off? Are any former porn stars holding public office? Is there a successful business(outside the sex industry) run by a former porn star?

[Warren DeMontague]

102. Most of the examples you list have to do with other people's judgment of her career

not with the career itself.

The bottom line is, in a free society consenting adults should be able to do as they choose with their own bodies. If that means screwing in front of a camera so other consenting adults can pay to watch it, that's their own business.

[FooFootheSnoo]

108. I'm aware that is has to do with other people's judgements

Because of most people's perceptions of the pornography industry, her life (if she can leave the sex industry) will be profoundly affected by having been a sex worker. I don't think 18 year olds getting into the porn industry have the maturity and foresight to consider what effect other people's judgements might have on their life.

[Warren DeMontague]

111. Is it all 18 year olds that you think should be prevented from making their own decisions?

Or only the ones who make choices you, personally, disagree with?

See, that's a tactic the anti-choice people use with regards to abortion, as well. Any woman who would choose to get an abortion is by definition incapable of making a sound choice, the 'poor dear', and as such we need to infantalize her and prevent her from making these choices we have arbitrarily decided she shouldn't make.

With regards to 18 year olds... either people become adults capable of making their own choices (even bad ones) at a certain age, or they don't. So where do you draw the line at which you want to start treating citizens as adults capable of making their own decisions? 20? 25? 30? 40?

[FooFootheSnoo]

116. I NEVER said that

I said that pornography is NOT liberating for young women who do not (at 18 years old) have the wisdom or foresight to understand what getting involved in that industry will do to their lives should they choose to leave it. Their choices will be more restricted because of their involvement in the porn industry than if they had chosen a different field. I don't know how I can express my opinion more plainly, I apologize if you had a hard time understanding it.

[The Vinyl Ripper]

137. I don't know any porn actressess

But I've known quite a few "exotic dancers"..

The great majority of them when they put clothes on and take the makeup off, you would never know what they do. They mostly look maybe a little better than average and not always that.

And besides, most people watching porn aren't looking at *faces*. :D

Sure there's a risk of discovery but I think you are overstating the risk.

[FooFootheSnoo]

216. I may be overstating the risk

I know without the makeup and stage clothes they can look a lot different. But, I can't imagine that they never worry about their past cropping up. If it does, then it can really be damaging.

[qdemn7]

151. The problem is with your perception

Is that 18 people are considered adults. And your perception of their "wisdom or foresight" is irrelevant unless you are their parent. And they would STILL be and adult, and be able to choose what their life path is unless you intend to imprison them against their will.

[FooFootheSnoo]

217. Did I say anything about imprisoning someone against

his or her will? I believe 18 year olds are adults and should have all the rights of any adult. My post was intended to argue against the fact that working in the sex industry is "liberating" or "empowering" for young women (or young men for that matter). I don't believe they have the wisdom or foresight to understand how it can possibly narrow their choices later in life because of how others will view them.

[mondo joe]

103. That's part of individual judgment. And it's true of both men and women, and a

hell of a lot more choices than just porn.

If you want a career in politics or education, porn isn't a good choice - whether you're a man or a woman.

[pitohui]

435. so you never heard of ilona staller

"the first hardcore porn star ever to be elected to a democratic parliament" (in italy)

for some reason i thought she was rather famous but that's just me

she was also the muse and i think at one time the wife of well known american artist jeff koons

[struggle4progress]

106. The article contains some informative examples but little useful analysis

The real task is to identify the problem, to identify the underlying processes (not in an abstract sense but in a concrete and realistic sense), and then to analyze how those processes can be attacked by social and political activists.

The problem at hand concerns certain hurtful dynamics in human relationships. To understand these dynamics, and the role such pornographic materials play in the reproduction of these dynamics, one may need to address a number of technical questions. I will first indicate some questions you will not like, then I will ask some questions that may go more directly to your objectives.

Who are the people appearing in and producing such materials?

Historically, many sex workers have been victims of abusive circumstances that create certain submissive dependencies, though this may not be uniformly true.

Who is the audience for such material?

One can probably learn to sexualize almost emotion, for the same reason that one can learn to convert almost any emotion to anger: namely, that the habit of converting the original emotion to a substitute emotion is reinforced by the release of tension made possible by the substitute emotion. For example, profound anxieties can be disguised by sexual behavior. It has been recognized for a century that some proportion of the population suffers from paraphilias, which may be difficult or impossible to redirect. These paraphilias have a diverse range: one person may find sexual release only by decapitating a chicken, another may be aroused by violent fantasies while having no actual desire for real violence, and yet another may need a partner who wears a fur coat.

To what degree do these materials reflect the culture associated with the manufacture of the material, and to what extent do the materials reflect economic demands?

One can imagine that such materials reflect the subculture that produces them. Then, of course, it seems that subculture is not interested in middle-aged couples of average physical endowments enjoying Friday night in a long-established mutually-negotiated routine that celebrates their years of commitment. Or one might imagine that the materials reflect the "needs" of certain consumers, long accustomed to boob-tube entertainment, who find it easier to rent a video than studying carefully how to boink an available neighbor.

What effect do these materials actually have on behaviors?

It is one thing is people watch such materials, involving performers who are happy to perform in this fashion, as a way of relieving certain fantasy tensions, which then find no active expression. It is quite another if the performers perform as a result of abuse and the videos serve to train people how to mistreat other people, thus serving as a trigger for future abusive relations.

Now let's turn to the questions I think you really want to address

What social mechanisms reproduce relations of gender dominance?

It seems clear that the idea Womanliness as submission to manly violence is reproduced socially in a number of ways. These include gender-role-stereotyping, which (for example) traditionally gay-baits the non-violent male as a faggot-sissy-queer or insists that the proper role of woman is servant of her husband. One ought to note here that the man-as-tough-warrior theme is reinforced regularly by a broad cross-section of society, including the mothers and wives who encourage their sons and husbands to go battle the foe. There are likely to be a number of such mechanisms, and socially deconstructing them may present significant political challenges: warrior-status-as-manliness, for example, could be challenged by a universal service requirement that applied equally to both sexes and made no real distinction between men and women for combat purposes. One might expect such a stereotyping mechanism also to be undermined by mainstreaming the sexual minorities.

What social mechanisms reproduce the notion that dominance-submission is the archetypal relation and hence the archetypal sexual relation?

One naturally expects that the "natural" relationship between humans is one of equality, but even most non-sexual relationships in our undemocratic culture actually involve explicit dominance and submission. This is taught from a early age in the public schools, where one learns to do as told. And the test of life-success for many people seems to be that one reaches a "dominant" position where one can tell others what to do. Many people regularly encounter in their work places petty tyrants who enjoy their "freedom" to regulate other people in silly ways.

In a culture that identifies success with dominance, it is perhaps not surprising that a certain number of people then correspondingly identify sexual success with sexual dominance.

Although I wish I could provide the analysis I want, I really don't know enough to do so

[LisaL]

112. I don't think working in a porn industry is good or liberating to these

young females. I presume most of them are doing it for the money. I guess they think it beats flipping burgers. But what are you going to do? If they are adults, and porn is legal, how are you going to prevent them from doing what it is they are doing? Although it doesn't make any sense to me as to why porn is legal but prostitution is not.

[hedgehog]

121. Let's see, the OP posits that the bulk of porn movies involve

the degradation of women and by extension the implication that men enjoy nasty sex ie sex that degrades women.

We've had many other threads gleefully noting that many fundamentalist Christians are hooked on porn.

Could there be a connection between finding degrading porn attractive and thinking of women as second class citizens subject to male control?


Naaaah, couldn't be!

[Iris]

277. How dare you point out such a thing?

After all, all the "porn empowers women" folks would have us believe that a society that accepts porn is a society where women are "empowered".

Of course, no one who thinks like that ever considers it might also be empowering for women to be able to admit that porn makes them squeamish or disgusts them without being treated like some kind of anti-sex freak.

[noamnety]

416. Well, you know, it's so empowering for women

that "whore" is routinely used around here by the "sex-positive" crowd as a slur against women they don't like.

(I never understood that gap in logic - the same folks who claim sex work is empowering and porn isn't degrading are routinely the same ones who don't see the problem in throwing sex-related gender insults around like confetti.)

[Iris]

418. you're confetti observation is spot on. It explains a lot, imho.

[Warren DeMontague]

326. Yeah, and the OP either thinks that all sex is degrading (he certainly thinks that about anal sex)

or he's taking a few extreme examples and flat-out lying to say that represents the "bulk of porn".

Bullshit. I worked for a chain of video stores for years. I know the stuff he's talking about, and it's the minority. If you think that films of men having sex with women, or if you think the very act of heterosexual, penetrative sex is inherently exploitative, oppressive, or degrading, then yes the bulk of porn is, too. But beyond that, the guy is full of shit.

[jgraz]

125. Just another lame attack on another normal part of sexuality

I'm sure if you looked back a bit further than 3 years you could find similar disgusting and degrading examples of what goes on in homosexual relationships. Go a bit further back and you'll read tragic stories of boys and girls who had sex before marriage.

The repression in this society is what's really unhealthy. It's one of the reasons that so much sick porn gets made: when you continually and irrationally treat all forms of sexual expression as inherently "bad", no one really develops a decent sense of what is and isn't damaging.

[alcibiades_mystery]

138. 80's Nostalgia Thread of the Day

Where have you gone, Andrea Dworkin?

:rofl:

[Warren DeMontague]

169. Obviously if "all heterosexual sex is rape", and the act of penetration is inherently oppressive

then obviously porn depicts degrading, woman-hating acts.. because ALL hetero sex is degrading, and woman-hating. :eyes:

[woo me with science]

199. It was a messed up decade for sure.

Reagan, Andrea Dworkin, and the repressed memory movement.

Oh, and big hair.

[slutticus]

143. Anyone who spends this much time analyzing porn is a freakin' looser

When a female student has a meeting about a research project with a male college professor who the night before was watching “Gag Factor #10,” who is she to him? What is she to him?

Gimme a fuckin break

[eastsyde]

166. Considering the author is a college professor who spent the day watching Sopornos IV,

shouldn't he be able to answer that question himself?

[Warren DeMontague]

167. Same as if he had watched a zombie movie the night before, and now is totally unable to relate to

anyone as anything other than a flesh-eating zombie.

Happens all the time. Really. :eyes:

[HardRocker05]

183. and if he hadn't spent the time, he wouldn't know what he was talking about, right?

that response just dodges the points raised; wonder why.

[Triana]

220. Agreed. Sheesh. There is such a thing a sex addicts

I think maybe those type of people need some help - just like any other type of addict.

[Duppers]

185. perhaps I've over reacted on this thread

Believe me, I am not against anal sex; I am not against "wholesome erotica"; I'm not against men, gays, etc. etc.

But I do have a problem with severe S&M and its portrayal in media. If you need to hurt or degrade anyone to get off, then you have a power problem.

Even been in a relationship with a person with NPD? Objectifying and using people--not just women, but men too--is sick; it's a power thing. And it's not just about sex.

[Exiled in America]

190. Who gets to define "severe?" How about the people voluntarily choosing the acts....

...rather than YOU.

"Severe S&M" - meaning light S&M is ok. What constitute S&M and what doesn't? My former partner liked it when I bit her... I pulled nipple rings out once, so that's pretty forceful. Am I an evil horrible person with "power problems" even though it was not any sort of turn on for me but something she asked me to do?

It hurt, I'm sure. So do I have a power problem or does she have a "self esteem problem?"

:eyes:

[Name removed]

195. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Anais_98]

197. my take on porn

I don't think people should claim that porn is ok because women are involved in the production of it. I believe in liberty, but I also recognise that there needs to be limits to the exercise of liberty. Censorship is not bad if it protects that community ie Neo-nazi groups are often censorsed because they promote violence, intolerance and oppression even though in doing so we limit their right to free speech. Ergo, if pornography promotes misogny, it should not be tolerated by the community.

I don't object to pornography, I object to the type of pornography that is manfactured today. We have seen a proliferation of material in which the male uses forceful actions to ensure submission to his fantasy, and employs degrading language and demeaning tactics to assert his control over the scene and the woman. Next time you're in any standard porn shop, look at the material and ask yourself:

Who dictates the play? Who has the power? Who has agency (subject/object)? Who is the recipient of most of the (physical) pleasure? What messages are coming through (ie women gain their pleasure from pleasing men)

[Lurking Dem]

390. Where are neo-nazi groups censored?

They have parades, publish crap, and make jack boots for sale that leave swastika imprints in the dirt (or their victims).

[Jed Dilligan]

229. Thanks, Dr. Phil

Stick to your amateur psychiatric business and stay out of public policy, please.

[Duppers]

304. public policy???? WTF are you talking about????

take a look at my post #185 and give me your take on that, Dilligan.

and ask your wife (oh, sorry, I know you're not married) or g.f. or daughter (oh, not one of those either) or b.d. what THEY think. No? Liking sticky to the bar scene or hunting club better, I bet.

[Jed Dilligan]

310. Are you trying to insult me?

I'm sure you'd appear to my girlfriend as you appear to me.

But I won't bother her with something so idiotic.

If you are calling for censorship, you are my enemy. If you aren't, you don't have any point to make whatsoever. What is it?

[baby_mouse]

387. "If you need to hurt or degrade anyone to get off, then you have a power problem. "

Take it from me.

You know

NOTHING

absolutely

NOTHING

about sadomasochism.

You are just making a whole lot of shit up.

I find your confrontational and ignorant attitude deeply offensive.

I regard people like you as dangerous.

What on earth makes you think you can just pull random accusations regarding other people's psychology out of your ear and wave them about? How the hell would YOU know what causes sexual orientation?

