Porn discussion from reactionary chatter 19

[Thug Lessons]

Sorry to interrupt your muscle-flexing, but you still haven't explained why violence is an appropriate reaction, or what's wrong with a sexually-aware individual looking at porn in the first place.

While the issue isn't settled, and probably never will be, there are good, empirical reasons to be worried about the effects of pornography on adolescents and society in general. I'm not up for a full explanation of the subject right now, so I'd like to refer you to one of the best analyses on the subject, published by the UK Ministry of Justice:

http://www.justice.gov.uk/publications/research280907.htm

It's very long but definitely worth a read, and the evidence has to be explained no matter what side of the pornography debate you're on. It reviews dozens of studies, reports and meta-analyses and comes to the conclusion that the overwhelming majority of published research data on pornography indicates that it has overall negative effects on its viewers, with the strongest and most widely-accepted evidence showing that it encourages belief in what's known as "rape myth", i.e. myths that women want to be raped, deserve to be raped, are responsible for rape, and so on.

[Havet]

While the issue isn't settled, and probably never will be, there are good, empirical reasons to be worried about the effects of pornography on adolescents and society in general. I'm not up for a full explanation of the subject right now, so I'd like to refer you to one of the best analyses on the subject, published by the UK Ministry of Justice:

http://www.justice.gov.uk/publications/research280907.htm

It's very long but definitely worth a read, and the evidence has to be explained no matter what side of the pornography debate you're on. It reviews dozens of studies, reports and meta-analyses and comes to the conclusion that the overwhelming majority of published research data on pornography indicates that it has overall negative effects on its viewers, with the strongest and most widely-accepted evidence showing that it encourages belief in what's known as "rape myth", i.e. myths that women want to be raped, deserve to be raped, are responsible for rape, and so on.

For this to be relevant you'd also have to provide some sort of percentage that this:



explicit intercourse or oral sex with an animal;
● explicit sexual interference with a human corpse;
● explicit serious violence in a sexual context;
● explicit serious sexual violence.’

represents a large portion of internet pornography, and not just a small "niche" section. I did not see any such percentage on the document, though I confess I could have missed it as I haven't read it all (though I did conduct a keyword search within the document)

The document would also have to have some way to compare the effects of not having this sort of media; ie: having people with those insane fantasies actually go out into the real world and try to perform them. This is not to justify the media content itself, its just something that needs to be included because it likely plays a very important part.

[Thug Lessons]

For this to be relevant you'd also have to provide some sort of percentage that this:



represents a large portion of internet pornography, and not just a small "niche" section. I did not see any such percentage on the document, though I confess I could have missed it as I haven't read it all (though I did conduct a keyword search within the document)

I have read the whole thing, including the annex, and I can tell you that the vast majority of the scholarly articles it cites don't have anything to do with bestiality or necrophilia. There are quite a few that deal with violence though. Anyway, there are plenty of articles that deal exclusively with 'regular' pornography and those do show an effect on, at the very least, rape myth acceptance, though it's smaller than that from violent or degrading pornography.


Also maybe this should be its own thread?

[Havet]

Anyway, there are plenty of articles that deal exclusively with 'regular' pornography and those do show an effect on, at the very least, rape myth acceptance, though it's smaller than that from violent or degrading pornography.

You mean, articles such as this (http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=913013##)?




ABSTRACT: The incidence of rape in the United States has declined 85% in the past 25 years while access to pornography has become freely available to teenagers and adults. The Nixon and Reagan Commissions tried to show that exposure to pornographic materials produced social violence. The reverse may be true: that pornography has reduced social violence.

[Thug Lessons]

You mean, articles such as this (http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=913013##)?

I'm not familiar with that particular study but I've seen something similar from another author, Kendall or something I believe, and it relied on statistics from the National Crime Victimization Survey that frequently come under attack from feminist activists and scholars for under-reporting rape. Since they only measure the number of reported rapes while most rapes aren't reported at all, we don't learn much, and other measures, (like surveys), find as many as 1 in 6 women is raped whereas the NCVS says it's more like 1 in 10,000. I'm not sure if this study does the same, because only the abstract is available, but if it does then I wouldn't give it much weight as it's measuring only reported rapes rather than actual rape incidence, (and, for that matter, if we had greater rape myth acceptance we'd expect rape reporting rates to go down anyway).

[Havet]

I'm not familiar with that particular study but I've seen something similar from another author, Kendall or something I believe, and it relied on statistics from the National Crime Victimization Survey that frequently come under attack from feminist activists and scholars for under-reporting rape. Since they only measure the number of reported rapes while most rapes aren't reported at all, we don't learn much, and other measures, (like surveys), find as many as 1 in 6 women is raped whereas the NCVS says it's more like 1 in 10,000.

