Australians want to ban porn in supermarkets

[ev]

A group of prominent Australians is calling for a ban on the sale of soft pornographic magazines in mainstream retail outlets.
In a letter to the Standing Committee of Attorneys-General, the group asks for a review of the rules which allow magazines like Penthouse and Playboy to be sold in newsagents, supermarkets and petrol stations.
The group also wants a review of the censorship laws governing the ratings of so-called 'lads mags' like Zoo and Ralph.
Signatories to the letter include the former chief justice of the Family Court Alastair Nicholson, and the Reverend Tim Costello from World Vision Australia.
Reverend Costello says while pornographic images are available on the internet, making the magazines so widely available is leading to the early sexualisation of children.
"There is a tide of commodifying sexuality, robbing children of innocence, and I think that's why this letter is important," he said.
"In many ways what happens on newsstands is communicating a message that this is publicly acceptable.
"Adults, everybody who walks in to just buy their milk or pay for their petrol, buy their paper, is saying this is normal, this is what we now embrace.
"And I think this is particularly devious in the signals it sends to children."



http://www.abc.net.au/reslib/201004/r542874_3163664.jpg





What does everyone think of this?

[chegitz guevara]

Like that's gonna stop kids from getting their hands on the stuff.

[Robocommie]

Like that's gonna stop kids from getting their hands on the stuff.

Pretty much. The internet changed everything.

[cska]

Bravo to the Australians.

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

Not really do-gooders.

More like 'social conservatives.'

[khad]

I've changed the title to more accurately reflect the article's content. Don't post misleading crap just so you can incite yet another revleft shitfest.

[ev]

I've changed the title to more accurately reflect the article's content. Don't post misleading crap just so you can incite yet another revleft shitfest.

reactionary

[Saorsa]

Ralph and Zoo barely count as porn anyway.

Australian porn laws are actually more relaxed than they are here in NZ. I go over there and you guys have postcards showing topless women on the beach... you don't see that anywhere here.

[Guerrilla22]

I don't see anything wrong with selling these magazines at grocery stores (not sure if all of them really qualify as porn, I wouldn't really know) I don't see how magazines that are available to be purchased by adults only will lead to "the early sexualization of children," whatever that means. The content on the internet is much more vile than anything you'll see in any mainstream publication and much more easily accessible. This seems like another case of the right playing morality police.

[Sasha]

since when do kids buy their porn at the grocery store? what happend to stealing your older brothers stuff from under his matrass?

[Robocommie]

It's strange to me that these magazines are sold in supermarkets in Australia - for the most part in the US you don't see that.

[Chambered Word]

I don't see anything wrong with selling these magazines at grocery stores (not sure if all of them really qualify as porn, I wouldn't really know) I don't see how magazines that are available to be purchased by adults only will lead to "the early sexualization of children," whatever that means. The content on the internet is much more vile than anything you'll see in any mainstream publication and much more easily accessible. This seems like another case of the right playing morality police.

Oh, they want to censor our internet as well: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_censorship_in_Australia

I'm going to try torrenting the blacklist because I can't find it anymore, but I have read that there were perfectly innocent sites that will be banned because of it. In addition to this here are 'some pages' from Wikileaks that will be censored as well, although Senator Stephen Conroy won't say which ones.

Some of the other topics targeted for censorship according to Wikipedia:


Political Parties

The website of the Australian Sex Party (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australian_Sex_Party) is banned from within several state and federal government departments, including Stephen Conroy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stephen_Conroy)'s ACMA (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ACMA). Convenor of the Australian Sex Party, Fiona Patten (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fiona_Patten), has described this ban as "unconstitutional".[32] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_censorship_in_Australia#cite_note-TurningChinese-31)
[edit (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Internet_censorship_in_Australia&action=edit&section=5)] Euthanasia

On 22 May 2009 it was disclosed in the press, citing wikileaks.org (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikileaks), that the Australian Government (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australian_Government) had added Dr Philip Nitschke's (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philip_Nitschke) online Peaceful Pill Handbook, which deals with the topic of voluntary euthanasia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Euthanasia), to the blacklist maintained by the Australian Communications and Media Authority (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australian_Communications_and_Media_Authority) used to filter internet access to citizens of Australia.[33] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_censorship_in_Australia#cite_note-32) Euthanasia groups will hold seminars around Australia teaching how to evade the proposed filter using proxy servers and virtual networks. A spokeswoman for Senator Conroy said that euthanasia would not be targeted by the proposed internet filter,[34] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_censorship_in_Australia#cite_note-33) however Stephen Conroy has previously stated that "while euthanasia remains illegal it will be captured by the RC filter". [35] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_censorship_in_Australia#cite_note-34)
[edit (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Internet_censorship_in_Australia&action=edit&section=6)] Video games

See also: Office of Film and Literature Classification (Australia)#Classification of Video Games (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Office_of_Film_and_Literature_Classification_%28Au stralia%29#Classification_of_Video_Games)
In June 2009, it was confirmed that the Government's proposed internet censorship regime would block downloadable games, flash-based web games and sites which sell physical copies of games that do not meet the MA15+ standard, such as eBay (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EBay) and Amazon (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amazon.com).[36] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_censorship_in_Australia#cite_note-35)
[edit (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Internet_censorship_in_Australia&action=edit&section=7)] Racism

