Thoughts on Pornography?

[Havet]

I'm curious to know people's thoughts on pornography. But before you reply, consider the following information:

1- We are the result of evolution, and evolution has "programmed" us (so to speak) into engaging in sexual reproduction.

2-For us to engage in sexual reproduction, we have outside stimulus that arouse our internal sexual desire (which is present in more or less 99,9% of all humans). This outside stimulus comes from various factors such as physical appearance, smell, shoulder-to-waste ratio, facial symmetry, etc.

3-This desire is NOT voluntary, its spontaneous and instinctive, although it can be controlled after we have experienced it (this means we are ultimately responsible for our actions whether we have sex, we rape or we just do nothing).

So keeping this in mind, which may or may not be scientifically accurate facts, would you use force to prevent someone who has the desire, but not the means to achieve sex with other person voluntarily, or who finds that he'd rather enjoy himself alone than to pretend to love another person just to get in her pants, and therefore decided to watch pornography?

Also a personal question, which you are free to answer or to evade the question, for both sexes: Do you watch pornography?

If not, is there a very strong reason why you don't do it? Would you forbid people who do?

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Where's the "yes, frequently" option?

[Havet]

Where's the "yes, frequently" option?

That' why I placed the *cough*cough* in the first option :cool:

[kalu]

I used to, though I recently stopped. Previously, I was satisfied with the argument "it's not hurting anyone," but given the fact that pornography, strip clubs, etc. are marketed almost entirely for (straight) men, I have felt a growing discomfort. I don't yet have a clear position on the matter, but for me it's enough that as I try to rethink relationships from a feminist viewpoint, I need to seriously consider the effects of an industry that so thoroughly objectifies and degrades women. A cursory glance at most porn movie titles supports this point. Additionally, while we may very well be biologically prone to different sorts of sexual stimulation, from a more spiritual (Buddhist) perspective, I am interested in non-attachment and loving compassion when developing relationships, which seems wholly unsuited to "slamming big tit *****es.":blink: This said, I do not believe in banning pornography, and I'd say that this is a topic worthy of open discussion just because it is complicated, from both "sexual liberation" and harm perspectives. I'd also be interested to know what queer comrades think, ie. if heteronormative roles are reinscribed in officially gay porn.

[Havet]

I used to, though I recently stopped. Previously, I was satisfied with the argument "it's not hurting anyone," but given the fact that pornography, strip clubs, etc. are marketed almost entirely for (straight) men, I have felt a growing discomfort. I don't yet have a clear position on the matter, but for me it's enough that as I try to rethink relationships from a feminist viewpoint, I need to seriously consider the effects of an industry that so thoroughly objectifies and degrades women. A cursory glance at most porn movie titles supports this point. Additionally, while we may very well be biologically prone to different sorts of sexual stimulation, from a more spiritual (Buddhist) perspective, I am interested in non-attachment and loving compassion when developing relationships, which seems wholly unsuited to "slamming big tit *****es.":blink: This said, I do not believe in banning pornography, and I'd say that this is a topic worthy of open discussion just because it is complicated, from both "sexual liberation" and harm perspectives. I'd also be interested to know what queer comrades think, ie. if heteronormative roles are reinscribed in officially gay porn.

Well that is an interesting argument. Although if you're worried that by watching porn you might create a bigger demand for porn therefore continuing any "society oppression" upon women then i'd recommend not paying for porn at all (there are some websites with free porn). An if you are worried about when visiting those websites they will count your visit and still count it as a demand, then just download some porn and keep watching it until you die (you might get bored though).

I don't think the industry is consciously objectifying and degrading women. After all, if you're looking for blame, you should blame people, because the industry is responding to the demand. If they make more money by treating women in the movies in a certain way then they'll do it.

And yes, some men are much responsible for this objectifying. Some men think of some women just as objects, although I must say, and this goes back to first post, that one must remind that it is in both parties self interest to look for a mate, therefore some women will also "bring themselves lower" to try and find a sexual partner. Hopefully this is not always the case. But really, most girls of my age (18-19yo) just care about partying and getting laid, and the same goes for most guys, although most guys will admit that as if its some sort of ability, while some girls will not admit it. Notice my bolded "some", because i don't like to collectivize my arguments this much. But as far as my observation has allowed me to, most people really only care about party and fcking. I'll be glad to be proven wrong on this one though.

[kalu]

I know you can get porn for free, or whatever, but my larger point remains that we are dealing with an industry that objectifies women. It may very well be true like you said that both men and women can and do objectify each other, but speaking of egalitarianism it's pretty obvious men and women are not equals and thus there should be greater emphasis on men reflecting on their subtle and not-so-subtle sexism. I'm also unconvinced by the "demand" argument. The porn industry is not some sort of empirical given we just have to deal with, like the sun and the sky, but a social relation. I mean, are you relying on the old sexist trope that men just need more sex than women, and thus they "naturally" take up 95% of the demand? Frankly, I'm not dealing at the level of anthropomorphisms, ie. "Jimmy can fuck Kelly and be nice," but the wider structure and system. Please don't mistake that for some sort of vague, misguided generalization, ie. all people who watch porn are terrible, terrible people.

[Durruti's Ghost]

I think the problem with pornography is not actually a problem of pornography as such, but rather a problem of the patriarchal capitalist system in which it is produced. It's a bit analogous to prostitution; if a woman wishes to be a prostitute because she finds it an enjoyable line of work, more power to her, but if she is forced into it by economic circumstances (which is usually the case, IMO), the economic system that gives rise to them needs to be overthrown.

I need to think some more about this...

[New Tet]

I'm curious to know people's thoughts on pornography. But before you reply, consider the following information:

[..]