Well yeah, that is a problem. The emergency organizations for rape surely have more reliable numbers though.


I'm not sure if this study does the same, because only the abstract is available, but if it does then I wouldn't give it much weight as it's measuring only reported rapes rather than actual rape incidence, (and, for that matter, if we had greater rape myth acceptance we'd expect rape reporting rates to go down anyway).

You can download the study in its entirety. Right above the title, it says: One-Click download. Its free and no need for register. its a direct download. The study is not that long to read too.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

While the issue isn't settled, and probably never will be, there are good, empirical reasons to be worried about the effects of pornography on adolescents and society in general. I'm not up for a full explanation of the subject right now, so I'd like to refer you to one of the best analyses on the subject, published by the UK Ministry of Justice:

http://www.justice.gov.uk/publications/research280907.htm

That is just a pathetic figleaf in an attempt to justify the ridiculously vague (http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/08/25/pain_olympics/) laws recently passed prohibiting so-called "extreme pornography". This kind of legislation is used to pander to media-induced hysteria about the safety of our children. A sure vote-winner, so why not cook something up to support it?


It's very long but definitely worth a read, and the evidence has to be explained no matter what side of the pornography debate you're on. It reviews dozens of studies, reports and meta-analyses and comes to the conclusion that the overwhelming majority of published research data on pornography indicates that it has overall negative effects on its viewers, with the strongest and most widely-accepted evidence showing that it encourages belief in what's known as "rape myth", i.e. myths that women want to be raped, deserve to be raped, are responsible for rape, and so on.

As the link posted by Havet shows, the link between pornography and violence towards women is not as clear-cut as the morality police would have us believe.

From your link:

"Men who are predisposed to aggression, or have a history of sexual and other aggression were more susceptible to the influence of extreme pornographic material"

That "predisposed" and "a history" tell us all we need to know. Background determines habit, not the other way round. A violent person may get their rocks off on violent porn, or a violent video game, or a violent movie. But that does not mean that violent porn, games or movies make otherwise peaceful people violent.

[Thug Lessons]

Well yeah, that is a problem. The emergency organizations for rape surely have more reliable numbers though.

Again, most rapes are not reported to anyone besides close friends or family members, so emergency organizations wouldn't necessarily have better information.

However, I realized that I had confused the NCVS with the Uniform Crime Report. The NCVS actually does conduct a survey, but it's still criticized for other reasons, including that respondents are asked to describe their rape and the response isn't counted if the account doesn't match the NCVS's definition, it only covers half the year, and no behavior-specific questions are asked.


You can download the study in its entirety. Right above the title, it says: One-Click download. Its free and no need for register. its a direct download. The study is not that long to read too.

I read it and it was more or less what I expected. It was similar to the study I mentioned earlier, but much shorter. It's also based on NCVS statistics.

[Jazzratt]

Copied out of closed thread.

[Thug Lessons]

That is just a pathetic figleaf in an attempt to justify the ridiculously vague (http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/08/25/pain_olympics/) laws recently passed prohibiting so-called "extreme pornography". This kind of legislation is used to pander to media-induced hysteria about the safety of our children. A sure vote-winner, so why not cook something up to support it?

That report look at 53 studies and meta-analyses published in respectable journals between 1970-2006. All but two of them support theories that pornography contributes to sexual aggression, acceptance of rape myth and/or negative attitudes towards women. Are all of these 51 studies and meta-analyses fabrications created to support UK government policy? Perhaps you disagree with the report's overall conclusions or feel it fails to accurately represent the scientific community's opinion here, but the whole thing can't be dismissed as a conspiracy.



From your link:

"Men who are predisposed to aggression, or have a history of sexual and other aggression were more susceptible to the influence of extreme pornographic material"

That "predisposed" and "a history" tell us all we need to know. Background determines habit, not the other way round. A violent person may get their rocks off on violent porn, or a violent video game, or a violent movie. But that does not mean that violent porn, games or movies make otherwise peaceful people violent.You're misinterpreting that statement. The 'effect' they refer to is the effect pornography has in increasing "risk of developing pro-rape attitudes, beliefs and behaviours, and committing sexual offences", as the previous sentence puts it. So while you're quite right that people who are predisposed to sexual violence tend to seek out violent material, the question they're looking at here isn't that obvious truth, but whether this encourages them to actually engage in violent act.