[Duppers]

475. are we talking sexual preference or sexual ORIENTATION???

Define your terms. Or we'll continue to talk circles around each other.

I am not here to gay bash FORGODSAKE! There are gays on this forum who know me personally and can vouch for my acceptance.

AND YOU KNOW NOTHING ABOUT WHO I AM OR WHAT I HAVE EXPERIENCED!!!

[pitohui]

460. then you should be happy for s/m is illegal in hardcore

so what exactly ARE you bitching about again?

hardcore (involves penetration) porn has not legally shown S/M for 20 years

if you never watch any porn and if you don't know what S/M is -- if like mr. jensen you think anal sex is S/M -- your opinion is worthless because it is based on imaginings and hysteria rather than fact

[Duppers]

472. more insults to my intelligence

and you also think you know: who I am, what I know, and what my experiences are!

The arrogance of some men on this thread amazes me.

1. I've watched porn. hardcore is illegal, uh? and you're posting on an internet connection and know there are hundreds of sited showing that. Mistake me not: I'm NOT in the reichwing corner advocating blocking net use either.

I'm here talking about changing hearts and behaviors not laws.

2. If you read some of my other posts, you would have known that I have tried annal sex and that I stated many times that MY argument is NOT about anal sex. Nor is it about any gender, not about sexual orientation, i.e. gayness >.<

3. Don't put me in any catagory, don't stereotype me, because you do not know me and obviously you cannot fathom what I'm trying to get across. My skills are lacking in crossing this great chasm.
I shall consider this a hopeless cause, just as you are thinking the same of me.

[raccoon]

593. Exactly. I wish people would distinguish between "wholesome erotica"

and porn which degrades one or both partners.

[raccoon]

594. I second that emotion.

"If you need to hurt or degrade anyone to get off, then you have a power problem. "

[woo me with science]

196. Ah, the language of victimhood. "Triggers" and exploitative men.

You can always tell the faux feminists who have embraced the ideology of Woman as Victim. The poor survivors who must tiptoe through life, because everything is a Trigger and there are brutish, exploitative, and abusive Males everywhere they look. In fact, if they can't find a real abusing Man in their current lives, they can always uncover a repressed memory of one.

This is a silly article, for reasons others have already stated above.

[spindoctor]

200. Being anal about pornography

This article is such a load of crap that I will stick to the main theme, which appears to be that watching pornography makes men want to hurt women.

Yes, it does. About as much as watching Barney makes me want to clap my hands.

So having that discussion out of the way, let's move on to the main question...what can men do about it? Since the article fails to even address this question it so proudly sports in the title, I am afraid that the conclusion must be....nothing. We (men) are helpless when it comes to giving in to our deepest urges that are so easily triggered by watching pornographic videos.
Yes, once exposed to sexually explicit video images, men are no longer capable of distinguishing between (my personal life-long) fantasy of having sex with one woman and my four best friends, or the reality of this world in which women with considerably less features than the average porn model expect at least a steak diner on the first date and blow jobs are strictly prenuptial.
Yes, after being exposed to porn for more than 30 minutes consecutively, I go out and rape everything in my path with more than two holes. Such is the nature of my sex and it is all too easily brought to the surface.

You know what? Porn is not an insult to women. Articles like this are an insult to men.

Just about everywhere in the world, porn is legally available to anyone with an interest in it. I'm not even going to bother googling for facts (the article doesn't either, so...) but I will bet you my entire porn collection that in countries where porn is legal there is no notable increase in sexual violence. It wouldn't even surprise me if there are less.

PS
I joked in another thread about defending the right to porn. I do not actually own porn and if I watch it at all, it is with my wife. Usually she manages to take the fun out of it in 10 minutes.
The point is, that this is supposed to be the land of the free. That also means that any man (or woman) is free to watch consenting adults having sex in any possible formation. Do you hate me for that freedom?

[Heidi]

202. With all due respect, the article isn't meaningful analysis. It's an opinion piece,

and the author has a book to sell

I'm not saying that harcore pornography isn't a problem or that it doesn't shape some people's perceptions of women, but as a 44-year-old professional woman, I've never sensed or experienced even one male colleague perceiving me as "three holes and two hands." I believe much of what Mr. Jenson asserts in his essay was intended to incite, rather than educate.

[mondo joe]

219. Do you think he'll appear on Oprah (aka female porn daily) to try to sell his book?

What a nice little irony it would be.

[USA_1]

205. Society Would Be Better Off Without Porn ...

... step one is to ban ''Play Girl'' magazine and other smut which sexually exploit men.

Let's treat ALL people with the same degree of respect and social order will follow.

[Katherine Brengle]

226. Spearhead that movement then.

If you want the sex industry to stop exploiting men, then fight for it. My goal is to break down patriarchy and its abuse of women.

Men need to fight for themselves, just as women have to.

[qdemn7]

249. 'Men need to fight for themselves"

Oh yes we most certainly do. And outing your misandry is a great way to start. :nuke:

[Katherine Brengle]

654. It certainly is not misandry.

Don't be a fucking tool.

My focus is on women. That is because I am a woman and women are the oppressed class.

Take your bullshit argument elsewhere.

[Scout]

666. don't you know Katherine,

that if you aren't putting MEN and their concerns FIRST over your own, you HATE them! You selfish girl, you.

:sarcasm:

[USA_1]

307. I have signed petitions to ban ALL smut

... and have written LTEs demanding that certain newspapers stop advertising smutty shows that feature topless men.

But as you can see from the article above, it is a male feminist who wrote it. If men feel compelled to stand up for women, it is only fair that women return the favor.

[gollygee]

228. Oh yeah, where sexual exploitation is REALLY evident is when it's done to MEN

What about the men??? Will someone please think about the MEN?

:sarcasm:

[USA_1]

312. NFL

Some people object to having cheerleaders displaying some cleavage in the NFL and prancing around in the field on the grounds that it sexually exploits women. Yet, these same critics have no objection to having the players interviewed when they are naked in the locker room and their sweaty pectorals are fully displayed on TV. If the display of certain body parts are objectionable, then it should be the same for both genders.


:wtf:

[TankLV]

537. ummm - "tight end" - "wide receiver" - beautiful men booties in thin lycra spandex...

"sweaty pectorals", NAKED men in the LOCKERROOM...

tell us MORE - you seem to have a particular "facination" for "detail" of the subject, especially since you say it is so OBJECTIONABLE to you!

Hmmmmmm - kinda like those hypocritical CLOSET queer REPUKES who were constantly RAILING against the "gay menace" and who got caught, huh?!!!!

thanks for reminding me of the OTHER main reason I enjoy watching football!!!

[USA_1]

585. whatever suits you ...

[baby_mouse]

395. Society would be better off without people like YOU...

... spreading meaningless gibberish and dangerously irrational opinions all over the place as if they had any basis whatsoever in FACT.

[Name removed]

534. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[USA_1]

587. I See That Pornography has its defenders here ...

... OK, to each his/her own.

BUT DON'T YOU DARE CALL ME A FRIGGIN' REPUBLICAN!

[sendero]

206. Nothing is easier to dismiss.....

.... than a polemic devoid of much in the way of facts, designed to convince me of something no rational person could ever be convinced of.

Sort of like something you see from a right wing think tank.

No thanks. I have a brain of my own and I see what is going on. Nobody is going to take the extremes and convince me that it's all bad because of them.

And I know a misandrist when I read one.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

212. The Author Finds Pornography Objectionable

If the author finds pornography objectionable and a problem what is his solution?

[undergroundpanther]

231. Pornography dehumanizes us

I hate it.
Hating porn starts with realizing those pictures are of human beings, in conditions the camera will not show,business types or exploitative relations the camera cannot show,Always the women are acting for the camera, but in reality they might be desperate, addicted or trapped. You will never know.Pornographers make sure you never know and don't even desire to ask the question.

Porn is a vastly profitable cheap to operate totally corrupted industry that is not as 'clean' as they like to say they are.

Porn, it is like all other industries it is motivated by profits. So getting cheap product( sex slaves and teens who feel like they are nobodies to exploit) Also the industry has a vested self interest in in normalizing non relational sex,keeping sexism ,fear of intimacy,and social atomization alive it all is very important to the porn industry's bottom line. And porn is not pro social.It in fact alienates and dehumanizes.


A solution?

Go out and risk some emotional involvement,seek a relationship with a real person. Quit being addicted to fantasy-land.

Quit being afraid of intimacy.

Learn to be trustworthy enough to be trusted in a sexual relationship.

porn is a volitional behavior and one can choose to use empathy over porn if they are not a psychopath narcissist or authoritarian.The porn user could get out of his head and seek a lover who can love him back.

We need each other more than photos of sexual acts that degrade,we need to learn to care even if we do not understand, and to be worthy of an equal relationship/partnership.


Pictures cannot love they cannot relate to you in love and trust, they cannot feel anything.They cannot speak.They are objects.

Pictures of objectified human beings to be used and put away.
Is this any way to build a human relationship? Or a way to destroy it?

Maybe this is why so many men like porn, they want the humanity of sex erased, just eyeball pictures and in their own head sex but with no real other person or presence.What does that fact say about porn consumers?

How frightened people have become of relationships that porn exists.It's sad...Because every time you buy porn you also support an industry that also sells cruelty and sexual abuse/degradation in the name of imaginary sexuality..It's so sad.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

233. If you hate it, don't watch it.

"A solution Go out and make a relationship with a real person."

You're under the mistaken assumption that people who watch pornography aren't in healthy relationships.

"How frightened people have become of relationships that porn exists."

Porn has always existed.

[mondo joe]

236. To the contrary: porn is completely human intervention.

There is nothing dehumanizing about it.

[Jed Dilligan]

239. You really think everyone should be in a relationship?

I think women, as a whole, are lucky that some men are kept off the market by their addiction to watching professionals, or even having sex with them. I've known guys like that, and trust me--no one is missing out.

[undergroundpanther]

243. If they are scum

That does not entitle them to an industry that dehumanizes women and men like porn does.
If they can't form relationships ,maybe they need to look at themselves and admit they might be an asshole and do something to fix that issue.A little introspection and self honesty can help here.

If they don't want a relationship, they can go home use their hand and head/imagination and play pretend without anyone being exploited in real life. If they have no imagination well tough it's not desperate men and women's problem they should not have to be a porn star to assist the bankrupt imagination of some asshole.. The hand is always there ,it works the hydraulics fantasy or no fantasy so get used to it than..No reason for an exploitative industry to exist for scumbags sake..

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

244. So you're saying people who watch porn are scum?

Does that mean I can say people who don't (or at least claim they don't) are prudes?

[Lurking Dem]

251. Technically,

I think it means you can actually say they are "scum".

I don't understand why my (or anyone's) sexual hardwiring is anyone's fucking (heh) business. And if I want to buy art or movies or books that reflect my interest, why is that deemed harmful to society?

And if I want to watch a men's gay porn film it will make me neither gay nor a man. Doesn't mean I might not find it entertaining.

[Jed Dilligan]

246. In an ideal world what you say is true

in the real world, the choice is either porn or more cops and less free speech. Fundies will line up to sit in the censor's chair, legitimate art with erotic themes will be the main target, and exploitation will fluorish in a porn industry driven all the way underground.

[TankLV]

540. good god - another idiot PRUDE...

spare us from YOUR moralizing...

Get a life - stop caring what WE may or may not do in the privacy of our homes...

Better yet - get lost...

[ProudToBeBlueInRhody]

344. You assume on two levels

One is that those in relationships don't watch porn. Many do, and often with their partners. But I've repeated this so many times, however, I've just come to expect it's going to be ignored so those hung up on this subject can continue to push the theory of the raincoat wearing creep who's ready to break into the girl next door's house after watching Cinemax.

Second is that anyone can have a relationship. No matter how much you try to John Gray or Dr. Phil someone, there are those who are simply not capable of it. They may be able to form friendships, but they are incapable of that next step of intimacy. It has nothing to do with not wanting to feel love or real human emotions and senses. They just don't have the tools to go out and find it and get it. They are shy, they feel ugly, they suffer from severe depression and anxiety that keeps them from meeting people. For many men and women, porn is part of their only outlet of sexual gratification. You want to decide that because you are "normal", everyone should be just like you and have no problem finding love.

It amazes me that the same people who rail on about women being objectified, can't see the other side of the coin. That ALL people in our society, men and women, are in some way objectified by their appearance. And for those not as attractive, or who don't feel attractive, it will always hinder their ability to seek a real romantic relationship.

I'm dismayed that on a "progressive" site such as this, so many people simply find it easier to stand in judgement of those who partake in things they find obscene, without even trying to see some of the mitigating factors.

[baby_mouse]

392. This is the most disgustingly sexist post I have *ever* seen on DU.

Maybe this is why so many men like porn, they want the humanity of sex erased, just eyeball pictures and in their own head sex but with no real other person or presence. What does that fact say about porn consumers?

Guess what, I'm a man and I use loooooads of porn and I can form relationships just fine, thank you.

The reason men use more porn then is biological, they are more readily aroused by visual stimuli than women.

Pictures cannot love they cannot relate to you in love and trust, they cannot feel anything.They cannot speak.They are objects.

Yeah, see guys know this, and this is why they PREFER TO HAVE PARTNERS.

Seriously, have you ever MET any men?

[Duppers]

511. thank you for mentioning this:

"one can choose to use empathy over porn if they are not a psychopath narcissist or authoritarian"

I have brought up NPD over and over on this thread. Folks should do some reading on this subject.

Narcissists canNOT/are incapable of experiencing love, either giving it or receiving it.

**They lack empathy.**

Sound familiar? I know you'll understand what I mean.

