Chris Hedges & Noam Chomsky Excoriate Pornography

[Rakhmetov]

http://www.truthdig.com/arts_culture/item/20091011_the_victims_of_pornography/


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SNlRoaFTHuE&feature=related

Odd how Hedges criticizes anal sex in porno films but he does not criticize it in Homosexual relationships---- that goes for radical feminists as well. Any thoughts on this?

[NGNM85]

This is one of the few instances where I disagree with Chomsky.

[Homo Songun]

http://www.truthdig.com/arts_culture/item/20091011_the_victims_of_pornography/


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SNlRoaFTHuE&feature=related

Odd how Hedges criticizes anal sex in porno films but he does not criticize it in Homosexual relationships---- that goes for radical feminists as well. Any thoughts on this?

I guess they know the difference between apples and oranges.

[Os Cangaceiros]

Porn is just another example of exploitation within commodity culture. Perhaps even moreso in porn, as it has often existed in a kind of legal "grey zone", and actors & actresses in the industry have often gotten the shaft (no pun intended) when it comes to getting paid...the last part of Reefer Madness by Eric Schlosser has an interesting section on the porn industry.

I'm not convinced that porn should be opposed because of the "degradation factor". A lot of amateur, not-for-profit porn features some pretty messed-up stuff, but if it's between consenting adults I really have no problem with it. A lot of the moral condemnation for porn seems to come from Christians like Hedges and misguided radical feminists.

[Tablo]

There is nothing wrong with porn when it is done on a consensual basis outside of Capitalist society. Porn will be around even in Communism. I bet there will actually be a whole lot more of it.

[Adi Shankara]

Porn isn't entirely based in commerce--some people simply make porn because they like to expose themselves.

[MooseCracker]

I agree that there is essentially nothing "wrong" with porn (between consenting adults) especially if they enjoy it.
I think that the real challenge is that, in capitalist society, how do you determine whether it's truly by consent? In some sense the porn actor may represent the ultimate in oppressed wage slaves.
After doing porn for some time their other work options can be fairly limited, if not by actual/ legal limitations imposed than by societal ostracization and even limitations imposed by their personal sense of worth and their own superego (oppressive factor in your personality tries to get you to find/ justify/ define yourself in accordance with the norms that you have unconsciously ascribed to). Plus they are limited in that, as usual, the worker is extremely unlikely to become the capitalist as most really don't get paid that much.
They may also meet with unexpected difficulty in family life, which can keep a worker even more dependent on an employer as there may be a loss of financial support structure. I remember an episode in family business where Seymour convinced a girl not to do porn largely based on the fact that her family would almost definitely see or hear about it. How often are actors, especially young attractive ones, reminded of that? Do you think that the capitalist porn maker will take any precautions in helping the actor make a good personal choice, or will they exploit the worker at the first opportunity?
The porn actor also usually starts off with limitations in what they will do but then finds that they are in some sense coerced by financial or contractual restrictions, into going past those limitations.
I also fear based on what I've heard and talked to strippers about (and it may be unwarranted in that I don't have actual statistics) that, there is a very high amount of addictive drug use, comparable to cheap street hookers. Which means that they are working because they need to fulfill their addiction. I then wonder how often the capitalist (whether it's the film maker or someone in production) is also the drug dealer. If you've ever suffered from a serious addiction I'm sure that you realize this severely compromises the "consent" factor. It definitely impacts the decision and is extremely coercive, to the point where I'd consider it rape.

@ES. I'm pretty sure Hedges considers himself former christian/ non-believer but also opposed to religious atheism (that is, he doesn't believe that atheism is going to cause the progress of man kind).

Sry for the long rant - regards