In January 2010, the Encyclopedia Dramatica (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Encyclopedia_Dramatica) article "Aboriginal" was removed from the search engine results of Google Australia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Google_search), following a complaint that its content was racist (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Racism).[37] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_censorship_in_Australia#cite_note-36) [38] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_censorship_in_Australia#cite_note-37) George Newhouse, the lawyer for the complainant, claims the site is "illegal" and should be blocked by the mandatory internet filter. [39] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_censorship_in_Australia#cite_note-38) As the address of the site appeared on the leaked ACMA blacklist, it is likely that the whole site would be blocked by the filter.[40] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_censorship_in_Australia#cite_note-sickipedia-39) A search on terms related to the article will produce a message that one of the results has been removed after a legal request relating to Australia's Racial Discrimination Act 1975 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Racial_Discrimination_Act_1975).[41] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_censorship_in_Australia#cite_note-40) [42] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_censorship_in_Australia#cite_note-41)


Anonymous have been doing some crazy stunts, such as DDoSing Rudd's website, blackfaxing, spamming and the like. The ISPs don't seem to like it either - now that I mention it, the internet censorship protest I went to seemed pretty bourgeois if you ask me, nevermind that around a third of the people who turned up were from socialist groups.

The government is even trying to ban small-breasted women and female ejaculation in porn for fuck's sake. The entire thing is outrageously silly, opportunist and is only being pushed to discourage dissent.

As for the magazines: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qh2sWSVRrmo

None of this will matter anyway because it won't stop me selling porn to your kids. :thumbup1:


Bravo to the Australians.

I do hope you were being sarcastic.

[ZeroNowhere]

I'm not convinced that they're being entirely honest about their reasoning here. If they wished to ban smut which was corrupting the minds of our youth, they would have banned most popular literature, and actually have some degree of justification behind this act.

[Audeamus]

The government is even trying to ban small-breasted women and female ejaculation in porn for fuck's sake.

I've heard their incredibly lame justification for wanted to ban small-breasted women (some shit about encouraging pedophilia) but what is their possible justification for banning female ejaculation? Just general "omg it's smut/icky think of the children"?

[cska]

If the supermarkets want to sell soft porn, why can't they have a separate section for it, instead of putting it next to the checkout counters? Instead, they are ensuring that everyone, including children, sees that sexist filth.

[danyboy27]

Seriously, Moralistic bullshit shouldnt exist.

call me back when the thing will be backed by psychologist and psychiatrists.

[ev]

If the supermarkets want to sell soft porn, why can't they have a separate section for it, instead of putting it next to the checkout counters? Instead, they are ensuring that everyone, including children, sees that sexist filth.

In supermarkets these 'lads' magazines' are in an isle that has a magazine section in it, they also have other magazines such as automative mags, garden mags, computer mags, celebrity gossip mags, etc.

I think they should be in banning celebrity and gossip magazines such as "Womens Weekly" before they start criticizing lads' mags..

[Chambered Word]

I'm not convinced that they're being entirely honest about their reasoning here. If they wished to ban smut which was corrupting the minds of our youth, they would have banned most popular literature, and actually have some degree of justification behind this act.

I would have banned Twilight as a danger to children. I don't support censorship, except for in that case.


If the supermarkets want to sell soft porn, why can't they have a separate section for it, instead of putting it next to the checkout counters? Instead, they are ensuring that everyone, including children, sees that sexist filth.

It's not like they're forcing you to look inside. I never particularly noticed them until I had been corrupted already. Why the moralizing?


I've heard their incredibly lame justification for wanted to ban small-breasted women (some shit about encouraging pedophilia) but what is their possible justification for banning female ejaculation? Just general "omg it's smut/icky think of the children"?

Unsurprisingly that arsehole Barnaby Joyce is supporting the ban on small-breasted women. But yes, that's basically that's exactly why they're banning female ejaculation. The censors think it's yucky and we shouldn't be able to watch it.


Ejaculations

According to Patten, female ejaculations films are being Refused Classification on one of two grounds:


That the depictions are a form of urination which is banned under the label of ‘golden showers’ in the Classification Guidelines or
Female ejaculation is an ‘abhorrent’ depiction

“Films that show both male and female ejaculation have routinely been given an X rating since 1983″ said Patten. “The new ruling follows a boom in the numbers of adult films featuring female ejaculation since the pioneering research of Professor Emeritus Beverly Whipple was published in her book The G Spot.”
http://www.somebodythinkofthechildren.com/australia-bans-small-breasts/


What a joke.

[comrade_cyanide444]

This moralistic bullshit makes me sick.... Young males will always have a demand of some sort for porn. Buying a softcore magazine at a supermarket is hardly a source. What i've seen in the magazine section is that the porn is almost always at the very top shelf in plastic wrap (so you can't just look at it in-store) above Men's Health. Before banning all these softcore porn magazines, will someone ban all these gossip and "Women's" magazines. Those are probably more responsible for sexualization of children versus the softcore stuff.

[Monkey Riding Dragon]

Not that censorship is "the answer", but seriously, enough defense of the pornography industry from my "comrades" already. It's correct to say that the motivating factor here is obviously an attempt to reassert more traditional (i.e. feudal) patriarchal values over 'more modern' ones (i.e. ones corresponding to the assertion of bourgeois right) and hence the object here is reactionary. It's also correct to say that censorship is a futile, mechanical approach to dealing with social questions in general. It's the (attempted) suppression of ideas rather than the confronting of ideas and their material roots. None of these facts, however, justify the existence of the pornography industry and the rotten exploitation/objectification/commodification of women that is at the very "heart" of it. Look, I have the distinct feeling that almost everyone here is male and hence doesn't tend to notice things like the way women are degraded in all forms of media all the time (or care), but it's much easier to notice these things when you're female. And I certainly do notice and care.