Peace to you, dear.

[undergroundpanther]

238. Dehumanizing

Porn dehumanizes us,I hate it.


Hating porn starts with realizing those pictures are of human beings,perhaps living in conditions (like abuse)the camera will not show.The business types or exploitative relations the camera cannot show also.
Always the women are acting for the camera, but in reality they might be dissociated,desperate, addicted or trapped. You will never know by looking at the picture.Pornographers make sure you never know and don't even desire to ask the question.


Men want women tame and easy to control. Women who are vocal about their sexual needs are threatening. Hence you have all forms of punishments and taboos against women are perform sexual acts outside the male defined boundaries.Women has been discouraged or even killed for expressing their desires for thousands of years. That got to have an effect on how they behave.Just like sexual abuse has an effect on how you handle sexuality..
An estimated 91% of victims of rape are female, 9% are male and 99% of offenders are male. (Bureau of Justice Statistics 1999)
http://www2.ucsc.edu/rape-prevention/statistics.html
Internet Filter Review estimates that there are 4.2 million porn Web sites — 12 percent of the total amount of sites — allowing access to 72 million worldwide visitors annually. One-quarter of total daily search engine requests, or 68 million, are for pornographic material, where 40 million Americans are regular visitors.
http://siliconvalley.internet.com/news/article.php/3083001
http://publications.mediapost.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=Articles.showArticle&art_aid=31463
Because the woman is ejaculated on, she bears the mark of being owned by the consumer. Since she is a commodity, the "owner" can do whatever he wants with her, and this often involves the man assaulting the woman. He has the owner's right of penetrating any and every crevasse as he sees fit. He has the owner's right of torturing her for his own pleasure. She has no say; she has no rights.

http://www.helium.com/tm/401149/protest-support-troops-mitigated

Porn is a vastly profitable cheap to operate totally corrupted industry that is not as 'clean' as they like to say they are.

Porn, it is like all other industries it is motivated by profits. So getting cheap product( sex slaves and teens who feel like they are nobodies to exploit) Also the industry has a vested self interest in in normalizing non relational sex,keeping sexism ,fear of intimacy,and social atomization alive it all is very important to the porn industry's bottom line. And porn is not pro social.It in fact alienates and dehumanizes.


A solution?

Go out and risk some emotional involvement,seek a relationship with a real person. Quit being addicted to fantasy-land.

Quit being afraid of intimacy.

Learn to be trustworthy enough to be trusted in a sexual relationship.

porn is a volitional behavior and one can choose to use empathy over porn if they are not a psychopath narcissist or authoritarian.The porn user could get out of his head and seek a lover who can love him back.

We need each other more than photos of sexual acts that degrade,we need to learn to care even if we do not understand, and to be worthy of an equal relationship/partnership.


Pictures cannot love they cannot relate to you in love and trust, they cannot feel anything.They cannot speak.They are objects.

Pictures of objectified human beings to be used and put away.
Is this any way to build a human relationship? Or a way to destroy it?

Maybe this is why so many men like porn, they want the humanity of sex erased, just eyeball pictures and in their own head sex but with no real other person or presence.What does that fact say about porn consumers?

How frightened people have become of relationships that porn exists.It's sad...Because every time you buy porn you also support an industry that also sells cruelty and sexual abuse/degradation in the name of imaginary sexuality..It's so sad.

[NotGivingUp]

241. great post! n/t

[undergroundpanther]

245. Thanks

You see I am not against naked bodies or sex in an equal and consenting relationship if they are both voyeurs or whatever.I don't care what they do as long as it respects the person hood and is not coercive for all involved.By coercive I am including situational coercion,financial coercion and addictive dependency made into cocercion..Most people are not voyeurs or hyper sexed despite what the media tries to convince us to believe...

BUT what I truly hate is when naked bodies and vulnerable people are exploited sexually and made into a product to be consumed and bought to feed an industry that profits from dehumanizing people and making them into disposable objects.I HATE the Industry..The Business.The process.Girls gone wild, exploiting teens who feel like nothings because in life nobody cares about them and some may have already suffered sexual abuse.. I hate it.

[Lilith Velkor]

265. Anti-porn crusaders dehumanize women by projecting the victim role on them

That's cool if you get off on that sort of thing, but most porn consumers are less hypocritical about it.

Movies have always been about unreal life.

If I were to tell you I like samurai movies, would you tell me to "quit being addicted to fantasy-land" and go chop off heads with my sword?

[nashville_brook]

309. just b/c someine has an opinion about porn, doens't make them an *anti-porn CRUSADER!"

talk about over-reacting!

[Lilith Velkor]

345. You're the one who's yelling

I must have hit a nerve.

[mzmolly]

355. This is an anti-hate crusade.

Let's get our crusades straight.

[Lilith Velkor]

376. Against a hate that only exists in the minds of the crusaders.

All because said crusaders cannot tell the difference between fake pain and fake orgasm.

[mzmolly]

431. Hmm, so only fake orgasim exists in these films?

I could swear men ejaculate. Oh, and they do it at home while 'getting off' on the pain/humiliation of women, that's not "fake."

[Lilith Velkor]

455. *sigh*

What you and Robert Jensen characterize as 'pain/humiliation' is actually a woman faking an orgasm. If the actress does a bad job of it, it looks more like pain.

Men tend to fantasize about women enjoying sex. That's why the actresses pretend to have an orgasm in pretty much ALL mainstream porn.

[mzmolly]

No that's not what the film mentions as pain/humiliation. It mentions gaging, crying, being called

humiliating names etc.

[baby_mouse]

397. No. It's an anti-sadomasochists crusade. Sadomasochists don't "hate" anyone.

This whole thing is total bullshit.

[mzmolly]

429. This isn't about S and M,

it's about mainstream porn. Do you suggest that because you assign and a benign "motive" that we're supposed to shut up about it? If this is about S and M, show me where any of the films noted in the article are sold and marketed as such.

[HardRocker05]

330. good post. nt

[mzmolly]

467. Well said.

:hi:

[Name removed]

541. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[raccoon]

598. Great post.

"Women has been discouraged or even killed for expressing their desires for thousands of years. "

And they still are, even if "enlightened" 21st century USA.

The double standard is still very much alive and well, thank you. I won't live to see the end of it, and I doubt anyone on DU will.

It's still very difficult for a woman to be a sexual person without being perceived as a "slut" by many people.

[nashville_brook]

252. could we think of ways porn would be just as lucrative WITHOUT the humiliation factors

without the humiliation and cruelty narratives?

everyone here who is applauding pornography would never applaud applaud sexual humiliation of Iraqis in Abu Ghraib. why would you support this in the context of consumable media? those of you who think gag porn and facial porn is great, can you speak to why you think this is genre is so wonderful? what does it do for you? what buttons are being pushed? are we all ducks in a pond in late spring? do you think that this is the "natural" state of our sexuality?

those who argue that Candida Royale and Jenna Jameson love-love-love this sort of porn -- can you explain why it is that these performers ONLY do girl-girl scenes now -- as soon as they had the ability to choose, they got out of doing male-female scenes.

so, tell me -- what is it about "gonzo porn" that you feel is worthy of your support? if you consume this product, can you honestly say that there's another sort of genre that you'd be willing to switch to? would you be willing to try "intimacy porn?" do you think that video depicting people in loving embrace would do the same thing for you as video of men giving "barely legal" girls facials?

[GreenArrow]

266. re: Abu Graib

It's more than a bit interesting (and likely not accidental) that the first photos of Abu Graib appeared on porn sites.

[nashville_brook]

301. ain't that the truth ...n/t

[Warren DeMontague]

321. I wonder how many of the anti-porn folks making blanket statements about porn have any experience

around the stuff.

I worked for years for a chain of indie video stores. Part of the business was carrying porn. Was there some that was as you describe above? Yes, a small percentage. Some of it was blatantly misogynist, and believe it or not, many of us employees were instrumental in making sure our outlets didn't carry those titles.

But the VAST MAJORITY of porn? The VAST MAJORITY of what's out there? Is straight up sex. Man having sex with woman. Sometimes woman having sex with woman, or man having sex with a couple women, or women having sex with a couple men. The idea that the general, widespread "narrative" in porn is one of humiliation and cruelty is bullshit. Plain and simple.

Unless- and this is a big unless- you happen to believe that a man having sex with a woman is in its very nature an act of cruelty and humiliation. Unless you think there is something inherently oppressive about a man looking at a picture of a naked woman and getting turned on. The author of this piece thinks anal sex- in and of itself- is an act of "abuse". And this is not the first time DU (the vast majority of whom thinks there's nothing wrong with consenting adult porn) has been "re-educated" with this particular crock of, uh, wisdom.

Now I realize that that is an axiomatic truth put out by some from the headquarters of the so-called feminist anti-porn crusade crowd, but most people who don't see anything wrong or oppressive about straight up male penetrating female sex. And THAT is what most mainstream porn is about, along with pictures of mostly naked women, sometimes naked men.

[Nikia]

722. I have watched several pornographical films with my husband

The movies we picked were allegedly more couple friendly movies. They almost all had some weird plot twist where someone had coercive sex. They almost all had scenes where a woman was called things like "bitch", "dirty slut", or other such names. They all had "money shots" which is somewhat derogatory.

[booley]

391. as i have said before...

"...everyone here who is applauding pornography would never applaud applaud sexual humiliation of Iraqis in Abu Ghraib."

As I said before. Rapists don't use Safe Words! That's the first clue these thinsg are different.

If you can't see the difference between what was done at Abu Ghraib and porn including BDSM, maybe you should educate yourself more about the subject.

[baby_mouse]

393. That's because the humilation in Abu ghraib was NON-CONSENSUAL.

head-desk...

WHAT is so difficult to grasp about this?

[Sapere aude]

254. Porn is fantasy isn't it? The women in the industry are their to make money aren't they?

So how do we get away with using fantasy as a whipping boy for our own insecurities about sex?

[Lurking Dem]

256. Speaking of whipping boys.....

:evilgrin:

[HardRocker05]

338. question is, why do people fantasize about degrading, abusing, and raping others? seems like a pret

pretty messed up fantasy, and i don't really car if any one goes on to 'act on those fantasies' or not. it's f-ed up by itself.

[aikoaiko]

264. Why is that women are gaining when porn (even so called degrading porn) is increasing

:shrug:

I support Jensen and Brengle trying to persuade people (mostly men) from not producing or consuming certain types of porn or even all porn if that is their wish, but since I also support people in producing images involving consenting adults I can't really say I think they'll be successful.

Here's the thing --- what makes the anyone think that they're wouldn't be porn with all its interesting twists and deviances in a perfectly egalitarian society?

[Iris]

271. What are women gaining?

Can you give examples? Because the last I heard the wage gap was the same as it was when I graduate from college in 17 years ago.

[nashville_brook]

302. i'd love to know what i'm gaining too -- i can't wait to hear how much better off i am!

this should be good!


"we let you work. we let you drive. quit yer bitchin."

[aikoaiko]

320. Wage gap still generally clossing even though not linearly.

Here is one reference. http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0882775.html


I won't deny that a strong patriarchy still exists and many women suffer needlessly, but from what I've read and seen women have more power now than ever before in the US. Sure there have been some setbacks, but overall things are improving.

My main point for saying women are gaining is that porn availability has grown exponentially and yet things are still getting better for women. I don't see porn as the causative factor for dehumanizing women.

[Iris]

415. Ok, work is one area. But what about other things? Like body image issues?

I've read dismaying articles that claim most women are uncomfortable with their bodies. I'm not suggesting at all that the porn industry has anything to do with this, but when an individual cannot feel comfortable in her own skin, then I think that's a pretty good indication that things are not "better" for women.

[aikoaiko]

615. As a man its really difficult for me to fully appreciate the body image thing

Of course I understand not being one of the beautiful people, but I acknowledge that the body image thing hits women harder on average.

On the other hand, it seems like today more than ever different types of bodies are expressing themselves as sexy and seen as sexy. Maybe its just where I live (deep south), but big woman, skinny woman, athletic women, tall women, shorty women, women with big noses and itty bitty noses, dark skinned women, brown skinned women, pasty white women, all sorts of women with different bodies walk around like they have 'diamonds at the meeting of their thighs'.

[booley]

275. I think this author saw what he wanted to see.

Firstly a little disclaimer. I run an adult site. Not hetero but still. You can take as a bias or as experience relevant to the subject.

Having said that, I will say that I think the author of the article in the OP made a lot of assumptions.

For one, that if the women seemed in pain that meant she was. But that's not quite true. From experience I can say that women and men all make that rather embarrassing "orgasm face" the scrunchy, looks like one is either having a heart attack or constipated expression. Indeed, if this person really looked at the literature on sex, one of the first things he should have known is that one of the primary reasons young children looking at porn is harmful is because to them sexual intercourse looks like violence. Even gentle sex seems gross and violent to kids.

So I have doubts on whether the author's interpretation of someone's facial expression is a reliable barometer of pain.

For another, Porn is by nature FANTASY! It's not real. Except for some amateur or underground art house kinds of porn, it 's not meant to represent reality. And considering the often ridiculous plots, anyone who did think they wee representational probably has deeper problems.

And yet somehow people forget this. This particularly happens in BDSM, where the uninitiated somehow think that what they are seeing is some kind of character study of the people involved. But it's not. People say stuff during these movies they don't mean. Or are delving into aspects of themselves they normally keep suppressed. But that doesn't' mean that the top is going to rape anybody, that the submissive is in any real danger or that these people don't get dressed at the end and go about their mundane little lives.

Here's a fun fact. the difference between a rapist and a dominant? Rapists don't' use safe words.