Now, whether pornography actually creates violent behavior in people who would otherwise not be violent is a different question, and one that we'll almost certainly never have an answer to. I don't feel confident saying one way or another whether it does or doesn't, and though some of the researchers cited in that report do, I'm still skeptical for reason that probably aren't necessary to explain unless you're curious. However, even if pornography doesn't directly encourage rape, there is ample evidence that it encourages the adoption of the "rape myths" I alluded to earlier. These myths, i.e. that women who get raped were 'asking for it' by dressing 'provocatively' or being drunk or whatever, or that women frequently make false accusations of rape, or that women enjoy rape, and so on, are still bad. They have bad effects. If people believe these things women are less likely to report rape, less likely to be believed by police and prosecutors when they do, and defendants are more likely to enjoy sympathy from the jury. I've also seen studies linking rape myth acceptance in a peer group to a likelyhood to rape.

So, in any case, it's a very complicated issue without easy answers. You're not going to find one line or another that definitively proves or disproves whether porn have positive, negative or neutral effects on society.

[Bud Struggle]

I really don't care if some little a-hole watches porn, but I do care that a lot of women get caught into a life that they neither enjoy nor want. Thousand of young women from Eastern Europe (and elsewhere) are getting sucked up into this life of virtual slavery.

This Major American Defense Contractor Corporation seem to be the WalMart for such things--all paid for by your tax dollars.

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

[Thug Lessons]

Human trafficking is more about prostitution than pornography, Bud.

[The Grey Blur]

i think it's disturbing that leftists are dismissing the quite real phenomenon of internet porn's modern wide usage and the effect it has on misogynistic attitudes. especially defending studies that deliberately underplay rape reportage! i don't think it's any less libertarian to acknowledge that, while people have the right to do whatever they want with their bodies (this means porn actors and viewers), that widespread exposure to porn affects your attitude towards sex and relationships, on a physical (biological: there's an interesting piece in the new yorker about men who are incapable of sexually performing due to their reliance on internet porn) and more 'cognitive' or emotional level.

i think most of us would accept that the internet is re-shaping our psychology (including the re-wiring of synapses, according to certain studies)- why should this be any different as regards pornography?

anyway, you can continue the debate as i find it interesting but i think knee-jerk libertarian dismissal is missing the point, much like the recent gun control debate.

edit: although of course this attitude is understandable considering the extreme/christian right's domination of this issue and their twisting of it for their own political ends.

[Bud Struggle]

Human trafficking is more about prostitution than pornography, Bud.

Ok. I'm not that into all of this stuff. I saw this interesting movie, the Whistleblower.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0896872/


But then who ARE those girls in the pictures and the movies--wanna be movie stars? Is that some sort of career path for women?

Maybe I'm off key here.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

That report look at 53 studies and meta-analyses published in respectable journals between 1970-2006. All but two of them support theories that pornography contributes to sexual aggression, acceptance of rape myth and/or negative attitudes towards women. Are all of these 51 studies and meta-analyses fabrications created to support UK government policy? Perhaps you disagree with the report's overall conclusions or feel it fails to accurately represent the scientific community's opinion here, but the whole thing can't be dismissed as a conspiracy.

It's funny, but that never works when I use it. All I get back is stuff along the lines of "science isn't objective! It reflects class interests!"

Regardless of the veracity of the data, the fact remains the UK government is not to be trusted any further than one can see them.

The most sure-fire way of reducing violence and negative attitudes towards women does not lie in band-aid solutions like banning ill-defined "extreme pornography". What precisely is achieved by criminalising a particular act on an individual level to deal with a wider social problem?


You're misinterpreting that statement. The 'effect' they refer to is the effect pornography has in increasing "risk of developing pro-rape attitudes, beliefs and behaviours, and committing sexual offences", as the previous sentence puts it. So while you're quite right that people who are predisposed to sexual violence tend to seek out violent material, the question they're looking at here isn't that obvious truth, but whether this encourages them to actually engage in violent act.

People who only need pictures to get them into a violent state are already dangerous individuals. What will be achieved by giving them one more excuse to stay out of sight of the law?


Now, whether pornography actually creates violent behavior in people who would otherwise not be violent is a different question, and one that we'll almost certainly never have an answer to. I don't feel confident saying one way or another whether it does or doesn't, and though some of the researchers cited in that report do, I'm still skeptical for reason that probably aren't necessary to explain unless you're curious. However, even if pornography doesn't directly encourage rape, there is ample evidence that it encourages the adoption of the "rape myths" I alluded to earlier. These myths, i.e. that women who get raped were 'asking for it' by dressing 'provocatively' or being drunk or whatever, or that women frequently make false accusations of rape, or that women enjoy rape, and so on, are still bad. They have bad effects. If people believe these things women are less likely to report rape, less likely to be believed by police and prosecutors when they do, and defendants are more likely to enjoy sympathy from the jury. I've also seen studies linking rape myth acceptance in a peer group to a likelyhood to rape.

OK, but is this a problem with the content of pornography (some of it, I'm sad to say, is highly misogynist), or with the fact of pornography in the first place?