Pornography is like going hungry to a banquet in which one is not allowed even to touch the food.

[Pogue]

i don't like porn anymore. like most teenage boys i used to look at it but i havent for like, 1-2 years now. i dont get anything from it, no need.

[brigadista]

no - because of its connection to trafficking

[jake williams]

I despise people who are against porn as such: I think that the "feminist" wing of the anti-pornography movement is really the worst kind of anti-feminist. They use the most ridiculous reactionary language. They're not against patriarchy, they're against sexuality, male and female, straight and gay. That assists patriarchy, and weakens feminism.

That said, of course we live in a horrendously dysfunctional sexual culture, and a horrendously sexist economy. Much of modern pornography reflects this - in the ideas reflected about women, and the material reality of their exploitation. But there's no reason that pornography - sexual imagery used for sexual enjoyment - is inherently wrong. In fact even in our society, there's both evidence that pornography can be part of healthy sexual culture, and there is solidly feminist pornography, including a breadth of lesbian pornography (ie. aimed at a lesbian audience). If that is sexually exploitative, then you're arguing that no sex is okay, and with that I can't agree.

I am decidely with the pro-sex side of feminism. Hard. And though there's no way to verify this over the internet, it really is largely political. Anti-sex feminism, which made a kind of sense in the way-back world of the 70s, has both lost its radical edge and adopted the ugliest essentialist ideas about the anti-sexual woman dirtied by the sexual man. This is totally reactionary, but comprises a disturbing part of modern "radical" feminism. We should have progessed. That Simone de Beauvoir was more progessive and sensible in the 1940s than mainstream feminism is today should make us all ashamed.

[Havet]

no - because of its connection to trafficking

proof?

That's like saying marijuana leads to harder drugs - and there's no proof of that as well. So show us where you got that information, because i wasn't aware of such relationship.

[danyboy27]

i think porn need improvement.

[Havet]

but speaking of egalitarianism it's pretty obvious men and women are not equals and thus there should be greater emphasis on men reflecting on their subtle and not-so-subtle sexism. I'm also unconvinced by the "demand" argument. The porn industry is not some sort of empirical given we just have to deal with, like the sun and the sky, but a social relation. I mean, are you relying on the old sexist trope that men just need more sex than women, and thus they "naturally" take up 95% of the demand?

1- Why should the emphasis be greater on men than on women?

2- The porn industry is a social relation, but its empirically given and we have to deal with it. Its not that men need more sex than women, but as the biological animal that we are, men usually are the ones looking for females. They [women] just need to sit alone and stay healthy and men will come after them. This also happens with a great deal of other species. This is why for most women they hardly need to compete with each other to get a male to have sex with them.

EDIT: so this is why men take 95% of the demand for porn. Men are biologically made to look for a female. We have an instinctive drive for it.

[Dooga Aetrus Blackrazor]

Arguably, not paying for porn is the same as not paying for any other form of entertainment. We'll all still download music, for instance. We all know not "every" band we listen to is rolling in cash. I download albums from very obscure bands that could very well use my money.

I would still advocate not paying for porn because the industry is so corrupt. However, they still benefit when you view free sites. Those sites generate advertising revenue. When I buy a vegetarian or vegan product at a store, I probably hurt animals. I give money to someone who buys meat.

It's all about where you choose to draw your line. Society places a very high value on sexuality. I think that's their right. They can value something as much as they feel it's important. I think they tend to both over and undervalue it at times. However, I think most men see the exploitation of women in pornography and say, yeah, it's bad, but the benefit people get out of it is worth it.

Of course, the benefit becomes justified as a larger amount of people utilize the good. You can try and escape the exploitation by watching specific pornography. However, that's often boyfriends seeking revenge on their girlfriends and passed off as "women-made" pornography. Even if the women voluntarily made a pornography video, it doesn't mean she wasn't exploited. Just as a person who takes a low paying job voluntarily takes it.

However, I think it's overall not a big issue. Although most women probably wouldn't voluntarily choose to show themselves in pornographic films, it's partially because society stigmatizes sexuality. If it didn't, know one would care. It would be like if someone had a picture of you from playing mini golf. Who cares?

I think the main problem I have with pornography is it's an act. It portrays sexuality differently from how it actually is and "creates" a notion of what sex is good. This is why a lot of people want pornography that seems genuine. They want the women to like it. Unfortunately, acting is a very common talent. It's very likely a women who seems to "really love being tied up" is actually feeling quite degraded. This makes pornography rather hollow.

You know why most of us use pornography, I suspect, is our climate of efficiency. I can achieve a much slower and often better quality "session" with my imagination. Pornography just saves me a lot of time. We use images of women for our own needs and just toss them away when we're done.

Sadly, I think sexuality is often just mutual exploitation. I was in a bar as a child where women wore bikinis and served us. I felt awkward. The men were ridiculously vulgar and made my quite ashamed of my sex, to be honest. However, after reflecting on the experience, I thought. Is there only one victim here? The men are being exploited for money.

I think sexuality and sex are rather dirty, as they are supposed to be. I don't think it's realistic to start idealizing them. Rape is a terrible crime, but it happens in the wild. Sex exists to serve individual need. Few spouses continue having sex with the person they "love" if sex doesn't interest them. If sex were truly about respecting a person and loving them, spouses would satisfy one another even when they weren't interested. Instead, it's just waiting until their biological clocks match up and exploiting one another.

[brigadista]

no - because of its connection to trafficking
because it is an issue for leftists in relation to the sex industry and debt slavery- many women entering into the sex industry from the developing world [sex workers also work in the porn industry]maybe trafficked or enter into contracts whereby they are given money by the bosses to travel to the west to enter into the sex industry and then have to pay the debt back at a massively inflated repayment eg equivalent of 7k spent to travel and set up in the west then have to repay 60k which means the bosses get a 24 hour worker with a debt to repay which is impossible to repay. This is the height of exploitation. Many south east asian women come to the west this way.. and they will also have to work on websites and in porn films with no choices as the bosses will have details of their families at home.