Anyway, so while this guy didn't' look at BDSM films, i see him making the same kinds of mistake.

Does this mean that "mainstream hetero porn" doesn't have problems?

No. But it's the same kind of problems that plague the rest of the entertainment media. It's schlocky. It goes for the easy thrill or shock rather than anything substantive. It's formulaic and derivative.

But it's no more an accurate measure of cruelty in our society then CSI shows an accurate portrayal of Las Vegas or Miami or New York.

This just my two cents. Feel free to ignore it (but waste my time on flames, please). But this guy, if he really wanted to do a scientific study, could have done a much better job. Even after his pains in trying to sound fair, he still seems to have been blinded by his own assumptions.

[Lurking Dem]

295. Very well done.

Your reference to CSI is spot on.

I was actually asked by my Chinese doctor if there were that many murders in Vegas.

Can you imagine that sweet little British burg that Miss Marple lived in actually having a crime rate like that? Good grief!

It feels very weird having to defend my sexual wiring to progressives. I can only begin to imagine how gay people must feel sometimes on this board.

[nashville_brook]

306. booley is a pornmeister! wow.

[Lurking Dem]

337. They simply cannot remove this post fast enough.

[booley]

383. And if that's all you get out of what I posted...

then I clearly wasted a great deal of time.

sigh,

[nashville_brook]

616. you make money off of porn -- your "opinion" is here is similar to Halliburton cheering the war

[Lurking Dem]

624. Oh fer fuck's sake.

The yardstick of your morality being used to judge who is a "good" leftist is ludicrous.

[nashville_brook]

308. funny how no one is allowed to have *an opinion* about porn -- this wasn't a "scientific

article" and never claimed to be.

[booley]

356. Everyone is perfectly allowed thier opinions

They just aren't allowed thier own facts.

The author specificly said he did had done a "study", He didnt' just say he doesnt' like porn. he went on about how he looked at porn and from that determined a negative social consequence.

A study implies science. If the guy didn't want to claim that, he shouldn't have worked so hard to make that implication.

[mzmolly]

325. I don't think you grasp the issues the author notes in the article.

Read it again in full.

It's not about whether or not a woman IS in pain, it's about a society of men that derive sexual pleasure by seeing women in pain. One that relegates women to "three holes and two hands."

I would imagine gay porn is more egalitarian, however?

Also, the author did not attempt to conduct a study, it was an opinion piece.

[booley]

382. Maybe you should read it again

from the article-"This analysis is based primarily on three qualitative studies of pornographic videos I have conducted since 1996."

That sure sounds like he said he had conducted a study to me.

If it was just an opinion piece that would be different. Not by much because the author engages in intellectual dishonesty (like how in the first paragraph he tries ot lump rape in with porn.) But at least if he was just stating an opinion based on his experiences, i could go easier. After all, I just stated my opinion based on my experience.

But he didn't' do that. He tried to claim that he had some objective truth obtained through three studies he did. The moment he tried to do that, he opened himself up to criticism on that front.

"It's not about whether or not a woman IS in pain, it's about a society of men that derive sexual pleasure by seeing women in pain."

First hold that thought for later.

Second, the guy spent a lot of time analyzing the women's facial expressions. So he seems to have thought it relevant.

Anyway..

"I would imagine gay porn is more egalitarian, however?"

Actually if you read my original post you will notice i didn't' use gay porn to make my case but BDSM porn. BDSM is an incredibly diverse field and in it's own ironic way egalitarian. There are men dominating women and women dominating men and men domming men and women domming other women. Many of the biggest advocates and activists of BDSM are WOMEN.

And having said that and some knowledge of it (pleas keep the adolescent giggling to a minimum) I can say that the same arguments this guy makes are the same BS arguments I have heard about BDSM. That the people who do this are condoning violence or hatred or rape or whatever.

BULL SH*T!

A male dominatrix no more hates women then a female top hates men or other women. Yes, the dom is causing pain. yes, both parties are getting off on it. To an outsider it can even seem cruel. But it isn't. It's dominance and submission and that isn't evil by itself. It's simply human nature. You can take that to a dark place but that doesn't make it evil in and of itself.

So why assume that a porn where a man is dominant is endorsing cruelty to women? Even if what he describes is the norm. Indeed, I have seen lots of straight porn and somehow I missed what he's describing. The women in the hetero porn I have seen are shown to be having as much fun as the men. So I onlyhave his word this is the norm even though by rights I have as much knowledge about this as he.

And so that is why I simply cant' buy what this guy is selling. If women seem to be portrayed as "Three holes and two hands" than it sounds more ot me it's because the videos are formulaic and unimaginative.

[mzmolly]

494. See the clarification.

He qualifies his assertion and does not indicate his "qualitative" research is conclusive:

But some will argue: How can you assume that just because men watch such things they will act in a callous and cruel manner, sexually or otherwise? It is true that the connection between mass-media exposure and human behavior is complex and not well understood. Social scientists, like most experts, argue both sides. I think the evidence clearly shows that in some cases pornography influences men’s sexual behavior. But whatever one’s view on that, this fact is not in question: Lots of men -- including professors, bankers, and judges -- pay money to watch those images and masturbate to orgasm watching those images. And they aren’t simply images of sex. Often they are images of men being sexually cruel toward women.


Note the exclusion of bondage and sadomasochistic material?

...I excluded what many would consider the non-representative fringe of the pornography market -- bondage and sadomasochistic tapes; any tape that advertised explicit violence, urination, or defecation; and child pornography (the only material clearly illegal everywhere in the United States). There is no shortage of such material in this country -- in shops, through the mail, on the internet, or underground (in the case of child pornography) -- but I passed over all of that. Instead, ... I rented tapes is actually labeled “mainstream.”


You said:

Actually if you read my original post you will notice i didn't' use gay porn to make my case but BDSM porn. BDSM is an incredibly diverse field and in it's own ironic way egalitarian. There are men dominating women and women dominating men and men domming men and women domming other women. Many of the biggest advocates and activists of BDSM are WOMEN.

I don't have a problem with mutual/egalitarian expression of domination. Though I do question from a Freudian perspective why this is desirable? That said, I'm not a huge fan of Freud.

So why assume that a porn where a man is dominant is endorsing cruelty to women? Even if what he describes is the norm. Indeed, I have seen lots of straight porn and somehow I missed what he's describing. The women in the hetero porn I have seen are shown to be having as much fun as the men. So I only have his word this is the norm even though by rights I have as much knowledge about this as he.

Well then perhaps it's best to comment on the titles after viewing them? I don't rent porn, but Mr. Jensen did provide the titles and their ranking if you're interested in checking them out?

And so that is why I simply cant' buy what this guy is selling. If women seem to be portrayed as "Three holes and two hands" than it sounds more ot me it's because the videos are formulaic and unimaginative.

Violence needn't be very imaginative.

I'm out soon, have a nice evening.

[booley]

532. okey dokey

"He qualifies his assertion and does not indicate his "qualitative" research is conclusive:"

Which seems very much like a cop out.
But ok, I wil accept your point that this guy was not saying he had any kind of scientific basis for what he said. He just implied he did.

Which would seem to put this guy in a worse light then i originally thought.

I did three studies. But if you look closely, they really weren't studies...

Note the exclusion of bondage and sadomasochistic material?

OF course, I never said he did. What I said was that used the same kinds of argeuements as those that attacked BDSM. That's why I am so cynical of his article. It sounds so familiar to me.

I don't have a problem with mutual/egalitarian expression of domination.

Which leads me to an earlier point. This guy assumes that the porn he watched wasn't consensual like BDSM.

Well then perhaps it's best to comment on the titles after viewing them?

And prove what? That out of the millions of porn DVDs out there, there mightbe some that could be made ot look mysogynistic?

Of course, didn't the author spend a whole paragraph explaining he wanted mainstream porn? So if it's mainstream, i dont' need to rent those particular titles to see his point. It should be evident all over. So why isn't it?

Violence needn't be very imaginative.

But thats' the thing. This guy hasnt' made a case that there is violence in mainstream porn. Much less that it causes cruelty or violence torwards women.
There's plenty of "violence" on CSI. But I hardly call that actual violence or somehow a danger to society.(and they are far more imaginative)

Poor charecterization or lack of plot doesn't mean there's violence.

I'm out soon, have a nice evening.

You too. Sleep tight.

[mzmolly]

536. I hope you'll go back and read the entire article.

I think many of the issues you raise are addressed.

Peace out.

[booley]

538. I did read it

and no, the issues I raised were nto addressed.

And sorry, but your responses to my posts about those issues didnt' address them either.

So lets just disagree.

[mzmolly]

629. I don't think you absorbed the content, as many of the questions/issues you raise

WERE addressed. However, I don't mind agreeing to disagree. But as a progressive, I will not be silent when I see any form of oppression elevated into the mainstream and called "harmless fun."

[Raster]

299. Pornography is not the problem, SEXUAL REPRESSION is the problem.

And the United States is rife with sexual repression. It seems on every street corner these days, or message board for that matter, is another author or "expert" ready to demonize all things sexual. I don't know what porn the author has been checking out, but the type of porn that "fuses sexual desire with cruelty" is considered out of the mainstream. This author needs to do a little more research. There is plenty of porn out there showing people having sex and ENJOYING having sex. If you don't want to watch porn, then don't. But please don't try and force your prudish sexual hangups on everyone else.

A little reality check: There are people in our society who are liberated from the usual sexual baggage most of us grow up with. They have sex when they want to with whom they want to and they don't let some antiquated religious fal-de-ral make them feel guilty about it. They treat sexual activity as a normal enjoyable part of human existence. They can say "intercourse," "penis" and "vagina" without flushing with guilt. And they have no use for the faux sexual morality so pervasive today. They are happy to keep their sex lives to themselves and their liberated friends and partners. They only ask you do the same. Unfortunately the first thing a repressed prude wants to do is drag someone else done to wallow in their frustrated misery.

[mzmolly]

318. The authors issue isn't with 'sex' it's with violence and abuse of power.

From the article:

"As with any political issue, successful strategies of resistance to injustice and oppression must be collective. There cannot be personal solutions to political problems. If we avoid engaging political problems in public and hope to make the best of things in private, we fail. Pornographers know that, which is why they want to make sure no collective remedies for women (through legislation or the courts) are considered, let alone enacted. But they also would prefer that none of these issues even be discussed in public. In recent years, their strategies for cutting off that discussion have been remarkably successful. When we criticize pornography, we typically are told we are either sexually dysfunctional prudes who are scared of sex, or people who hate freedom, or both. That works to keep many people quiet. The pornographers desperately want to keep people from asking the simple question: What kind of society would turn the injury and degradation of some into sexual pleasure for others? What kind of people does that make us -- the men who learn to find pleasure this way, and the women who learn to accept it?

The pornographers want to label any collective discussion of the meaning of intimacy and sexuality as repression. They want to derail any talk about a sexual ethic. They, of course, have a sexual ethic: Anything goes. On the surface that seems to be freedom: Consenting adults should be free to choose. I agree they should. But in a society in which power is not equally distributed, “anything goes” translates into “anything goes for men, and some women and children will suffer for it.” Any society that claims to take freedom seriously must engage in a discussion about power, and take steps to equalize power. That means taking steps to end men’s domination of women."

But there should be nothing controversial about this: To criticize pornography is not repressive. To speak about what one knows and feels and dreams is, in fact, liberating. We are not free if we aren’t free to talk about our desire for an egalitarian intimacy and sexuality that would reject pain and humiliation.

[Raster]

412. Then let the author address violence and power over women.

Let me be very very clear. Erotic Art has been created by EVERY civilization. Is the Kama Sutra demeaning to women? Are the ancient Japanese erotic scrolls demeaning to women? No, they are not. Let us understand each other. There is a difference between the type of pornography the author is talking about and what I am talking about. Its like comparing apples to oranges. And the author should make that differentiation.

For example: one of the hottest new websites is Xtube.com This is the X-rated version of youtube.com, so to speak. On this website are thousands of men and women making amateur porn and uploading it. Men and women making their own porn. Are they demeaning anyone? No, they are not. They are having sexy fun. What's wrong with that? Nothing!

Another example: One of the hottest things on the "porn" scene is erotic work created by women--produced, written and directed--for women form a woman's perspective. This is not your pervy old uncle Bill's porn. This is erotica by women. Are these women being demeaned? I think not. I wonder if the moralistas will work themselves into a froth over the objectification of men? Somehow, I don't think so.

At one time, all erotic entertainment in the United States was labeled PORN by the Prude Patrol. Like it or not Porn reflects the society at the time it was made. And like it or not, this is a patriarchal society, with sexual rules written by men. That is changing. There truly is a new sexual revolution taking place. Men, women and those in between are refusing to accept the traditional sexual boxes--no pun intended--and break away from what is considered "the norm."

The true, base, underlying issue is how this society views and treats women. For better or worse--and make no mistake, I believe far the worse--women ARE considered second class citizens. Women earn less than men. Women experience the "glass ceiling." And in one example I find THE MOST DISTURBING, in certain religions, women are not allowed to hold priesthood or the highest levels of hierarchy. In other words, women aren't considered good enough to talk to God. Is that demeaning to women? Damned right it is!

[mzmolly]

303. "A healthy society would take such things seriously, wouldn’t it?"

Good question.

I often ponder the Luke and Laura "romance" on General Hospital in conversations like these.

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

On the floor of the Disco, as the Herb Alpert song "Rise" played in the background, a drunken Luke raped Laura.

Although Laura admitted that she had been raped, she never named Luke as the rapist. Laura stayed with Scott but ended up falling in love with Luke, as well.