Also, I'm not sure you have the causation right. After all, we're immersed in a sexist society so it's no surprise that the porn can be too. People live in society a lot more than they watch porn, so there's plenty of opportunity to pick up victim-blaming behaviour there. Another confounding factor is the dominance of misogynistic worldviews such as Christianity, especially in the US.


So, in any case, it's a very complicated issue without easy answers. You're not going to find one line or another that definitively proves or disproves whether porn have positive, negative or neutral effects on society.

So shouldn't we instead focus on what people do, especially to each other, rather than get ourselves all worked up into a moral panic about peoples' tastes in pornography?

[L.A.P.]

There is nothing wrong with watching people have sex, simple as that. Of course there is human trafficking in some porn but that's really only if you're into such disgusting fetishes but for the most part porn now-a-days, especially because of the internet, is just a couple getting their video camera and trying to become famous, make some money, or just show off.

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

"Well, I've had very few experiences on porn sets that I would classify as 'degrading.' I've had infinitely more degrading experiences as a waitress or a barista in a chain coffeeshop than I've ever had on set. That, of course, has everything to do with working conditions and nothing to do with what I'm actually doing as my job." - Lorelei Lee

[Thug Lessons]

i think it's disturbing that leftists are dismissing the quite real phenomenon of internet porn's modern wide usage and the effect it has on misogynistic attitudes. especially defending studies that deliberately underplay rape reportage! i don't think it's any less libertarian to acknowledge that, while people have the right to do whatever they want with their bodies (this means porn actors and viewers), that widespread exposure to porn affects your attitude towards sex and relationships, on a physical (biological: there's an interesting piece in the new yorker about men who are incapable of sexually performing due to their reliance on internet porn) and more 'cognitive' or emotional level.

i think most of us would accept that the internet is re-shaping our psychology (including the re-wiring of synapses, according to certain studies)- why should this be any different as regards pornography?

anyway, you can continue the debate as i find it interesting but i think knee-jerk libertarian dismissal is missing the point, much like the recent gun control debate.

edit: although of course this attitude is understandable considering the extreme/christian right's domination of this issue and their twisting of it for their own political ends.

Yeah, I think libertarian, or at least anti-authoritarian, is exactly the way to describe much of the support we see for porn on the left. Fundamentalists and moralists have launched a crusade against it because it offends their delicate sensibilities, so people on the left have a knee-jerk reaction to defend it. Unless they're familiar with the scholarly literature on the subject or well-read feminists, I doubt they've seen much criticism of porn outside of right-wing talking heads.

My own views on the subject similar to Gloria Steinem's in Erotica vs. Pornography, which unfortunately I can't link to but should be required reading. It's originally a Ms. Magazine article but it's also available in some collections of her works as well as many feminist anthologies, and since it's women's history month in March you might as well head out to library and grab one if you get a chance.


Anyway, I found the article I referenced earlier by Kendall, and I want to point to the conclusion:


Given the limitations of the study, policy prescriptions based on these results must be made with extreme care. More research on other countries, other time periods, or using other methodologies or datasets is necessary before broad results can be stated with confidence. Nevertheless, the results of this simple study point to what may be important flaws in the previous literature, and suggest that liberalization of pornography access may not lead to increased sexual victimization of women.
http://www.toddkendall.net/internetcrime.pdf

Now, I agree with this completely. It's an interesting and important take on the topic and it deserves more research. But as it is, there isn't enough evidence to draw any sort of strong conclusions from it. Also, in this conclusion and throughout the article, Kendall contrasts his findings with those of previous literature - which, so far, has been largely supportive of the supposed connection between pornography and rape. Whatever people want to believe here is fine with me, but they should be motivated by evidence, not their personal desire to prove the religious right incorrect.

[Thug Lessons]

"Well, I've had very few experiences on porn sets that I would classify as 'degrading.' I've had infinitely more degrading experiences as a waitress or a barista in a chain coffeeshop than I've ever had on set. That, of course, has everything to do with working conditions and nothing to do with what I'm actually doing as my job." - Lorelei Lee

Contrast that with what Jenna Jameson says.

http://antipornographyactivist.wordpress.com/jenna-jamesons-twenty-five-good-reasons-why-no-one-would-ever-want-to-become-a-porn-star/

“Most girls get their first experience in gonzo films – in which they’re taken to a crappy studio apartment in Mission Hills and penetrated in every hole possible by some abusive asshole who thinks her name is *****. And these girls, some of whom have the potential to become major stars in the industry, go home afterward and pledge never to do it again because it was such a terrible experience.”

[Lt. Ferret]

welp, spread the word not to work with gonzo d-bags.