A recent letter from an imprisoned reader of Revolution newspaper (http://www.revcom.us/a/195/prisoner_IWD-en.html) (the paper I distribute) pointed out the interesting inconsistency in how the said newspaper is now banned in multiple prisons in America and yet, at the same time, the prison system actively feeds young boys and men with this pig-headed 'literature'. Censorship applies in America when you're raising a challenge to the degradation of women, not when you're promoting it. There's no good reason to defend this rotten trash. No one should.

I'm sorry if this sounds like a lecture. I just get so fucking sick and tired of my "comrades" only caring about fucking.

[Robocommie]

Not everyone, women included, feels the way you do about pornography. In fact, many, if not most of the women I know, are pro-pornography. It's not a men vs. women issue.

And I have to say it's going to make me a lot less eager to listen to you when you're so insistent on putting the word "comrades" in quotes like that.

[Monkey Riding Dragon]

Actually, yes the humiliation and degradation of women generally could be construed as an issue of the social relations between men and women. That in the first place. In the second place, whether or not 'everyone agrees with me' doesn't change the objective truth of the matter. Pornography is the objectification of women whether or not it's popularly recognized as such. As to what sort of ideas you're willing to listen to and what sorts you'd prefer to block out, not sure I can help you there. I placed "comrades" in quotations because the reduction of women to the 'role' of mere breeders of children or objects of sexual gratification seems to me rather inconsistent with the basic principle of equality that's central to communism.

[9]

It's correct to say that the motivating factor here is obviously an attempt to reassert more traditional (i.e. feudal) patriarchal values over 'more modern' ones (i.e. ones corresponding to the assertion of bourgeois right) and hence the object here is reactionary. It's also correct to say that censorship is a futile, mechanical approach to dealing with social questions in general. It's the (attempted) suppression of ideas rather than the confronting of ideas and their material roots.

Your comment goes back and forth a bit and at the end I am unclear what your position actually is. But I think the portion of your post I've quoted above is absolutely right.

[Bilan]

Bravo to the Australians.

You do know that the reason for this isn't because it's sexist, right? You do know the Prime Minister of Australia, Kevin Rudd, is a devout Catholic, don't you?
You're essentially bravo-ing a more reactionary, archaic form of sexism than the other one you're referring too.

So bravo to you on that one! Nothing like one form of sexism exchanged for another!

[spaßmaschine]

I've heard their incredibly lame justification for wanted to ban small-breasted women (some shit about encouraging pedophilia) but what is their possible justification for banning female ejaculation? Just general "omg it's smut/icky think of the children"?
IIRC it's not (just) because they find it "icky", but because they actually deny that female ejaculation exists. Instead they class it as piss, and because watersports is already banned, so is porn featuring female ejaculation.

[Scary Monster]

Actually, yes the humiliation and degradation of women generally could be construed as an issue of the social relations between men and women. That in the first place. In the second place, whether or not 'everyone agrees with me' doesn't change the objective truth of the matter. Pornography is the objectification of women whether or not it's popularly recognized as such. As to what sort of ideas you're willing to listen to and what sorts you'd prefer to block out, not sure I can help you there. I placed "comrades" in quotations because the reduction of women to the 'role' of mere breeders of children or objects of sexual gratification seems to me rather inconsistent with the basic principle of equality that's central to communism.

I really dont see whats so bad about porn. Amateur porn exists because men and women actually enjoy making it.

The banning of porn is completely reactionary because it does not get rid of the conditions that cause the making of porn for money- the capitalist system. Banning it does not cut down on the objectifying of women. The only reason it is mostly women that are in porn is because males are the ones who would even pay for porn. There are women who enjoy porn just as much as men, but males are the primary market for porn. The exact reason for this im not sure of, but im pretty certain it stems from society's different standards for men and women. You dont see homosexual men calling gay porn the "objectifying of gay men" do you?

[cb9's_unity]

Actually, yes the humiliation and degradation of women generally could be construed as an issue of the social relations between men and women. That in the first place. In the second place, whether or not 'everyone agrees with me' doesn't change the objective truth of the matter. Pornography is the objectification of women whether or not it's popularly recognized as such. As to what sort of ideas you're willing to listen to and what sorts you'd prefer to block out, not sure I can help you there. I placed "comrades" in quotations because the reduction of women to the 'role' of mere breeders of children or objects of sexual gratification seems to me rather inconsistent with the basic principle of equality that's central to communism.

As scary monster sorta said, your theory doesn't account for gay porn.

Are you against gay porn as well?

[Robocommie]

Actually, yes the humiliation and degradation of women generally could be construed as an issue of the social relations between men and women. That in the first place. In the second place, whether or not 'everyone agrees with me' doesn't change the objective truth of the matter. Pornography is the objectification of women whether or not it's popularly recognized as such. As to what sort of ideas you're willing to listen to and what sorts you'd prefer to block out, not sure I can help you there. I placed "comrades" in quotations because the reduction of women to the 'role' of mere breeders of children or objects of sexual gratification seems to me rather inconsistent with the basic principle of equality that's central to communism.