Luke and Laura were married on November 16, 1981, in a lavish, public ceremony officiated by the mayor of Port Charles at his official residence.

...

In fact, I remember skipping school to watch the wedding. :( I would have a much different perspective on the plot today.

[truebrit71]

305. Don't like it? Don't watch it...

...the rest of the article is just puritanical self-loathing man-hating material...I think the author needs to get laid more often and stop worrying about made up bullshit...I mean really "How is the guy that saw a gape movie going to relate to his young female assistant?" Why doesn't the author ask how he'll relate to her if he just saw a slasher movie....fucking stupid made-up bullshit....just like the rest of these fucking stupid anti-porn threads...:eyes:

[mzmolly]

316. Why is it considered self loathing to question the fact that

many men in our society are sexually aroused at the thought of women in pain? I think that's a valid concern, personally.

I'm thankful for men like this, and I would venture to guess he gets "laid" much more often then the neanderthals who defend this shit.

In a society in which so many men are watching so much pornography that is rooted in the pain and humiliation of women, it is not difficult to understand why so many can’t bear to confront it: Pornography forces men to face up to how we have learned to be sexual. And pornography forces women to face up to how men see them.

[truebrit71]

327. "Many men"? Care to back that up with some numbers?

Or are you just following on with the same tone from the author....??

Bottom line here is this guy had made his mind up about the topic and shaped his "research" around it...

The whole 'how does the guy that watches porn relate to others after having watched it' is plain stupid. The same question could (in fact SHOULD) be asked about how people react and relate to one another after watching hour after hour after hour of violence on tv and in the movies...businesses that do a hundred times what the porn industry does in a year...and businesses that do far more to harm their viewers than the porn industry imho...

If you don't like it, don't watch it....

The other thing to bear in mind too, is that it is ALL fantasy..If the porn industry produced movies that featured the plain vanilla, lights out, don't make any noise cuz you'll wake the kids-type nookie that the entire right-wing and the nanny state the author seems to crave, they wouldn't make a penny...It's SUPPOSED to be different, it's SUPPOSED to be naughty, it's SUPPOSED to titilate and arouse...and it's SUPPOSED not to relate to reality...a point the author can't seem to get through his head...

Why do 'some' men like movies where women are in pain??...I dunno...but then again I can't explain why people pay money to see 90 minute movies where the only plot-line is to blow shit up...over and over and over again...

[mzmolly]

342. The author has done so.

Read it.

Regarding "if you don't like it don't watch..." would you say the same thing about a hate film that didn't include ejaculation?

As to your point on violence this IS violence. My concern stems from the fact that today's porn industry meshes violence with sex as does today's music industry. What's additionally disturbing is that women are so low on the totem poll, that even so called "progressive" men don't give a shit.

[truebrit71]

389. Yes I would...no one is forcing ANYONE to either participate OR watch...

...this stuff...

The author quotes scientific studies? The author backs up his rhetoric with verifiable studies, or did he just watch 3 porno vids and then spout off his rubbish?

I'm sorry, he had an axe to grind from the beginning, and the whole issue, and especially this thread are massively overblown...

[mzmolly]

434. You'd have to read the article.

No one forces men to rape women either, but it happens because people apparently "enjoy it."

[mzmolly]

311. The crux of the issue for many women who see the problem:

We live in a culture in which rape and battery continue at epidemic levels. And in this culture, men are masturbating to orgasm in front of television and computer screens that present them sex with increasing levels of callousness and cruelty toward women. And no one seems to be terribly concerned about this. Right-wing opponents of pornography offer a moralistic critique that cannot help us find solutions, because typically they endorse male dominance, albeit not these manifestations of it. Some segments of the feminist movement, particularly the high-theory crowd in academic life, want us to believe that the growing acceptance of pornography is a sign of expanding sexual equality and freedom. Meanwhile, feminist critics of pornography have been marginalized in political and intellectual arenas. And all the while, the pornographers are trudging off to the bank with bags of money.

I think this helps explain why even the toughest women -- women who at rape crisis centers routinely deal with sexual violence -- find the reality of pornography so difficult to cope with. No matter how hard it may be to face the reality of a rape culture, at least the culture still brands rape as a crime. Pornography, however, is not only widely accepted but sold to us as liberation.

The struggle for men of conscience is to define ourselves and our sexuality differently, outside (to the degree possible) the domination/submission dynamic. It is not an easy task; like everyone, we are products of our culture and have to struggle against it. But as a man, I have considerable control over the conditions in which I live and the situations I am in. Women do not have that control. Women are vulnerable in a different way. Women are not just at risk of sexual violence but also have to deal with how men, who disproportionately hold positions of power in this society, view them. Women do not, and cannot, control that in the short term.

[smoogatz]

352. It's the old "male gaze" critique. Again.

As though women are such delicate creatures that the mere act of looking at them makes them faint like nubian goats. Or something. Oy.

[mzmolly]

353. Unfortunately, that's not what the author contends.

If it were, I'd not have found it an interesting/compelling article.

[smoogatz]

366. If men look at nasty porn, they'll think nasty thoughts

at our mothers, sisters, daughters and co-workers. Nasty. Thoughts.

It's pretty much the male gaze argument, all right.

[booley]

385. Isn't that the same arguement

that says if one sees two men or two women kissing, then that will make others think gay thoughts and become gay?

[smoogatz]

404. Not quite.

It's close, though. The male gaze (and/or the nasty male thought--same thing, really) is a kind of weapon through which all sorts of mental violence is carried out against women. What we're talking about, in other words, are very very very serious and disturbing thought crimes. Against women. Because you looked at porn, you're guilty.

The gay visual contagion thing is altogether different. Did you know that straight people have stopped getting married in Massachusetts, New Jersey, Canada and Spain? Stopped altogether. Just like the wingnuts said they would.

[Warren DeMontague]

457. I've been told in other threads that the mere act of looking at a woman and finding her physically

attractive (not ogling, mind you- just happening to briefly glance) constitutes "visual rape".

The mere act of "checking out" a member of the opposite sex, it would seem, is an act of phallocratic oppression.

[smoogatz]

614. Burkhas.

Bring out the burkhas!

[booley]

533. Oh I see

So it's more like how if a gay man looks at a straight guy, that means the straight guy has to beat the crap out of the gay guy becuase he felt threatened.

[smoogatz]

577. Right.

Exactly.

[mzmolly]

489. No, nasty thoughts don't bother me.

Humiliating, degrading, violent thoughts do. OY!

[smoogatz]

581. I'm pretty sure that what men think in the privacy of their own brains

is their own damn business. No?

[mzmolly]

711. Who suggested otherwise? nt

[qdemn7]

454. Oh gawd.... "The Male Gaze"

Reminds me of that woman who went around with a video camera confronting men who "gazed" at other women, as if gazing itself was a crime.

[TankLV]

543. OK - I like "male gays"!!!!

Fuck 'em if they don't like it!

Or is it joke 'em if they can't take a fuck...

[mzmolly]

488. No it's the media influence critique, again.

[smoogatz]

578. Media influence on what?

I didn't see any serious attempt by the author to link the nastification of porn to any social trend. He suggested that watching nasty porn MUST be affecting men in negative ways, but he didn't offer any evidence of that.

[mzmolly]

713. Jensen suggested that watching violent porn may have an impact on society.

The impact of media influence in various forms has been widely studied. There is no consensus in this area. However, that does not mean we should not discuss and examine the issue, which is what the article actually suggests.

I'm out of this discussion now. Sorry so late on the reply to you, I just saw your response as I've been quite busy in this thread.

[Sparkly]

343. I can't decide whether it's simpler than this, or more complicated than this...

Several thoughts...

I'm sure porn comes in a range of flavors. What percentage does this particular flavor represent? Maybe the author focused on these themes for some reason? :shrug:

Second, if there's concern about this causing sexual cruelty to become "normalized," how do we know what percentage of men consider this "normal?" Is there a way to know?

It seems the author is kind of guessing at what most men think about this, and guessing at why. He says men want to see things that they assume most women do not want. But these women act, at least, as though they do want it. If it's about the cruelty and the women's pain, why do the producers have the women ask the men to do those things, and express pleasure over it rather than screaming or something? Even off-camera, one of the women said she hurt "in a good way." I'm just saying he presents a conflict within his generalizations about what men want.

He also generalizes that men want some emotion with their sex, and thus substitute cruelty for love. I just want to see evidence for claims like that.

Finally though, I have to agree that the thought of certain men thinking certain things about women really squicks me. I had a college professor, for private lessons, who I later found out was a porn fanatic and shared videotapes with other profs, putting them in their mailboxes, asking the next day whether they'd seen them, etc... If I'd known that while I was his student, I'd have been majorly uncomfortable -- right, wrong, or otherwise.

[Hippo_Tron]

347. Too many people have a problem understanding the difference between fantasy and reality

When I watch Star Wars I fantasize about being a Jedi. When I watch porn I fantasize that women will take off their clothes and have sex with me whenever I want.

That doesn't mean that I expect or even desire either of those things to happen in reality.

[ismnotwasm]

349. Wow

Another sad pornagraphy thread.

Does anyone every want to consider what happens to the anantomay of the people who are involved repeatedly in certain acts? Does anyone want the discuss the drug and alcohol addiction rate? All the defenders, once again, defend porn out of selfish motivation. There is not one critique of the industry, which is corrupt. Not one question of why porn is going in the direction it is. No understanding of why pornagraphy is hard to "study". One or two very ignorant attempts to connect the reduction in rape and or sexual violence statistics to porn. How about wondering why there had been an such increase in porn producution, why the movies, pictures and "call me" ads in back of free weekly magazines are nearly all women. Why is GBLT porn is brought up as an expample of unexploitive porn-- it's not BTW-- or lack of concern about porn workers? Do the pornagraphy defenders really think that watching pornagraphy as it is,is a sign of sexual health, or freedom? Again, just Wow.

I read through the entire thread. No industry workers here. Just consumers who don't give shit, like I posted yesterday about the WHY's of pornagraphy or the physical and mental health of sex workers.

[Sparkly]

351. I think the article in the OP was more about a particular social issue related to porn

-- namely, men's desire to see women in pain, and the implications of that on non-sexual interactions -- rather than corruption within the industry, the health of sex workers, relationship of porn to rape, rise of commercial phone-sex, or other things you mention here.

[smoogatz]

354. What would you say the implications were

for non-sexual interactions? Does anybody really think men are incapable of making the distinction between porn and, say, buying a loaf of bread?

:shrug:

[Sparkly]

359. I can paraphrase what the author suggests

and tell you what I've experienced, but that's about it. (I'm a woman.)

Right or wrong, as I said a few posts up, I'd have felt VERY uncomfortable in at least one situation if I'd known the guy was a porn fan...

[Lurking Dem]

358. Guess you missed my post

where I stated I had made money off of it (albeit in the past).

I have many friends in the industry, both on the production side (ooooo! many of them are *gasp!* women!) and the actor side.

Are some of them effed up? Yep. Just like some people in the mailroom at your high rise are effed up.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

362. "what happens to the anantomay of the people who are involved repeatedly in certain acts ?"

What happens to the anatomies of heterosexual and homosexuals for whom this act is a staple...

Up until 2003 you could go to the hooskow for it in many parts of the United States...

Doesn't your argument beg for an outlaw of the practice and not just depictions of it?

[Sparkly]

363. I've heard you can go blind.

:shrug: :hide:

[DemocratSinceBirth]

367. I Think She's Referring To A Different Act...

"Does anyone every want to consider what happens to the anantomay of the people who are involved repeatedly in certain acts?"


This act is a staple of many homosexual and heterosexual couples... If the depiction of it is wrong then the act is wrong...And if the act is wrong why shouldn't it be outlawed?

This was the rationale used by fourteen states before the Lawrence v Texas decision...

[TankLV]

544. How long till you just need glasses?

[smoogatz]

369. Anal sex is icky.

No one should be allowed to look at it.

Isn't that the essential, underlying argument here?

[DemocratSinceBirth]

372. If The Act Is Inherently Dangeous To Your Anatomy Why Shouldn't It Be Outlawed?

eom

[smoogatz]

399. Because it's your anatomy.

That seems obvious. Also, I'm pretty sure that large numbers of humans who've been on the receiving end of anal penetration have survived the experience without suffering debilitating injury. Or any injury. Of any kind. In fact, a great many of them enjoyed it.

[Akoto]

400. Because a decision like that casts a very wide blanket.

Eating too much can be dangerous to your anatomy. You can ruin your heart. Drinking too much destroys your liver. Smoking is a catalyst for all manner of cancers, particularly of the lungs. Even piercings can be a threat to your anatomy. You create a permanent hole in your body, obviously, which also carries the risk of infection and scarring. What connects these things?

Indeed, the inability to control them. Until we implement video cameras which follow people everywhere they should go, there would be no way to stop whatever activities are deemed dangerous. Where do you draw the line on danger, and how do you enforce bans on what consenting adults do to their own bodies?

[TankLV]

547. Dangerous? Really? and how would YOU know?

Speaking as a gay man - it is NOT dangerous at all...unless it's UNPROTECTED...

Good god, you just PROVED you know NOTHING of what you're spewing...

Get a life - stop caring what WE do - we don't care what YOU do - as long as it doesn't infringe on what WE do...

Fucking get LOST...

FUCKING CLUELESS PRUDE!

next we'd like to hear your "enlightened opinion" - snark - on masturbation...and cocksucking...

what else is all nasty and naughty...

[DemocratSinceBirth]

562. Respectfully, Reading Comprehension Is Not Your Forte

If you followed my posts you would see I thought the author's thesis and the poster's reaction to it were conflicted, to say the least...