This also happens to women in their home countries- the "choice" to enter into the porn industry isnt often a choice as such for the reasons i have posted -

this is not a morality issue its an exploitation issue

[kalu]

I despise people who are against porn as such: I think that the "feminist" wing of the anti-pornography movement is really the worst kind of anti-feminist. They use the most ridiculous reactionary language. They're not against patriarchy, they're against sexuality, male and female, straight and gay. That assists patriarchy, and weakens feminism.

That said, of course we live in a horrendously dysfunctional sexual culture, and a horrendously sexist economy. Much of modern pornography reflects this - in the ideas reflected about women, and the material reality of their exploitation. But there's no reason that pornography - sexual imagery used for sexual enjoyment - is inherently wrong. In fact even in our society, there's both evidence that pornography can be part of healthy sexual culture, and there is solidly feminist pornography, including a breadth of lesbian pornography (ie. aimed at a lesbian audience). If that is sexually exploitative, then you're arguing that no sex is okay, and with that I can't agree.

I am decidely with the pro-sex side of feminism. Hard. And though there's no way to verify this over the internet, it really is largely political. Anti-sex feminism, which made a kind of sense in the way-back world of the 70s, has both lost its radical edge and adopted the ugliest essentialist ideas about the anti-sexual woman dirtied by the sexual man. This is totally reactionary, but comprises a disturbing part of modern "radical" feminism. We should have progessed. That Simone de Beauvoir was more progessive and sensible in the 1940s than mainstream feminism is today should make us all ashamed.

I think it's safe to say that no one here thinks porn is a priori "bad." But we do need to seriously consider the current social relations--and sexism--in which the porn industry develops.

[brigadista]

1- Why should the emphasis be greater on men than on women?

2- The porn industry is a social relation, but its empirically given and we have to deal with it. Its not that men need more sex than women, but as the biological animal that we are, men usually are the ones looking for females. They [women] just need to sit alone and stay healthy and men will come after them. This also happens with a great deal of other species. This is why for most women they hardly need to compete with each other to get a male to have sex with them.

EDIT: so this is why men take 95% of the demand for porn. Men are biologically made to look for a female. We have an instinctive drive for it.

i think some of the gay men on here may disagree with you -
there is no way women need to "sit alone and stay healthy" women can go out looking also and they do...and by your analysis it would be extra important for the men you refer to to "stay healthy" safe sex is for men and women whatever their sexual orientation..

[Bud Struggle]

I think it degrades women. It's dishonest sex, it trades real life passion and sexual equality for objectifying a woman for her sex organs.

A woman is more than just an object--and pornography is making a woman into an object. It denies her humanity, her personality, her assent to your sexual approach. She isn't you equal--she is your sexual slave. She agreed to someone taking a picture and you have her as many times as you want--there's something vastly immoral about that.

Not in this man's Communism.

[yuon]

I'm strongly of the opinion that when the revolution comes, capitalists should be given the opinion of having sex on camera, or death by hanging.

Of course, only a few people want to see fat old white men have sex, but, whatever. We can start with Bud, who I quote below (maybe we can include crazy Christians, manky Muslims etc., not to mention trolls).


I think it degrades women. It's dishonest sex, it trades real life passion and sexual equality for objectifying a woman for her sex organs.
What about the case of two gay men having sex on camera (controlled by a gay man) directed by gay men? How the fuck does that degrade women at all?

A woman is more than just an object--and pornography is making a woman into an object. It denies her humanity, her personality, her assent to your sexual approach. She isn't you equal--she is your sexual slave. She agreed to someone taking a picture and you have her as many times as you want--there's something vastly immoral about that.

Not in this man's Communism.
You are an ignorant foolish man. And, I suspect, a troll that should be banned.

Have you heard of Emma? If I can't see two (or more) consenting adults engaging in sexual activity for a camera, then I don't want your revolution. (I could also go on about freedom, but I won't, you probably wouldn't understand it.)

[New Tet]

I think it degrades women. It's dishonest sex, it trades real life passion and sexual equality for objectifying a woman for her sex organs.

A woman is more than just an object--and pornography is making a woman into an object. It denies her humanity, her personality, her assent to your sexual approach. She isn't you equal--she is your sexual slave. She agreed to someone taking a picture and you have her as many times as you want--there's something vastly immoral about that.

Not in this man's Communism.

It degrades all participants, including the viewer. It is just another form of capitalist exploitation.

[New Tet]

You are an ignorant foolish man. And, I suspect, a troll that should be banned.


Bud Struggle spoke the truth. If anything, his words should be applauded.

[jake williams]

Bud Struggle spoke the truth. If anything, his words should be applauded.
I totally disagree.


I think it degrades women. It's dishonest sex, it trades real life passion and sexual equality for objectifying a woman for her sex organs.
Again, I think we should separate the present economic reality and the abstract sexual politics of pornography, which may for biological reasons be something men continue to find more appealing than women, and for practical reasons we can simplify the conversation this way (men masturbating to images of women). If we do all that (though actually, even if we don't), this is utter nonsense. It's reasonable to do this because you are talking about pornography "as such" as inherently immoral - I don't think with your references to the fundamental process of "photographic objectification" that you could really disagree. I think it's also worth bulldogging here because, however progressive RevLeft might be on the pornography question, much of modern "feminism" is still poisoned with reactionary delusions.