I'm not really going to bother arguing with you, because it's obvious you have strong feelings on this issue and I respect that. I don't feel that the concept of pornography itself is degrading and humiliating, though I will agree that the porn industry most certainly is both. But then, that's capitalism. So, I disagree with you, clearly, but I don't really want to get into an argument with you because I respect that you feel differently and can see why you would.

[Scary Monster]

I'm not really going to bother arguing with you, because it's obvious you have strong feelings on this issue and I respect that. I don't feel that the concept of pornography itself is degrading and humiliating, though I will agree that the porn industry most certainly is both. But then, that's capitalism.

This is exactly what i was trying to say, but you put it more eloquently :lol::p

[Robocommie]

This is exactly what i was trying to say, but you put it more eloquently :lol::p

Well, thank you for saying so. :)

[cska]

Not everyone, women included, feels the way you do about pornography. In fact, many, if not most of the women I know, are pro-pornography. It's not a men vs. women issue.

Not everyone, workers included, feels the way we do about capitalism. In fact, many, if not most of the workers I know, are pro-capitalism. It's not a workers vs bourgeoise issue.

[Robocommie]

Not everyone, workers included, feels the way we do about capitalism. In fact, many, if not most of the workers I know, are pro-capitalism. It's not a workers vs bourgeoise issue.

You could pretty much make that exact comparison about any disagreement on an issue. That doesn't mean anything except that you're attempting to pin anti-pornography to socialism and therefore invalidating any socialist who feels otherwise. I reject that, because I don't see pictures or videos of people being naked and having sex as inherently evil.

[Audeamus]

IIRC it's not (just) because they find it "icky", but because they actually deny that female ejaculation exists. Instead they class it as piss, and because watersports is already banned, so is porn featuring female ejaculation.

Do they have any reason for banning watersports other than it being icky? Also nice of them to preempt science in insisting female ejaculation does not exist, and classifying it as urine. The research done into female ejaculation is anything but definitive from my understanding.

[Bilan]

Not everyone, workers included, feels the way we do about capitalism. In fact, many, if not most of the workers I know, are pro-capitalism. It's not a workers vs bourgeoise issue.

Your argument is so simplistic, and so wrong, that it's just not even funny.

[cska]

You could pretty much make that exact comparison about any disagreement on an issue. That doesn't mean anything except that you're attempting to pin anti-pornography to socialism and therefore invalidating any socialist who feels otherwise. I reject that, because I don't see pictures or videos of people being naked and having sex as inherently evil.

Exactly my point. One can make that comparison about disagreement on any issue. So, your statement that many women want to allow pornography is meaningless as far as this discussion is concerned.


Your argument is so simplistic, and so wrong, that it's just not even funny.

Not nearly as simplistic as this statement. Can't you offer any reasons for saying my argument is simplistic and wrong instead of just dismissing it?

[AK]

Oh, they want to censor our internet as well: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_censorship_in_Australia

We sure are fucked, comrade.
I hope they don't block Revleft.

[Robocommie]

Exactly my point. One can make that comparison about disagreement on any issue. So, your statement that many women want to allow pornography is meaningless as far as this discussion is concerned.


See, but that's just it, isn't it? How can a women's opinion be meaningless on this matter? It's a social matter, a matter of personal choice. Why shouldn't a woman be allowed to work in porn if she wants to?

[CartCollector]

Hmm... let me go look at some heterosexual male-oriented porn...
OK, from what I can see from them, there's one gender which is advertised prominently and is displayed often in the porn itself. This gender also commands higher wages than the other gender. The other gender is reduced to being an avatar for the viewer. Often, little more than their genitals are displayed. They are almost never used in advertising the porn. Often, they aren't even named. They are also paid much less for equivalent work done by the other gender.
Now tell me, which one of these genders is being exploited?

[Scary Monster]

See, but that's just it, isn't it? How can a women's opinion be meaningless on this matter? It's a social matter, a matter of personal choice. Why shouldn't a woman be allowed to work in porn if she wants to?

And this is what I was talkin about when referring to amateur porn. They do it because they want to and enjoy it. And theres also gay porn, both amateur and professional. So its not just women doing it. This definitely is a personal matter. No one is being harmed by porn, and many do it consentually, for fun and for no profit (as in amateur). So no one has the right to ban it on the grounds of it being degrading, etc. The only way that porn done for profit (professional) could be abolished is if we abolish the conditions that make some women do porn, as in lack of opportunity, poverty, etc.

[Scary Monster]

Hmm... let me go look at some heterosexual male-oriented porn...
OK, from what I can see from them, there's one gender which is advertised prominently and is displayed often in the porn itself. This gender also commands higher wages than the other gender. The other gender is reduced to being an avatar for the viewer. Often, little more than their genitals are displayed. They are almost never used in advertising the porn. Often, they aren't even named. They are also paid much less for equivalent work done by the other gender.
Now tell me, which one of these genders is being exploited?

Are you sure? Women make quite a lot in porn. Heres something that shows why they go into the porn industry and what they get out of it: http://www.realsexedfacts.com/women-and-porn-industry-reasons.html

Heres an article on why women like and dont like porn:
http://www.msnaughty.com/blog/2008/07/01/why-women-hate-porn-and-why-they-like-it/

We are not arguing against women's sexual equality, were just pointing out the fact that porn itself is not evil, and there are just as many women/men who do it purely for enjoyment, as there are those who do it only for subsistence. To abolish the conditions that force women into doing porn and take out the negative side of porn, is to take down capitalism.

[ZeroNowhere]

Are you sure? Women make quite a lot in porn.
I think you may have missed the point of the quoted post.