I no more want to ban where a consenting adult puts his penis or any cylindrical object than where he puts his, errr, appendix...


The author suggested that butt sex ruins your anatomy... The poster suggested butt sex ruined your anatomy:

"Does anyone every want to consider what happens to the anantomay of the people who are involved repeatedly in certain acts?"

-ismnotwasm



I think this is beyond silly...And if you are going to call for the shunning of those who depict the act then you must logically call for the shunning of those who participte... That's a dangerous line of thinking... Can you wrap your brain around that?.

The author and the poster think butt sex "ruins your anatomy" and psyche...I think this is odd and that's what I pointed out...

Now, Mr. Tank, what part of all that don't you understand?

[noamnety]

426. Nope.

There are significant differences between straight and gay anal porn and literature. Excerpting from a previous thread:

For other men, the appeal of anal penetration is less the novelty—and the fact that it gives them a good story to tell over beers—and more the psychology. "For most of my friends, it's sort of a domination thing," says John (not his real name), 30, a writer in New York. " basically getting someone in a position where they're most vulnerable. My friends enjoy that and they tell their friends they did it. But it's not like girls are ready for it—it's something they do when they're really drunk."

...

Albert (his middle name), a good-looking 29-year-old who's fairly well-known in the music industry, says he asks the women he dates to have anal sex with him because it raises the level of intimacy in the relationship. He doesn't demand anal sex—especially not if it's a one-time hookup—but he won't commit to a woman who refuses to grant him a backstage pass. "I had a girlfriend who I was with for a long time and she wasn't into it," Albert says. "There was definitely a thing in the back of my head like, 'I can't marry her.' How can I, knowing I can't go to all the places I can go with her? The physicality of it, being painful or whatever, shows how comfortable the girl is with you." Here, he pointedly stops short of romanticizing screwing a woman rectally. "Ideally, every girl is a disgusting pig who wants it," he says. "But only with you."

http://men.style.com/details/blogs/details/2007/07/is-it-ok-to-dem.html#more

As I wrote in that thread: here we have this idea that women are supposed to be willing to undergo sexual pain (ours, not his) to be intimate. And it's tied in with contempt for us - the "disgusting pigs." That's an attitude that doesn't arise out of thin air. The idea that sex is about dominating and hurting us, that we are loathsome, comes directly from violent misogynistic porn.

And quoting one of my friends on her blog, because it is about misogyny and domination, not about anal sex as an act itself: "Exhibit B: over at Feministe is an interesting discussion of (among other things) the difference in tone and content between the treatment of anal penetration in gay-male sexual literature and in straight-male sexual literature. Despite straight men’s quivering horror of “buggery,” the gay lit is mostly about safety, cleanliness, comfort, courtesy, etc when undertaking a potentially erotic act — not about domination, humiliation, and contempt. In other words, the gay lit is about a sexual practise between more-or-less equals, the het lit is about a political act of terrorism or shaming of a lower-caste person who needs to be shown, and kept in, her place."

[Sparkly]

449. Chicken-Egg

Couldn't this be an indication of a long history of inequality and misogyny, rather than ideas of domination "coming from" porn?

And, some women actually do want anal sex. Some want pain or humiliation, as do some men. (And some straight men want anal sex, performed by women with dildos.)

I think, given all the complexities involved, it may be unfair to criticize people for what turns them on when/if they can't HELP what turns them on. I think it is definitely fair to criticize what people DO, if it involves non-consent, coercion, deception, etc.

[noamnety]

456. I agree it's a self-perpetuating cycle.

That dynamic of women being dominated, hurt, and humiliated as common theme in mainstream porn absolutely comes from a culture of inequality and misogyny. I agree with you there.

What studies have shown, which I think is interesting - and relevant to this discussion - is that porn conditions the people who consume it in various ways. One way is that it desensitizes them to porn. What we find shocking and therefore exciting in some way when we first view porn becomes dull and doesn't work anymore, so people look to increasingly shocking and violent porn to get off. Maybe the first viewing of porn is a scandalous thing, feels naughty and exciting ... but then that becomes old hat. So you move on to something more exciting, maybe anal porn, and when that gets boring, double penetration, or just more violent penetration, and so on. I think that's (at least in part) why porn has gotten increasingly more violent and degrading.

As people get more desensitized to that, they view it as more and more routine, or normal. And so we get men like the ones I quoted above who won't even be in a relationship unless the "disgusting pig" agrees to put up with "pain." There's a relationship between exposure to porn and what men expect and pressure women into, even if it's painful for the women, even if they need to be "drunk" to go through with it. (That's a very disturbing concept.)

I don't have a problem criticizing people for their consumer habits. Maybe one can't help what turns them on to some degree - we are the products of our environment on some level. But most of us are in a position to control our environment in some way once we are adults. And we are smart enough to read the research and figure out for ourselves how porn affects men's attitudes toward violence against women and how it affects attitudes about rape. We also smart enough to read the studies on how exposure to it affects women's body self-image, and how it affects men's pressuring of significant others to get unnecessary surgery.

It's kind of like eating at McDonald's everyday. I can't help that those damn fries taste good. That's like "what turns me on" - yum, I like the taste. But I am smart enough to read the effects of eating those fries on a daily basis, and smart enough to understand that the fat and salt and all is not only unhealthy itself, but also has addictive properties. And I understand that the fast food industry is not good for the environment, or the local economy, or any number of other things. So, you know, I haven't eating at McDonalds for over a year, and haven't eating there by choice (excluding group road trips with one stop for eating) for a decade or more. We don't have to do things that we know are harmful, even if they feel good, short term.

[Sparkly]

465. Is the research definitive

regarding the effects of porn on criminal behavior? I thought it remained murky.

[noamnety]

480. Clarifying what I said

it's definitive on its effects on men's attitudes toward violence against women and rape. That's maybe a subtle distinction, but it's there.

If you view a lot of porn, for instance, you are more likely to look at a rape case and not view it as "rape." That's a concern for rape victims, obviously, if they go to trial. And it's related to why there's that discrepancy between college men surveyed who admit to raping someone, and college men surveyed who admit to coercing or forcing a woman to have sex with them.

As for the studies themselves, what I found really useful was to read studies OF the studies, if that makes sense. So rather than pointing to one study and believing that, and then finding another study that contradicts it, this looks at the bulk of the research done, and draws conclusions. http://www.protectkids.com/effects/justharmlessfun.pdf (It's kind of a fascinating read, despite being disturbing)

[DemocratSinceBirth]

580. I Read It...

It's a tendentious piece from a group dedicated to stopping pornography:


Rice met her future husband, Jack Hughes, on a blind date in 1991, and they married in May 7, 1994.<1>

From 1994 to 1999, she worked as Communications Director and Vice President of "Enough Is Enough", a nonprofit organization dedicated to stopping pornography, assisting victims, and making the Internet safe for children.<6> In 1999, Rice Hughes was appointed by then-Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott (R-Miss.) to a congressional panel.<7> As of 2005, she is the volunteer president of "Enough is Enough" and has co-written a book entitled Kids Online: Protecting Your Children in Cyberspace (ISBN 0-8007-5672-X).

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

[smoogatz]

610. When your argument is ideologically driven, there is no dog

with which you will not lie. Fleas? What fleas?

[DemocratSinceBirth]

611. I'm Neither A Devotee Or Opponent Of Porn

And I would be a hypocrite if I said I never viewed it...

IMHO, for most folks it's no big deal... They watch it, get titillated, and move on with their lives...

I suspect there's a minority for whom it becomes a problem but if we are going to outlaw activities because it becomes problematic for some there would be precious few activities left including eating...

For those for whom porn has become an addiction they should get counseling from their therapist, minister, psychologist, psychiatrist, etcetera...

[smoogatz]

613. I worry about coercive pornographers, and women in particular

being pimped into the porn industry, which I suspect is increasingly commonplace. Consumption of porn in that regard is a social justic issue, and not altogether trivial. That said, there's the first amendment thing to think about. I think it's probably a good idea to police the porn industry and do what can be done to prevent coercion. I also think porn should be legal and the content unregulated, as long as everyone involved is an adult capable of giving consent.

[smoogatz]

597. Here's where the argument falls apart:

"As people get more desensitized to that, they view it as more and more routine, or normal. And so we get men like the ones I quoted above who won't even be in a relationship unless the "disgusting pig" agrees to put up with "pain." There's a relationship between exposure to porn and what men expect and pressure women into, even if it's painful for the women, even if they need to be "drunk" to go through with it. (That's a very disturbing concept.)"

You're taking one misogynist quote from a men's website and using it as "evidence" that porn is somehow moving the culture in a negative way, rather than the other way around (culture moving porn). I doubt that that's true. Even if it is, what's the end result? Sexual violence against women has declined precipitously in this country in the last twenty years or so, so that's not it. Are we worried about the normalization of anal sex in straight relationships? As in, our sexual behavior is now more like the norm in Europe, Africa, Asia and Latin America? Is that a bad thing?

:shrug:

[DemocratSinceBirth]

571. I Disagree

It's nowhere as simple as saying when a man penetrates another man he's doing it because he loves him and wants to express his love and when a man penetrates a woman he's doing it because he wants to dominate or humiliate her...I'm surprised that the author would cite gay porn to support his thesis...A cursory review of it would suggest that the anal sex themes in gay and straight porn aren't that much different except for the genders of the participants...It seems in both scenarios there is a "top" and a "bottom" and even though in one genre one can "top" as easily as "bottom" he usually doesn't...

Also, I hardly think a composite character from Details magazine is representative of much of anything...


If the literature about anal sex suggests anything it suggests that the incidence of it among women goes up with education and income... This suggests to me that as one becomes more educated they are more likely to eschew taboos in favor of expression and exploration...

[smoogatz]

586. Hey--you found a couple of misogynist quotes on a website!

That pretty much proves your point, all right. And you make excellent use of the selective quote, artfully ignoring the part of the article that talks about the 35% of women who enjoy anal sex (sometimes more than their male partners). Proved and double proved. Sheesh.

All due respect to your friend and her blog, but I've seen plenty of gay porn, and I'm pretty sure it's not all about cleanliness and courtesy (I'm guessing your friend has never set foot in a leather bar). There are all different flavors, just as there are as many different kinds of straight porn as there are straight preferences or kinks. You'd have to be remarkably intellectually dishonest to suggest otherwise.

I think my problem here is that the whole premise of the argument is fatally flawed. I don't believe that men are any more or less misogynistic now than they were thirty years ago; in fact it's pretty clear to me that anyone who thinks so was almost certainly not a man in the '70s. Or the '50s. Or most likely the 1850s, for that matter. Misogyny is the disease, misogynist porn is the big, obvious symptom.

The main thing that's troublesome about porn is the same thing that was troublesome about it thirty years ago: many of the women (and no doubt some of the men) who participate in it do so because they are coerced, either economically or otherwise. I'm not sure what one can do about that, though, other than not putting money into the pockets of coercive pornographers.

[Jed Dilligan]

378. Show me an industry that is not corrupt and exploitative

and I'll send them my resume.

Unless you are born rich, this society will degrade you, slowly or quickly, loudly or quietly. Every job that exists will ruin your health one way or another.

I don't think the adult entertainment industry is the one whose corruption affects us most negatively. How about oil, defense, prisons, and the news media?

And btw, no special thanks for continuing the lie that everyone who opposes censoring porn must be a porn consumer. Kinda like those druggies who are against the War on Drugs, right?

And if you really read the thread you'd find industry people in here.

And if you really gave a crap about sex workers, you would be for decriminalization.

[Raster]

505. It's "anatomy" and per the vast majority of medical professionals: NOTHING!

And again it's "pornography." You seem to have issues with erotica and depicted human sexuality. And your self-righteous condemnation of the entire erotic imagery industry as "corrupt" speaks volumes. And for the record, I know several persons that work in the adult entertainment industry. They are healthy, well adjusted, wonderful people. They enjoy their sexuality and have wonderful perspective.

[TankLV]

545. I heard if you don't use it you "lose" it...

I also heard that exercising one's muscles increases the size of these muscles!!!

Seems like a good idea to me...

[GOTV]

350. Look how big your thread is! Everyone loves porn!

Yes, it's a joke

[ohio2007]

380. ...no its's not...

;)


lol

[atommom]

361. Thanks for posting this. It's an uncomfortable article, but it deserves to be read.

[Katherine Brengle]

656. Thank you.U

Unfortunately it's mostly just the usual braindead bickering.

[atommom]

677. It's a conversation that's worth having, but I just don't see that

conversation ever happening here.

[ohio2007]

379. WOW, look at all the replies and in one day.

People sure like to talk about porn


;)

[Deja Q]

405. It's sad some men prefer to be violent and not loving. n/t

[mzmolly]

448. Yes it is.

:(

[TankLV]

548. It's more sad that too many are CLUELESS PRUDES who should mind their owne fucking business...

And that's your warped opinion...

[leftofthedial]

425. you are in porno movies?

if not, then the premise of the article is purely false.

[pitohui]

463. i doubt the OP has ever even seen a porno movie

or else she would not have cited such a hilariously wrong-footed article for our amusement

[mondo joe]

471. When I read some of the posts in this thread, I can only imagine the beds with rules posted on the

headboards.

[Raster]

499. Empty beds with rules posted on the headboards.

[mzmolly]

527. How on earth did anyone have sex before televison?

:eyes:

[Raster]

539. Ha ahahahahah

Point. Honestly, this is probably the most heated thread DU has seen in a long time. I've read and re-read the article and I have come to the conclusion that the article--while raising some valid points--is typical of writers trying to sell books. They go for maximum shock and sensation.