First, there's nothing dishonest about it. Women understand that men find them physically attractive, and do pornography for a variety of reasons - understanding that it's going to be incorporated into men's sexual fantasies. Given the reproductability of pornography (something we don't have with other sex industries), there are enough women who enjoy men finding them sexually attractive to provide a reasonable supply without economic exploitation. This will probably be an enduring fact of human sexuality. Most heterosexual women enjoy men finding them sexually attractive - it's the ludicrous denial of this elementary fact that is one of the key reactionary assumptions underlying the mainstream anti-pornography movement, much of which calls itself "feminist". Many, probably most of them also value the privacy of their sexuality enough to weigh against wanting themselves in the effective public domain of the internet. But in a big wide world, lots of them don't - and they have a right not to.

Porn isn't dishonest sex. Porn is honest sex. It's not the most fulfilling sort of sex, it's probably not even the healthiest sort of sex, and anyone is well within their rights not to call it "sex", though I probably would because I use a pretty broad definition of the term for theoretical reasons. At any rate, dropping false pretenses of romantic feelings avoids a whole hell of a lot of heartbreak. If you're going to objectify someone sexually - and men and women both probably always will, although as our sexual culture progresses it will probably happen less - then it makes way more sense, in fact it's much more moral, to do it explicitly, rather than pretending to care deeply about someone you don't.

Sexual equality doesn't exist in our society. But porn certainly isn't the cause of that, the negative aspects of mainstream contemporary pornography are in broad terms symptomatic of an unhealthy sexual culture. The power dynamics of pornography are much, much more complicated than you suggest. What does it say about men that so many prefer porn to real relationships? The common "feminist" explanation is that they want more control than they get in real life relationships. Why would this be? Because they're bad people who want to hurt the objects of their often very sincere emotional affection? The men who most use pornography (despite a lot of mythology about this) are more at risk of projecting emotions onto it that don't belong there, to fantasize about the reciprocity or mutuality of the "relationship". That they would want to exert any symbolic violence through objectification is itself not only a function of an unhealthy sexual culture - and not just the meanness of bad men, at all, the men are a kind of victim here, really - but only one symbolic meaning of sexual objectification among many.


A woman is more than just an object--and pornography is making a woman into an object. It denies her humanity, her personality, her assent to your sexual approach. She isn't you equal--she is your sexual slave. She agreed to someone taking a picture and you have her as many times as you want--there's something vastly immoral about that.
Are you anti-photography? It's "sexual exploitation" for men to have pictures of women? Men can and will jerk off to a variety of visual material with people whom they find sexually attractive - clothed or not, sexual or not, "pornography" or not. Fuck off this is sexual exploitation. If anything, it's the most open with pornography, where (again simplifying) women know what's going on. Is it exploitation to use images that aren't sexual? Is that some sort of metaphysical violation of women's sexual agency? By what mechanism? What about memories? Is it symbolic rape for a person to do whatever they want with memories of women? No.

[Havet]

Are you anti-photography? It's "sexual exploitation" for men to have pictures of women? Men can and will jerk off to a variety of visual material with people whom they find sexually attractive - clothed or not, sexual or not, "pornography" or not. Fuck off this is sexual exploitation. If anything, it's the most open with pornography, where (again simplifying) women know what's going on. Is it exploitation to use images that aren't sexual? Is that some sort of metaphysical violation of women's sexual agency? By what mechanism? What about memories? Is it symbolic rape for a person to do whatever they want with memories of women? No.

I agree. I don't see how having a picture objectifies anyone. By Bud's logic, we should control men's thoughts, because if they were having naked images of women in their minds then they would be objectifying them... Bring on the Thought Police!

yummy!doubleplusgood (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doubleplusgood)eh Bud?

[Invariance]

given the fact that pornography...are marketed almost entirely for (straight) men, But that's not fact; some researches show that ~ one in three people who view pornography are female... and what about gay porn, lesbian porn, bisexual porn...? The only people who I think pornography could degrade is the participants. I'm sorry, but I don't see how degrading one woman (which in my opinion the vast majority of porn doesn't even do) is analogous to degrading all women. That's a huge jump in logic that people have been making in this thread and one which hasn't been justified...Personally, I only watch it when I'm horny or when I want to masturbate, so I ticked the first option.

[Havet]

Also, and this is intended to the +/- 70% of people who voted the first option: What kind of porn do you usually watch? Feel free to not answer if you feel this question is too personal.

Basically here are the categories i found that exist:

-Amateur
-Anal
-Asian
-Babe
-BBW
-Big D!ck
-Big T!ts
-Bl0wj0b/handj0b
-Blonde
-Bondage
-Brunette
-Bukkake
-Celebrity
-Creampie
-Cvmsh0t
-Dancing
-Ebony
-Fetish/BDSM
-F!sting
-Funny
-Gay
-Groupsex/orgy
-hardcore
-Hentai
-Interracial
-Latina
-Lesbian
-Mastvrbat!0n
-Mature
-Milf
-Pornstar
-POV
-Public
-Reality
-Redhead
-Striptease
-Teen
-Toys

I hear there's also Midget porn, zoo porn and disabled porn

[Bud Struggle]

Here's a Webpage from a Frontline show on Ponography. If you think it's not a HUGE Capitalist business you are mistaken. It's not a couple of people jumping into bed with a camera (actually I have no problem with that,) but by and large it's an exploitive business controled by corporations.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/porn/business/

Here's another article about how sexual disease are rampant in the indusry. No one is interested in the health of the "performers."