[075]

main (only?) discussions on revlefts regarding womens:

porn, prostitution, whether '****' is sexist.

yaaaawn

<.<

[Monkey Riding Dragon]

First, let's take a look at this brilliant point:


Robocommie wrote:
You could pretty much make that exact comparison about any disagreement on an issue. That doesn't mean anything except that you're attempting to pin anti-pornography to socialism and therefore invalidating any socialist who feels otherwise. I reject that, because I don't see pictures or videos of people being naked and having sex as inherently evil.

I realize the above comment wasn't addressed to me, but I feel I must respond. What we have here is an attempt to paint all opponents of pornography (such as myself) as opponents of sex. I'm sorry, but that's just insulting. It appears to me that many people here aren't differentiating pornography from erotic art. I distinguish between the two and, to be frank, often quite enjoy the latter. The root term "eros" describes love. The root term for pornography refers to harlotry; an exploitative relationship. Depictions of intimacy can be a beautiful thing! I'm not trying to say that isn't the case. Neither am I opposed to sex itself...not by a long shot. (Without revealing too many debatably inappropriate details about my personal life.)


Apikoros wrote:
Your comment goes back and forth a bit and at the end I am unclear what your position actually is.

Well I'm for ending all relations that are based on exploitation and/or oppression and rupturing with all the corresponding ideas. Now, as part of that, my idea of a socialist society certainly wouldn't have the state subsidize the production of pornography (as defined above). But no, I'm not saying there should be an outright ban on it per se. I think there needs to be a cultural struggle over the matter of the full humanity of women while you do what you reasonably can to ensure that the actual degradation and exploitation of women (and others) is minimized at every stage.


cbs9's unity wrote:
As scary monster sorta said, your theory doesn't account for gay porn.

Are you against gay porn as well?

Once again, referencing my definition of pornography, described in my response to Robocommie above, will be important here. With that understanding, the essence is whether or not it's degrading. I'm not against depictions of homosexual couples in sexual embraces. That too can be a beautiful thing! The question is: is this erotica or is this pornography? The latter is rarely hard for me to identify. The movie or what have you about the teacher who takes advantage of a pupil with a failing grade and no money...the hypothetical driver who picks up a hitch-hiker in exchange for a little something-something...the tenant who cannot pay their rent on time from whom an alternative method of payment is devised...etc. You can figure these things out. Pornography, if it's actually pornography, never involves a loving relationship. It always conveys an exploitative one and usually involves exploitative characteristics: face slapping, hair pulling, etc. Anything that can show one party has power over the other and is proud of it.

[Robocommie]

I realize the above comment wasn't addressed to me, but I feel I must respond. What we have here is an attempt to paint all opponents of pornography (such as myself) as opponents of sex. I'm sorry, but that's just insulting. It appears to me that many people here aren't differentiating pornography from erotic art. I distinguish between the two and, to be frank, often quite enjoy the latter. The root term "eros" describes love. The root term for pornography refers to harlotry; an exploitative relationship. Depictions of intimacy can be a beautiful thing! I'm not trying to say that isn't the case. Neither am I opposed to sex itself...not by a long shot. (Without revealing too many debatably inappropriate details about my personal life.)

I apologize if you feel insulted by my characterizations of your position - that was unintended. However, I must say that I am somewhat more befuddled now than I was before. Frankly, what differentiates pornography and erotic art are very very frequently in the eye of the beholder. How do you draw that line on such an incredibly subjective thing, and then how do you even go so far as to claim it's objectively the case?

I appreciate that you are not opposed to what you call erotic art, and I can respect your feelings on that. But surely you can understand that others will feel differently about what constitutes erotica and what constitutes smut? This is an old debate.



Once again, referencing my definition of pornography, described in my response to Robocommie above, will be important here. With that understanding, the essence is whether or not it's degrading. I'm not against depictions of homosexual couples in sexual embraces. That too can be a beautiful thing! The question is: is this erotica or is this pornography? The latter is rarely hard for me to identify. The movie or what have you about the teacher who takes advantage of a pupil with a failing grade and no money...the hypothetical driver who picks up a hitch-hiker in exchange for a little something-something...the tenant who cannot pay their rent on time from whom an alternative method of payment is devised...etc. You can figure these things out. Pornography, if it's actually pornography, never involves a loving relationship. It always conveys an exploitative one and usually involves exploitative characteristics: face slapping, hair pulling, etc. Anything that can show one party has power over the other and is proud of it.

Hey, there's a lot of people who legitimately get off on having their hair pulled or having their face slapped. And there are both men and women who get off on those scenarios you described before. The point is that they're fantasies, fictional. Why does pornography, or perhaps, erotic art if you'd prefer, have to depict a loving relationship? Sex does not have to be about love, and even if it is, that doesn't mean rough sex or even sex that outwardly seems demeaning or humiliating can't be an expression of love in its way. Just ask the BDSM community.

A lot of this seems to come down to personal taste - and listen, I in no way think you should ever have to step outside of your comfort zone, without question, and there is absolutely no reason you should have to be exposed to something you're personally uncomfortable with. That should be a given, of course. However, I don't see why it's fair to denounce as unacceptable something that someone else enjoys, when what we're really talking about is a matter of degree or different sexual tastes. Different people enjoy different things - that's obvious. That doesn't make it inherently exploitative unless somebody is being forced to do something they do not want to do.