This article also doesn't take into account that men and women really are wired different when it comes to sexual arousal and response. Men do tend to be more visual, instant-gratification oriented. Women tend to be more emotional and much less instant-gratification. Of course, these are generalities, but tend to be true. That said, most erotic work produced in the United States tends to reflect its creation for men by men. And we must realize that erotic art and erotica has been around since the dawn of human civilization. The author's attempt to demonize all erotica as harmful and demeaning to women is just not true. And that is what has aroused so many tempers here.

Another factor is that, yes, women in general in this society, are to a degree objectified and dehumanized. Thus the erotica represents that. And that is changing. But the suggestion that the erotica itself is the cause of the problem is false. It is result of, not the cause of. Again, this author has represented a very complex issue in simplistic, sensationalist terms. It appears this article isn't intended to fairly examine the issue, just insight quick outburst and emotional commentary.

And finally, many many people of both sexes highly resent anyone trying to force their morality on anyone else. Any attempt, perceived or otherwise, is bound to be met with intense reaction.

[mzmolly]

632. LOL - the old "men are wired differently" response.

Seems odd that such "visual" men would need to have women humiliated in order to gain pleasure? One would think the act of consensual respectful sex would stimulate their visual brains? Ever see a womens fashion magazine? They sell items with pictures. The "men are more visual" shit, is well, shit. However, even if that were true, it would not be germaine to the discussion, nor would it negate any concern.

Another factor is that, yes, women in general in this society, are to a degree objectified and dehumanized. Thus the erotica represents that. And that is changing. But the suggestion that the erotica itself is the cause of the problem is false. It is result of, not the cause of. Again, this author has represented a very complex issue in simplistic, sensationalist terms. It appears this article isn't intended to fairly examine the issue, just insight quick outburst and emotional commentary.

I don't consider dehumanization 'erotic' personally. However, I don' think anyone suggests that violent porn is THE cause of any particular problem, but that does not mean that questions about the growing fascination with it, should not be explored.

And finally, many many people of both sexes highly resent anyone trying to force their morality on anyone else. Any attempt, perceived or otherwise, is bound to be met with intense reaction.

Yes, such was the desire for the South to secede from the Union. However, eventually as a nation, we recognized oppression for what it was, and we did something about it. As a Democrat, I believe in advocating for those in society who Wellstone referred to as the "little guy." The little "guy" was a metaphor for those among us who don't have adequate rights/representation. Politics is an extension of moral values, whether or not such values are based in religion or not.

[Raster]

640. Yes, the ol' wired differently response

Past research has indicated the importance of the visual sensory modality for male sexual arousal (Byrne, 1977; Ellis & Symons, 1999; Gold & Gold, 1991; Przybyla, Byrne, & Kelley, 1983). Men, more than women, focus on the physical aspects and characteristics of sexual fantasy partners and on the sexual behaviors being performed (Ellis & Symons, 1999; Geary, Vigil, & Byrd-Craven, 2004) and may also be more readily prompted to fantasize by exposure to external, visual cues (Gold & Gold, 1991). In the absence of external visual stimuli, the ability to form clear, vivid images still appears to be important in facilitating arousal (Harris, Yulis, & LaCoste, 1980; Przybyla & Byrne, 1984; Przybyla et al., 1983; Smith & Over, 1987, 1988).

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m2372/is_1_44/ai_n19052957

So no, it isn't "shit." Just scientific conclusion you don't agree with.

So you don't consider dehumanization erotic? Neither do I. Some do, however. And again, the amount of erotica featuring the violence and "dehumanization" of women is small in relation to the large amount of total erotica produced. In other words, those that view this type of erotica ARE relegated to a relatively small segment of the porn-viewing community.

And again, in this three-year old invitation to a flame-fest, he doesn't even consider or mention major trends in erotica today, for example the influx of female producers of female-oriented erotica, nor does he mention the exploding areas of amateur erotica and self-produced "vanity" erotica, featuring self-made erotica of both sexes.

And you're equating women appearing in pornography to slaves in the South during pre-Civil War? Surely a stretch. Puhleeeze! Not to mention the Wellstone reference.

[mzmolly]

646. Sorry, it's still shit.

However, the "fact" or not, that men are supposedly "more visual" :eyes: is not related to this discussion on violence meshed with mainstream porn. Somehow it comes up in every conversation regarding porn, regardless of the context as if it's a blanket defense?

Here's another study:

The effects of a new stimulus following repeated exposure to a familiar, sexually explicit stimulus were studied. Female and male subjects (N =56) viewed an explicitly heterosexual film daily for 4 days and then were exposed to either (i) a film showing the same actors engaging in different sexual acts or (ii) one with different actors engaging in the same activities shown in the original film. Analyses of self-rated responses showed that negative affect significantly increased with film repetition and returned to original levels with the introduction of novelty. Erotophobia was associated with negative affect. Results for self-reported sexual arousal and concern ratings revealed sex differences, with males becoming more aroused and concerned by novelty consisting of different actors, and females becoming more aroused and concerned by the same actors performing different acts. Affective and cognitive theories of human sexual responding provided possible explanations for these results.

http://www.springerlink.com/content/v658301707h62v72/

Both Men and Women use their eyes and are stimulated by sexual content. Perhaps the content in the study you note involved the TYPE of content/context generally preferable to men? It's not a matter of men vs. women in terms of enjoying "visual" depictions of nudity, it's a matter of the kind of visual stimuli men/women are perhaps, conditioned to respond to.

And you're equating women appearing in pornography to slaves in the South during pre-Civil War? Surely a stretch. Not to mention the Wellstone reference.

No, I'm equating your notation to the resistance of legislating morality to moral issues in general. As for Wellstone, he would have agreed with me on this.

http://www.wellstone.org/swinstitute/violence.aspx

[Katherine Brengle]

657. Interesting assertion.

Unfortunately, I have seen more than my fair share of pornography.

I have never come on DU and posted anything without being fully aware of what I was talking about.

Next.

[TankLV]

522. I guess this creep doesn't know about men then - especially men who show NO interest in women at all

you know - the GAY part of our population.

She's fucking nuts and doesn't know what the fuck she's talking about...

Sounds like another fucking REPUKE PRUDE interested in EVERYONE ELSE's business...

[mzmolly]

526. Uhm, it's a HE. Try reading the article

before shitting your pants.

[Name removed]

549. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

584. He's A Very Excitable Man

eom

[mondo joe]

530. Shhhhhhhhh. They don't LIKE to be reminded that gay men look at men in porn.

It messes up all their false conclusions.

[TankLV]

552. hee hee - even "straw" men!

:9 :evilgrin: :rofl:

[Scout]

620. well if we're talking about the treatment of WOMEN in hetero

porn, then gay men watching other men in gay porn is off the subject, no?

[mondo joe]

686. No, not really. If the "points" of the OP are that seeing women in porn in ways the author

perceives to be painful or humiliating is somehow tainting men's thoughts about women, then gay porn is a good point of comparison.

And it blows the silly claims out of the water.

[NaturalHigh]

550. You lost me at "Jensen".

Personally, I think he's a nut. At least he's at the University of Texas and not Oklahoma. I occasionally send his articles to my friends just as a joke.

[mondo joe]

602. You don't have to be a nut to be a Dworkin apologist.

But it helps.

[entanglement]

560. One small point I'd like to add to the discussion: the amount of racial stereotyping in porn

It's like the Civil Rights movement never took place at all, as far as the world of porn is concerned.

[Katherine Brengle]

662. I think you are right about that.

I think porn provides an outlet for a lot of the -isms that we've hidden behind closed doors.

[tkmorris]

568. What an amazing thread

We have a long way to go to truly be civilized folks. I have been a DU'er for well over 6 years and this thread has got to be in the top 5 of all time for people:

Talking past each other.

Commenting without reading the article, and thus looking like fools.

Defending their sacred cows, and appearing quite foolish in doing so but not really caring.

And so on. Can we really not have a conversation where we initially disagree, and yet listen to each other's viewpoints and make our own arguments until such time as some sort of consensus can be reached? Is this truly the best we can do, snarling at each through our keyboards? It's absurd. We are aardvarks with arguments. Velociraptors with vocabulary. It's just stupid.

We are all sexual beings. Denying the urges we feel is not an effective approach. Porn is not unhealthy, nor immoral. However there IS a point at which it crosses a line, a point at which women (primarily women, due to the variance in what the 2 sexes find effective as stimulants) are being abused and treated with disrespect.

Can we really not discuss this reasonably? Can we not examine at what point porn crosses that invisible line into degradation?

We are better than this. We should be at least. Please, TRY to listen to what others are saying to you, and recognize that there are many different viewpoints on this. And be NICE to each other. Acting like an ass limits the debate and really doesn't help you make your case. Save your anger for those who really deserve it.

[trumad]

572. Good post...

But if you've been here this long like I know you have---then you must know that there are knuckleheads that will hop into a thread like this with the single intention of flaming....They live for it.

[USA_1]

591. Very good post.

But your point proves the fact that Democrats are far more inclined to fight and insult each other than they are willing to openly oppose Republicans. Here I am posting an honest opinion and I get insulted by being called a Republican. Wow - that's an outrage! I did not retaliate but just might do so.

Perhaps the mods might consider closing the thread before it gets any worse.

[Jed Dilligan]

607. No, we can't talk "reasonably"

when you are tiptoeing toward censorship while piling up verbiage to make it sound like a good liberal cause.

Did you ever see a movie called "The Accused" with Jodi Foster? Very powerful film about rape and the legal system. The "invisible line" you propose would have kept that movie from being produced.

"Free speech is great and all but enough is enough, people, right?" When I think about it your argument is really fucking scary. It's exactly like the neocon argument for spying, torture, etc.... And if I try to counter it from the point of view of the Constitution, I will be accused of supporting suicide bombers and the subjugation of women.

Or are you with your wife in the, "Oh, nothing can actually be done about it but I'm going to be all pouty until everyone says how bad it is" camp?

[Scout]

619. don't anyone DARE to try to come between a man and his wienie!

really, really sets some of them off, they get so damn emotional.

;)

[Raster]

641. And don't anyone come between a woman and her histrionics.

really, really sets some of them off, they get so damn emotional.
:)

[Pithlet]

628. Now, that's too reasonable.

I agree with you 100% and even said something similar once long ago and was immediately labeled a prude, so good luck with this.

[Katherine Brengle]

660. Thank you for that,

but this is quite normal as you know. This community is apparently incapable of discussing something like this without imploding.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

573. I Like My Science And Social Science Ideology Free

In the current instance the author doesn't even intend to lay a factual foundation for his thesis. He suggests it is what is because he said or wrote so. If the proliferation of pornography has coarsened the attitudes of men versus women I would like to see documentation of this.

The problem is that researchers bring their own idelogical agenda to the study of a phenomenon and pornography is no different...

[mondo joe]

603. This is an unfair demand on your part. If thhe author was restricted to what could actually

be demonstrated rather than simply his own say-so, he'd have no argument at all.

:-)

[Jed Dilligan]

608. Articles like this are destroying respect for social science.

I was at UT for a while, it's full of crypto rightwingers. This is a stealth fundie agenda masquerading as liberalism. Sad to see DUers falling for it.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

609. It's A Fascinating Topic...

Porn has been around forever... I remember doing a paper as a freshman sociology student...It started "Pornography is as old as man. It was found in the Ruins Of Pompeii nearly two thousand years ago."

That being said, any behavior that interferes with your life and interpersonal relationships is harmful... But I'm not convinced that pornography does and I'm less convinced even if it does the problems caused by it rise to the level of outlawing it...

If you are spending hours in front of your computer watching internet porn or you think that the sex you see depicted in film resembles real life than porn has become a problem for you...

[Jed Dilligan]

612. It is fascinating.

Scientists have tried, and failed, to correlate rape with violence against women. My intuition would indicate more of the opposite--that society is better off if men with violent fantasies look at staged porn, drain their balls, and leave real women alone.

The author of this article fell for a stage act--and he was so disturbed by his own responses that he felt the need to write an article. Goffman would have really enjoyed picking this one apart.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

645. I Tend To Agree With You...

If a woman is offended by certain acts depicted in pornographic films she should be happy that men are just watching the film , satisfying themselves, and leaving them alone rather than trying it out on them...

[smoogatz]

625. There you go.

As I said upthread, those whose arguments are ideologically driven will lie down with any old dog if it helps them make their case. Never mind the fleas.

[Drum]

617. Kudzu!

[NeedleCast]

621. Katherine

Why don't you just come out and say it? Pretty much everyone here knows you want to.

[Dora]

643. Say what? nt

[Katherine Brengle]

661. What is that supposed to mean?

Say what exactly?

[USA_1]

665. We Agree On Pornography ...

... and I was subjected to personal attack here for expressing my disdain for it. I am glad to see that these attacks were deleted.

But a thought to me --- it is highly unusual to see smut defended in this forum as most of here are quite rational and are very capable of viewing things through very intelligent eyes and minds. As some of you likely know, ultra right winger Rupert Murdoch is the world's biggest pornographer and he has been known for hiring people to disrupt rational exchanges on Internet forums. Could he have hired people to disrupt our discussion here?

That thought was on my mind all day as rational people on this forum just do not lower themselves to resort to abusiveness and irrationality.

Anyway, again, it is good to see that the personal attacks were largely deleted.

Let us conclude this discusssion with the rationality that is the usual course on this forum.

[Katherine Brengle]

667. Well, lucky for me I didn't see them.

I have no stomach for that kind of crap.

I more or less abandoned this thread - I thought it had faded and then all of the sudden, I'm home from the grocery store, and there it is.