[Revolution starts with U]

I watch a lot of porn, and I don't find rape or even near-rape videos remotely sexy.
In fact I'm one of those people they refer to in the movie 40 Year Old Virgin that "puts the pussy on a pedastool." :thumbup1:

[Thug Lessons]

But then who ARE those girls in the pictures and the movies--wanna be movie stars? Is that some sort of career path for women?

Maybe I'm off key here.

There are a number of pop-psychological explanations for why women enter the porn industry, but most important are the material reasons, i.e. that you can make more money with less education and experience than you could elsewhere and it's very easy to get a job. My guess is that with the exception of a select few, most women, (and men, for that matter), in porn are there exclusively for the money.

Also, I want to point out that in a communist society there would be no porn industry, just like there would be no music industry or movie industry, because pornography only become a commodity when it's protected by intellectual property laws.

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

Contrast that with what Jenna Jameson says.

http://antipornographyactivist.wordpress.com/jenna-jamesons-twenty-five-good-reasons-why-no-one-would-ever-want-to-become-a-porn-star/

“Most girls get their first experience in gonzo films – in which they’re taken to a crappy studio apartment in Mission Hills and penetrated in every hole possible by some abusive asshole who thinks her name is *****. And these girls, some of whom have the potential to become major stars in the industry, go home afterward and pledge never to do it again because it was such a terrible experience.”

That verified what the quote I posted says: it's more about working conditions than the job being done.

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

My guess is that with the exception of a select few, most women, (and men, for that matter), in porn are there exclusively for the money.

"I'm not in porn for the money. We can make a lot more as strippers in New York than we can doing porn." - Asa Akira

[Thug Lessons]

The most sure-fire way of reducing violence and negative attitudes towards women does not lie in band-aid solutions like banning ill-defined "extreme pornography". What precisely is achieved by criminalising a particular act on an individual level to deal with a wider social problem?

I'm not a supporter of censorship, I'm a critic of pornography. From what I've read it seems likely it plays a negative role in society. If I see evidence otherwise I'd immediately change my opinion, but no one has provided any so far.


OK, but is this a problem with the content of pornography (some of it, I'm sad to say, is highly misogynist), or with the fact of pornography in the first place?

Yes and no. I don't see any problem with depictions of sex per se, (a la Erotica vs. Pornography), but I think they're extremely problematic in bourgeois society, even moreso than typical wage labor. What pornography is, in essence, is the commodification of sexuality, the transformation of a vital expression of humanity into capitalist profit by means of exploitation. When we look at it this way, is it any wonder that pornography is misogynistic? Should we be surprised that it encourages pro-rape attitudes?



So shouldn't we instead focus on what people do, especially to each other, rather than get ourselves all worked up into a moral panic about peoples' tastes in pornography?

I could care less whether any particular person views pornography. I don't look down on anyone or try to feel superior because I'm more pure or any such garbage. What I'm concerned with is pornography's social effects, because I find the topic interesting and I think it's important.

[SamV]

it encourages belief in what's known as "rape myth", i.e. myths that women want to be raped, deserve to be raped, are responsible for rape, and so on.

Uh rape is all about dominance, me watching porn isn't going to turn me into a rapist, that is the stupidest thing I've ever heard.

[Lobotomy]

Yes and no. I don't see any problem with depictions of sex per se, (a la Erotica vs. Pornography), but I think they're extremely problematic in bourgeois society, even moreso than typical wage labor. What pornography is, in essence, is the commodification of sexuality, the transformation of a vital expression of humanity into capitalist profit by means of exploitation. When we look at it this way, is it any wonder that pornography is misogynistic? Should we be surprised that it encourages pro-rape attitudes?

If a leftist is going to be critical of pornography, I think this is the best position to take. If porn has an overall negative influence on society, it is because of the industry, not the concept of porn itself. I'm not sure why any leftist would completely oppose this point of view actually.

[Thug Lessons]

That verified what the quote I posted says: it's more about working conditions than the job being done.

I always find it strange when revolutionary socialists, who in principle oppose all forms of wage labor, come out in droves to tell us how great wage labor is in the porn industry, an industry that wouldn't even exist in a socialist economy.


"I'm not in porn for the money. We can make a lot more as strippers in New York than we can doing porn." - Asa Akira

If we're going to rely on ancedotes, all the dancers I've known struggled to make enough money and were sick to death of the job, probably because they couldn't all go to New York and make big bucks.

[Thug Lessons]

Uh rape is all about dominance, me watching porn isn't going to turn me into a rapist, that is the stupidest thing I've ever heard.