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn17317-sexual-diseases-rampant-in-californian-porn-industry.html

[kalu]

But that's not fact; some researches show that ~ one in three people who view pornography are female... and what about gay porn, lesbian porn, bisexual porn...? The only people who I think pornography could degrade is the participants. I'm sorry, but I don't see how degrading one woman (which in my opinion the vast majority of porn doesn't even do) is analogous to degrading all women. That's a huge jump in logic that people have been making in this thread and one which hasn't been justified...Personally, I only watch it when I'm horny or when I want to masturbate, so I ticked the first option.

If you take a look at my first post in this thread, I am interested in the roles inscribed in officially "gay" porn. I am generally, however, not interested in statistics, but actual arguments. Your "statistic" doesn't change the fact that yes, currently porn is marketed almost entirely to men as any cursory glance at porn titles should show. More specifically, those titles and their content can often reflect a dangerous objectifying attitude towards women that is indicative of a general sexist attitude. Degrading one woman can in fact degrade all women, just as calling one Black person the n-word is a racial insult that includes all other Black people whether or not the speaker intended it. This is by no means a jump in logic, but is in fact a premise of the topic that we are dealing with a social relation. We are radicals who don't believe in the liberal myth of "we're all just individuals," aren't we?

[RGacky3]

I think it degrades women. It's dishonest sex, it trades real life passion and sexual equality for objectifying a woman for her sex organs.


Love movies are dishonest love, war films are dishonest war, wage labor objectifies man and woman for their mind and muscle. What is so sacred about sex?


A woman is more than just an object--and pornography is making a woman into an object. It denies her humanity, her personality, her assent to your sexual approach. She isn't you equal--she is your sexual slave. She agreed to someone taking a picture and you have her as many times as you want--there's something vastly immoral about that.


people are objectified ALL THE TIME, thats the nature of Capitalism, she's being paid to be a sexual object, the same way a framer is being paid to be a house making object.

Pornography is acting.

Now then from a personal standpoint, I consider sex as something a little more sacred and personal, which in my standpoint would make porn distasteful. But there is nothing inherently sacred about sex, some people have no problem using sex as a money maker the same way an actor would use acting.

Pornography is big business, and like any big business its full of dishonesty and exploitation an objectification. But its not worse (other than maybe being distasteful) than any other industry.

[New Tet]

Here's a Webpage from a Frontline show on Ponography. If you think it's not a HUGE Capitalist business you are mistaken. It's not a couple of people jumping into bed with a camera (actually I have no problem with that,) but by and large it's an exploitive business controled by corporations.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/porn/business/

Here's another article about how sexual disease are rampant in the indusry. No one is interested in the health of the "performers."

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn17317-sexual-diseases-rampant-in-californian-porn-industry.html

Thank you, Bud. I think you've stood on the correct side of the issues raised by this topic.

[Bud Struggle]

Thank you, Bud. I think you've stood on the correct side of the issues raised by this topic.

You too, Tet.

When I lived in NYC I knew a woman who was in the "business." She had an expensive drug addiction and the quick money was the only way she could feed her addiction and stay alive. She was a virtual slave to the movie "producers" they fed her habit and used her as long as she stayed pretty. They payed for her breast augmentations but she never had a real say over how "big" and how often she was operated on. It was a filthy degrading business that lowered her self worth and humanity.

While I might have taken a peek at such things before I met her--I never could see it afterwords without wondering what the heck those women in the pictures were going through in their real lives.

[danyboy27]

You too, Tet.

When I lived in NYC I knew a woman who was in the "business." She had an expensive drug addiction and the quick money was the only way she could feed her addiction and stay alive. She was a virtual slave to the movie "producers" they fed her habit and used her as long as she stayed pretty. They payed for her breast augmentations but she never had a real say over how "big" and how often she was operated on. It was a filthy degrading business that lowered her self worth and humanity.

While I might have taken a peek at such things before I met her--I never could see it afterwords without wondering what the heck those women in the pictures were going through in their real lives.

she would have done something else to get the drug anyway.
i am not defending the porn industry, but an addict is what it is, and the only person who can help an addict is himself. Of course you can pay them cure but verry often its when the addict hit the bottom that he/she do the right move to get clean

[New Tet]

You too, Tet.

When I lived in NYC I knew a woman who was in the "business." She had an expensive drug addiction and the quick money was the only way she could feed her addiction and stay alive. She was a virtual slave to the movie "producers" they fed her habit and used her as long as she stayed pretty. They payed for her breast augmentations but she never had a real say over how "big" and how often she was operated on. It was a filthy degrading business that lowered her self worth and humanity.

While I might have taken a peek at such things before I met her--I never could see it afterwords without wondering what the heck those women in the pictures were going through in their real lives.

Same here. Any arousal I could potentially get from pornography is instantly blunted when I think about its exploitative and degrading aspects.

To me, pornography is evidence of the way in which capitalism transforms even our most intimate joys into a matter of profit-making.

[jake williams]

You too, Tet.

When I lived in NYC I knew a woman who was in the "business." She had an expensive drug addiction and the quick money was the only way she could feed her addiction and stay alive. She was a virtual slave to the movie "producers" they fed her habit and used her as long as she stayed pretty. They payed for her breast augmentations but she never had a real say over how "big" and how often she was operated on. It was a filthy degrading business that lowered her self worth and humanity.

While I might have taken a peek at such things before I met her--I never could see it afterwords without wondering what the heck those women in the pictures were going through in their real lives.
No one is defending the actions of the industry that probably still produces the vast majority of porn that is produced today, though its share is decreasing. The trouble is that these sorts of practices, if you're criticizing these specific practices, are what capitalism does. And you defend capitalism.

[Havet]

You too, Tet.

When I lived in NYC I knew a woman who was in the "business." She had an expensive drug addiction and the quick money was the only way she could feed her addiction and stay alive. She was a virtual slave to the movie "producers" they fed her habit and used her as long as she stayed pretty. They payed for her breast augmentations but she never had a real say over how "big" and how often she was operated on. It was a filthy degrading business that lowered her self worth and humanity.