[mzmolly]

671. "Rupert Murdoch is the world's biggest pornographer..."

Really? Shisa, I was not aware. Unless Faux news is rightfully considered obscene?

[USA_1]

721. Murdoch Was Fined By FCC For His Porn ...

... in fact, he was assessed the largest fine by that agency in its history.

Page 3 of the Sun newspaper in the UK was noted for having several nude photos. Smut is a right wing controlled industry which is one reason why so many rational thinking people disdain it.

[musette_sf]

669. i think you and i both know "what"

"what exactly" being documented quite well in Patricia Evans' book "Controlling People".

If someone defines you, even in subtle ways, they are pretending to know the unknowable. There is a quality of fantasy to their words and sometimes to their actions. Even so, they are usually unaware of the fact that they are playing "let's pretend." They fool themselves and sometimes others into thinking that what they are saying is true or that what they are doing is right.

When people "make up" your reality -- as if they were you -- they are trying to control you, even when they don't realize it.

When people attempt to control you they begin by pretending. When they define you they are acting in a senseless way. They are pretending. When people act as if you do not exist or are not a real person with a reality of your own...they are pretending. In this subtle and often unconscious way, they are attempting to exert control over you -- your space, time, resources, or even your life.

Mr. Needle seems to feel quite comfortable in making up someone else's reality. Mr. Needle wants to control you, even to the extent that he will announce publicly that he knows what you are really thinking.

in contrast, a non-controlling person understands that you have clearly posted what you are really thinking.

[NeedleCast]

679. Swing and miss

Just a bit outside.....

[blondeatlast]

698. Until I read "Mr. Needle" I thought you were discussing the OP.

Go figure...

[lumberjack_jeff]

727. Amazing.

The excerpt you quoted is fully manifest in the multiple daily man-bashing threads.

Chah! The reason posters have gotten their backs up about this topic is because of the very thing you just complained about; people attempting to define an entire gender and all of the individuals therein.

There's little need for anyone to define the reality as seen by the OP. She's a skilled writer - the aforementioned daily man-bash speaks eloquently for itself.

[Katherine Brengle]

730. Well said, thank you.

[NeedleCast]

678. That you are terrified of men

It seeps from damn near every post you make. You seem to think that pretty much every stranger on the street with a penis is just another person looking to thump you over the head with a brick, drag you back to their basement for some raping and then stuff your bod in a freezer. Maybe it's just me, but every time you post on this subject, it seems like nothing but a slightly sugar-coated version of "men suck." I get this picture that you think that when the men of the world aren't actively raping someone, that they're thinking about raping someone, plotting to rape someone or sitting around a campfire with the boys swilling Budweiser and talking about the last time they raped someone.

You claim you're out there fighting the patriarchy, but all I see is a person who plays the victim and can't wait to be a victim again because it'll justify your fear.

I think you want to climb to the top of the highest mountain and scream "I HATE MEN!!!" but you're scared shitless than some neanderthal man with a turkey leg in one hand and a club in the other is going to bash you for saying it.

[musette_sf]

681. re post 669 - WE HAVE A WINNER!

claims to know what OP is thinking.... CHECK
goes into great detail as to what he "knows"... CHECK
makes baseless accusations as to what the OP is thinking... CHECK
projection BIG TIME... CHECK

yep, textbook example of Controlling Person. what gall.

and Mr Needle, as you seem to be fond of the baseball analogy, your first post here was a FOUL TIP, and the post i'm responding to is HIGH AND OUTSIDE.

[mondo joe]

688. Actually, I rather think your list of CHECKS applies to Katherine and the author of the

article.

They claim to know what men (and women) are thinking.

They go into detail on what they "know"
Etc.

[noamnety]

689. bingo

too lazy to mark this for the particular post in question, sorry

[NeedleCast]

695. That's fine

As Joe pointed out, I'm not doing anything other than what the OP and the linked article are doing.

My problem with this whole "porn turns women into sex objects" is the fact that I hang out with a large circle of friends, many of whom are women, who would totally disagree with that. These ladies are not afraid of sex and not afraid of letting people know they enjoy sex. They refuse to bow down to the conservative thinking that sex is dirty and wrong unless it's between a man and a woman, in their bedroom, with the kids asleep and the lights off...and even then it's still questionable. Many of them watch and enjoy porn both as a comedy experience and as a sexual aid. I think they'd be pretty offended by someone who projected victimization on them, as the author of the linked article seems to want to do. I think they'd say they're free to enjoy porn just as much as the next person and that they're doing it out of free choice, because they *gasp* LIKE it, not because they've been brain washed by a misogynist society into thinking its the only way to "get men." Different strokes and all...there are plenty of people, including a lot of women, who would label them sluts. I consider them to be the height of feminism.

There's also the fact that the OP has not bothered to attempt to refute any of the arguments made by people who are not anti-porn. I think that's pretty telling in and of itself. There have been several good arguments made by people who have watched porn that pretty clearly demonstrate it has not turned them into female-abusing monsters. Essentially, the OP made a drive-by post that and then proceeded to pretty much ignore anyone who dared argue the point from the linked article that pr0n R bad.

[Scout]

718. "These ladies are not afraid of sex and not afraid of letting people know they enjoy sex. "

Neither are we women in this thread.

The simple-minded assume that if one does not care to watch porn that one is a virginal, repressed prude who thinks sex is dirty and nasty.

[qdemn7]

687. Yes!!!

Terrific post. Expresses my thoughts perfectly. Thank you! :toast: :yourock: :applause:

[Scout]

717. that's rich, what an imagination (not)...

although Katherine's husband might find it amusing. Not that she or he need me to speak for them....

[Katherine Brengle]

732. Thanks for letting me know what I think, I have such a hard time figuring it out for myself.

I don't hate men. Far from it. I am married to a wonderful man and there are quite a few true good men in my life.

I post about feminism and women's issues because they are important and usually ignored on DU when they should be at the top of our priority list.

And I will leave you with something to ponder, an example if you will. This is copied from a discussion on another board, wherein a woman was talking about a car accident her husband got into with a woman in another car. The woman stayed in her car until the police arrived and the man became quite irritated and did not understand why.

"This comes back to the "all men are rapists" argument. Men strenuously deny it, but women are blamed any time they act as if it is not true. For example: had your husband been a rapist, and had that woman been raped, people would've said it was "her own fault" for getting out of the car. It's not rocket science to work that one out."

So no, I do not hate men. Yet I do have reason, in my public life, to fear them. That is what living in a patriarchy is for women - constantly needing to work out the potential danger of every decision, even the most minute.

I have a big problem with this - no one should have to live like this.

The vast majority of men are decent people, as we all know. Unfortunately, we have no choice but to fear all men because if we do not, we could make one wrong step and end up not only being victimized, but quite often being blamed for it as well.

Your response is quite unsophisticated and defensive, so I guess I just have to assume that you are terrified of women who refuse to accept less than total personhood. Of course, you would consider than statement ridiculous, as I considered yours that I hate men.

Charmed.

[aikoaiko]

663. Katherine, we may disagree on some things, but I applaud your ability to get a 700 post thread going

:applause::applause::toast::applause::applause:

[AngryAmish]

672. This is a very long thread

Go Cubs!

[SarahB]

682. Decent guys like porn that shows the pleasure of women.

I have a hard time relating to the violent, sadistic stuff that's out there because because in relationships I've been in with men where porn is out in the open, the porn that makes them excited is that which shows it from an aspect of the women receiving pleasure. I'd venture to guess the sadistic porn viewers have dysfunctional relationships as well.

edit: p.s. The article is way too heterocentric and consenting adults do many things. I doubt everyone would agree with my sex life/acts of choice 100% either.

[Forkboy]

709. Pleasing your partner is the whole point of sex.

If I take care of her orgasm/s then mine will come in time...so to speak. :)

[SarahB]

714. Exactly

Even with BDSM or other "degrading" stuff, if it turns the person on who's on the sub end of it then it's their business too. It's usually a good idea to try to match those things up as much as possibly when you become intimately involved. There's someone right for all of our kinks (and non-kinks) I believe. :)

[lumberjack_jeff]

728. Well now wait a minute...

If that's true then the Op must be full of shit.

Cognitive dissonance! Help me!

:sarcasm:

[Wapsie B]

683. Damn, late to the party again.

I got some reading to do, look's like. :P

[DemocratSinceBirth]

685. A Lot Of Heat In This Discussion...Not Much Light...

I assume the author wants to shame men into not watching porn...I don't think that approach has much chance of success...

[cynatnite]

694. All I've got to say is that more women should be making the porn...

There are some, but no where near enough.

[Vinnie From Indy]

731. WOW! What a thread!

Sex sells!

[Hidden Stillness]

741. "Ordeal," etc., Unmasks the Game

"Men have looked on at the destruction of women like dumb oxen on a riverbank, placidly chewing the cud, while the ox-herd drowns before their eyes, not even dimly aware that they are in any way involved in her tragedy."--Edward Carpenter, 19th century Socialist/feminist/homosexual/Christian mystic author, admirer of Walt Whitman, quoted in "The First Sex" by Elizabeth Gould Davis.

I was avoiding this depressing thread for a while, but then finally decided to post on it because there actually are many really great (feminist) messages here. This entire thread, as usual, is full of the standard phony responses that never change, and claims that, no matter how ridiculous, never change. It ends up with a contrived presentation where contempt is pretended to be attraction, and "liberated" males pretend to "save" women from the actions of feminists. There are some real outbursts of hate and ridicule, "fucking prude!!!" etc.(along with claims that there is no coercion on this issue, couldn't guess how that would possibly be done...), and even several really stupid attempts to pretend that anti-porn feminists hate gay people, really stupid propaganda attempt. There is even the disturbing spectacle of one of the moderators of the website jumping on many times--which I thought they generally avoided--to not only post some of the stupidest anti-feminist messages on the thread, laughing and ridiculing, but also one especially:

"Mr. Jensen, Ma'am, Spends An Awful Lot Of Time Watching Pornography....
"Posted by The Magistrate on Sun Aug-19-07 10:46 PM
"Odd that he finds something he professes such disgust for so fascinating, and so engrossing: it is a wonder he can ever manage to tear himself away from his 'researches' and type up his results,"

as a pricky "response" to the article on the increasing violence of commercial/corporate male pornography, was incredible, and asinine. Who thinks about war, more than the anti-war activist; who thinks about racial issues more than the black and brown people held back by them; who thinks about money more than the poor, etc.? "Odd" that someone who cares about the issue is researching it? What a fucking stupid comment--this must be the same prick who censors all of my posts on anti-rape threads, and leaves the contentless male hate directed against me, still there. Also, one male on this thread, distressed by "hatred" against males by women, is the same one who, months ago on a thread about a news atory of a male who raped a woman when she was asleep, defended, excused and trivialized it, and was attacked by the women on that thread for it. Then of course, there are all the other usual names, defending their "right" to take out their hatred on us.

There are all the usual conflations of things--"sex" with pornography, "fantasy" with the porn industry--that remind me of when Linda Marchiano, formerly "Lovelace," published her book "Ordeal," about her slavery in the male porn industry, and an appearance on the Phil Donahue morning show, at the same time as an anti-pornography panel in Minneapolis, which I think was also covered by Donahue. I will never forget her quote, after she described her captivity during the porn years, unable to go even to the bathroom alone, a male guard with her always, the beatings, the forced commands to "smile," whenever people (males) claimed she liked the gagging throat-rape scenes in "Deep Throat," said, "Everybody remembers the smile on my face; nobody notices the bruises." Also, "Virtually every time someone watches that film, they are watching me being raped." They are often not even "actresses," but kidnap victims.

This conference, I also recall, covered a topic then new, early-1980s, that of women filing for divorce because their husbands were forcing demeaning, denigrating pornography on them, for example, one who talked about how her husband grabbed her by her hair, forced her to a chair at a table, and shoved her face into a pile of pornographic books, magazines and videos, ordering her to do those things. Nobody wants to face the fact; it is generally not the "happy couple" of male advertising lore, it is a lone, anti-social male, alone or forcing a woman. This reminds me of a news story, later on"Oprah," in either South Carolina or West Virginia--can't remember--where a male tied "the wife" up to a bed, beat her, raped her, shoved a bottle up her vagina, etc., then was declared "not guilty." It was not even considered a violent attack to those delusional jurors; it was "entertainment" for the male "owner"--so this was ALL it was.

As a matter of fact, the increasing unhappiness of women forced not to be their own free, sexual selves, but to only act out male porn, then filing for divorce after all enjoyment of sex had been killed, was noticed as an increasing trend by Masters and Johnson, researching during the 1980s. It goes from the mutual sexual love of the two of them, to a series of orders and critcisms from the male, with more and more developed scenarios, to the woman--killing everything in life for her.

When women dare to state their own opinions about humiliating male pornography, there is just about the most violent outburst of male hate and ridicule, always jumping instantly to diatribes against feminism, giving the whole game away. Sometimes they whine about "censorship," (or any expression that women have a separate perspective that did not echo their own); then attack anyone who reads the feminist authors named on the thread. Sometimes they are just "sad" or "amused," (etc., etc.) at our opinions or feelings about this, or anything else.

Anyone who researches it discovers the strong tie between child sexual abuse, and later prostitution, extreme promiscuity, and pornography-work. Those who attack anyone who will not go along with their delusions that pornography and real sexuality are the same, and who will not admit the increasing violence--like those who pretend that if males have access to prostitutes, they will not rape, when there is no such connection, (especially when a lot of these bastards beat and rape, then do not pay, prostitutes)--are the same hostile males who will never examine their own true attitudes to women, or why they turn to the vicious pornography they seek social sanction from.