[Chambered Word]

Once again, referencing my definition of pornography, described in my response to Robocommie above, will be important here. With that understanding, the essence is whether or not it's degrading. I'm not against depictions of homosexual couples in sexual embraces. That too can be a beautiful thing! The question is: is this erotica or is this pornography? The latter is rarely hard for me to identify. The movie or what have you about the teacher who takes advantage of a pupil with a failing grade and no money...the hypothetical driver who picks up a hitch-hiker in exchange for a little something-something...the tenant who cannot pay their rent on time from whom an alternative method of payment is devised...etc. You can figure these things out. Pornography, if it's actually pornography, never involves a loving relationship. It always conveys an exploitative one and usually involves exploitative characteristics: face slapping, hair pulling, etc. Anything that can show one party has power over the other and is proud of it.

Erotica: noun(used with a singular or plural verbhttp://sp.ask.com/dictstatic/dictionary/graphics/luna/thinsp.png) literature or art dealing with sexual love.

Pornography: nounobscene writings, drawings, photographs, or the like, esp. those having little or no artistic merit.

Obviously in a socialist society there will be no more porn set in certain situations that involve money, but I wouldn't be surprised if there are men and women who get off to such 'exploitative' characteristics. Would BDSM-themed porn be banned?

Porn, to a degree, objectifies both men and women. It's fantasy. If you can't deal with the divide between reality and non-reality then simply don't watch it. Censorship isn't a substitute for good parenting or mature attitudes towards sex and life in general. Nobody is forcing anyone to watch porn and I'm tired of moralists telling other people what they can and can't access through the state and law.

[Chambered Word]

IIRC it's not (just) because they find it "icky", but because they actually deny that female ejaculation exists. Instead they class it as piss, and because watersports is already banned, so is porn featuring female ejaculation.

I've never heard the existance of female ejaculation denied by our government but I know the British did ban it under these grounds (for some time at least). I'm not sure how they can objectively justify the ban on 'golden showers' anyway.

[Robocommie]

I've never heard the existance of female ejaculation denied by our government

Roffles, I'm having mental images now of J. Edgar Hoover holding a press conference, "The female orgasm is a myth! It doesn't exist, like the Mafia!"

[Bilan]

Not nearly as simplistic as this statement. Can't you offer any reasons for saying my argument is simplistic and wrong instead of just dismissing it?

Where would you like me to start?

First of all: Your comparison is what is called a "false analogy" and is simply an argumentative fallacy. It does nothing to validate your point, but merely changes the topic.

Secondly: the claim within our false analogy is unsubstantiated, and relies on your "personal testimony". IT also fails to account for a/ the ideological hegemony of bourgeois rule generally and b/ the ideological backlash in the west against communism due to the collapse of the soviet bloc (i.e. where the bourgeoisie of the West linked "Stalinism" and State Capitalism with genuine communism, and dealt a major ideological blow to the workers movement).

Thirdly: Your initial claim is absolute garbage, and does not account for the reasons as to why this is happening (i.e. the motivations behind it) and what the implications of it will be.
You might not know (I have no idea where you're from, but if you're from Australia and you don't know this, you live under a rock) this is the same government trying to put a filter on the internet to protect "children". The same party which is headed by a devout catholic.

Everything about your analysis is based on myths and misunderstandings, and a slight fetishism of gender politics.

[spaßmaschine]

I've never heard the existance of female ejaculation denied by our government but I know the British did ban it under these grounds (for some time at least). I'm not sure how they can objectively justify the ban on 'golden showers' anyway.Yeah, I can't seem to find anything to confirm this, other than a press release by the Australian Sex Party. Wiki also makes the claim (en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Female_ejaculation#Censorship) but lacks any citations. Sure, they probably can't objectively justify the ban on golden showers, but isn't the point that they don't have to?

[Chambered Word]

Yeah, I can't seem to find anything to confirm this, other than a press release by the Australian Sex Party. Wiki also makes the claim (en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Female_ejaculation#Censorship) but lacks any citations. Sure, they probably can't objectively justify the ban on golden showers, but isn't the point that they don't have to?

True. Capitalism and thus the bullshit we're discussing only survives because the politicians don't answer to the workers. Still, anyone can download it from an ordinary HTTP site without the police turning up the next day and arresting them, but I think legal action would be taken against someone who had non-classified material on their hard drive on the odd chance that it was seized.

[075]

It appears to me that many people here aren't differentiating pornography from erotic art. I distinguish between the two and, to be frank, often quite enjoy the latter.

The question is: is this erotica or is this pornography? The latter is rarely hard for me to identify.

I'll explain the difference between pornography and erotica: the difference between pornography and erotica is that it is a useful way for socially conservative feminists to be able to justify their own (or others) masturbating whilst at the same time passing their hypocritical judgement on others.

When a guy fucks a girl (or a girl fucks a guy) (or they fuck each other) :rolleyes: in the back of a bus its pornography, when a guy fucks a girl in the back of a bus and its filmed in black and white and has sporadic flashes of trees on a hill combined with classical music and French subtitles its erotica.

Spot the difference?

Such a distinction is entirely subjective, hence your definition of what constitutes erotica would be entirely different to mine so when you say that



You can figure these things out. Pornography, if it's actually pornography, never involves a loving relationship. It always conveys an exploitative one and usually involves exploitative characteristics: face slapping, hair pulling, etc. Anything that can show one party has power over the other and is proud of itisn't erotic and is exploitative then I must entirely disagree; face slapping, hair pulling, spanking etc is incredibly erotic to me, and as a consenting adult I'll be damned as fuck than a puritan like you tells me what I can and can't do with my own fucking body, or pass judgement on my own sex life.