While I might have taken a peek at such things before I met her--I never could see it afterwords without wondering what the heck those women in the pictures were going through in their real lives.

I don't understand Bud. If you defend economic freedom, which I know for a fact you do, then why don't you defend the economic freedom of women selling their bodies and being videotaped?

Right...because you were a conservative...

I know there are conditions that create an oversupply of women in these industries, but that also happens in the other industries where we see an oversupply of wage labor and, consequently, wage slavery. So why cannot you see both situations as analogous?

Also personal examples of people you've met are no means to collectivize your arguments into every porn actress or prostitute.

[NecroCommie]

EDIT: so this is why men take 95% of the demand for porn. Men are biologically made to look for a female. We have an instinctive drive for it.
According to this I am not a male. This news troubles me to a certain extenct.

[Dooga Aetrus Blackrazor]

-Amateur
-Bl0wj0b/handj0b
-Bondage
-Bukkake
-Cvmsh0t
-Fetish/BDSM
-Pornstar
-POV
-Redhead
-Teen


Pornographic videos often contain many of these categories put together. I've watched all of those types at one point or another. I generally view whatever is new, but if I do search, the above are the categories I'd probably be most inclined towards.

[Invariance]

If you take a look at my first post in this thread, I am interested in the roles inscribed in officially "gay" porn. I am generally, however, not interested in statistics, but actual arguments. Then give them, rather than relying on useless catch-phrases.


Your "statistic" doesn't change the fact that yes, currently porn is marketed almost entirely to men as any cursory glance at porn titles should show. ‘Mainstream pornography’ by definition is targeted at men, but that’s irrelevant to whether women can enjoy it and do enjoy it or whether they enjoy other pornography, or whether it is exploitative or oppressive or degrading towards them. The lack of pornography targeted for women may just as well evidence that women aren’t socially encouraged to masturbate or be open about their sexuality. In which case, it’s not porn which has the inherent problem, but rather the fact that there isn’t enough of it (for women.)


More specifically, those titles and their content can often reflect a dangerous objectifying attitude towards women that is indicative of a general sexist attitude. ‘Radicals’ like you think that using a buzz-word like objectifying is a substitute for an argument; sorry it isn’t. And no, it isn’t ‘dangerous.’ Drop the hype; you sound like a radical feminist.

The concept of ‘objectifying’ is very confused; there is no meaningful divide between what is sexual attraction and what is sexual objectification; sexual objectification can't be separated from what you find sexually attractive. The concept is employed by conservatives who think that females depicting any amount of skin are subjected to objectification and therefore such behaviour ought to be condemned. Sexual individualism is often empowering to that particular individual. There is a difference between admiring an individual female's beauty and wanting to fuck her, and seeing females as a whole, as only sex objects. I would criticize the latter view, but I see nothing wrong with sexual objectification. If you mean it in the sense that porn objectifies women in that it makes her the object of interest, then well, what do you expect – that’s what porn is for. If you mean it’s objectifying in the sense that it reduces a woman to an object, well mainstream porn, if anything, subjectifies the woman; she is the one with sexual agency & personality and (unsurprisingly) the focus of attention. The man, on the other hand, is reduced to just his genitals.


Degrading one woman can in fact degrade all womenLike all your other ‘arguments’ you’re going to have to substantiate this. As I have stated, the only people who can possibly be degraded in the actual production of porn is the actors (plausibly those involved in filming or those involved with production too). What is degrading is fundamentally a personal question but that’s not to say there's no social consensus over it. What you may very well find degrading isn’t degrading to me, or another person. Whether you think porn is inherently degrading is only your opinion, and is no more qualified as the arguments that conservatives have on gay sex being degrading, or whatever.

A video of a woman being degraded (based on your definition), might be degrading to her, of course. But just because we are the same gender doesn’t mean it is degrading to me, or other women. I find your position, if anything, offensive. You seem to think that that the actions of one woman necessarily reflect upon me or make a social statement about all women. That is treating all women as homogeneous, rather than recognizing individual capacity.

Lastly, since we’re talking about mainstream pornography, then the concept of degrading is pretty limited. Mainstream pornography is not degrading, unless you have adopted a *really* conservative standard that all filmed sex is degrading. What is socially considered degrading (e.g. scat porn, rape porn, abuse porn) simply isn’t mainstream porn. The sort of pornography which is degrading to women (e.g involving shit, abuse, animals etc) isn’t mainstream because most men don’t like watching it; they aren’t sexually aroused by that sort of pornography of women being degraded.


just as calling one Black person the n-word is a racial insult that includes all other Black people whether or not the speaker intended it.Fallacious analogy.

You’re correct that intent has little or nothing to do with it.

However, when someone calls a black man a ‘nigger’ in what is contextually racist, then they’re making a statement on all black people. When an individual woman participates in pornography then we can’t extrapolate that to all women. Anything else is applying a standard which argues that all women are somehow mystically connected by virtue of having a vagina and that the actions of one reflect upon another, as well as ignoring the power dynamics in that particular situation and all others.


This is by no means a jump in logic, but is in fact a premise of the topic that we are dealing with a social relation. For your talk about ‘social relations’ you are certainly taking an extremely reductionist point of view. If you were actually to discuss it in the context of social relations, then you wouldn’t apply such a myopic view. Social relations in porn would involve things like; the status of actors versus directors, the status of production crew versus directors, the differences in pay between men and women, on what basis actors are paid, the volatility of employment, whether actors are self-employed, health risks associated with it, various employment rights, whether workers are unionized, what socio-economic classes comprise most actors, the reasons why people are drawn to the industry, i.e. all the power relations involved etc etc.