A few things here. One, that isn't what that quote says, but rather that viewing porn encourages beliefs about rape that aren't true, known as "rape myths". Two, I'm not concerned about what you do in particular, but rather what effect porn has on the average person, and there's ample evidence to show it does encourage belief rape myths, as evidenced by studies like this (http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1460-2466.1995.tb00711.x/abstract) and this (http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6WM0-4D6RKMC-3D&_user=10&_coverDate=09%2F30%2F1985&_rdoc=1&_fmt=high&_orig=search&_origin=search&_sort=d&_docanchor=&view=c&_searchStrId=1641678965&_rerunOrigin=scholar.google&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=1af28d96c34731c23db4d57a1adf3fb7&searchtype=a) and this (http://www.allacademic.com/meta/p_mla_apa_research_citation/0/2/3/3/3/p23335_index.html) and this (http://www.sscnet.ucla.edu/comm/malamuth/pdf/85Jrp19.pdf)(PDF) and this (http://www.kinseyinstitute.org/publications/PDF/Davis%20et%20al%202006.pdf)(PDF) and this (http://www1.umn.edu/aurora/pdf/ResearchOnPornography.pdf)(PDF) just based on what I can pull off the first page of Google, and I can give you a few dozen more if you aren't convinced yet. Finally, you're totally right that rape is about dominance, but dominance doesn't become acceptable by magic. It has definite social causes, one of which may well be pornography, especially violent or degrading pornography.

[Os Cangaceiros]

I always find it strange when revolutionary socialists, who in principle oppose all forms of wage labor, come out in droves to tell us how great wage labor is in the porn industry, an industry that wouldn't even exist in a socialist economy.

I think that his point is that porn is bad because of it's essential nature as a form of exploited wage labor within the capitalist economy, not because the work itself is degrading in some way that's unrelated to class or (in the Marxist sense) exploitation.

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

I always find it strange when revolutionary socialists, who in principle oppose all forms of wage labor, come out in droves to tell us how great wage labor is in the porn industry, an industry that wouldn't even exist in a socialist economy.

Where did anyone say it was great? I certainly didn't. I do however reject the moralistic argument that sex work is somehow inherently worse/more exploitative than work in other industries by its very nature.

"Prostitution is only a specific expression of the general prostitution of the laborer." - Marx


If we're going to rely on ancedotes, all the dancers I've known struggled to make enough money and were sick to death of the job, probably because they couldn't all go to New York and make big bucks.

Not all dancers in New York make big bucks. Many don't. But porn doesn't pay the huge sums that some imagine. There are a number of people in the industry who chose it for reasons other than money. There are other areas, both in and outside of sex work, where they could make more. That's the point.

[Thug Lessons]

Where did anyone say it was great? I certainly didn't. I do however reject the moralistic argument that sex work is somehow inherently worse/more exploitative than work in other industries by its very nature.

"Prostitution is only a specific expression of the general prostitution of the laborer." - Marx

Well, for that matter, when did anyone say that sex work was inherently more exploitative or degrading compared to other forms of wage labor? I've only argued that pornography encourages sexist attitudes in its viewers. So why all the talk about whether pornography is inherently bad? It's a different subject entirely. But you know what? If that's the direction you want take the conversation in, then let's do it. It is Valentine's Day, after all.

When a coal miner is exploited it doesn't have much effect beyond the individual laborer and those directly involved in her life. At worst, she may commit violence against strangers as a result of poverty and alienation. To the consumer these social relations are invisible, because coal mined under the least exploitative conditions presents no qualitative difference from coal mined under the most exploitative conditions, and at most presents an abstract quantitative difference in terms of its price. When we watch a film, pornographic or not, the situation is different. The viewer does not merely experience an abstraction of exploitation in commodity form, but instead that exploitation is the commodity itself. What the film industry sells is human emotion, human suffering, human ecstasy, and, in the case of pornographic film, human sexuality, as expressed by exploited and alienated actors. And worse yet, the viewer is encouraged to equate this exploited, alienated form of human expression with reality, to reify it in Marxist terminology, and in fact must if she wishes to enjoy the experience. The result is that the few areas of human action that were once immure to bourgeois domination are annexed, not in the interest of free speech and anti-censorship, not in the interest of the actors, and certainly not in the interest of the public, but in the interest of capital.

Now, this would be easy to dismiss as structuralist nonsense if it weren't for the very real, empirically demonstrated consequences I've spent most of this thread explaining. And it's not confined to film and pornographic film either. Music, television, art, literature, science and basically all artificial commodities 'protected' by intellectual property laws exhibit the same degenerative effects within their own field and on society at large, though some, like porn, have clearer results than others.

Anyway, if you take anything away from this post, let it be the bolded and italicized portion.