Please don't use your own moral standards as a universal; that is the hall mark for every social conservative, be it from those who oppose homosexual sex or from socially conservatives like Dworkin who dress/hide their moral puritanism behind 'women's rights.'

[Scary Monster]

Pornography, if it's actually pornography, never involves a loving relationship. It always conveys an exploitative one and usually involves exploitative characteristics: face slapping, hair pulling, etc. Anything that can show one party has power over the other and is proud of it.

Hair pulling is hot, when its done consentually (when the one receiving it likes it). And why does sex have to involve love lol. Thats so puritanical. People do it all the time because it feels extraordinarily good. Something thats outside your comfort zone simply cant be deemed as "exploitative".

[Monkey Riding Dragon]

On the subjectivity question everyone keeps bringing up, I don't find it very difficult to distinguish affection from exploitation, and tend to prefer giving the benefit of the doubt whenever there reasonably is one. Moreover, once again, paying attention, I've not proposed that pornography should be banned per se. That's a delusion that keeps circulating.

And yes, I do view changing people's outlooks as an important component of the revolutionary transition to communism because that's part of what ensures that the old relations won't reassert themselves. You have to dig up these relations thoroughly and by their roots. If you find the humiliation of women your erotic, well then you have a problem and we should struggle that out ideologically.


rainisblack wrote:
I'll explain the difference between pornography and erotica: the difference between pornography and erotica is that it is a useful way for socially conservative feminists to be able to justify their own (or others) masturbating whilst at the same time passing their hypocritical judgement on others.Alright, well I see there's nothing more to talk about then. I leave you to your opinions.

[I.Drink.Your.Milkshake]

people still pay for porn?

[Robocommie]

And yes, I do view changing people's outlooks as an important component of the revolutionary transition to communism because that's part of what ensures that the old relations won't reassert themselves. You have to dig up these relations thoroughly and by their roots. If you find the humiliation of women your erotic, well then you have a problem and we should struggle that out ideologically.


Right now all you're really saying is that the way some other people enjoy having sex is bad and wrong and it needs to stop because you don't like it. There's not any rational support for your entirely subjective view on this, let alone for your assertion that this is in anyway the Marxist position.

You say that if we find the humiliation of women erotic, then it's our problem, but that's an unfair use of language. For one, many women don't consider this kind of sex, like hair pulling or spanking to be "humiliating." Others do, and they of course should be respected for it, but you should respect that other women, and their partners, including men, feel differently. Because even if these women do find this kind of thing humiliating, I will tell you from experience that there are plenty of women who get off on being humiliated.

Who the hell do you think you are to judge other people's sexuality and sexual practices, which they indulge in freely with full, adult consent, to be a problem? Who the hell are you to tell other people how they should fuck, let alone make it a part of your "ideological struggle"?

[Robocommie]

people still pay for porn?

Interestingly enough, I understand the porn industry is facing a crisis for precisely this reason.

[I.Drink.Your.Milkshake]

Interestingly enough, I understand the porn industry is facing a crisis for precisely this reason.


Im amazed its flourished for so long. Piracy must be a bigger problem to that industry than it is to Hollywood or Music. Its not like you can buy into the philosophies of porn, or hold it as a lifestyle. Film and Music can be packaged differently to porn - I, for example, would buy almost anything with The Clash's, or Bob Dylans name on it, or anything written by Charlie Kaufman or Scott Fitzgerald. Ive a record collection so absurdly sizeable that i could listen to a different record every day for the next 10 years. These are things that ive bought into as a lifestyle and are things i feel resonate with me on a deeply personal level. Porn doesnt (does it?) work on that level hasnt got that sort of blind fandom to fall back on. I find it very very strange that people still pay for pornography.

[Robocommie]

Im amazed its flourished for so long. Piracy must be a bigger problem to that industry than it is to Hollywood or Music. Its not like you can buy into the philosophies of porn, or hold it as a lifestyle. Film and Music can be packaged differently to porn - I, for example, would buy almost anything with The Clash's, or Bob Dylans name on it, or anything written by Charlie Kaufman or Scott Fitzgerald. Ive a record collection so absurdly sizeable that i could listen to a different record every day for the next 10 years. These are things that ive bought into as a lifestyle and are things i feel resonate with me on a deeply personal level. Porn doesnt (does it?) work on that level hasnt got that sort of blind fandom to fall back on. I find it very very strange that people still pay for pornography.

Yeah, I think you're totally right on that.

[I.Drink.Your.Milkshake]

Also i can kind of see the sense in banning porn. It inevitably objectifies the individuals involved, be they male or female. Its been argued in the past that we can see violence of all kinds on television but porn, sex, is highly censored in most countries but, as i say, i can see the sense in this. In the days when i did watch porn (i dont anymore. No, really.... i don't!!!) i found that sometimes i would think about women in purely sexualised terms for while afterwards. Because the sexual act is ultimately an enjoyable one and most people desire it, desires which can be denied for... yknow.... uggo's, or the painfully characterless (hello!). Repressed desires can exhibit themselves in other ways, possibly dangerous. However, i have just spent a week watching "The World at War", followed by "Band of Brothers" and various other WW2 films, all of which make the whole war and killing gig look purely horrific and not something i would ever want to emulate.