We are radicals who don't believe in the liberal myth of "we're all just individuals," aren't we? Quite right; whether employment is “voluntary” (insofar as we recognize that in capitalism) is quite immaterial to whether we consider that employment exploitative, alienating, or degrading. (Of course, forced employment in the sense that you’re not given the opportunity to choose what type of job is more oppressive, but that’s not the question here). I would reject the argument that just because a woman chooses to act in porn that it is therefore non-oppressive, just like I would reject the argument when applied to any worker.

But I think its telling when ‘leftists’ align with the likes of conservative Christians (Bud Struggle) in their opposition to pornography.

[Havet]

According to this I am not a male. This news troubles me to a certain extenct.

I'm sorry if my arguments collectivized beyond an acceptable point. There are always exception in nature. Personally I would like someday to get rid of this drive for sex which pushes my interest away from more productive endeavors.

[brigadista]

You too, Tet.

When I lived in NYC I knew a woman who was in the "business." She had an expensive drug addiction and the quick money was the only way she could feed her addiction and stay alive. She was a virtual slave to the movie "producers" they fed her habit and used her as long as she stayed pretty. They payed for her breast augmentations but she never had a real say over how "big" and how often she was operated on. It was a filthy degrading business that lowered her self worth and humanity.

While I might have taken a peek at such things before I met her--I never could see it afterwords without wondering what the heck those women in the pictures were going through in their real lives.


thanks for posting this- the reality for those in the pornography business and sex industry is far removed from the picture painted by the industry- most of the people are disposable and only have a short shelf life- because of the trafficking issues and generally exploitative nature of the business [as i posted above ] i cant watch it for the same reasons as you...

[Conquer or Die]

Privacy is not a debatable point.

If a community decides to keep pornography out of the public eye then that's fine.

[RGacky3]

thanks for posting this- the reality for those in the pornography business and sex industry is far removed from the picture painted by the industry- most of the people are disposable and only have a short shelf life- because of the trafficking issues and generally exploitative nature of the business [as i posted above ] i cant watch it for the same reasons as you...

There are many industries like this.

[Trystan]

Yes, I watch pornography. But only pornography in which the woman dominates the man. Otherwise I just feel dirty.

[Trystan]

Also, I think this "pornography exploits women" argument has sexism at its core. It's always women who are exploited - you rarely hear anything about men being exploited. It leaves me with the impression that these people think that women are more vulnerable and weaker than men and need to be forced to be, erm . . . liberated!

[danyboy27]

Also, I think this "pornography exploits women" argument has sexism at its core. It's always women who are exploited - you rarely hear anything about men being exploited. It leaves me with the impression that these people think that women are more vulnerable and weaker than men and need to be forced to be, erm . . . liberated!

male actor make less money than women. a women can earn like 700 for a shoot while a male performer will have around 200, just so people know it.

[Trystan]

So what?

[danyboy27]

So what?

humm...nevermind...just wanted to show that men are also victim of discrimination too..i am gonna stop talking before i get into more shit

[Havet]

male actor make less money than women. a women can earn like 700 for a shoot while a male performer will have around 200, just so people know it.

proof? Could people here stop the annoying habit of thinking we actually take your word as true? Got nothing against you danyboy, but i think its always prudent and intelligent to support one's claims with some reading material, preferably scientific.

[danyboy27]

proof? Could people here stop the annoying habit of thinking we actually take your word as true? Got nothing against you danyboy, but i think its always prudent and intelligent to support one's claims with some reading material, preferably scientific.

i understand that. saw that in some kind of discover the world of porn documentary and they talk about that in wiki too.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pornographic_actor#Pay_rates

[Havet]

i understand that. saw that in some kind of discover the world of porn documentary and they talk about that in wiki too.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pornographic_actor#Pay_rates

cool, thanks for understanding and for showing the link!

[kalu]

Invariance:

Your ad hominems are disheartening:


-Then give them, rather than relying on useless catch-phrases.
-‘Radicals’ like you think that using a buzz-word like objectifying is a substitute for an argument; sorry it isn’t. And no, it isn’t ‘dangerous.’ Drop the hype; you sound like a radical feminist.
-Like all your other ‘arguments’ you’re going to have to substantiate this.
-For your talk about ‘social relations’ you are certainly taking an extremely reductionist point of view.
-But I think its telling when ‘leftists’ align with the likes of conservative Christians (Bud Struggle) in their opposition to pornography.

So I will not be continuing this debate with you. But just for others' benefit:


‘Mainstream pornography’ by definition is targeted at men, but that’s irrelevant to whether women can enjoy it and do enjoy it or whether they enjoy other pornography,

What does this have to do with the argument? Porn is marketed almost exclusively to men, are you saying men "naturally" take up the vast majority of the demand?


The concept of ‘objectifying’ is very confused;

Perhaps, but that doesn't mean I can't assess what I view as porn's current exploitative attitude towards women.


As I have stated, the only people who can possibly be degraded in the actual production of porn is the actors (plausibly those involved in filming or those involved with production too)...Whether you think porn is inherently degrading is only your opinion, and is no more qualified as the arguments that conservatives have on gay sex being degrading, or whatever.

What? That's like saying the only people degraded in '70s blaxploitation films were the actors. When I am arguing about porn as a social relation, I am by definition including the rest of society. If I took your liberal relativism to a logical extreme, I could rely on the old capitalist standby of a "fair contract" between worker and capitalist when justifying exploitation. Now, you say that the porn relationship is an issue of judging "alienation," but I am saying no, this is actually a material issue about the creation of women as sex objects. I would refer you to the concept of discourse to overcome this relativism, because I am not arguing from the other extreme of "universal morality." Again, I am not finger-wagging, heck I used to watch porn myself and I still don't have a serious issue with other people watching it, but I am trying to think about my own revolutionary ethics in the context of an apparently "natural" activity.