Not all dancers in New York make big bucks. Many don't. But porn doesn't pay the huge sums that some imagine. There are a number of people in the industry who chose it for reasons other than money. There are other areas, both in and outside of sex work, where they could make more. That's the point.What I don't like about this is that the standard Marxist explanation of wage labor is that it isn't a choice at all, because people have to work to survive. Leave it to the libertarians to argue that if the workers don't like it they'd go work somewhere else.

[¿Que?]

A small minority of porn viewers are women. Does it make them sexist too?

[Lt. Ferret]

in fact the fastest growing "sub genre" of porn at this point is heterosexual pornography made by women, for women.

and its just a bit more gentler than its male-created counterparts. but surprisingly, not as much as you'd think.

[Thug Lessons]

A small minority of porn viewers are women. Does it make them sexist too?

There are quite a few studies that suggest viewing porn encourages sexists attitudes in women, including this (http://www.kinseyinstitute.org/publications/PDF/Davis%20et%20al%202006.pdf) which I cited earlier. Anyway, I want to make it clear again that the reason I'm saying these things isn't to tar anyone as a sexist, but to show what sort of effect pornography has on society regardless of intentions of its viewers, who may very well be perfectly nice people who respect women.

[Princess Luna]

Yes and no. I don't see any problem with depictions of sex per se, (a la Erotica vs. Pornography), but I think they're extremely problematic in bourgeois society, even moreso than typical wage labor. What pornography is, in essence, is the commodification of sexuality, the transformation of a vital expression of humanity into capitalist profit by means of exploitation. When we look at it this way, is it any wonder that pornography is misogynistic? Should we be surprised that it encourages pro-rape attitudes?to quote Allen Moore

The only difference between Pornography and Erotica , is the income level of the person buying italso please show me one creditable medical website or article that says porn will make a average person with no prior mental illnesses want to go out and rape someone.

[Thug Lessons]

to quote Allen Moore
That's actually something Steinem addresses specifically in her essay, and though I can't link to it I can type up that exact portion if you're interested.


also please so me one creditable medical website or article that says porn will make a average person with no prior mental illnesses want to go out and rape someone.
There are several studies in the UK government report I cited which suggest such results, including this (http://www.apa.org/divisions/div46/articles/malamuth.pdf) one which says:


Overall exposure to sexually explicit materials appears to be a significant correlate with sexual aggression and rape proclivity…Higher exposure to pornography depicting violent rape behaviour appeared to be significantly related to both engaging in sexual aggression and believing oneself capable or likely to engage in sexual aggression

But as I said earlier in the thread, I'm actually a skeptic when it comes to whether pornography directly encourages people to go out and commit rape. There's much more support, however, when it comes to the question of whether rape encourages sexist attitudes, including attitudes towards rape victims.

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

The condition of women in modern society is not a result of ideas that come out of nowhere, but a reflection of the real ways in which this society operates. The end of such things can thus only come about through a change in the underlying conditions.


When a coal miner is exploited it doesn't have much effect beyond the individual laborer and those directly involved in her life.

Really? What about environmental degradation?

Is having your body parts objectified in the name of profit better than having your body parts destroyed in the name of profit? Is this of interest to workers seeking liberation? I'm out to eliminate all exploitation and oppression, not choose the "best" method for it continue on.


What I don't like about this is that the standard Marxist explanation of wage labor is that it isn't a choice at all, because people have to work to survive. Leave it to the libertarians to argue that if the workers don't like it they'd go work somewhere else.

Actually...

One reason capitalism is progressive when compared to past systems is that toilers are "free" to choose who they will work for (within limits). The problem is that they have to work for a capitalist to survive (wage-slavery), no matter who the boss or what the job; and they can only find employment when capital can use them.

They can "go somewhere else" if they're lucky enough to find other work, but they'll still be exploited.

[Tablo]

I'm not a supporter of censorship, I'm a critic of pornography. From what I've read it seems likely it plays a negative role in society. If I see evidence otherwise I'd immediately change my opinion, but no one has provided any so far.
Thug Lessons, to me it sounds like you are lumping all porn together. How can you be a critic of porn as a whole and not be a critic of film as a whole? Why pick one already broad topic instead of an even more broad topic? Not all porn is bad and even the more violent rape fetish porn is still a form of artistic expression that, I feel, should be allowed no matter the circumstances. So then what is the point in criticizing it if you don't want to censor it?

I may as well say I'm a critic of books because I hated reading The Scarlett Letter.

[9]

The result is that the few areas of human action that were once immure to bourgeois domination are annexed, not in the interest of free speech and anti-censorship, not in the interest of the actors, and certainly not in the interest of the public, but in the interest of capital.

The OTT vocabulary makes some of your posts a little difficult to understand.
So for the sake of clarity - are you saying here that, prior to porn (in its present form, anyhow), human sexuality was sheltered from, or even untouched by, the influence of class society/oppression/etc...? Or am I misunderstanding you?