Obviously you cant stop people thinking about sex or being driven by it but society didnt get where it is by sitting around wanking itself dry.

Also, i realise there are holes in my argument. This is very much a provisional thought.

[I.Drink.Your.Milkshake]

The government is even trying to ban small-breasted women... in porn for fuck's sake.

:lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol: :lol::lol::lol::lol::lol:

[Robocommie]

Also i can kind of see the sense in banning porn. It inevitably objectifies the individuals involved, be they male or female. Its been argued in the past that we can see violence of all kinds on television but porn, sex, is highly censored in most countries but, as i say, i can see the sense in this. In the days when i did watch porn (i dont anymore. No, really.... i don't!!!) i found that sometimes i would think about women in purely sexualised terms for while afterwards. Because the sexual act is ultimately an enjoyable one and most people desire it, desires which can be denied for... yknow.... uggo's, or the painfully characterless (hello!). Repressed desires can exhibit themselves in other ways, possibly dangerous. However, i have just spent a week watching "The World at War", followed by "Band of Brothers" and various other WW2 films, all of which make the whole war and killing gig look purely horrific and not something i would ever want to emulate.

There's a hitch there - there's really nothing wrong with having sexual or "sexualized" thoughts about women as long as they're not the only way you can relate to a woman. On the other hand, there's everything wrong about violence, senseless killing and war.

In this, my upbringing is reflected. My parents never let me watch gory or violent films as a kid, so when I was in junior high and all my friends had seen Friday the 13th or all the Nightmare on Elm Street movies, I had barely even heard of them. On the other hand, I had seen (mild) sex scenes in films. My parents felt that sex was a natural, healthy part of life, and that violence and killing were not. Growing up, I contrasted this with my friends, whose parents all had this moralistic view that it was okay for their kid to watch movies where people get their heads cut off with a chainsaw, but it would somehow "damage" them if they saw a pair of boobs. I never got that, maybe it's just my parent's influence but it's how I see it. Of course nowadays I do enjoy a good horror film.

The point is, these are MY values, that I was raised with, this is my perspective, and what I am comfortable with. It's not the only way to be, and I recognize that. In the exact same vein, some women will feel totally comfortable acting in pornographic films, or even enjoy it, just like some will feel totally comfortable posing nude for an art class or for a photographer. Others won't, and won't even enjoy watching it, and that's their prerogative. But it's THEIR prerogative. It should not be society's job to determine what is fit for an individual's consumption in the privacy of his or her own home.

[075]

And yes, I do view changing people's outlooks as an important component of the revolutionary transition to communism because that's part of what ensures that the old relations won't reassert themselves. You have to dig up these relations thoroughly and by their roots.

I don't think there's anything wrong with examining how our social relations affect our sexual desires. That's actually a pretty worthy debate. But I don't think that anything of worth can come from trying to divide our 'good' sexual desires into 'erotica' and our bad ones into 'pornography.' This is not getting at the 'roots' of these relations at all, but rather imposing a subjective criteria which involves muddled thinking.


If you find the humiliation of women your erotic, well then you have a problem and we should struggle that out ideologically.

Surely you recognise the fact that just because I like to be tied up and f*cked aggressively, called names etc doesn't mean I think that I, as a female, have less worth than a man?

Surely you recognize the fact that just because I like to be called a dirty slut by someone who I want & trust, doesn't mean that I'd appreciate it if some stranger called me a dirty slut?

Surely you recognize that its far more socially restrictive for *any* authority to try and regulate, or pass moral judgement, on what I do as a consenting adult versus me deciding that I'd like to be tied up or whatever?

:confused:


Alright, well I see there's nothing more to talk about then. I leave you to your opinions.

'You have your opinion, I have mine. They are both valid.'

~Some liberal.

[cska]

As I am not eloquent enough to properly argue my position, I would like to point people to this well written article:

http://www.hustlingtheleft.com/CRAPP_E_LIB/leftissue.html

[Bilan]

As I am not eloquent enough to properly argue my position, I would like to point people to this well written article:

http://www.hustlingtheleft.com/CRAPP_E_LIB/leftissue.html


It has always seemed strange to us that so many on the left consistently refuse to engage in a sustained and thoughtful critique of pornography. All this is particularly unfortunate at a time when the left is flailing to find traction with the public; a critique of pornography, grounded in a radical feminist and left analysis that counters right-wing moralizing, could be part of an effective organizing strategy.

Yeah...
Anyway, again, not relevant.
First of all, what is being banned isn't "hardcore porn", it is soft-core porn solid in supermarkets.
Secondly, it's not because of any feminist or radical feminist critique, it's because of right wing moralising.

Use your brain and stop posting crap.

[Robocommie]

As I am not eloquent enough to properly argue my position, I would like to point people to this well written article:

http://www.hustlingtheleft.com/CRAPP_E_LIB/leftissue.html

This is just a rehashing of what's been already said, and I still think it's bullshit. I mean, this article spends a good deal of time going on about how the adult industry cares about profits and only profits.

I mean, seriously? Have you become so fixated on squashing that Demon Porn that you've forgotten that we on the left condemn ALL industries as being exploitative because of it's pursuit of profits at the expense of the workers? Why is performing in an adult film inherently more exploitative than working in a coal mine and getting black lung or having your leg crushed by a factory's machine press because you're overworked and tired?

The answer is, it isn't, certain people however, choose to cast it that way because some people can't stand or accept the idea that some women might choose to do porn as an alternative to something else.