I agree with your anti-essentialist claim that woman isn't woman simply because of biology, but I vehemently disagree with your use of this argument to ignore wider social relations. "Woman" is included in an issue as a woman when other members of the (discursively identified) sex are being mistreated or objectified as women. Contemporary straight porn clearly presents women as sexual objects in the "bad" sexist kind of way, and no not just because someone individually thinks the actresses are "hot" (have you seen any videos marketed to women of three guys having sex?). I would refer you again to my issues with porn marketing, and perhaps the substantive content of many videos where a woman takes three dicks, or looks like she's about to cry. Sadly, that isn't so "non-mainstream."

*It's interesting that in response to my one paragraph, you managed to write a page or two.:lol: When someone floods a response like that, it's usually a sign they are trying to derail the debate, or aren't serious about engaging with actual arguments. I hope you're just writing like I sometimes do, ie. you don't know how to write coherently and so you offer frustratingly jumbled piece by piece quote analysis. Please don't get so defensive, I was actually earnest about engaging your points.:)

[NecroCommie]

My thoughts on pornography are, to put it simply, naughty.

[danyboy27]

My thoughts on pornography are, to put it simply, naughty.

naughty have differents meaning, precise.

[brigadista]

There are many industries like this.

i didnt say there werent but this thread is about the pornography industry

[RGacky3]

Also, I think this "pornography exploits women" argument has sexism at its core. It's always women who are exploited - you rarely hear anything about men being exploited. It leaves me with the impression that these people think that women are more vulnerable and weaker than men and need to be forced to be, erm . . . liberated!

Thats true, however it has to do with historical circumstances, i.e. women historically being controlled by men. That being said I agree with you, the woemn are not being more exploited than many other workers.


Yes, I watch pornography. But only pornography in which the woman dominates the man. Otherwise I just feel dirty.

I don't think pornography is any place to apply your moral standing :P, also thats probably juts a sexual prefrence.

[fiddlesticks]

I prefer reading dirty stories, though I do watch porn with friends because it is all too often really funny. I think the porn industry should be a bit more regulated because filmed rapes and other horrible stuff happen to the women involved. Also, a quick side note, I think porn is a thousand times better when it is made by couples who are in love, you can smell the passion from miles away!


So keeping this in mind, which may or may not be scientifically accurate facts, would you use force to prevent someone who has the desire, but not the means to achieve sex with other person voluntarily, or who finds that he'd rather enjoy himself alone than to pretend to love another person just to get in her pants, and therefore decided to watch pornography?

I don't think anyone has the right to deny someone else porn, for any reason.

[Havet]

I don't think anyone has the right to deny someone else porn, for any reason.

Interestingly enough, you just said so, through regulation:

"I think the porn industry should be a bit more regulated because filmed rapes and other horrible stuff happen to the women involved"

I agree recording rape is horrible, but I don't see how giving more power to a centralized authority is going to make sure that authority does it job and doesn't abuse the power.

[progressive_lefty]

I used to watch porn a lot, but in the last 2 years, I've barely watched any. To be honest it just makes me depressed these days, watching beautiful young women become objectified by ugly old guys is hardly something that can turn you on. Most will know that the reason why women are led into porn are because they are poor, have low self esteem or were formerly sexually abused. Anyone that exploits women like this are quite sick, some may say 'well you know they smile and everything in the videos', but basically, I don't buy into that simplistic rationale. The number of girls that have no problems or hang ups about being in porn would be very few in numbers. Clearly something like porn will exist in the same way prostitution does regardless of whether it is essentially sexist or not, I just think it needs to be regulated like hell. If anyone was to see some of the misogynistic themed porn sites out there then I don't think they would have any choice but to agree.
I hate to be brutally honest, but I get the feeling that some of the guys on here will defend porn because deep down they know that its at odds with their left-liberal beliefs, just judging by some of the comments on this thread and the other thread about pornography.

[Muzk]

Porn rules! I only watch masturbation or lesbian ones though! =) Or maybe strap-on


Awesome!

[fiddlesticks]

Interestingly enough, you just said so, through regulation:

"I think the porn industry should be a bit more regulated because filmed rapes and other horrible stuff happen to the women involved"

I agree recording rape is horrible, but I don't see how giving more power to a centralized authority is going to make sure that authority does it job and doesn't abuse the power.

good point. I suppose I should have said I don't think anyone has the right to deny someone of porn that is consensual sex filmed legally, with no harm to any of the parties involved. I wish I could think of a way for porn to be safer for everyone involved.. regulation was all I could think of at that time, but some messed up stuff ends up happening in the porn industry and it seems like hardly anyone cares.

[RGacky3]

messed up stuff happens in every industry.

[Patchd]

PORN IS AWESOME. Capitalist exploitation of the pornography industry (like every other fucking industry) however, is not awesome. :sleep:

[Orange Juche]

It degrades all participants, including the viewer. It is just another form of capitalist exploitation.

What if someone produced porn, for free, out of the sheer enjoyment of it?

[RGacky3]

What if someone produced porn, for free, out of the sheer enjoyment of it?

Then clearly its not capitalist exploitation is it?

[Orange Juche]

Then clearly its not capitalist exploitation is it?

So porn, then, isn't inherently bad. And if porn is a form of capitalist exploitation, should we then not watch films with children in them? I could make a rather easy argument that (in most cases) child acting is rather exploitative.

Where do we draw the line in terms of how we interact with media in a capitalist society? Or should a line even be drawn?