[¿Que?]

There are quite a few studies that suggest viewing porn encourages sexists attitudes in women, including this (http://www.kinseyinstitute.org/publications/PDF/Davis%20et%20al%202006.pdf) which I cited earlier. Anyway, I want to make it clear again that the reason I'm saying these things isn't to tar anyone as a sexist, but to show what sort of effect pornography has on society regardless of intentions of its viewers, who may very well be perfectly nice people who respect women.
Ok, please show me where that article makes the claim you are making. Because as far as I can tell, they only do in the literature review. The actual study was testing the effects of alcohol not pornography.

[Thug Lessons]

The condition of women in modern society is not a result of ideas that come out of nowhere, but a reflection of the real ways in which this society operates. The end of such things can thus only come about through a change in the underlying conditions.

You have my complete agreement there, and that's one criticism I'd level at non-socialist feminists. I don't even see how you could abolish the porn industry outside of socialism without running into the same problems that arise from any sort of system of prohibition. I still support a feminist movement independent from the socialist movement, but that's not really relevant to this conversation.


Really? What about environmental degradation?

Is having your body parts objectified in the name of profit better than having your body parts destroyed in the name of profit? Is this of interest to workers seeking liberation? I'm out to eliminate all exploitation and oppression, not choose the "best" method for it continue on.

You don't seem to be listening to me at all. Why do you keep harping on this oppression olympics garbage when I've never endorsed it and in fact outright rejected it, and what makes you think I'm trying to find the best method to continue exploitation?

These feminists criticisms of the porn industry are much closer to environmentalist criticisms of the coal industry than the moralism you want to portray them as. This is not about who is more exploited or how we can reform capitalism, this is about empirically demonstrated social consequences of a particularly destructive capitalist industry.


Thug Lessons, to me it sounds like you are lumping all porn together. How can you be a critic of porn as a whole and not be a critic of film as a whole? Why pick one already broad topic instead of an even more broad topic?

But I am a critic of film as a whole. In the long paragraph in my previous post, I talked about film generally with only the occasional aside to address pornography specifically, and concluded by saying my criticisms were not confined to film or pornographic film, but all sectors where human expression, emotion and knowledge are converted into bourgeois property by means of intellectual property laws.

The reasons I concentrate on porn specifically is because there's very strong evidence for negative effects. If you want a wider-ranging criticism there are structuralists, semioticians and Situationists that can and have put it far better than I could hope to. I'd be happy to point out a few works if you're interested.


Not all porn is bad and even the more violent rape fetish porn is still a form of artistic expression that, I feel, should be allowed no matter the circumstances.

The scholarly literature suggests that pornography produces negative effects regardless of whether it's violent or non-violent, though violent pornography usually seems to produce a greater effect. This is confirmed by this (http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1468-2958.1995.tb00368.x/abstract) meta-analysis of 30 studies, which states in its abstract:

"The summary demonstrates a homogeneous set of results showing that pictorial nudity reduces subsequent aggressive behavior, that consumption of material depicting nonviolent sexual activity increases aggressive behavior, and that media depictions of violent sexual activity generates more aggression than those of nonviolent sexual activity".

Unfortunately, this study is not publicly-viewable, though the UK MoJ report (http://www.justice.gov.uk/publications/research280907.htm)on the subject does provide a few quotes which provide a little more detail. It's the very first study reviewed in the annex section.


So then what is the point in criticizing it if you don't want to censor it?

I don't want to censor Ayn Rand books either, but it's still worthwhile to refute their messages. And anyway, while I'm not an advocate of censoring particular pornographic works or instituting another hopeless, counter-productive prohibition regime, I do want to work towards the abolition of the porn industry, along with that of the film industry and the publishing industry through the abolition of intellectual property laws. There would also be some implications for future socialist states, but I won't bother going into it unless you're really interested.


I may as well say I'm a critic of books because I hated reading The Scarlett Letter.

Again, this is not about what any individual likes or dislikes, it's about the effect that viewing pornography has on viewers, (namely the promotion of misogynistic and pro-rape attitudes), as demonstrated by study after study after study.

[Princess Luna]

What about homemade porn do you have a problem with it? what about gay and lesbian porn , is it going to make them want to rape other men/women ? what about porn made for women is it going to make women start raping and hating men?how about Bestiality, should i start hiding my dog from the crazed zoophiliacs?

[Tavarisch_Mike]

Its true that much of porn is sexist and reactionary, but it isnt porn itself that has created this, its rather a reflection frome the kind of society its made in.
I mean the things that its accused for trigging, its not like those things didnt exist before we had porn.